...page 203

assignment of the judgment of the tug on payment of the joint liability: Held, that the statute only applies where there is a joint debt existing before the judgment creating the liability, and further, where the joint liability arises out of contract, express or implied. (The Englishman and The Australia, No. 2.) ... Collision-Lights-Steamship-Riding by chainsAnchors unshackled-Regulation for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1884, arts. 5 (a), 17.-Where a steamship has become unmanageable and is riding head to wind by her chains with anchors unshackled, it is her duty to exhibit the three red lights prescribed by art. 5 (a) of the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1884, and to keep her steam up in order that she may immediately be brought under control should the necessity arise. (The Faedrelandet.)

...

Limitation of liability-Yacht Racing Association Rules -The defendant entered his yacht for a race, and gave his assent in writing that he would be bound by certain rules which provided that owners of competing yachts should be liable for all damages caused by infringement of the rales. A collision occurred through a breach of the rules by the defendant's yacht, and the plaintiff's yacht was sunk. Held, first, that the rules created a contract between the competitors; secondly, that, with regard to damages, the word "all in the rules excluded the operation of sect. 54 of the Merchant Shipping Acts Amendment Act 1862, limiting the liability to 81. per ton. (The Satanita.)

-

Order XVI.,

Practice Third-party order Tr. 48, 52.-The owner of a vessel who is sued in rem for damages to another vessel by collision while in the hands of repairers cannot bring in the latter as third parties because he is not entitled as against them to contribution or indemnity within the meaning of Order XVI., r. 48. (The Jacob Christensen.)

...

Thames Steamship anchoring Steamship not under command Blasts of steam whistle -Side lights-Second riding light at sternThames Conservancy Regulations, Arts. 7 (c) and 18.-A steamship in the river Thames putting herself athwart the river and stopping her way to come to anchor is a steam vessel not under command within the meaning of art. 18 of the Thames Conservancy Regulations 1887, and it is incumbent upon her when carrying out such manoeuvre to sound four or more blasts of the steam whistle in rapid succession to warn approaching vessels. Where a steam vessel is throwing herself across the river to come to anchor, three short blasts do not constitute the appropriate signal to signify that she is a vessel throwing herself across a navigable channel, even though she may be reversing at the time. If the danger from an approaching vessel is such as to require it, more than four blasts should be sounded so long as the danger lasts, and the danger is not necessarily past until the steam vessel has swung to her anchor. It is the duty of a steamship anchoring in the Thames to take in her side lights at the instant she is held by her anchor. A vessel of the length of 150 feet or more is bound, under art. 7 (e) of the Thames Conservancy Regulations 1892, to exhibit, as soon as she comes to anchor, at or near her stern a second riding light so placed, and of such a character, as to show an unbroken light visible all around the horizon at a distance of at least one mile (The Wega.) Jurisdiction-Writ in rem-Removal of ship out of jurisdiction before arrest-Judgment by default. -Dae service of a writ in rem, without arrest of

interested to found jurisdiction and to enable the court to pronounce judgment by default against them. Where in an action in rem for damage to with a writ, but before being arrested, was cargo, the defendant's ship, after being served secretly removed out of the jurisdiction, the court gave judgment by default for the plaintiff's claim.

(The Nautik.)

650

316

902

332

21

...page 153

Practice -Function of assessors-Judgment against opinion of judge-Appeal from County CourtPower of Divisional Court to alter judgment.-In a collision action brought in the County Court the judge formed an opinion on the evidence in favour of the plaintiffs, but the nautical assessors took the view that the plaintiffs' vessel was to blame for a wrong manœuvre. The jadge felt himself bound to give judgment in accordanee with the view of the assessors, expressing at the same time his dissent therefrom. The plaintiffs appealed. Held, that, on these facts, the court had no power to alter the decision of the learned judge. (The Fred.) Salvage Consolidation of suits Consent of parties.-The considerations which lead the court to order consolidation in salvage suits are those of convenience and economy without regard to the consent of the parties. (The Strathgarry.) 202 Salvage-Agreement to render specific serviceFailure to perform-Beneficial services-Right to remuneration.-Plaintiffs in a salvage action left a vessel ultimately saved by other salvors in a position somewhat better than that in which they first picked her up. There was an agreement in writing that the plaintiffs should tow the vessel to a place of safety for a specified sum, but this agreement the plaintiffs failed to carry out. Held, that, although the plaintiffs had failed to perform the specific agreement, notwithstanding that such performance though difficult was not impossible, they had rendered some beneficial service which contributed to the safety of the vessel, and were therefore entitled to remuneration for what they had done. (The Hestia) ... Practice Reduction of award Costs.-Where a salvage award is reduced on appeal it is a general, though not a hard and fast rule, to give no costs of the appeal. (The Gipsy Queen.)

Towage agreement-Half an hour for fixed sum-Refusal to extend the service.-The master of a vessel whose engines had broken down entered into an agreement with a passing steamship for half an hour's towage at a fixed sum. The hawser broke immediately after the completion of the agreed time, and the steamship refused to continue the to wage. In consolidated suits instituted by the above and other salvors the defendants urged that, as regards the first salvors, the service resulted in no benefit, and that the sum claimed was excessive. Held, that, although no benefit had resulted from the service, the agreement had been duly carried out; it was not, under the circumstances, manifestly unfair or unjust, and therefore the stipulated sum must be paid. (The Strathgarry, No. 2.) ...

AGISTMENT.

Damage to horse-Negligence of agister's servant in leaving gate open-Straying of horse-Remoteness-Liability of agister.-Under a contract of agistment the plaintiff's horse was placed by the defendant with other horses in the defendant's grazing field, part of which was a cricket ground separated from the rest of the field by a wire fence in which was a gate. The defendant's servant left the gate open, and the plaintiff's horse with three others went through the gate into the cricket ground. Some cricketers attempted to turn the horses off the cricket ground, and three of the horses went back safely through the gate, but the plaintiff's horse ran against the wire fencing and was injured. Held, that the injury to the horse was not too remote, but was the natural and probable consequence of the negli gence of the defendant, through his servant, in leaving the gate open, and that the defendant was therefore liable for the damage under his contract as agister to take reasonable care of the plaintiff's horse. (Halestrap v. Gregory.)

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT. Reference Referee appointed by registrar of County Court without consent of party-Jurisdiction of registrar-Costs as between solicitor and client

364

454

900

292

Jurisdiction of referees to award.-In a reference under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1883 for compensation for improvements, the registrar of the County Court has no jurisdiction, under sect. 11 of the Act or Order XL., r. 7, of the County Court Rules 1889, to appoint a referee for one of the parties without the consent of such party, and it is not sufficient that such party has not expressed his dissent, but actual consent must be given, and is a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the registrar. If no such consent has been given, the power to appoint a referee for one party upon the application of the other is exercisable by the judge alone under sect. 11 of the Act, notwithstanding any provisions in r. 7 of the above Order, and an award which states that one of the referees was appointed by the registrar without also stating that the consent of the parties was given, is bad on the face of it. In a reference under the Act the referees have no jurisdiction, under sect. 20 or otherwise, to order a party to pay costs as between solicitor and client. (Re The Agricultural Holdings Act 1833 and a Reference between Griffiths and Morris.)

ANNUITY.

..page 290

Covenant-Cohabitation-Administration actionClaim to prove -Where a man and woman who had been cohabiting together, but not in matrimony, executed a deed of separation in the ordinary form, whereby the man covenanted to pay the woman an annuity during her life, or so long as she did not in any way molest him, it was held that a subsequent renewal of the cohabitation did not render the covenant void, the analogy of a separation deed between husband and wife not being applicable. (Re Abdy; Rabbeth v. Donaldson.)... 178

Costs of reference-Umpire's fees-Taxation.-An umpire having made an award in an arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, Ithe landowner, whose lands were being taken, took up the award and paid the umpire his fees. These fees were included in the bill of costs of the reference which came before a taxing master. The taxing master wholly disallowed them, as not being costs properly incurred by the landowner under sect. 34 of the Act. The railway company paid the bill so taxed, but declined to repay to the landowner the amount of the umpire's fees. Held, that, having regard to sect. 35 of the Act, the landowner was not entitled, as against the railway company, to take up the award; and the umpire's fees having been disallowed by the taxing master, whose decision could not be reviewed, they could not now be recovered by the landowner in an action against the railway company. (Earl of Shrewsbury v. The Wirral Railways Committee.) Lands Clauses Act-Costs of arbitration-Offer by promoters-Withdrawal.-By sect. 34 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 the costs of an arbitration under that Act are to be borne by the promoters unless the arbitrators shall award a less sum than shall have been offered by the promoters, in which case each party shall bear his own costs incident to the arbitration. A municipal corporation, being desirous of taking certain land for the purposes of a local Act which incorporated the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act 1845, appointed a committee to negotiate with owners

465

895

of the property. The town clerk, acting upon the instructions of some members of the committee, made an offer to the plaintiffs for a piece of land. This offer the plaintiffs refused. Each party appointed arbitrators, and upon the day that the umpire accepted his appointment the town clerk gave notice to the plaintiffs withdrawing the offer. This withdrawal the plaintiffs assented to in writing. The umpire awarded the plaintiffs a less sum than that which had been offered by the town clerk. Subsequently the corporation passed a resolution in ratification of the offer. Held, that the corporation was liable to pay the costs of the arbitration. (Foster and others v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City of Sheffield.)...

..page 549 Partnership · Agreement - Action Staying proceedings-Motion.-A. and B. in Aug. 1894 agreed by their articles of partnership to refer all disputes arising during or in the winding-up of the partnership to two arbitrators or their umpire. The business, a small pottery business, turned ont a failure, and, disputes having arisen, A. in Jan. 1895 brought an action to wind-up the partnership. On motion by the defendant B.: Held, that the partners having agreed that a dispute such as the present should be referred to arbitration, the court would not interfere; therefore there must be an order staying further proceedings in the action, and referring the matter to arbitration. (Denton v. Legge.)... Practice-Stay of legal proceedings-Summons for time-" Step in the proceedings."-The defendant in an action took out a summons for time, and obtained on it an extension of time for the delivery of his defence. Held, that he had taken "a step in the proceedings" which disentitled him from applying to the court for a stay of the proceedings under sect. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889. (Bartlett v. Ford's Hotel Company Limited.) ..

ASSIGNMENT.

Equitable interest in personalty-Fund in courtStop-order-Notice to trustee-IncumbrancersPriority-Ward of court-Marriage without consent-Post-nuptial settlement-Consideration.-A stop-order on a fund in court obtained in an action for the administration of an estate has no greater effect for the purpose of deciding the priority of incumbrancers than notice to the trustees would have had if there had been no administrative action. Where there is a derivative settlement by a beneficiary of his interest under an original settlement, and an assignment is made of the interest of a beneficiary under the derivative settlement, the assignee should give notice to the trustees of the derivative settlement, whose duty it is to pay over the fund to the assignor, and not to the trustees of the original settlement, though they may have the actual control of the fund. post-nuptial settlement was executed by a ward of court, who had married without the consent of the court, containing (inter alia) a covenant by her to settle after-acquired property, and an assignment by her husband of a policy of assurance. Held, that the settlement was not voluntary, but was founded upon valuable consideration, and was enforceable. (Stephens v. Green; Green v. Knight.)...

BAILEE.

626

529

83, 574

Negligence-Government officials-Acquiescence.— The principle by which protection from the consequences of mere nonfeasance is afforded to commissioners or trustees representing public interests has no application to a case in which Government officials are under obligation to an individual member of the public to perform a duty, in consideration of remuneration for its performance. A depositor of goods for safe custody, who by himself or his servants has had an opportunity of observing certain defects in the storehouse, cannot be taken to have agreed that

Act of bankruptcy-Execution levied-Goods held by sheriff for twenty-one days-Computation of time. -By sect. 1 of the Bankruptcy Act 1890 a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy "if execution against him has been levied by seizure of his goods under process in an action in any court, or in any civil proceeding in the High Court, and the goods have been either sold or held by the sheriff for twenty-one days.' Held, that, in computing the period of twenty-one days, the day upon which the seizure is made is not to be included. North: Ex parte Parkinson.)

-

(Re

854

642

Goods held by sheriff for twenty-one daysComputation of time.-By the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 1, "A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy if execution against him has been levied by seizure of his goods under process in an action in any court, or in any civil proceeding in the High Court, and the goods have been either sold or held by the sheriff for twenty-one days." In computing the twenty-one days referred to in the above section, the day on which the sheriff went into possession must be excluded, and the day on which he went out of possession must be included. (Re North; Ex parte Hasluck.) ... 468 Adjudication-Non-acceptance of composition or scheme Discretion of court to postpone adjudication. The Bankruptcy Act 1883 provides by sect. 20 (1), that "where a receiving order is made against a debtor, then, if the creditors at the first meeting or any adjournment thereof by ordinary resolution resolve that the debtor be adjudged bankrupt, or pass no resolution, or if the creditors do not meet, or if a composition or scheme is not accepted or approved in pursuance of this Act within fourteen days after the conclusion of the examination of the debtor, or within such further time as the court may allow, the court shall adjudge the debtor bankrupt. When an application is made for an order adjudging the debtor a bankrupt, upon the happening of an event specified in sect. 20 (1), the court is not bound to make an order forthwith, but has a discretion to adjourn the proceedings for good reason. (Re Thurlow; Ex parte The Official Receiver.) Administration of deceased's estate-Business of deceased carried on by executor Consent of creditors-Indemnity of executor. The sole executrix of a testator, who was also his sole legatee, carried on his business for about six months after the testator's death. No authority to carry on the business was contained in the will, but the creditors of the testator assented to its being carried on by the executrix. An order was afterwards made by the court that the deceased's estate should be administered in bankruptcy. Williams, J. held that the executrix had carried on the business for the purpose of properly realising the estate, and was entitled to an indemnity for debts incurred by her in carrying on the business, and that her creditors, in respect of such debts, should be paid in priority to creditors of the deceased. Held, that the executrix was not entitled to an indemnity, on the ground that the business was carried on by her, not for the purpose of winding. up the estate, but for her own maintenance and benefit, and that there was no evidence of such a consent by the creditors of the testator as would make her their agent in carrying on the business. (Re Millard; Ex parte Yates.) Bankruptcy notice-Irregularity-Immaterial defect -Validity-Joint judgment debtors-Bankruptcy notice issued against one only.-A defect or irregularity in a bankruptcy notice, which cannot perplex or embarrass the debtor, does not make it invalid. Therefore, where a judgment for 5000l. had been obtained against the debtor and three others in an action against the debtor and five

823

others, and the bankruptcy notice described the judgment as having been obtained against the debtor and the five others, the bankruptcy notice was held not to be invalid. A bankruptcy notice can be issued against one alone of several joint judgment debtors. (Re Low; Ex parte Gibson.) page 45 Bankruptcy notice Judgment against separate property of married woman Bankruptcy notice issued against her when a widow.-By sect. 4 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, "A debtor commits an act of bankruptcy (g.) if a creditor has obtained

a final judgment against him, and execution thereon not having been stayed, has served on him a bankruptcy notice requiring him to pay the judgment debt in accordance with the terms of the judgment, and he does not within seven days comply with the requirements of the notice.' A bankruptcy notice cannot be issued against a widow upon a judgment obtained against her separate property, in the form laid down in Scott v. Morley (57 L. T. Rep. 919), during the lifetime of her husband. (Re Hewitt; Ee parte Levene.)

Motion in bankruptcy-Order for payment of costs-"Final judgment." -An order for the payment by the respondent of the costs of a motion made by a trustee in bankruptcy under sect. 102 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 is not a "final judgment" within sect. 4, sub-sect 1 (g.) of that Act. (Re A Bankruptcy Notice.)

Order for the payment of costs-Action upon the order-Judgment-" Final judgment."-An action may be brought to recover costs payable under an order of the court. Judgment obtained by the plaintiff in such an action is a "final judgment" upon which a bankruptcy notice may be served upon the defendant. (Re Boyd; Ex parte McDermott.)

...

Bill of lading-Indorsement to third party-Act of bankruptcy-Title of trustee in bankruptcy.Plaintiff consigned to E. F. certain goods under a bill of lading. E. F. on receiving the bill of lading, and before he had taken physical possession of the goods, indorsed it to G. his clerk, and directed him to sell the goods and account for the proceeds to the plaintiff; he then executed a deed of assignment to G. for the benefit of his creditors, and was subsequently adjudged bankrupt. Plaintiff and the trustee in bankruptcy, the defendant in the action, both claimed the proceeds of the sale, and an interpleader issue was directed. At the trial the jury found that the property in the goods had passed to F. J., and that he had acted as he had done because he believed the goods were the plaintiff's, and not because he wished to prefer the latter. Held, that the transaction was not fraudulent and void within sect. 48 (1) of the Bankrupty Act of 1883, because the jury negatived a fraudulent preference, but that the indorsement of the bill of lading to G. did not pass the property to G. as agent for the plaintiff or otherwise, and that the goods were still part of F. J.'s estate at the moment of executing the deed of assignment, and that, therefore, under sect. 43 the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to recover the proceeds of the sale. (Lauritzen v. Carr.)

Deed of assignment for creditors-Trustee under deed-Remuneration of.-If the court thinks that the estate of a debtor has benefited by the action of the trustee under a deed of assignment, it will allow such trustee to retain such a reasonable sum as the court thinks fit as remuneration for his trouble, even though the official receiver in the exexcise of his discretion has refused to do so. (Re Foster; Ex parte The Official Receiver.)... Discharge-Bankruptcy Act 1890-By the Bankruptcy Act 1890, s. 8, it is enacted "that the court shall refuse the discharge in all cases where the bankrupt has committed any felony connected with bankruptcy, unless for special reasons the court otherwise determines." An offence " connected with bankruptcy" is one in which the conviction is based on facts which

...

60

312

348

56

364

ischarge-Scheme of arrangement-Judgment debt -Rejection of proof-" Debt provable in bankruptcy - Release of debtor. A scheme of arrangement, which has been accepted and approved under sect. 18 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, releases the debtor from a judgment debt, as being a debt "provable in bankruptcy," although the judgment creditor's claim to prove under the scheme in respect of such judgment debt has been rejected upon the ground that there was no good consideration therefor. (Seaton v. Deerhurst.)

Suspension-Misconduct-Undue preference.Under sect. 8 of the Bankruptcy Act 1890 a bankrupt's discharge was suspended upon the ground that, within three months preceding the date of the receiving order, when unable to pay his debts as they became due, the bankrupt had given an undue preference to some of his creditors within the meaning of subsect. 3 (i.). Upon his contention that the preference was not undue" because the creditors whom he had preferred would necessarily have been entitled to priority in the bankruptcy: Held, that, as the alleged priority of these creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings had been shown to be not absolute, but in certain events might never have existed, an "undue preference" within the meaning of sub-sect. 3 (i.) had been given by the bankrupt. Semble, that even in the case of creditors absolutely entitled to priority in his bankruptcy, a debtor ought not to anticipate the action of the court in the administration of his estate. (Re Bryant; Ex parte Bryant.) Indian pension-Jurisdiction to appropriate for creditors-Refusal to exercise.-The courts ought not to make an order under sect. 53 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883 for payment to the trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of creditors of any part of the pension granted by the Indian Government to a major-general, which pension is by the provisions of the Indian Pension Act 1871 inalienable, though the courts have undoubted jurisdiction to make such order. (Re Saunders; Ex parte Saunders)

Landlord's right of distress-Rent accrued due prior to bankruptcy. Where rent is payable at the regular quarter days, and the bankruptcy of the tenant occurs at any time between such periods, the landlord is entitled to distrain on the property of the debtor, under sect. 42 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, after the commencement of the bankruptcy for a proportionate part of the rent due from the last quarter day up to the date of the order of adjudication, by reason of the Apportionment Ac: 1870. (Re Howell; Ex parte Mandelburg)

Mortgage of lease by lessee-Bankruptcy of lesseeDisclaimer-Vesting order-Terms-Past liabili ties. Where a lease has been disclaimed and application is made for a vesting order, the court will, as a general rule, make such vesting order upon the terms that the person in whose favour it is made shall take upon himself the burden of the unperformed obligations, both past and future, to which the bankrupt was liable when the petition was filed. The court may, however, under special circumstances, modify such terms so as to make the person in whose favour the vesting order is made subject only to the same liabilities and obligations as if the lease had been assigned to him at the date when the petition was filed. (Re Walker; Ex parte Mills.) Mortgage of leaseholds by undischarged bankrupt -Sale by mortgagees-Title of trustee in bankruptcy-No disclaimer by trustee-L., an undischarged bankrupt, transferred the mortgage of certain leasehold property, which had been demised to him and mortgaged by sub-demise by him in 1891, to the plaintiffs in 1892. In 1891, L. being

453

133

695

472

330

in default, the plaintiffs entered into possession and sold the property to the defendants. L.'s trustee in bankruptcy had not intervened when the mortgage was made, and no disclaimer of the property had ever been executed by him. The question arose whether the title had vested in the trustee under the Bankruptcy Act 1883, so that the plaintiffs could not make a good title to the property. Held, that the decision in Cohen v. Mitchell (63 L. T. Rep. 206; 25 Q. B. Div. 262) covered the case of a chattel interest in land, and the trustee not having intervened when the mortgage was made, the plaintiff had acquired a good title to the property. (Clayton v. Barclay.)...page 764 Official receiver-Liability of, for costs-Costs of proceedings under third-party notice-Duties of official receiver as interim receiver.-Proceedings taken against an official receiver by third-party notice are proceedings taken either by action, motion, or in any other manner" within the meaning of rule 339 of the Bankruptcy Rules 1886, and if such proceedings are taken in respect of anything done or default made by him when acting, or in the bona fide and reasonable belief that he is acting, in pursuance of the Act or in execution of the powers given to official receivers by the Act," the official receiver is entitled, provided he have otherwise complied with the rule, to be paid out of the estate of the debtor the costs to which he may be put under such proceedings. An official receiver when acting as interim receiver ought not to realise or deal with or encumber the estate, except for the purpose of protecting it or disposing of perishable goods, and if extraordinary measures out of the ordinary practice have to be adopted he should first consult the Board of Trade, and if necessary apply to the court. An official receiver, acting as interim receiver, instructed certain auctioneers to pay off a bill of sale given by the debtor, and to take an assignment of it to themselves. The trustee chosen by the creditors sued the auctioneers in order to test the validity of the bill of sale, and the auctioneers brought in the official receiver as third party. The action was dismissed with costs. Held, that, under the implied indemnity given by the official receiver, the auctioneers were entitled to receive from him the difference between the costs incurred by them as between solicitor and client, and the costs as between party and party which they received from the trustee, and that the official receiver was entitled to be paid out of the estate his own costs and the amount he had paid under his indemnity to the auctioneers. (Re Wells and Croft; Ex parte The Official Receiver.) 359 Petition-Amendment-Adding petitioners-More than three months after act of bankruptcy.-The court has no power to add to a petition fresh petitioning creditors whose debts are different from those on which the petition was presented, when more than three months have elapsed since the committal of the act of bankruptcy on which the petition is based. (Re Maund; Ex parte Maund.)

-

66

Sufficient

Discretion of court to dismiss cause"-Attempt to extort money-Destruction of only asset by bankruptcy. If a petitioning creditor asks the debtor to give him money as the price of his consent to an adjournment, there is sufficient cause for which the court may dismiss the petition, within the meaning of sect. 7, subsect. 3, of the Bankruptcy Act 1883. If the only asset of a debtor is a life interest which will be forfeited when he is made a bankrupt, or alienates, there is "sufficient cause for dismissing a bankruptcy petition presented against him. (Re Otway; Ex parte Otway.) Petitioning creditor's debt - Judgment debt Judgment obtained upon a compromise-Power to go behind the judgment Unfair compromise. When a petitioning creditor's debt is a judgment debt which has been obtained upon the compromise of an action, the Court of Bankruptcy may inquire into the whole of the circumstances relating to the cause of action and to the compro

58

452

362

mise, and may refuse to make a receiving order if it is satisfied that there was no good cause of action, and that the compromise was not fair and reasonable. (Re Hawkins; Ex parte Troup.) page 41 Proof by secured creditors-Assessment of securities -Notice to trustee to redeem.-A creditor who holds securities against the debts due to him from the debtor, is entitled to lump his securities together and assess them as a whole; and if the trustee do not according to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, Appendix Sched. II., r. 12, within six months after receiving notice in writing from the creditor elect whether he will redeem the securities so assessed as a whole, or require them to be realised, the interest in the property comprised in the securities so assessed as a whole vests in the creditor. (Re Smith; Ex parte Logan.) ... Seizure-Payment of judgment debt by third party -No notice to creditors-Payment to official receiver Liability of bailiff to creditors.-The plaintiffs having recovered a judgment against a debtor, a writ of fi. fa. was delivered to the defendant, the high bailiff of the County Court, who seized the goods on the premises of the debtor. By agreement with the debtor the defendant went out of possession, and when he was about to re-enter, the father of the debtor paid to him the amount of the judgment debt. The defendant did not give notice of this payment to the plaintiffs as required by the County Court Rules 1893, Order II., r. 32. Subsequently the debtor was adjudicated a bankrupt, and the defendant paid the money to the official receiver. Held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover from the defendant the amount which he had received from the debtor's father, as it was not a payment under an execution within the meaning of sect. 11, subsect. 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. (Bower and Co. v. Hett.)

...

Trustee appointed by Board of Trade-Duties ofRight to give indemnity-Default of trusteeLiability to Board of Trade.-A trustee in bankruptcy appointed by the Board of Trade under sect. 21, sub-sect. 6 of the Bankruptcy Act 1883, has no authority, without the sanction of the Board, to give a personal indemnity to his agent against the consequences of selling goods seized for rent due to the bankrupt's estate; and when snch goods are sold it is the statutory duty of the trustee to require that the proceeds of the sale should be at once paid into the Bankruptcy Estates Account. For any loss occasioned to the estate of the bankrupt by the default of the trustee herein, he and his guarantors are liable to the Board of Trade upon a bond given by them guaranteeing to make good any loss or damage to the bankrupt's estate occasioned by the default of the trustee in the performance of his statutory duties. (The Board of Trade v. The Provident Clerks and General Guarantee Association Limited.) ...

BETTING.

66

Club-Member of club betting with other members -Liability to penalties-Betting with persons resorting thereto."-The respondent was a member of a club which was established some thirty years ago. In the club there were provided for the use of the members refreshments, club dinners, daily newspapers, billiard-table, &c.; there was also a tape-machine, beside which a servant of the club stood during racing hours and called out to the members the names of horses running and their starting prices as shown by the machine, and thereupon the members made bets on the horses. On the club premises were found various books and documents which had reference to the settlement by the committee of disputed bets between members, and certain members, of whom the respondent was one, had formed a mutual protection society" for the compilation of a black list" of persons who had made default in payment of bets, and the secretary of this society

66

659

562

was the secretary of the club. The respondent made numerous bets in the club-room with other members, as shown by his betting and settling books. Held, that the members of such a club were not "" persons resorting to the club premises within the meaning of sects. 1 and 3 of the Betting Act 1853, and that under the circumstances the respondent, in so betting with his fellow members, could not be convicted under those sections of betting with persons resorting" to the club, as the provisions of the Act do not apply to the case of a member of such a club betting with other members as above described. (Downes, app., v. Johnson, resp.)

... page 728

BILL OF EXCHANGE. Latter of credit-Bills to be drawn against " produce bought and paid for "-Conditional contract to accept-Liability of giver of letter to purchaser of bills-Warranty.-A letter of credit was given by the defendants, merchants in London, to K. and Co., merchants at Batavia, to be availed of by drafts against "produce bought and paid for " by K. and Co., such produce to be held by K. and Co. under lien to the defenda nts until the shipping documents were ready for transmission to them, and in the letter the defendants undertook to accept and pay at maturity all drafts drawn by K. and Co. in conformity with the terms and conditions of the letter. Under this credit K. and Co. drew bills on the defendants, which they negotiated for value with the plain tiffs, who were bankers at Batavia. In an action by the bankers against the defendants for refusing to accept the bills so drawn: Held, that it was a condition precedent to the plaintiffs' rights to recover on these bills against the defendants that produce should have been both bought and paid for against which the bills could be drawn. Other bills, drawn by K. and Co. under the credit and negotiated by them with the plaintiffs, were presented by the plaintiffs to the defendants for acceptance, and the defendants accepted and ultimately paid the same to the holders thereof, in the belief that produce had been bought and paid for by K. and Co. against such bills, whereas no suc produce had been bought or paid for: Held (in a counter-claim set up by the defendants), that the mere presenta tion of the bills by the plaintiffs to the defendan ts for acceptance did not amount to a warranty or representation by the plaintiffs that produce had been bought and paid for by K. and Co. against which the bills could be drawn, and that the defendants were not entitled to recover from the plaintiffs the amounts so paid. (The Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China v. P. Macfadyen and Co.) Material alteration-Alteration after acceptanceNegligence of acceptor-Bonâ fide holder for value -Estoppel.-A bill of exchange was drawn by the drawer for 500l., with spaces so left upon it as to make easy the addition of words and figures to alter the amount, and the stamp was sufficient for a sum of 4000l. In this form the bill was accepted. The drawer then added words and figures which altered the amount to 3500l., and negotiated the bill, the alteration not being apparent. Held, that a bona fide holder for value could not recover from the acceptor the sum of 3500l., but only the sum for which the bill was oiginally drawn. (Scholfield v. Earl of Londesborough.)

BILL OF SALE. Assignment for the benefit of creditors-Registration-Creditors not assenting within three months excluded-Benefit of all creditors-Bills of Sale Act 1878.-In a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors, and which was registered under the Deeds of Arrangement Act 1887 (50 and 51 Vict. c. 57), there was a clause providing that no creditor, whether scheduled to the presents or not, should be entitled to any benefit under the deed unless he should signify his assent to the deed within three months of the date of registration, he having had actual notice, and that the

428

46