CUnrttpll ICaui ^rl)nnl ICtbrary
iUai-aljaU iEqutty QlnUcrttott
(Sift of
IE. 31. iHatflljall. IC.ffi. BJ. 1S34
3 1924 085 501 538
Cornell University
Library
The original of tinis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924085501538
FOEMS
OP
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
AND
COURT OF APPEAL,
HAVING ESPECIAL liEFEBENOE TO THE CUANGERY DIVISION,
WITH
PRACTICAL NOTES,
BY THE LATE
HON. SIR H. W. SETON,
SOMETIME ONE OF THE OfUDGES OF THE SDPEEME COUBT OF CALCUTTA.
SEVENTH EDITION
BY
ARTHUR ROBERT INGPEN,
OF THE MTDDLE TEMPLE AND OF LINCOLN'S INN,
ONE OF HIS majesty's CODNSEL ; BACIIELOK OF LAWS OF THE nSIVliRSITT OP LONDON,
ONE OF THE EDITORS OF "WILLIAMS* LAW OF EXECUTORS AND ADUINISTRATORS,'* AND
ADXIIOR OP "THE LAW RELATING TO EXECUTORS AND ADlirNrSTRATORS'* AND OTHER WORKS;
FREDERICK TURNER BLOXAM.
ONE OF THE REGISTRARS OF THE SDFREME COUItT OP JUDICATURE ;
AND
HENRY G. GARRETT,
OP THR CHANCERY IlEGISTRAU'S OFFICE,
SOLICITOR OF THE SUPREME COURT.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
LONDON :
STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED,
119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE.
TOEONTO: THE CARSWELL COMPANY, LIMITED
1912.
PREFACE.
The main objects of the Editors of the Seventh Edition of
" Seton " have been to bring the forms, down to date, and to
omit such as have become obsolete ; also to bring the notes,
by rearrangement and marginal references, into greater order,
and make them more easily available, •which has required great
care and has been a formidable task. The tendency of every
new edition is to increase in bulk and special consideration has
been given to prevent this. In many instances reference is
made to the rules and orders to be found in the Annual
Practice instead of setting them out in extenso. Also in many
instances it has been found sufficient to give merely an epitome
of sections of Acts of Parliament. By this means proper
references have been made to the numerous Acts passed since
the last edition without increasing the bulk of the volume.
A great number of Statutes have been passed since the last
edition, the more important being the Trade Marks Act, 1905,
Public Trustee Act, 1906, Patents and Designs Act, 1907,
Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and the Assurance Com-
panies Act, 1909. All the Statutes have been carefully noted.
The references to several Acts which were passed after this
work had gone to press, for instance, the Copyright Act, 1911,
the Conveyancing Act, 1911, and the Lunacy Act, 1911, are
necessarily brief. In these cases the old notes have been
retained, interpolating a few words, where necessary, to draw
attention to the new enactment.
The general index has been carefully revised by Mr. C. J.
Parton, of the Chancery Bar.
All the Cases have been noted to the end of the
year 1911.
The List of Equity Judges from 1660 has been retained
iv Preface.
and completed to the present time, as it is not only of
historical interest, but has often been found useful in the
course of arguments in the Courts.
The Editors gratefully acknowledge the assistance rendered
by the following members of the Chancery Bar in supplying
notes of cases in connection with parts of the wort, namely,
Messrs. Cecil C. M. Dale (former Editor), C. J. Parton,
A. Lockyer Ingpen, H. S. Preston, H. W. Goldberg, E. Leigh
Eamshotham, B. Whitehead, E. S. Moberly Bell, and H. J.
Thomas; also to Mr. J. D. S. Sim, lately Chief Registrar of
Friendly Societies, Master R. "White, Taxing Master King, Mr.
F. A. Stringer, of the. Central Office, Mr. E. W. Eaton, of the
Land Charges Department of the Land Registry, Mr. A. F.
Eidsdale, and the members of the Chancery Registrar's Office.
A. R. I.
F. T. B.
H. G. G.
Lincoln's Inn,
Easter, 1912.
( V )
EQUITY JUDGES FKOM 1660.
HOLDERS OF THE GREAT SEAL.
1660
June
1
L.C.
1667
Aug.
31
L.K.
1672
Nov.
17
L.C.
1673
Nov.
9
L.K.
1675
Dec.
19
L.C.
1682
Dec.
20
L.K.
1685
Sept.
28
L.C.
1689
Mar.
4
L.
Commrs.
1690
May
14
L.
Commrs.
1698 Mar. 23 L.K.
1697 April 22 L 0.
1700 April 27 L. Commrs.
— May 21 L.K.
1705 Oct. 11 L.K.
1707 May 4 L.C.
1710 Sept. 26 L. CommrB.
—
Oct 19
L.K.
1713
April 7
L.C.
1714
Sept. 21
L.C.
1718
AprU 18
L. Commrs.
—
May 12
L.C.
1725
Jan. 7
L. Commrs.
,
June 1
L.C.
1733
Nov, 29
L.C.
Edward, Lord Hyde, afterwards Earl of
Clarendon.
Sir Orlando Bridgeman, Bart.
Anthony, E. of Shaftesbury.
Sir Heneage Finch, aft. Lord Finch.
The same, aft. E. of Nottingham.
Sir Francis North, aft. Lord Guilford.
George, Lord Jeffreys.
Sir J. Maynard, K.A.S., Anthony Keck,
William Eawlinson, S.L.
Sir George Trevor, Sir W. Eawlinson, Sir
George Hutchins.
Sir John Somers.
John, Lord Somers.
Sir John Holt, C.J., Sir George Trcby,C.J.,
Sir Edward Ward, C.B.
Sir Nathan "Wright, K.S.
William Cowper, Q.C.
William, Lord Cowper.
Sir Thomas Trevor, C. J., Tracy, J., Scrope,
B. of Exch. Scotland.
Sir Simon Harconrt, aft. Lord Ilarconrt.
S., Lord Harcourt, aft. Visct. Harcourt.
W., Lord Cowper, aft. E. Cowper.
Tracy, J., Pratt, J., Montague, B.
Thos., Ld. Parker, aft. E. of Macclesfield.
Sir J. Jekyll, M.K., Sir Jeffery Gilbert, B.,
Sir Eobert Eaymond, C.J.
Peter, Lord King.
Charles, Lord Talbot.
vi Equity Judges from 1660.
1737 Feb. 21 L.O. Philip, Lord Hardwioke, afterwards
Earl of Hardwicke
Sir J. Willes, C.J., Smythe, B., Wilmot, J.
Sir Eobert Henley, aft. Lord Henley.
The same, aft. E. of Northington.
Charles, Lord Camden, aft. E. Camden.
Hon. Charles Yorke.
Smythe, B., Ashton, J., Hon. H.
Bathurst, J.
H., Lord Apsley, aft. E. Bathurst.
Edward, Lord Thurlow.
Alex., Ld. Loughborough, C.J., Ashurst,
J., Hotham, B.
Edward, Lord Thurlow.
Sir J. Eyre, C.B., Ashurst, J., Wilson, J.
A., Ld. Loughborough, aft. E. of Eosslyn.
John, Lord Eldon.
Thomas, Lord Erslsine.
John, Lord Eldon, aft. E. of Eldon.
John Singleton, Lord Lyndhurst.
Henry, Lord Brougham and Vaux.
John Singleton, Lord Lyndhurst.
Sir C. C. Pepys, M.E., Sir L. Shadwell,
V.-C. of E., Bosanquet, J.
Charles Christopher, Lord Cottenham.
.John Singleton, Lord Lyndhurst.
C. C, Ld. Cottenham, aft. E. Cottenham.
Henry, Lord Langdale, M.E., Sir L. Shad-
well, V.C. of E., Rolfe, B.
Thomas, Lord Truro.
Edward Burtenshaw, Lord St. Leonards.
Eobert Mousey, Lord Cranworth.
Frederick, Lord Chelmsford.
John, Lord Campbell.
Richard, Lord Westbury.
Eobert Mousey, Lord Cranworth.
Frederick, Lord Chelmsford.
Hugh MacCalmont, Lord Cairns.
William Page, Lord Hatherley.
Eoundell, Lord Selborne.
Hugh MacCalmont, Lord Cairns.
Eoundell, Lord Selborne.
Hardinge Stanley, Lord Halsbury.
Farrer, Lord Herschell.
Hardinge Stanley, Lord Halsbury.
Farrer, Lord Herschell.
Hardinge Stanley, Loed Halsbury, aft.
Earl of Halsbury.
1905 Dec. 11 L.C. Eobert Threshie, Lord Loreburn.
1756
Nov. 19
L. Commrs.
1757
June 30
L.K.
1761
Jan. 16
L.C.
1766
July 30
L.C.
1770
Jan. 17
L.C.
—
Jan. 21
L. Commrs.
1771
Jan. 23
L.C.
1778
June 8
L.C.
1783
April 9
L. Commrs.
Doc. 23
L.C.
1792
June 15
L. Commrs.
1798
Jan. 28
L.C.
1801
April 14
L.C.
1806
Feb. 7
L.O.
1807
April 1
L.C.
1827
May 2
L.C.
1880
Nov. 22
L.C.
1834
Nov. 22
L.C.
1835
April 23
L. Commrs.
1886
Jan. 16
L.C.
1841
Sept. 3
L.C.
1846
July 6
L.O.
1850
June 19
L. Commrs.
July 16
L.O.
1852
Feb. 27
L.C.
—
Dec. 28
L.C.
1858
Feb. 26
L.O.
1859
June 18
L.C.
1861
June 26
L.C.
1866
July 7
L.O.
1866
July 6
L.O.
1868
Feb. 29
L.O.
• — ■
Dec. 9
L.O.
1872
Oct. 15
L.O.
1874
Feb. 21
L.O.
1880
April 28
L.O.
1885
June 26
L.O.
1886
Feb. 6
L.C.
■ —
Aug. 4
L.C.
1892
Aug. 18
L.O.
1895
June 29
L.O.
Equity Judges from 1660. vii
MASTERS OF THE BOLLS.
John, Lord Colepeppor.
Sir Harbottle Grimston.
Sir John Churchill.
Sir John Trevor.
Henry Powle, Esq.
Sir John Trevor.
Sir Joseph Jekyll.
Hon. John Vernoy.
William Fortescue, Esq.
Sir John Strange.
Sir Thomas Clarke.
Sir Thomas Sewell.
Sir Lloyd Kenyon, aft. Lord Konyon.
Sir Eichard Pepper Arden, aft. Lord Alvanley.
Sir William Grant.
Sir Thomas Plamer.
Eobert John Gifford.
Sir John Singleton Copley, aft. Lord Lyndhnrst.
Sir John Leach.
Sir Charles Christopher Pepys, aft. E. of Cottenham.
Henry, Lord Langdale.
Sir Jolm Eomilly, aft. Lord Eomilly. (Resigned
Sir George Jessel. March, 1873.)
Sir William Baliol Brett, aft. Lord Esher.
Sir Nathaniel Lindley, aft. (1900) Lord Lindley.
Sir Nathaniel Webster, G.C.M.G., aft. Lord Alverstone,
and (22 Oct. 1900) L.C.J, of England.
SiK AncHiBALD Levin Smith.
Sir Eichard Henn Collins, aft. Lord Collins.
Sir Herbert Hardy Cozens-Hardy.
LOBDS JUSTICES OP APPEAL IN CHANCERY.
1851 Oct. 8 Sir J. L. Knight-Brnce.
]{obert M., Lord Cranworth.
Sir G. J. Turner.
Sir Hugh Cairns, aft. Lord Cairns.
Sir John Eolt. (Eesigned Fob. 1868.)
Sir Charles Jasper Selwyn. (d. 11 Aug. 1869.)
Sir William Page Wood, aft. Lord Hatherley.
Sir George Markham Giffard. (d. 13 July, 1870.)
Sir William Milbourne James.
Sir George Mellish,
1660
June 1
—
Nov. 3
1685
Jan. 12
—
Oct. 20
1689
Mar. 13
1693
Jan. 13
1717
July 13
1738
Oct. 9
1741
Nov. 5
1750
.Jan. 11
1754
May 29
1764
Dec. 4
1784
Mar. 30
1788
June 4
1801
May 27
1818
Jan. 6
1824
April 5
1826
Sept. 14
1827
May 8
1834
Sept. 29
1836
Jan. 19
1851
Mar. 28
1873
Aug. 29
1883
April 8
1897
Oct. 25
1900
May 10
1900
Oct. 23
1901
Oct. 18
1907
Mar. 3
1852
Dec.
28
1866
Oct.
29
1867
July
22
1868
Feb.
8
—
Mar.
5
—
Dec.
21
1870
July
2
—
Aug.
9
viii Equity Judges from IQQO.
COURT OF APPEAL.
Ex-Offlcio Judges.
The Loed Chancellor.
The Lord Chief Justice of England.
The Master of the Eolls.
The President of the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division.
COURT OP APPEAL.
Ordinary Judges (Lords Justices of Appeal).
1870 July 2 Sir W. M. James, (d. 7 June, 1881.)
— Aug. 9 Sir G. Mellish. (d. 12 June, 1877.)
1875 Oct. 29 Sir Eichard Baggallay. (Eesigned 30 Nov. 1885.)
1876 Oct. 27 SirGeo.Wm.WilshereBramwell. (Eesigd. Oct. 1881.)
— Oct. 27 Sir William Baliol Brett (aft. M.E. and Lord Esher).
— Oct. 27 Sir Eichard Paul Amphlett. (Eesigned Nov. 1877.)
1877 June 28 Sir Henry Cotton. (Eesigned Oct., 1890.)
— Nov. 2 The Hon Alfred Henry Thesiger. (d. Oct. 20, 1880.)
1880 Nov. 6 Sir Eobert Lush.
1881 Aug. 27 Sir George Jessel. (d. 21 Mar. 1883.)
— Nov. 1 Sir Nathaniel Liudley (alt. M.E. and Lord Lindley).
1882 Jan. 17 Sir John Holkcr. (Eesigned 17 May, 1882.)
— May — Sir Charles Synge Christopher Bowen (aft. Ld.Bowen).
— Oct. — Sir Edward Fry. (Eesigned June, 1892.)
1885 Dec. 1 Sir Henry Charles Lopes (aft. Lord Ludlow; resigned
25 Oct. 1897).
1890 Nov. 14 Sir Edward Ebenezer Kay. (Eesigned Dec. 1896.)
1892 June 17 Sir Archibald Levin Smith (aft. M.E.).
1893 Oct. 24 Sir Horace Davey (aft. Lord Davey).
1894 Oct. 11 Sir John Eigby.
1897 Jan. 12 Sir Joseph William Chitty. (d. 15 Feb. 1899.)
1897 Oct. 25 Sir Eichard Hbnn Collins.
1897 Nov. 2 Sir Eoland Vatjghan Williams.
1899 Feb. 22 Sir Eobert Eomer, G.C.B.
1900 Oct. 27 Sir James Stirling.
1901 Oct. 18 Sir James Charles Mathew
1901 Nov. 2 Sir Herbert Hardy Cozens-Hardy.
1906 Jan. 25 Sir John Fletcher Moulton.
1906 June 11 Sir George Farwell.
1906 Oct. 24 Sir Henry Burton Buckley.
1907 Mar. 4 Sir William Eann Kennedy.
VICE-CHANCELLORS.
1818 April 14 V.-C. of E. Sir Thomas Plumer.
1818 Jan. 13 V.-C. of E. Sir John Leach.
1827 May 4 V.-O. of E. Sir Anthonjr Hart,
Equity Judges from 1660. ix
— Nov. 1 V.-C. of E. Sir Lancelot Shadwell.
1841 Oct. — V.-C. K.-B. Sir .James Lewis Knight-Bruce.
— — V.-C. W. Sir James Wigram.
1850 — V.-C. Ld. C. Sir Eob. M. Eolfe, aft. Lord Cranworth.
1851 April 7 V.-C. T. Sir George James Turner.
— Oct. — V.-O. K. Sir Eichard Torin Kindersley. (Ecsigned
Nov. 1866.)
_ _ V.-C. P. Sir James Parker, (d. 13 Aug. 1852.)
1852 Oct. — V.-C. S. Sir John Stuart. (Eesigned April, 1871.)
1853 Jan. — V.-C. W. Sir William Page Wood, aft. Lord
Ilatherley.
1866 Dec. 1 V.-C. M. Sir Eichard Malins.
1868 Mar. 5 V.-C. G. Sir George Markham Giffard.
1869 Jan. 1 V.-C. J. Sir William Milbourne James.
1870 July 4 V.-C. B. Sir James Bacon. (Eesigd. 10 Nov. 1886.)
1871 ApriI19 V.-C.W. Sir John Wickens. (d. 23 Oct. 1873.)
1873 Nov. 11 V.-C. H. Sir Charles Hall. (Eesigned Oct. 1882.)
JUSTICES OP THE HIGH COUBT (CHANCERY DIVISION).
1877 April 24 Sir Edward Pry. (Appointed L.J. Oct. 1882.)
1881 Mar. 30 Sir Edward Ebenezer Kay. (Appd. L.J. Nov. 1890.)
— Aug. 27 Sir Joseph William Chitty. (Appd. L.J. Jan. 1897.)
1882 Nov. 1 Sir Ford North. (Eesigned Jan. 1900.)
— Oct. — Sir John Pearson, (d. 13 May, 1886.)
1886 May 20 Sir James Stii-ling. (Appointed L.J. Oct. 1900.)
— Nov. 12 Sir Ahthue, Kekewioh.
1890 Oct. 17 Sir Ko'bert Eomer. (Appointed L.J. 22 Feb. 1899.)
1897 Jan. 18 Sie Edmund Widdkingtos Btbnb.
1899 Feb. 22 Sib Herbert Hardy Cozens-Hardy.
1899 Oct. 24 Sib George Farwell.
1900 Jan. 11 Sir Henry Burton Buckley.
1900 Oct. 31 Sir Matthew Ixgle Joyce.
1901 Nov. 4 Sir Charles Swinfen Eady.
1904 April 25 Sir Thomas Eolls Warrington.
1906 Juno 12 Sir Ealph Neville.
1906 Oct. 24 Sir Eobert John Parker.
1907 Dec. 11 Sir Harry Trelawney Eve.
NOTE. — By an order of the Lord Chancellor dated 11th Deo. 1900, it was stated to
be expedient that Chambers should be attached to Mr. Justice Buckley and Mr. Justice
Joyce for the purpose of dealing with Chamber applications, and it was ordered that
the Chambers attached to Mr. Justice Kekewich should be transferred from Mr. Justice
Kekewich and be attached to Mr. Justice Kekewich and Mr. Justice Joyce jointly, that
the Chambers attached to Mr. Justice Byrne be transferred from Mr. Justice Byrne
and be attached to Mr. Justice Byrne and Mr. Justice Buckley jointly, and that the
Chambers attached to Mr. Justice Oozens-Hardy and Mr. Justice Farwell respectively
be attached to Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy and Mr. Justice Earwell jointly, and this
order was to coroe into operatiorj on the lltb January, 1901.
( xi )
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
PAGE
Preface - - - iii
Table of Equity Judges feom 1660 v
Table of Cases - • xxxvii
Table of Statutes .... .... ocxciii
Table of Boles and Orders ccoxxvii
INTEODUCTION.
FOEMS OP JUDGMENTS AND OEDEES.
Of Judgments and orders generally — The Jud. Acts — Business assigned
to the Chancery Division — Reference to the Eecord — To the Regis-
trar's Books — General form and arrangement of Judgments and
orders — Recitals in Judgments and orders Pages cccxxxix-cccxlv
CHAPTEE I.
INSTITUTION OF PEOCEEDINGS.
Definition of action — commencement of proceedings- — Meaning of
summons— Orders which need not be drawn up . 1
Forms :— 1. Order to renew writ. 2. Joinder of other claims with claim
for recovery of land 1, 2
Notes 2, 3
CHAPTEE II.
SBEVICE OF WKIT AND PEOCEEDINGS.
Forms : — 1. Order for substituted service of writ. 2. The like — at each
of several leasehold houses. 3. The like — on deft's solrs in a former
matter. 4. Substituted service of writ by means of advertisements
and through the post. 5. The like— of originating summons by
service on solrs, advertisements and through post. 6. Leave to issue
and serve concurrent writ ex jur. 7. Leave to serve writ or notice
exjur. 8. Leave to serve writ in Scotland or Ireland. 9. Notice of
proceedings to be served abroad. 10. Service effected on infant deft
to be deemed good service. 11. Order for service on infant deft.
12. Leave to issue third.party notice of claim to be indemnified.
13. Substituted service of petition. 14. Petition to stand over, with
leave to amend by adding respondent and to effect substituted service
on him. 15. The like, adding respondent fa; ^Mr. 16. Leave to serve
writ issued in the Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster out
xii Contents of Volume I.
of the jurisdiction of that Court. 17. Service of order of Palatine
Court out of the jurisdiction of that Court. 18. Substituted service
of subpoena to name a new solr in place of one struck off the rolls,
O. Lxvii, rr. 2, 6 Pages 4 — 10
Notes : — Service generally — Service on partners, corporations, etc. —
Substituted service — Service ex jur. — Of writ of summons — Of other
proceedings — Affidavit of service — Discharge of order for service —
Third party procedure 10 — 21
OHAPTEE III.
APPEAEANCB AND DIEBCTIONS.
Section I. — Appearance.
Forms : — 1. Appearance set aside on ground that address is illusory or
fictitious. 2. Leave to a person not being a deft to appear and defend
an action for the recovery of land. 3. Third party served with
notice of claim for indemnity — directions under O. xvi, 52 and 53.
4. Leave to defend on paying a sum into Court or on giving securitj'.
5. Deft allowed to defend, after judgment by default, on payment of
costs - - - - - - - 22, 23
Notes ; — Appearance generally — By third party — After judgment — Leave
to defend .... . . . 23, 24
Section II. — Summons for Directions.
Notes 24, 25
CHAPTER IV.
SECUEITY FOR COSTS.
Forms : — 1. Pit to give security for costs by bond or lodgment in Court.
2. Pit to state residence in writ, and if abroad to give security for
costs, either by bond, or by payment into Court. 3. Petitioner to
give security for costs. 4. Appellant to give security for costs of
appeal . . - . - 26, 27
Notes : — Security — Insolvency or Poverty — Security for costs of appeal —
Procedure in reference to security 28 — 38
OHAPTEE V.
PLEADINGS.
Forms : — 1. Statement of claim struck out. 2. Striking out part of
defence for scandal. 8. Statement of claim struck out and action
dismissed. 4. To take pleadings off the file. 5. To take affidavit off
the file. 6. Leave to plead further grounds of defence arising after
delivery of statement of defence. 7. Order for delivery of further
and better statement of particulars of counterclaim. 8. Deft refused
permission to avail himself of his counterclaim. 9. Order to exclude
counterclaim. 10. Leave to plead (other than joinder of issue)
subsequently to reply .... ... 34 — 35
Notes:— Scandalous or embarrassing matter — Proceedings in lieu of
demurrer — Procedure generally — Particulars — Proceeding to trial
without pleading 36 — 48
Contents of Volume I. xiii
CHAPTEE VI.
AMENDMENT.
Section I. — Pleadings.
Forms : — 1. Amendment of pleading disallowed. 2. Amendment at the
trial for the purpose of opening settled accounts - Page 44
Notes - ... . 44—47
Section II. — Amendment as to Parties.
Forms : — 1. Adding pit, amendment of writ and statement of claim by
naming the A. G. as pit. 2. Pit undertaking to amend and make
A.-G. a party — order discharged. 3. Order nisi to add defts in
consolidated action. 4. Action defective for want of parties — trial
to stand over. 5. Order in a supplemental action where mortgagees
who were not parties to the original action claim to be interested
after judgment therein passed and entered. 6. Order striliing out
co-pit who had withdrawn his retainer and adding him as a
deft ... - . . . 47, 48
Notes : — Adding or striking out parties — Form of application - 49 — 53
CHAPTEE VII.
DISCOVEEY.
Forms : — 1. Leave to deliver interrogatories after close of pleadings.
2. Order to answer interrogatories. 3. Order objecting to sufficiency
of answer to interrogatories. 4. Order to make afft of documents,
and for inspection at solr's office and sealing up. 5. The like —
mutual discovery and non-disclosure of clients' names. 6. Order as
to inspection, not requiring sealing up. 7. Order for afft — and for
deposit of documents in Court. 8. Delivery of documents out of
Court to a party's solr, to be produced in evidence. 9. Order for afft
and inspection against Bepublican Foreign government. 10. Order
for production and inspection of documents referred to in an afft or
pleading. 11. Order for further and better inspection of documents.
12. For inspection of documents held not privileged. 13. Order for
further afft as to particular documents against one deft. 14. Order
for production, on prepayment of expenses, of documents from India
set forth in deft's afft. 15. Inspection of letters from third party
marked " private," on undertaking not to use them for any collateral
purpose. 16.- Ord«r overruling objections, and for production.
17. Claimant against testator's assets to deposit in Chambers
suspected documents used by him as evidence — and for inspection of
them by witness — and of other documents admitted. 18. Ex parte
order under Banker's Books Evidence Act. 19. The like order —
bank appearing and not objecting. 20. Order for names of parties
constituting a firm carrying on business within the jurisdiction
54—61
Notes : — Discovery and production generally — Actions for discovery
only — Procedure to obtain discovery — Security for costs of dis-
covery— Leave of the Court — Interrogatories — Afft in answer — ■
Discovery of documents — Afft as to documents — Production of docu-
ments— Possession or power— Mortgagees, etc. — Impeached docu-
ments— Inspection — Sealing up parts — Resistance to discovery —
Irrelevancy — Discovery relating exclusively to own case — Premature
discovery — Privilege — Communications with solr or counsel —
Cases and opinions of counsel — Communications with agents — Public
policy — Criminating questions — Process in default of discovery —
Using discovery at the trial — Insgection of property - - 62 — 99
siv Contents of Volume I.
CHAPTEE VIII.
EVIDENCE.
Forms : — 1. Leave to serve subpcena ad testificandum in Scotland.
2. Leave to prove particular facts by afft. 3. Witness to attend
to be cross-examined on his afft. 4. Witness to attend at Chambers
to be examined. 5. Order directing Governor of Prison to
produce a witness (in prison for contempt). 6. Order directing gaoler
to produce prisoner (serving a term of penal servitude) as a witness.
7. Order appointing special examiner to take examination of a witness.
8. Order to compel attendance of witness before an examiner.
9. Order to take examination of aged witness de bene esse before the
examiner. 10. Witnesses to be examined before one of the examiners
of the Court. 11. To take evidence de bene esse in an action to
perpetuate testimony where the pleadings are not closed. 12. Pub-
lication of evidence taken in an action to perpetuate testimony.
13. Another form - Pages 100—103
Notes : — Beading evidence taken in another cause or matter— Examina-
tion de bene esse — Examination by commission — Action to perpetuate
testimony — Form and contents of affts — Before whom and where
affts may be sworn — Examination before an examiner — Banker's
books ... 103-113
CHAPTEE IX.
CHANGE AND EEPEESBNTATION OP PAETIES.
Section I. — 0. xvii, 4.
Forms : — 1. Order to carry on proceedings against a new party. Common
allegations in order to continue or carry on proceedings. 2. Carrying
on proceedings against a party in an additional capacity. 3. Carrying
on proceedings against the trustees of a bankrupt deft. 4. Infant
bom after action brought 114, 115
Notes - - 115—119
Section II. — Dispensing with and appointing Bepbesentatives.
Forms : — 1. Order to carry on proceedings without a representative.
2. Order appointing pit to represent the estates of deceased persons
interested. 3. Appointment of persons to represent heir-at-law,
next of kin or class in order to decide questions of construction
119, 120
Notes 120—123
CHAPTEE X.
CONSENT AND COMPROMISE.
Forms : — 1. Judgment or order made by consent. 2. Stay of proceedings
on the terms of a compromise . - - 124
Notes :— Compromise in absence of parties interested - - 124 — 127
CHAPTEE XI.
DISCONTINUANCE AND DISMISSAL.
Section I. — Discontinuance op Action.
Forms : — 1. Judgment after notice of discontinuance. 2. Order to dis-
continue. 8. Counterclaim dismissed by consent ■ - 128
Notes .... . .... 123—130
Contents of Volume I. xv
Section II. — Stay of Proceedings.
FoKMS : — 1. Proceedings stayed until satisfaction of judgment in another
division. 2. Stay of proceedings until payment of costs by pit.
Page 130
Notes ...,..■••■• 131 — 133
Section III.— Dismissal.
Forms : — 1. Order to dismiss for not delivering statement of claim.
2. The like — in default of answer to interrogatories, or discovery or
inspection of documents. 3. The like — in default of giving notice of
trial. 4. Pit ex jur. — dismissal for want of prosecution in default of
security for costs. 5. Dismissal in default of payment by pit of costs
under former order 133, 134
Notes : — Dismissal for want of prosecution - • • 13S, 136
Section IV. — Dismissal of Action and of Various Proceedings
AT THE Hearing.
Forms : — 1. — Dismissal of action. 2. Dismissal of action when pit does
not appear. 3. Judgment dismissing action in default of pit's
appearance set aside, and action restored on payment of costs of the
day. 4. Petition dismissed with costs. 5. Motion refused with
costs. 6. Originating motion dismissed with costs. 7. Summons
(not originating) in chambers dismissed with costs. 8. Summons
originating proceedings dismissed with costs • ■ ■ 136, 137
Notes: — Bes judicata 137,139
CHAPTEE XII.
TEIAL AND JUDGMENT.
Section I. — Trial.
Forms : — 1. Judgment at trial by judge without a jury. 2. If standing
for judgment. 3. Undertaking of soir to refund costs. 4. Finding
of the Court as to facts — Mode of reading evidence in judgment where
specially ordered — Mode of reading evidence usually read in orders
other than judgments 140 — 144
Notes : — Notice and entry of trial — Third party — Entering action for
trial — Marking " short " — Default of either side appearing at the
trial — Entering evidence as read generally' — Entering documentary
evidence— Stamps — Summary of recent decisions under, or in refer-
ence to. Stamp Act, 1891 — Form and contents of affts — Admissions in
pleadings — Admissions, consents, submissions, undertakings, waivers
— Proof of documents or copies by admission — Admission of facts —
Memorandimi as to marking documents referred to in admissions —
Grounds of judgment — Declaration of right ■ - 14,5 — 165
Section II. — Judgments.
Forms : — 1. Judgment after trial on circuit upon associate's certifioate.
2. The like judgment — injunction. 3. Judgment where local venue,
but transferred to be tried in London. 4. Leave to enter judgment
for the amount to be certified on an inquiry as to damages.
5. Judgment on report of official or special referee adopted by the
Court. 6. Judgment for costs under 0. xxiv, 3. 7. Leave to sign final
judgment notwithstanding appearance. 8. Final judgment after
the above. 9. Judgment by default against sole or all defts.
10. Judgment in default of appearance in action for recovery of land.
11. Judgment in default of defence in action for recovery of land.
xvi Contents of Volume I.
12. Judgment in default of appearance in claim for detention of
goods, or damages. 13. Judgment in default of pleading in a like
action. 14. Judgment in default of appearance or defence after
assessment of damages. 15. Judgment after order for pit to be at
liberty to sign judgment unless money paid into Court. 16. Judgment
set aside where an administration action pending Pages 165 — 169
Notes :— Default of appearance— Default of pleading— Mode of entering
judgment (1) on default generally, (2) in default of appearance, (3) in
default of pleading — Proceedings in district registries - 169 — 175
CHAPTER XIII.
MOTION FOE JUDGMENT.
Poems : — 1. " Judgment on motion for judgment in default of defence
where deft has not entered appearance. 2. The like — where deft has
entered appearance. 3. Judgment at trial against some defts and
upon motion for judgment against others. 4. Defts not competent
to consent submitting to judgment - - - 176, 177
Notes : — Motion for judgment — Admissions on pleadings or otherwise —
Setting down— Marking " short " - - - 177—180
CHAPTER XIV.
VABIOUS DIBBCTIONS.
FuETHEE Consideration Adjourned — Liberty to Apply.
Forms: — 1. Usual directions adjourning further consideration. 2. The
like — where order made on interlocutory motion under O. xxxn, 6.
3. The like — on application in Chambers under 0. xv, 1, where order
equivalent to a judgment. 4. If costs are partly dealt with by the
judgment - - - - 181
Notes : — Adjournment - • 181, 182
Directions foe Payment.
FoEM :— Payment of money by instalments, the whole to become due on
default - - . . 182
Notes ... . ...... jgS
CHAPTER XV.
PASSING, ENTEEING, COEBECTING, ADDING TO, AND ENEOLLING
JUDGMENTS AND OEDEES.
Section I. — Passing and Entbeing.
Form : — Motion to vary minutes refused 184
Notes :— Drawing up judgments and orders — Varying minutes— Passing
and entering judgments and orders — Entry of judgment — Entering
nunc pro tunc — Time of entry — Effect of entering judgments and
orders — Correction of mistakes in judgments or orders . 184 189
Section II. — Adding to Judgment or Order.
Form ; — Additional accounts and inquiries • - . igg
Notes - - . isg
Contents of Volume I. xvii
Section III. — Enrolment oif Judgment oe Ordeb.
Notes :— Vacating enrolments Page 190
Section IV. — Enrolling or entering Orders of other Courts.
Form 1. Order of the High Court of Justice in Ireland enrolled on
petition of course to the Lord Chancellor - - - 190
NoTi^s 190,191
Form 2. Order of the Arches Court of Canterbury enrolled • • 191
Notes - .... - - - 192
Form 3. Ordei- of the Chancery Court of the County Palatine made an
order of Court - - . ... 192
Notes :— Orders of the County Palatine Court— Orders of the Stannaries
Court .... . . . 193^ 194
Form 4. Order in Irish winding-up made an order of Court as against
contributories resident in England. 5. Order of the High Court of
Justice in Ireland made an order of Court - . . 194
Notes jg^
CHAPTEE XVI.
LODGMENT AND PAYMENT OP CLAIMS.
Section I. — Lodgment.
Forms :— 1 Lodgment in Court. 2. Lodgment in Court with interest.
3. Lodgment m Court— investment. 4. Leave to lodge from time
to tune— mvestment. 5. Deposit in Court of securities passing by
delivery. 6. Deposit in Court of secm-ities passing by delivery and
deed. 7. Deposit in Court of plate or jewels, or such securities as
must be placed in a box. 8. Deposit of diamonds in a box, and
deposit of such box in Court— inspection of contents— delivery to
defendant or re-deposit in Court . . 196 200
Forms of lodgment schedules, 1 — 9 - ... 2OI
Notes :— Paymaster-General— General regulations— Orders in Lunacy—
Brmgmg funds into Court— Supreme Court Funds Rules, 1905—
Modes of transferring and depositing various securities-Time for
transfer or payment - . . . . 202—208
Section II.— Payment of Dividends and Interest, and transfer,
SALE, or carrying OVER OF SECURITIES.
Forms of payment schedules, 1—74 . . 209—220
Form of lodgment and payment schedule . 221
Special Form settled by Paymaster-General :— Paymaster-General
authorized to sign voting proxy in favour of pit's sol'r - 222, 223
Notes :— Supreme Court Funds Rules, 1905— Dealings with funds in
Court— Investments— Investment of money lodged under Trustee
Act, 1893— Investing in Exchequer bills— Money on deposit-
Notarial acts— Powers of attorney— Stamps on powers of attornev—
Death duties - . . . _ 224 2S0
Section III.— Carrying over Securities and Cash.
Form :— Carrying over securities, money on deposit, dividends and in-
terest - - - . 201
Notes : — Separate account .... . 231 233
VOL. I. J,
xviii Contents of Volume I.
CHAPTEE XVII.
COSTS.
Section I. — Costs between Parties.
Forms : — 1. Taxation and payment of costs by one party to another.
2. Action and counterclaim dismissed. 3. Costs occasioned by
adjournment of summons into Court. 4. Costs of adjourned
summons in Court and in Chambers. 5. Taxation and payment of
costs without prejudice, how ultimately to be borne. 6. Costs
specially reserved. 7. Costs made a charge. 8. No costs given as
to part on either side. 9. Taxation of pit's and deft's respective
costs of parts of action— set-off. 10. Taxation of costs except so far
as increased by particular claim. 11. Costs up to a particular time.
12. Where action defective, and leave to amend given at trial. 13.
Costs taxed and set off against sum due. 14. Taxing Master to look
into afft, and if improper or of unnecessary length, to distinguish
and set off costs. 15. Costs of afiffc to be disallowed. 16. Eeference
to tax under O. Lxv, 11. 17. Taxation of exor's costs between
party and party, and also between solr and eUent — payment of
party and party costs by pit and balance out of funds in hand. 18.
Order as to costs where one of the exors or trees is in default or a
debtor to the estate. 19. Costs payable by co-defts where only one
deft has delivered a defence. 20. Costs in any event Pages 234—238
Section II. — Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Fund in Court.
Forms : — 1. Taxation and payment of costs. 2. Taxation of costs with
direction to deduct amoimt due. 3. Fund deficient — apportion-
ment. 4. Order to include costs in certificate under former order.
6. Taxation as between party and party, and as between solr and
client, and payment. 6. Costs to be apportioned between two funds
238—240
Notes : — Jurisdiction and procedure generally — Taxation — Party and
party and solr and client costs — Interlocutory applications, costs
reserved — Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 — Allowances —
Higher and lower scale — County Court scale — Delay or misconduct
■ — Prolixity, &o. — Costs of part of action, apportionment, set-ofif —
Apportionment — Set-off — Interest on costs — Costs made a charge
240—253
Section III. — Taxation.
Forms : — 1. Order of course to tax bill delivered within one month where
client asks for delivery of papers. 2. Like order where client does
not ask for delivery of papers. 3. Order of course by consent.
4. Order of course to tax bill delivered more than one month and
less than twelve months, on client's application. 5. Like order on
solr's application. 6. Special order to tax limited to particular items.
7. Order of course for taxation of conveyancing costs under Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act. 8. Taxation with leave to question
retainer - ■ 254—259
Notes : — Taxation under 6 & 7 V. c. 73, s. 37 — Application for taxation
— Common order to tax — Taxation under order — Delivery of bill —
Action for costs — Taxation under special circumstances after twelve
months from delivery — Agreements between solrs and their clients,
33 & 34 V. c. 28 — Signature and form — Security for costs of taxation
— Costs of taxation — Discharging order — Proceedings before the
taxing officer — Evidence, &o. 259 — 271
Section IV.— Enforcing Delivery op Bill.
Forms : — 1. Order of course to deliver and tax bill. 2, Order on special
application to deliver particulars where the solr alleged that he had
Contents of Volume I. xix
already delivered the bills. 3. Form of order giving liberty, pending
taxation, to deliver an additional bill, and to alter items by enlarge-
ment only - - - Pages 271, 272
Notes : — Enforcing delivery of bUl of costs .... 272, 273
Section V. — Taxation after Action brought.
Forms : — 1. Order of course to tax after action, but before verdict or writ
of inquiry executed, or twelve months expired. 2. Taxation at the
instance of- person jointly liable after action brought. 3. Special
order to tax — judgment to be entered for amount claimed — under-
taking not to issue execution - ... 273—275
Notes .... 275
Section VI. — Special Order fob Taxation after Payment.
Forms : — 1. Where costs of application and taxation are reserved. 2. The
like order where costs of application and taxation are not reserved
276
Notes :— Taxation after payment— What constitutes payment 277 — 279
Section VII. — Taxation at Instance of Third Party.
Forms : — 1. Order of course to tax on application of third party liable.
2. Order on special application of third party interested before or
after payment. 3. Same — copy bill to be delivered 280, 281
Notes - - ... . 281, 282
Section VIII. — Taxation by or against Bepresentatives.
Forms : — 1. Order of course to tax bill delivered by sob's representative.
2. Order of course to deliver bill to client's representative, and to
tax. 3. Order to continue proceedings and carry on taxation after
payment. 4. Costs of a deceased solr and exor moderated, though
no longer taxable - ... 282 — 285
Section IX. — Bbview of Taxation.
Forms : — 1. Objections to Taxing Master's certificate. 2. Eeview of
taxation — claim and counterclaim. 3. Eeview of taxation— order
on objections — costs apportioned — set-off. 4. Objections to Taxing
Master's certificate — subsequent order as to costs . - 285, 286
Notes : — Eeview — Allowances — Special allowances — Interest on costs
286—299
Section X. — Solicitors' Eemuneration Act.
Forms : — 1. Order to deliver and tax bill — inquiry whether special agree-
ment entered into as costs. 2. Order to tax bill delivered and certify
whether agreement fair and reasonable • . - 300
Notes - - - - - - 301—306
Section XI. — Enforcing Order for Payment of Costs,
Notes - - - 306, 307
CHAPTEE XVIII.
CHAMBBES AND PEOCEEDINGS UNDER JUDGMENT.
Section I. — PROCEBbiNGS in Chambers generally.
Forms : — 1. Order on summons in Chambers. 2. Order on summons
adjourned into Court. 3. Application partly decided in Chambers
and partly adjourned into Court ..... 308
XX Contents of Volume I.
Notes : — Applications and prooeeedings in Chambers— Proceedings in
Chambers in the Chancery Division, applications to be made there —
Adjourning to and from Chambers — Costs of adjournment — Powers
and duties of Masters in Chancery Division — -Assistance of experts —
Summonses in Chambers - - - Pages 309 — 317
Section II. — Pkoceedings under Judgment oe Oedbe.
FoEMS : — 1. Leave to attend proceedings under judgment or order.
2. Classification order. 3. Another form. 4. Conduct of action
given to pit in a prior action. 5. Order to bring in accounts and
answers to inquiries within a time limited - 817, 818
Notes.: — Service, of judgment or order — Conduct of proceedings —
Summons to proceed — Procedure on summons in Chambers — Costs
of proceedings in Chambers 818^321
Section III. — Ebview of Cbetificate.
Forms : — 1. Order to review certificate. 2. Where certificate varied with-
out referring back to Chambers - ■ 321
Notes :— Master's Certificate 321, 323
CHAPTEE XIX.
SALES BY THE COUET.
Section I. — Proceedings up to Cbetificate.
FoEMS : — 1. Order for sale by the Court of unincumbered estate. 2. Leave
to bid. 8. Sale out of Court. 4. Sale out of Court by consent of
incumbrancers — purchase-money to come into Court. 5. Order to
sell four-fifths of leaseholds, or, by consent of party interested, to
join in selling the whole. 6. Order to Sell a diamond ring. 7. Order
to carry into effect conditional contract of sale. 8. The like, with
variatitfQ in price. 9. Payment into Court of part of purchase-
money of land charged with an annuity — Conveyancing Act, 1881,
s. 5. 10. Inquiry as to abatement in purchase-money - 324— 327
Notes : — Particulars and conditions — Conduct of sale — Leave to bid — ■
Consent of incumbrancers — Deposit — Sale out of Court — Sale by
private contract — Certifying result - 827 — 335
Section II. — Completion of Sale.
FoEMS : — 1. Order to pay in purchase-money on purchaser's application
— deposit — timber — interest — title accepted. 2. Paying purchase-
money by instalments. 3. Order to enforce payment into Court on
vendor's application — title held to be accepted. 4. Order for
purchaser to leave conveyance to be settled. 5. Compensation out
of the purchase-money allowed to purchaser kept out of possession
for more than a year from the time fixed for completion. 6. Order
to pay off mortgagee out of purchase-money in Court. 7. Mortgagee
having purchased mortgaged copyholds under an order for sale, to
hold free from the equity of redemption. 8. Mortgage by consent
kept on foot, on" sale free from incumbrances^difference between
purchase money and amount due on mortgage to be paid into Court.
9. Order to deliver title deeds out of Court to purchaser. 10. Order
to deliver title deeds to several purchasers. 11. The like — deeds
relating jointly to other estates. 12. Substituted purchaser
835—839
Notes : — Delivery of abstract— Investigation of title — Paying in pur-
chase-money— Interest — Property tax — Investment and dealing with
purchase-money in Court — Succession duty — Incumbrancers — Con-
veyance ■ — Possession — Compensation — Title deeds — Substituting
purchaser . ■ , . - . . 839—346
Contents oj Volume 1. Xxi
Section III. — Discharge of Purchaser— Ee-Sale.
Forms : — 1. Purchaser discharged on his application — repayment of de-
posit— costs. 2. Order on purchaser to complete — in default re-sale
— purchaser to make good deficiency, with costs. 3. Order on
' vendor's application rescinding contract and forfeiting deposit.
4. Bankrupt purchaser — re-sale — forfeiture of deposit Pages 346, 347
Notes : — Discharge of purchaser — Re-sale - - 847—349
CHAPTER XX.
PUETHEK CONSIDEEATION.
Forms : — 1. Order on further consideration (and motion, or adjourned
summons to vary certificate). 2. Order on summons for further
consideration (and summons to vary certificate) heard in Chambers.
3. Order on summons for further consideration (and sununons to
vary certificate) adjourned into Court 350, 351
Notes : — Setting down action or cause for further consideration —
Service — appearance by persons not parties — Evidence — Principle of
judgment not to be varied — Further consideration in Chambers
351, 353
CHAPTER XXI.
SPECIAL CASK, AND QUESTIONS AND POINTS OP LAW.
Forms : — 1. Form of order on special case which decides the whole
action. 2. If the special case stands for judgment. 3. The like —
Court declining to answer the question. 4. Order of the Court of
Appeal discharging order on special case without prejudice to trial.
5. Order to set down special case. 6. Order directing questions of
law to be set down for argument without stating special case.
7. Order on questions of law set down under O. xxiv, 2. 8. Order
directing point of law raised by pleadings to be set down under
0. XXV, 2. 9. Order on point of law - 354—356
Notes : — Setting down special case. Special case under 13 & 14 V.
c. 35 356—358
CHAPTER XXII.
ISSUES.
Section I. — Directing Trial of Issues and Questions of Fact.
Forms; — 1. Order for trial of issues or questions of fact, or fact and law,
before the Court without a jury, and with or without assessors.
2. Order for trial of issues or questions of fact by jury before another
division or at assizes. 3. Further issue added by consent. 4. Order
postponing trial 359, 360
Notes : — Directing issues — right to trial by jury — discretion of Court —
Interlocutory orders — Trial of some issues before others — Place and
mode of trial by jury under Jud. Acts — Postponing trial — Default at
trial — Costs of issue 360—365
Section II. — Special Directions as to Trial of Issues and
Questions of Fact.
Forms : — 1. Order for view by special jury. 2. Order referring matters
during trial of action to an expert to report to the Court— letter to
be sent to surveyor - - - 365 — 367
Notes ; — Venue — Issues of fact without pleadings - 367, 368
XXll
Contents of Volume I.
Section III. — Judgments and Orders after Trial of Issues oe
Questions of Fact.
Forms : — 1. Judgment after trial of issues or questions of fact, or fact
and law, without a jury, where judgment pronounced at the trial.
2. Judgment on motion for judgment after trial, by a jury, of issues
or questions of fact, directed by Court. 3. After issue as to right of
way - - - - - - Pages 368, 369
Notes : — Proceedings after the trial of issues, &c. Issues of fact with-
out pleadings - • 369, 370
CHAPTEK XXIII.
PETITION.
Forms:—!. Order on petition. 2. Order on petition as to part adjourned.
3. Order on petition adjourned to Chambers • - - 371
Notes : — Procedure by petition — Service — Amendment — Evidence —
Order on petition — Costs— Petitions adjourned to Chambers 371 — 375
CHAPTEE XXIV.
MOTION.
Forms : — 1. Order on motion. 2. Order on abandoned motion 376
Notes : — Service— Costs 376—380
CHAPTER XXV.
PETITION OF EIGHT.
Forms : 1. Order on petition of right— costs to be paid by the Crown.
2. Two demurrers to petition of right, one allowed, one overruled
381, 382
Notes :— Petition of Bight Act, 1860 - - - 382, 383
CHAPTER XXVI.
AEBITBATIONS AND EEFErENCES.
Forms: — 1. Stay of proceedings. 2. Usual reference on submission to
arbitration. 3. To enlarge time to make awards after time expired.
4. To appoint new arbitrator and umpire in place of one who refuses
to act or is incapable of acting or has died. 5. To enforce reward.
6. Eeference to official or special referee for inquiry and report.
7. Further order after report of referee. 8. Order for trial before
official or special referee. 9. Official referee's direction for judgment
after trial of action. 10. Judgment by direction of official referee
after trial of action by him. 11. Eeference under 33 & 34 V.
c. 61 (9 Edw. VII. c. 49, s. 18) to reduce contracts. 12. Order to set
aside judgment after trial of action before referee. 13. Order by
official referee for bringing in accounts. 14. Eeport committed for
rehearing. 15. Injunction against proceeding with arbitration
384—388
Notes : — Submission to arbitration — Staying proceedings when there is
a submission — Proceedings under reference to arbitration — Award —
Costs of arbitrations generally — Friendly societies — Building societies
— Eeference to official or special referee — Proceedings under such
reference — Eeport of referee — Judgment on trial before referee —
Costs of reference before official or special referee - - 388—407
Contents of Volume I. xxiii
CHAPTER XXVII.
EXECUTION AND CONTEMPT.
Section I. — Execution Generally.
(l.) ENFORCING DECREES, JUDGMENTS, AND ORDERS.
Notes : — Process against persons not privileged — Process against parti-
cular persons or parties — Issue of writs — Discovery in aid of execution
Pages 408—415
(II.) SUBSTITUTED SERVICE.
Form : — Substituted service of judgment or order • ■ ■ 415
Notes 416
Section II. — Recovery of Money, Land, or other Property.
Forms : — 1, Order with a view to an order under sect. 14 of the Judica-
ture Act, 1884, to execute deed. 2. Master nominated to execute
deed. "3. Registrar nominated to execute deed. 4. "Writ of assist-
ance— chattels 416, 417
Notes : — Recovery of money or costs by writs oi fieri facias and elegit —
Effect of bankruptcy — sale by sheriff — Recovery of land by writ of
possession — Enforcing conveyance of land — Recovery of property,
other than land or money, by writ of delivery - • - 418 — 425
Section III. — Attachment or Committal-
Forms : — 1. Order for attachment for default other than for non-payment
of money. 2. The like — for non-payment of money by a tree or
person acting in a fiduciary capacity under the Debtors Act'. 3. The
like — in default of payment by instalments. 4. Order for attach-
ment for default in not transferring stock into Court. 5. The like—
for not' obeying a,n order to make afft as to documents. 6. The
like — for not obeying order for discovery or accounts enforced by
attachment. 7. Order under Debtor's Act, 1869, for committal of
client for six weeks for non-payment of taxed costs and a sum fixed
for costs of application. 8. Attachment against solr for non-pay-
ment of balance found due from him on taxation. 9. Committal or
attachment for breach of iujunction. 10. Order for committal for
various periods of persons disobeying injunction • ■ 425 — 430
Notes : — Writ of attachment— committal — Debtors Act — Service — evi-
dence— Appeal — Bankruptcy of contemnor — Costs — Execution of
writ — Committal under Debtors Act, 1869, s. 5 — arrest under s. 6
430—436
Section IV. — Enforcing Return of Writs.
Form : — Order for sheriff's committal 437
Notes 437
Section V. — Serjeant-at-Arms ; Habeas Corpus.
Form : — 1. Order for serjeant-at-arms, on return of attachment non est
inventus 438
Notes ... . .... 438
Form : — 2. Order to turn over prisoner, brought up by serjeant-at-arms,
to Brixton Prison. 3. Order for habeas to bring up prisoner on his
own application. 4. To bring up a prisoner before the Court
438, 439
Notes r . 439
xxiv Contents of Volunie I.
Section VI. — Sequesteation.
(l.) ISSUE OP SEQUESTRATION.
PoKMS : — 1. Order for sequestration on return of attachment. 2. The
like — on return of serjeant-at-arms non est inventus. 3. The like —
on return against a prisoner. 4. The like — in aid of decree of Arches
Court. 5. Sequestration against Local Board for breach of injunc-
tion. 6. Sequestration against railway co. for breach of under-
taking - - - .... Pages 440 — 442
Notes : — Process of sequestration — Nature of sequestration — Properf.y
liable to sequestration - - .... 442 — 446
(ll.) PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEQUESTRATION.
Forms : — 1: Order foif sequestrators to sell" and pay in proceeds'— taxation
and payment of costs — power to remove effects saleable and unsale-
able. 2. The like — and to account and arrange claims for dilapida-
tion, and tenant-right — application of proceeds. 3. Order for tenants
to attorn to sequestrators 446 — 448
Notes ; — Powers and duties of sequestrators .... 448, 449
(ill.) examination peg intbeesse suo.
Forms : — 1. Inquiry as to claimant's interest. 2. The like — on motion
that the sequestrators withdraw, and for damages, and cross-motion
that they sell. 3. Sequestrators to withdraw upon undertaking by
claimant as to damages, to keep an account, and to allow seques-
trators to take inventory — inquiry. 4. Declaration that claimants
have an interest against which sequestrators cannot hold — direction
to withdraw — costs - - - ... 449 — 451
Notes - - 451,452
(iv.) discharge of sequestration.
Form : — Order to dissolve sequestration .... 452, 458
Notes : — Sequestration discharged 453
Section VII. — Special Contempts op Court.
Forms : — 1. Committal of deft and another person for obstructing the
receiver. 2. The like — for interference with possession of receiver.
3. Committal of deft and another, for violence and abusive language
to a person effecting service. 4. Committal of a newspaper editor
for publishing an article reflecting on witnesses. 5. Newspaper
editor fined for publishing an article reflecting on petitioners. 6.
Contemners apologising, and pit not insisting on committal, con-
tempt condoned, on payment of costs. 7. Immediate committal —
direction for. 8. Appointment of usher to take person into custody
in absence of tipstaff 454 — 456
Notes:— Special contempts — Privilege from arrest - - 457 — 460
FoEMS : — 9.' Conlmittal for trial for perjury. 10. Eecognizance'by person
directed to prosecute. 11. Record of recognizance to prosecute.
12. Certificate signed by judge after the prosecutor has been bound
to enter recognizance - - - - . 460 — 462
Notes': — C6mmittal and proseo\ltion for perjury . - . 462
Section VIII. — Discharge of Contempt,
FoEMS : — 1. Order to discharge prisoner in custody under attachment
upon compliance with the order. 2. Discharge of prisoner in custody
for not attorning to receiver — pit consenting. 3. Discharge of
prisoner under Debtor's Act. 4. The like order. 5. Discharge of
Contents of Volume I. xxv
order for attachment, and attachment for irregularity. 6. Discharge
of prisoner on letter from the Home Secretary - Pages 462—465
Notes : — Discharge from custody — Discharge on the grounds of irregu-
larity in process 465 — 467
CHAPTER XXVIII.
OEDEES EESTEAINING, . CHAEGING, AKD ATTACHING FUNDS AND
SECUEITIES.
Section I. — Charging Orders on Funds or Shares, under 1 & 2 V.
c. 110, AND 3 & 4 V. c. 82.
Forms : — 1. Order nisi to charge funds in Court — interim restraint.
2. Order absolute. 3. Order nisi as to cash. 4. Order nisi to charge
funds in deft's name with pit's taxed costs — interim restraint.
5. Order discharged on showing cause. 6. Declaration that charging
order is invalid against trustee in bankruptcy. 7. Order nisi charging
funds in one action with sum due in another. 8. The like — and to
show cause in Chambers. 9. Charging order on shares in an assur-
ance society. IQ, Charging funds in hands of receiver with amoimt
of judgment in another action 468 — 471
Notes : — Charging order — procedure — Effect of charging order 471—476
Section II. — Attachment of Debts.
Forms : — 1. Garnishee order nisi. 2. Garnishee order absolute where
garnishee owes more than the judgment debt. 3. Garnishee order
absolute where garnishee owes less than the judgment debt.
4. Attachment of moneys in the hands of a receiver on application
of a judgment creditor. 5. Order for oral examination of a judgment
debtor 476, 477
Notes : — Debts capable of being attached — Effect of garnishee order —
Enforcement of garnishee order 477 — 483
Section III. — Stop Orders.
Forms : — 1. Stop order on capital of funds in Court. 2. The like, with
schedule. 3. Stop order on income of funds in Court. 4. On capital
and income of funds in Court. 5. On particular sum of cash in
Court. 6. On cash when carried over under same order to be inserted
in payment schedule. 7. On cash when carried over under another
order. 8. Stop order continued when funds carried over to be
inserted in payment schedule. 9. Transferee to have notice in lieu
of original assignee. 10. Order to stay payment of cheque, and
payee from receiving. 11. Stop order on documents deposited in
Court. 12. Stop order discharged. 13. On fund about to be paid
into Court ■ 483—486
Notes: — Stop orders — Priorities — Costsi- - - 486 — 489
CHAPTEE XXIX.
INTBEPLEADEB.
Section I. — Interpleader at the Instance of a Private Person.
Forms : — 1. Issue directed. 2. Interpleader order in Chambers in the
first instance — issue directed without jury. 3. Order staying pro-
ceedings against the original deft, and substituting the claimant.
4. Order barring claim against the claimant not appearing 490, 491
Notes : — Interpleader generally — New practice — right to relief by way of
interpleader — Procedure in interpleader — Appeals — Costs 491, 498
xxvi Contents of Volume I.
Section II. — Interpleader at the Instance of the Sherifi'.
Forms : — 1. Order for Sheriff to sell goods seized, and pay proceeds into
Court— issue as to claims. 2. Sheriff to withdraw on claimant
paying' into Court and payment of possession money — in default,
Sheriff to sell — issue directed. 3. Sheriff to remain in possession in
default of payment or giving security. 4. Summary order by consent
for Sheriff to withdraw. 5. Sheriff to proceed to sell, and to raise
and pay claim and expenses. 6. Order barring claim in favour of
execution creditor - - .... Pages 498—500
Notes :— Interpleader at instance of Sheriff - - - - 500—503
CHAPTEE XXX.
NE EXEAT EEGNO.
Forms :— 1. Order tor writ to issue. 2. Writ discharged on deft giving
security. 3. Ne Exeat discharged— inquiry as to damages and pay-
ment according to undertaking ■ ... 504, 505
Notes - - - 505, 506
CHAPTEE XXXI.
INJUNCTIONS.
Section I. — Interlocutory Injunction and Interim Orders.
Forms : — 1. Undertaking as to damages. 2. Mx 'parte interim order.
3. Motion treated as a motion for judgment. 4. Inquiry as to
damages after judgment for deft — payment — costs. 5. Dismissal —
sum certain to be paid for damages, or inquiry - - 507, 508
Notes : — Form of order — Undertaking as to damages — Service of order
for injunction — Notice of motion — Interlocutory applications and
interim restraining orders^jurisdiction — Discharging injunction —
Injunction mandatory — damages in lieu of injunction — Perpetual
injunctions — Breach of injunction — Costs of action for injunction
508—523
Section II. — Breach of Contract.
Forms : — 1. Injunction against breach of contract. 2. Injunction against
exercising a trade, with account. 3. Breach of publican's agreement
with brewer restrained. 4. Breach of farming contract — Interlocu-
tory. 5. Injunction against removal of hay and straw — interlocutory
523—526
Notes : — Breach of contract generally — Restraint of trade — Penalty or
liquidated damages — Illegality — Restrictive covenants - 526 — 535
Section III. — Waste.
Forms:—!. Injunction to stay felling ornamental timber and other
waste — interlocutory. 2. Inquiry as to felling tunber — life tenant
sans waste. 3. Life tenant impeachable for waste allowed such
wind-felled timber as he might probably have cut — inquiry. 4. In-
quiries as to minerals as between tenant for life and remainderman,
and consequent account and directions. 5. Mandatory injunction
against waste by tenant. 6. Injunction at suit of bishop against
disturbance of churchyard - .... 535 — 540
Contents of Volume I. xxvii
Notes : — Waste — Timber — Mines and minerals — Mortgagor and mort-
gagee— Permissive waste — Meliorating waste — Ancillary relief in
respect of waste — Ecclesiastical waste - ■ Pages 540— 547
Section IV. — Trespass.
(l.)' TRESPASS (ordinary).
Forms : — 1. Injunction against trespassing on pit's land — interlocutory.
2. Injunction against laying down water pipes under public footway.
3. Mandatory injunction to remove pipes on pit's laud or under a
highway. 4. Injunction against building without prejudice to
rights under London Building Act, 1894. 5. Injunction against
laying rails on pit's land, or across bridge, and mandatory injunction
to remove— interlocutory. 6. Injunction against construction of
unlawful accommodation works, and mandatory injunction to
remove. 7. Injunction against obstructing conomunication with
branch railway, and mandatory injunction to restore. 8. Against
trespass on excepted minerals — interlocutory. 9. Trespass in
churchyard by interment of non-parishioners restrained — interlo-
cutory. 10. Against interfering with telephone wires — interlocutory.
11. Injunction against cutting reeds or sedges on pit's land. 12. In-
junction against removing shingle so as to endanger neighbour's
land 547—552
Notes . . . ; 552, 553
(ll.) ANCIENT LIGHTS.
Forms : — 1. General form of injunction against obstructing ancient
lights. 2. Injunction against building higher than old level, and
inquiry as to damages. 3. Perpetual injunction as to Ught — angle
of incidence. 4. Perpetual injunction against obstruction of light
by reference to report. 5. Mandatory injunction against obstruction
of ancient lights. 6. Damage for subsidence, not to cover future —
injunction as to light with proviso as to height. 7. Mandatory
injunction to remove hoarding. 8. Mandatory injunction as to
obstructing ancient lights — operation suspended — arbitrator to decide
whether order had been complied with. 9. Injunction refused —
inquiry as to damages. 10. Form of reference by the Court to an
expert - - - .... 553—557
Notes : — Eight to injunction against obstruction of light — Mandatory
injunction — damages — Evidence — Air — Acquisition of right — Pre-
scription Act — Implied grant — Abandonment of right - 558 — 563
(ill.) mineral eights.
Forms : — 1. Injunction as to coal workings — ^mandatory injunction-
account of coals gotten — support. 2. Latest support to church — coal
workings restrained. 8. Declaration of right to work clay under rail-
way from surface — injunction — inquiries. 4. Injunction as to mines
— support — inspection — account. 5. Using way \inder pit's land for
carrying coals from deft's mines restrained. 6. Account of coal
obtained by defts from within pit's barrier, inadvertently or under
belief of title — damages — way-leaves. 7. Inquiry as to value of
coals wrongfully got, and damages by breaking through pit's
boundary .... . - 563—567
Notes : — Support — Inspection — Account and compensation — Way-leaves
568—574
(iV.) RIGHT OF WAY.
Forms: — 1. Eestraining use of private road — interlocutory. 2. Perpetual
injunction against obstructing road — mandatory injunction to remove
obstructions — damages. 8. Establishing public right of way, and
xxviii Contents of Volume I.
for removal of obstructions 4. Bailway co. restrained from obstruct-
ing a right of way over a level crossing. 5. Declaration as to user
of level crossing — liberty to apply for injunction. 6. Eailway co-
restrained from using works until public highway restored — inter-
locutory. 7. Eailway co. restrained from trespassing or permitting
trespass over passage way. 8. Injunction against local board re-
straining obstruction of footway .... Pages 574 — 577
Notes :— Eight of way— Public way - - - - .'■ - 578—582
(v.) WATER EIGHTS.
Poems : — 1. Injunction against diverting or diminishing flow of water.
2. Injunction restraining defts from interfering with mill stream.
3. Plaintiffs' claim to dam disallowed — injunction against diverting.
4. Injunction to restrain interruption of water supply — mandatory
injunction to restore same — inquiry as to damages — operation of
injunction suspended. 5. Declaration of water rights of canal pro-
prietors, and injunction to restrain interference therewith. 6. Decla-
ration against water company supplying water outside statutory
limits — injunction restraining same. 7. Declaration against draining
surface water or laying sewer without licence— injunction and
mandatory injunction without prejudice to future exercise of statu-
tory powers. 8. Obstruction of navigable stream restrained —
mandatory injunction to remove obstructions. 9. Obstruction
of wharfinger's right of access to the Thames restrained. 10. Judg-
ment establishing right to oyster fishery and quieting in possession
with perpetual injunction - - - 582 — 586
Notes : — Escape of water ■ 587 — 589
(VI.) EIGHTS OF COMMON.
Form : — Decree establishing commonable rights — mandatory injunction
to remove fence — injunction - - - - 589, 590
Notes : — Commonable or customary rights . - 590 — 593
(vii.) maeket.
Poem : — Injunction against establishing a market .... 593
Notes - ....... 594
Section V. — Nuisance.
Poems : — 1. Nuisance from burning bricks restrained. 2. Nuisance —
offensive occupation — inquiry as to damage. 3. Injunction against
use of a building as a small-pox hospital — interlocutory. 4. Nuisance
from storing heavy weights on upper iloor — interlocutory. 5. Nuisance
from carriages, &c., drawing to and leaving club after midnight.
6. Nuisance from steam-hammer — noise and vibration restrained.
7. Nuisance by vibration — inquiries as to damage. 8. Fireworks.
9. Noisy entertainment — interlocutory. 10. Dangerous occupation
— testing firearms - ■ - 595 — 599
Notes - - - 599—605
(11.) pollution op water.
Poems : — 1. Injunction restraining pollution of river by town sewage.
2. Similar order. 3. Injunction against " directing or authorising"
discharge of sewage. 4. Pollution of stream by manufacturing
works. 5. Inquiry as to pollution from a given date 605 — 608
Notes - - - 608-612
Contents of Volume I. xxix
Section VI. — Trade 'Marks, Labels and Names.
Forms : — 1. Order restraining use of trade mark registered under the
Trade Marks Registration Act, 1905— interlocutory. 2. Using trade
marks as to tools or cutlery — interlocutory. 3- Infringing registered
trade name and trade mark " Chartreuse " and inquiry as to damages.
4. Similar order. 5. Shipping goods with pit's trade marks. 6. In-
junction against use of trade mark — account of profits. 7. Imitation
of wrapper used by pits — account. 8. Injunction against representing
defts as being successors in business of the pits, and from making up
their goods so as to appear like those of the pits. 9. Injunction
against use of trade name without clearly distinguishing the
articles sold from the pits' manufacture. 10. Use of trade name
fraudulently adopted restrained. 11. Defts restrained from carrying
on business without clearly distinguishing it from business of pit
having same surname. 12. Use of title of newspaper restrained —
interlocutory. 13. Inquiry as to damages in trade mark action — •
common form - - - Pages 613 — 619
Notes : — Trade Marks Act, 1905 — Infringement of trade mark — right to
injunction — Misrepresentations by pit — Parties entitled to sue —
County Court jurisdiction — Account — damages — inspection — Costs —
Trade name — Destruction of fraudulent marks 619 — 629
Section VII. —Infringement or Letters Patent.
Forms : — 1. Injunction against infringement of letters patent. 2. In-
junction against infringement of letters patent — mechanical equiva-
lent. 3. Judgment in patent action — injunction — account of gains
and profits — discovery, delivery up, or destruction. 4. Perpetual
injunction against threats of legal proceedings - 629, 630
Notes : — Infringement — right to injunction — County Court jurisdiction —
Parties — Novelty — publication — Patent for combination — Sufficiency
of specification — Threats against alleged infringers - 631 — 637
Section VIII. — Various Directions in Actions relating to
Infringement of Letters Patent.
Forms : — 1. Order for trial of issues — particulars of breaches and
objections — inspection. 2. Another form where part disclaimed.
3. Another form. 4. Questions of fact for trial before the Court
without a jury, in a suit relating to a patent communicated from
abroad. 5. Order for trial of a representative case for the purpose
of determining the question of validity - - 638 — 640
Notes: — Trial of- questions of fact - - 640
Forms : — 6. Order for delivery of further particulars of breaches.
7. Order for delivery of 'further and better particulars of objections.
8. Another form. 9. To strike out objections in default of delivery
of better particulars. 10. Order giving leave to amend particulars
of objections unless pits within specified time elect to discontinue
action - - 641—643
Notes : — Particulars of breaches and objections - 643, 644
Forms : — 11. Order for inspection of deft's process by experts. 12. Order
for inspection of process of working .... 644^ 645
Notes : — Inspection and discovery - - 645, 646
Forms : — 13. Order to amend specification of patent by way of disclaimer
in a pending action or on petition for revocation of patent. 14. Like
order — amended specification not to be receivable as evidence.
15. Like order — specification as amended to be used in evidence
647
XXX Contents of Volume I.
Notes : — Disclaimer pending action ... - Pages 647, 648
Forms : — 16. Order for delivery up on oath of infringing articles — costs.
17. Inquiry as to articles in deft's possession, and direction for their
destruction. 18. Order for discovery by defts of the names and
addresses of their customers, after judgment for perpetual injunction,
in aid of inquiry as to damages. 19. Inquiry as to damages — common
form. 20. Certificate (embodied in judgment) that validity of patent
was in question at the trial — Patents, &c.. Act, 1907, s. 35. 21. Like
certificate as to proof of particulars of breaches or that particulars of
objections were reasonable and proper .... 649, 650
Notes : — Hearing of action — Account of profits or damages — Costs
650—654
Section IX. — Infeingement of Copyright.
Forms : — 1. Judgment for perpetual injunction against infringement of
copyright. 2. Injunction against infringement of copyright — with-
out specifying pirated parts — interlocutory. 3. Injunction staying
infringement, and specifying pirated parts — interlocutory. 4. In-
junction against printers and publishers of pirated directory — account
of copies sold and unsold — delivery up of the latter — payment of net
profits of the former. 5. Injunction against using blocks for adver-
tising— interlocutory. 6. Another form of delivery up. 7. Injunc-
tion against assigning benefit of publishing agreement — interlocutory.
8. Injunction against infringement of copyright in annotated edition.
9. Injunction against piracy of original notes in an English edition
of an American work — interlocutory. 10. Injunction against publish-
ing in this country a book printed in America. 11. Injunction
against infringement in a play of copyright in a novel — objection-
able passages cancelled. 12. Copyright of designs — interlocutory.
13. Eestraining sale of photographs - ■ 654 — 661
Notes : — Infringement of copyright — right to injunction — Procedinre —
Account — Begistration and title to sue — International copyright —
Summary of cases as to infringement - 661 — 672
Section X. — Publication of Letters, Documents, and
Confidential Communications.
F&RMS : — 1. Injunction against printing and publication of private cor-
respondence^interlooutory. 2. Injunction against publishing letters
— interlocutory. 3. Injunction against opening letters of another
firm, or supplying the orders therein contained — interlocutory.
4. Injunction against surreptitious communication - 672, 673
Notes . - - - .... 673, 674
Section XL — Libel.
Forms : — 1. Injunction against libelling pit's trade by circular containing
erroneous quotation from a judgment. 2. Injunction against slander
and libel on pit's trade by spurious experiments. 3. Injunction
against wrongful assertion of title or slander on owner's title
674, 675
Notes - - .... . 676, 677
Section XII. — Comments on Pending Proceedings.
Forms : — 1. Injunction restraining the delivery of a sermon with special
reference to pending proceedings — interlocutory. 2. The like with
reference to recent proceedings — interlocutory. 3, Order restraining
publication of matter tending to prejudice trial of action — interlocu-
tory - . . - . 677, 678
Notes - 678, 679
Contents of Volume I. xxxi
Section XIII. — Partners.
Forms : — 1. Injunction against acting as partner — interlocutory. 2. Order
in an action for dissolution of partnership restraining deft from
drawing cheques, &c., in the name of the firm until after trial — inter-
locutory. 3. Injunction on dissolution of partnership — interlocutory.
4. Injunction on dissolution restraining carrying on business or solicit-
ing custom in the name of the old firm — interlocutory. 5. Injunction
against soliciting old customers after sale of goodwill. 6. Declara-
tion of right to injunction restraining solicitation of customers.
7. Injunction in conformity with above decision. 8. Injunction
against use of trade name on dissolution of partnership — interlocu-
tory. 9. Injunction in absolute terms against the use of a name in
trade. 10. Special undertaking against use of name by company
Pages 679—683
Notes : — Eight to injunction — Name and goodwill • • ■ 683 — 685
Section XIV. — Companies, Corporations, and other Poblic Bodies.
Forms : — 1. Injimction against preventing access to register to mortgages
of company. 2. Ey. Co. restrained from continuing in possession of
or entering on land — interlocutory. 3. Injunction against railway
CO. proceeding on notice to treat — interlocutory. 4. Injunction
against proceeding with notice to treat for whole when only part
required — interlocutory. 5. Eailway co. declared bound to take the
whole of two houses, garden, and premises — injunction against
taking less. 6. Injunction against laying out new street — interlocu-
tory. 7. Mandatory injunction against working a railway in breach
of agreement with landowner. 8. Injunction against obstructing
trains run by another co. under running powers. 9. Issue of shares
to pay dividends restrained — interlocutory. 10. Payment of divi-
dends out of capital restrained — interlocutory. 11. Injunction to
restrain striking out pit's name from register of members, and treat-
ing his shares as forfeited — interlocutory. 12. Injunction against
applying borough fund to pay costs of opposition in Parliament —
interlocutory. 13. Improvement commissioners restrained from
applying corporate funds in building offices in a public park.
14. Corporation restrained from avoiding pit's office of, and from
interfering with his rights and privileges as alderman. 15. School
Board restrained from holding meeting to elect new member — inter-
locutory. 16. Injunction against co. carrying contract into effect,
without obtaining sanction of shareholders — interlocutory - 685 — 694
Notes : — ^Applications to Parliament — Compulsory powers — Dividends —
Illegal and unauthorised contracts and arrangements — Preference
shares — Superfluous lands — Traffic agreement — Unpaid vendor
694—708
Section XV. — Ecclesiastical Benefices and Nonconformist
Congregations.
Forms : — 1. Injunction against taking possession of living — interlocutory.
2. Injunction to restrain minority of trustees of methodist chapel,
who had resigned, from excluding preachers appointed by the
majority. 3. Injunction against receipt of pew rents by displaced
minister of chapel - - 708 — 710
Notes - - - 710, 711
Section XVI. — Clubs and Trade Unions.
Forms : — 1. Injunction against interfering with pit's enjoyment of his
club. 2. Injunction against levying and applying trade union funds
711, 712
Notes 712
xxxii Contents of Volume I.
Section XVII. — Negotiating Securities.
FoBMs : — 1. Injunction against negotiating promissory note — interlocu-
tory. 2. Order staying negotiation of bills of exchange — deposit in
Court — interlocutory - Pages 712, 713
Notes - 713, 714
Section XVIII.— Teansfbks.
Forms : — 1. Injunction to restrain transfer of stock under 39 & 40 G. III.
c. 36^ — interlocutory. 2. Order restraining transfer of railway stock
or shares — interlocutory 714, 715
Notes - - 715, 716
Section XIX. — Collecting and Dealing with Assets.
Form : — Injunction against bankrupt exor acting — interlocutory 716
Notes - - - - - - - - 717
Section XX. — Sales.
Forms : — 1. Staying sale by first mortgagee, on payment into Court by
second mortgagee — account. 2. Sale by trustees under depreciatory
conditions restrained — interlocutory. 3. Sale of securities restrained
on payment of money into Court — interlocutory - 717, 718
Notes - - - - - 719, 720
Section XXI. — Staying Proceedings in Foreign Courts.
Forms : — 1. Order to stay proceedings in Holland — interlocutory. 2.
Order to stay proceedings in Court of Session in Scotland — inter-
locutory ... . 720, 721
Notes : — Jurisdiction generally — Lex fori and lex loci — Judgment of
foreign tribunal 721—724
CHAPTEE XXXII.
EBCEIVBBS.
Section I. — Appointment of Beceiver.
Forms : — 1. Undertaking for receiver's receipts and liabilities. 2. Order
for reference to Chambers to appoint receiver of real and personal
estate. 3. Order appointing receiver by name (upon giving security)
of real and personal estate. 4. Subsequent order in Chambers
appointing receiver after reference from Court. Note to be signed
by the registrar pending completion of above order. 5. Order
appointing receiver by name, and to act before security given.
6. Appointment of interim receiver before appearance. 7. Eeceiver
pending proceedings in Probate Court. 8. Eeceiver and manager of
partnership. 9. Eeceiver and manager of partnership — pit appointed
interim receiver and manager without security until appointment of
receiver and manager. 10. Either of the parties to propose himself
and to act without salary. 11. The lilie as to deft only without
salary or security. 12. Solvent partner appointed receiver and
manager of business. 13. Appointment of named person interim
receiver of personal estate of testator, and manager of testator's
bvreinesB until legal representative constituted. 14. Eeceiver and
Contents of Volume I. xxxiii
manager of public-house appointed on behalf of mtgee with liberty
for him to appoint sub-manager. 15. Eeceiver of licensed premises
appointed on behalf of lessor. 16. Appointment of receiver of estate
in mortgage where there are prior incumbrancers. 17. Solr's
partnership business — special directions as to papers. 18. Eeceiver
and manager of testator's mines and realty. 19. Order appointing
receiver to be steward of infant's manors. 20. Eeceiver of heir-
looms. 21. Eeceiver of settlement funds. 22. Eeceiver and
manager in debenture-holders' action. 23. Eeceiver in debenture -
holders' action where defts are co -incorporated by statute. 24. Ee-
ceiver of railway. 25. Appointment of receiver in place of one
deceased - Pages 725—737
Notes : — Appointment of receiver — Person to be appointed — Salary and
allowances — Security — Effect of appointment—As regards persons
claiming by paramount title — Interference with receiver — Appoint-
ment of receiver and manager — In what instances and over what
property, a receiver may be appointed — Eeal and personal assets —
Tenancy in common — Landlord and tenant — Legal title — Mortgagor
and mortgagee — Trust estate — Separate estate of married woman —
Infant's estate — Partnership — Companies — Eailway Companies Act,
1867 — Bates — Ship — Benefice or office — Newspaper — Pension or
salary - - - 737—757
Section II. — Eeceivbb by way of Equitable Execution.
Poems : — 1. Appointment of receiver by way of equitable execution — •
receiver to act before security given, 2. Another form — taxed costs
757, 758
Notes : — Jurisdiction to appoint — Procedure subsequently to Judicature
Acts - - 758—762
Section III. — Powers of Management — Special Directions.
Forms : — 1. Tenant to attorn and pay rent and arrears. 2. Separate
accounts of rents and personalty. 3. Order to enlarge period during
which receiver and manager is to act as manager. 4. Order re-
ducing receiver's security. 5. Eeceiver to distrain. 6. Order giving
leave to receiver and manager in debenture-holders' action to borrow.
7. Declaration that receiver and manager entitled to first charge for
balance, etc., due to him. 8. Eeceiver to bring action for rent.
9. Eeceiver to keep down interest. 10. Eeceiver to expend limited
sum in repairs. 11. Eeceiver to repair farm buildings in accordance
vdth specification. 12. Eeceiver to cut and sell timber. 13. Ee-
ceiver to pay widow's annuity. 14. Eeceiver to pay annuities.
15. Eeceiver of manor to hold courts and account for fines. 16. Ee-
ceiver to take legal proceedings — bankrupt's estate. 17. Person to
be appointed to hold courts. 18. Eeceiver of railway to pay rent
charges pari passu. 19. Liberty to pursue remedies in respect of
right of way notwithstanding possession of receiver - 762 — 768
Notes : — Possession or attornment — Letting — Distraining by or against
— Expenditure in respect of estate — Applying for directions
768—771
Section IV. — Account and Payment.
EoBMS : — 1. Eeceiver to bring in account. 2. Eeceiver to account at
district registry. 3. Putting recognizance in suit. 4. New surety
instead of one deceased or bankrupt. 5. Subsequent order
771—773
Notes : — Accounting — Sureties 773 — 776
VOL. I. C
xxxiv Contents of Volume I.
Section V. — Eeoeiver and Manager Abroad.
Forms : — 1. Eeoeiver and manager of estates in India. 2. Eeceiver of
property in N. S. Wales — leave to appoint agent. 3. Eeoeiver of
property in Italy, with agent there, and to litigate rights. 4. Manager
appointed with direction to remit to consignee here. 5. Declaration
as to management of colonial estate — consignee appointed adinterim
■ — inquiry as to liahilities— scheme - - - Pages 776 — 779
Notes - - ... . - 779, 780
Section VI. — Discharge of Eeceiver.
Forms : — 1. Discharge and payment. 2. Payment by receiver's exors.
781
Notes 781, 782
CHAPTEE XXXIII.
PBOHIBITION OF PEOCEEDINGS IN INFEBIOE COUBTS.
Forms : — 1. Order for writ of prohibition directed to an ecclesiastical
Court. 2. Order nisi against of&oial principal of the Arches Court
of Canterbury. 3. Prohibition nisi to police magistrate 783, 784
Notes : — Prohibition — nature of writ' — inferior Courts — Procedure to
obtain writ — ^When granted — Form of order — County Court — Mayor's
Court, London— Costs 784—789
CHAPTEE XXXIV.
TEANSPBB, CONSOLIDATION, AND EBMOVAL.
Section I. — Transfer of Causes and Actions in the High Court.
Forms : — 1. Order for transfer of cause or action from one judge to
another in Chancery Division — by consent of parties. 2. Transfer
from one judge to another of the Chancery Division on motion
before the Lord Chancellor. 3. Transfer from one division to another
division. 4. Transfer from King's Bench to Chancery Division —
0. XLix, 5. 5. Transfer of summons under 0. xlix, 6. 6. Transfer
from Chancery Division to County Court — Bankruptcy. 7. Eemoval
of action from district registry. 8. Transfer by Court of Appeal from
Lancaster Palatine Court to High Court of Justice, Chancery
Division - - - - 790—792
Notes : — Transfer of causes and actions — Commercial Causes — Eemoval
of action from district registry - - - 792 — 794
Section II. — Consolidation and Stay of Proceedings.
Forms : — 1. Common form of order for consolidation. 2. Order to stay
one of two creditors' actions, with leave to prove in the other, and
as to costs. 3. Proceedings stayed in first action after judgment in
the second — carriage of judgment given to pit in the first. 4. On
motion for stay and motion for judgment — order for consolidation of
causes — additional inquiry. 5. Parties consenting to add an inquirj'
in County Palatine action, conduct of inquiry given to pit in High
Court action and proceedings in High Court action stayed. 6. Test
fiction — enlargement of time for statement of claim 795 — 797
Contents of Volume I. xxxv
Notes ; — Jurisdiction — Winding-up company — Proceedings in Criminal
Court — Practice generally — Administration actions — Conduct of
action — Test action — Prevalence of practice ■ ■ Pages 797 — 801
Section III. — Bemoval of Causes and Actions from and to Inperioe
Courts — Certiorari.
Forms : — 1. Order for writ of certiorari to remove action from the
Mayor's Court into Chancery Division of High Court. 2. Transfer
from High Court to County Court. 3. Re-transfer from High Court
to County Court. 4. Certiorari to remove plaint from County Court
to High Court. 5. Certiorari absolute in the first instance to
remove action after judgment from County Court to High Court.
6. Cause to proceed in County Court notwithstanding subject-matter
exceeds limit - - - 801—803
Notes : — Bemoving proceedings from inferior Courts — Certiorari — As to
the Mayor's Court — County Court — Transfer from High Court to
County Court — Transfer from County Court to High Court 803 — 807
CHAPTEE XXXV.
CASES SENT FOE THE OPINION OP A FOEBIGN COUBT.
Forms : — 1. Where directed to be settled in Chambers. 2. Where
questions under order arose in Chambers. 8. The lilie — where
order made in Chambers. 4. Order remitting case back for error.
5. Order on case sent from Scotland 808, 809
Notes .... . . . 809, 810
CHAPTEE XXXVI.
APPEALS.
Forms : — 1. Order on appeal. 2. Appeal dismissed, appellant not ap-
pearing. 3. Appeal from an order made in Chancery of the County
Palatine of Lancaster. 4. Order on cross-appeal — 0. lviii, 6.
5. Order extending time for appealing. 6. Order of Court of Appeal
discharging order as to costs made on wrong principle. 7. Appeal
withdrawn on payment of costs. 8. Abandoned appeal dismissed
with costs - - . 811—814
Notes : — Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal — Jurisdiction final by
statute — Appeals from inferior Courts — Criminal matters — Order as
to costs — Orders in Chambers — Extension of time — Interlocutory
orders or judgments — Judgments obtained by fraud — Orders within
the discretion of the judge — Order in exercise of consultative juris-
diction— Who may appeal — Mode of appealing — motions before the
Court of Appeal — Notice of appeal — Final or interlocutory judgments
or orders — Time for appealing — Computation of time — Extension of
time — Setting down appeals — Hearing of appeal — Evidence on
appeal — Powers of Court of Appeal — Cross appeals — Costs of appeal
814—839
Forms : — 9. Stay of execution pending an appeal on payment into Court.
10. Stay of execution for costs on payment into Court, after refusal
of the application ia the Court below on original motion. 11. Appeal
to the House of Lords — stay of execution for costs refused on personal
imdertaking of solr to refund . . - - 8 9, 840
xxxvi Contents of Volume I.
Notes : — Stay of proceedings pending appeal generally — Stay of execution
for costs — Stay of execution for payment of money — Stay of pro-
ceedings in Chambers — Suspension of injunctions and other orders —
Stay of proceedings pending appeals to the Court of Appeal — Stay of
proceeduigs pending appeal to the House of Lords Pages 840 — 844
FoEM : — 12. Order of House of Lords made an order of the Court - 844
Notes - - 845, 846
( xxxvii )
TABLE OF CASES.
N.B. — Figures printed thus [348] refer to the Forms.
Vol. I. ends mth p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
A. and B., Me ([1897] 1 Ch.
786) . . . [989], 998
Aaron v. Aaron . . . 1562
Aaron's Reefs, Ld. v. Broug-
ham . 945
■ V. Cranmer 889
A. Co. iJe . 133
• u.Twiss . 2260
684, 2105
1571
1315
1364
263
277
Aas V. Benham
Abadam v. Abadam
Abbey v. Petch
Abbis V. Winter
Abbott, Re (4 L. T. 576)
■ (18 Beav. 393)
Fund, The, Be
■ V. Eraser
■ V. Sworder .
Abby V. Gilford
Abdul Messih v. Farra
, Peacock v. Prigout 1542
~ 1630
1306
2189
1445
1518,
1519
Abdy, Be Rabbeth v. Donaldson
828, 922, 1565
Abell V. Screech . . . 1404
Aberaman Ironworks v. Wiokens
1991, 2185, 2188, 2251
Aberavon (Corp. of) v. Momus 1309
Aberorombie v. Jordan . .1071
Aberdare Ry. Co., Be . . 2392
, Exp.
Glyn [2392]
■ V. Hankey . 32
Aberdeen v. Chitty . . 750
Abergavenny Improvement
Corns. V. Straker . . 594
Abergavenny v. Thomas . 1822
Abemethy v. Hutchinson . 669
Aberystwith Ry. Co., Be . 2420
Abingdon (E.) v. Way . . 1315
Abinger (L.) v. Ashton . . 527
Abington v. Green . . . 2230
AboulofE V. Oppenheimer ^ 724
PAGE
Abraham v. Bubb . . . 540
■ V. Newcombe . . 894
• & Sons, Re 1964, [2443]
• Be Abrahams v. Ben-
den 971, 1445, 1446, 1588
■ & Co. V. Dunlop
Pneumatic Tyre Co. 12
V. Charig, Be Charig 1430
V. Corp. of London
688, 694, 698
Abram v. Cunningham . . 1356
Abrey v. Newman . . 122 1425
Abstainers Ins., Co., Be . . 2433
Abud V. Riches . . 430, 436
Aburrow v. Aburrow . . 751
■ V. Pink . . [1659]
Acason v. Greenwood, Be Grey 869
Accident Ins. Co. v. Accident,
Disease, &c. Ins. Co. . . 628
Accountants, &c., Society v.
Goodway . . . 626, 627
Acetylene, &c., Co. v. United
Alkali Co 653
Acey V. Simpson . . . 1536
Ackerman v. Lockhart, Be
Hawkes . . . 1038, 1040
Ackland v. Gravener . . 749
Ackroyd v. Ackroyd 1446, 1447
[1577], 1579, 1622
V. Smith . . .578
V. Smithson 1451, 1490,
1491,
Acland v. Gaisford
Aoomb V. Landed Est. Co.
Acraman v. Price .
Actien Gesellschaft ApoUinaris
&c., Be ... .
Acton Local Board v. Batten .
Acton V. Blundell .
■ V. Crawley, Re Crawley .
1492
2182
71
2154
Ada Crookes, Re
Adair's Patent, Re
Adair v. Shaw
2327
610
587
1697
1001
. 2320
884, 1619
xxxvm
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Adair v. Young 625, 632, 842, 843
Adam's Policy Trasts, Re . 873
Trustees and Frost's
Contract, Be . . 1080
Adam, Be ... . 1209
V. Newbigging . 2096, 2112
• V. Townend . . 170
Adames v. Hallett . 1356, 1404, 2286
Adams' Settled Estates, Be
Adams, Be (30tli Nov. 1876, A.
(1879)
(57 L. T. 337)
■ (66 L. T. 610)
■ (12 Ch. D. 634)
1742
280
1216
2344
1187
971
970
1678
1050
■ ([1893] 1 Ch. 329) .
([1906] W. N. 220) .
([1907] 1 Ch. 695) .
, Exp. Griffith
and the Kensington
Vestry, iJe . . 1491
and Perry, Be . . 1536
V. Angell . . . 2045
■ — V. Barry . 1432, 1459, 1463
■ V. Batley ... 67
V. Batley, Cole v. Francis 97
V. Blaokwall By. Co. ,. 2139
V. Broke . . . 2168
■ V. Cattley . . .391
• V. Clutterbuek . . 591
V. Dunn . . [1098]
V. Fisher 72, 86, 87, 89, 1315
V. G. N. of Scotland
Ry. Co. . . 397
■ V. Lloyd . . 83, 96
V. Morgan . . .157
■ ■ V. North Brit. Ry. 633
V. Sworder .
. V. Waller
Adamson v. Gill
V. Wilson
Adcook V. Evans, Be Allen
. V. Peters .
Addams v. Forich .
Adderley v. Dixon .
Addington, Exp., Ives, Be
Addison v. Cox
V. Pilcher
■ V. Tapp, Be Hurst
Addlestone Linoleum Co., Be
Adey v. Arnold
Adie V. Clarke
Adlington v. Conyngham
Ador, Exp., Be Browne .
Advocate (Ld.) v. Drysdale
Aerators (Ld.) v. Tollitt .
Afflsck V. Affleck .
Africa (Bank of) v. Cohen
V. Salisbury
Gold Mining Co. , . 1992
2256
1387
527
509
1470
1351
1557
2140
436
1928
312
933
700
1091
652
415, 819
1377
1289
628
1677
2274
PAGE
Agabeg v. Hartwell . . 244
Aganoor, Be . . ■ ■ 1524
Agapemone Case . . . [990]
Agar Ellis, Be, A.-G. v. Lascelles
999, 1001
. — , Agar Ellis v.
1000
1810
1631
. 1675
. 296
661, 672
[1501]
. 2187
. 15
1801, 1802,
Lascelles
Agar V. Fairfax
V. George
Agassiz V. Squire .
Ager V. Blaoklock .
V. P. & O. Co.
Agg-Gardener v. Agg
Agg-Gardner, Be .
Agnew V. Usher
Agra Bank, Be . 1927, 1928, 2036
V. Barry . . 2040
Agricultural, &c. Co., Exp.
Hughes 1870
•, Be 315, 1316
■ Hotel Co., Be 2428, 2431
Aguilar v. Aguilar ' . . . 906
Ahrbecker v. Frost . 247, 400
Aikin v. Butler . . [1612]
Aikman v. Aikman . . 1519
Ailesbury's (M.) Settled Es-
tates, Be ([1892] 1 Ch. 506) . 834,
1747, 1754, 1767
Ailesbury Settled Estates, Re
(W. N. (93) 140) . . 1769,
Ailesbury (M. of). Be and Lord
Iveagh 872, 1744, 1746, 1749, 1770
TUnley v. Earkheaton Local Bd. 609
Ainslie, Be, Ainslie v. Ainslie . 1717
■ , Swinburne v. Ains-
lie . . . 545
u. Haroourt . .1711
Ains worth. Be . . . 1508
Exp. Law
Society, . 1072
— ■ ■ — ■ ■, Cockcroft V. San-
derson . . 1461
, Druittu. Seward 1514
V. Alman .
V. Bentley .
V. Starkie
V. Walmsley
V. Wilding
. 52
619, 663
. 62
621, 627
125, 188,
1873, 1900, 2234
. 1427
1447,
1671
Airey, Be, Airey v. Stapleton . 150
Aitoliison v. Dixon . 1519, 1520
Aitken, Be . . . 397
V. Batohelor . . 389
■ — ■ V. Campbell's Trustees . 1055
Ajello V. Worsley . . . 687
Akerman, i{e([1891], 3 Ch. 212) 1090
Airey v. Bower
Aird's Estate, Aird v. Quick
Table of Cases.
xxxix
Akerman, Be, Akerman v. Aker-
man ..... 1587
Akers v. Sears, Re Gray . . 1514
Akhurst v. Jackson . .2112
Aktiebalaget Hjorth & Co., Ee [2327]
Aktiebolaget Robertsfors, &c..
Re 19
Alabama Portland Cement Co.,
Re 27
Albert Lite Ass. Co., Re . . 2224
(Prince) v. Strange 658, 674
Albion, &c. Co., Re . . 1943
■ Ass. Co., -Re, Exp. Brown
V. Martin . 2268
■ Bank and Discount Co.,
Ld., Re . . . [192]
Alcliin's Trusts, Re . . 1254
Alchome v. Gomme . 1896
Alcock, Exp. . . .433
■ ,Re . . . .276
, Prescott V. Pliipps 1837
■ V. Alcock . . [1177]
V. Sloper . . 1616, 1618
?;. Smith . . .1522
Alcoy and Gandia, &o. Co. v.
Greenhill (ri896]
1 Ch. 19) .
(No. 2) (74 L. T.
345)
40
65
(76
452) .
Aldam's Estate, Re
Aldborough r. Trye
Alden v. Beokley .
V. Poster
Aldersley, Re
Alderson v. Elgey .
■ V. Pelliser
■ V. Petrie .
V. Wliite .
Aldin V. Latimer Clark
Aldis V. London Corp.
Aldred's Estate, Re, 1146, 2362, 2377,
2379, 2380
Aldrich v. British GrifBn Chilled
. 28
. 2119
. 2020
L. T.
1096, 1322
. 1763
. 2278
12, 170
. 1914
. 1590
. 1864
. 786
. 1403
. 1837
. 560
[687], 235
Iron &c., Co.
Aldridge v, Aldridge
■ V. Cooper
V. Mesner
• V. Westbrook .
Aldworth v. Robinson
Alexander, Exp.
, Re
V. Alexander
■ V. Automatic
Co. 695,
■ V. Brame
1130,1851
2088, 2089
. 1983
1521, 1522
. 1675
Tel.
705, 1334
2268
. 1299
-V. Calder, Re Wilson 1418
PAGE
Alexander v. Cross, Re Cousins 2139
V. Crystal Palace Ry.
Co. . . 2353
■V.Mills . 1673,2167
■ ■ V. Simpson . . 704
V. Steinhardt . 2301
V. W. E. & L. Ry. [687]
Alexandra Palace Co., Re 66, 699,
701
Aleyn v. Belcliier . . . 1674
Alfaro V. De la Torre . . 2128
Alford, Re, Hunt v. Parry 965, 968
V. Clay . . . 1315
Alger V. Parrott . . .1512
Algermann v. Ford . . 1539
Alice Eliza Smith, Re . . 896
Alice Kemp, Re 972, 1180, 1211
Alice Rogers, Re . . . 895
Alicia Race's Case . 994, 996, 1000
Alison's Case . . . 1344
Alison, iJe (11 Ch. D. 284) . 1112
, Johnson v. Mounscy 1867
V. Alison, Re SutclifEe . 89
Allam, Exp., Re Munday . 1941
Allan, Re ([1903] 1 Ch. 276) . 1541
• , Re, Havelock v. Havc-
lock
V. Backhouse
V. El. Tel. Co.
■ V. Gomme
• V. Gott
AUason, Be .
Allbutt V. General
965, 968
. 942
. 816
. 578
1475, 1536
. 1591
Council of
Medical Education . . 677
Allcard v. Skinner 2272, 2273, 2274
•;;. Walker . 896, 926, 2237
Allen's Trusts, Re . . .1559
Allen, Re (34 Ch. D. 433) 301, 303
■ (40 L. T. 456) . . 1160
(Kay, li.) . 1153, 1158
— • (8 Ch. 417) . . 944
, Adcock V. Evans . 1470
— , Bassett v. Allen 1383, 1868
, Da vies v. Chat wood 252,
1033
, Hargreaves v. Taylor 1301
, Hincks v. Allen . 1626
■ — , Simes v. Simes 312, 1166
• — — V. Aldridge . . . 263
V. Allen (30 Beav, 395) . 1477
■ (10 P. D. 187) . 444
(V.-C. M., 26 July,
1876) . . 1007
(21 W. R. 842) [1799],
1803, 1804
— — ■ — ■ — ■ — (Seton, 5th ed.
1564) . . 1819
V. Anthony . . . 2037
— V. Bonnett . . . 2285
Table of Cases.
Allen V. Cort, Be Harrison
V. Coster
V. De Lisle
V. Embleton .
V. Flood
■ V. Gold Reefs of W. Africa,
Ld
• V. Graves
• V. Jarvis
■ V. Kennet
• V. Knight
• V. Lloyd
■ V. Longstaffe .
■ V. Martin
■ V. M'Pkerson .
■ V. Norris, Be Norris
PAGE
1388
965
2089
1465
587, 601
■ V, Oakey
• V. Papworth .
• V. Richardson
• V. Royden
■ V. Seckham
1992, 2057
. 2297
[285], 1137
. 1422
. 2044
. 739
. 1536
539, 552
. 1356
1165, 1166
179, 313, 379
. 1902
. 345, 2196
. 95
. 561
V. Sinclair, Be Sinclair . 1570,
1579
— — V. Southampton, Be Lord
Southampton . 2031,2036
V. Taylor . . 530, 562
— V. Taylor, Be Gyhon 170, 1350
V. Yokes . . . 602
V. Williams . . . 440
• and DrisooU, Be . 1993, 2183
AUeyn's College, Dulwich, Be . 1262
AUeyne v. Hussey . . .163
AUfrey v. AUfrey . 1315, 1317, 1340
Allgood V. Heywood . . 1698
■ V. Merrybent, &c. Ry.
Co. . . . 708, [2222], 2224
Allhusen v. Borries . . 2093, 2096
• V. Brooking . . 526
•■ V. Labouchere . . 97
— — V. Whittell [1611], 1617,
1618, 1620
Alliance Bank of Simla v. Carey 1 382
Soc, Be . . . 2064
Mar. Ins. Co., Be . 2441
Allin, Be . . [1506], 1590
AUingham, Be . . . 281
Allison V. Prisby, Be Prisby . 1381
AlUott V. Smith ... 70
Alloway v. Ls Steere . . 1323
Allport V. Securities Corp. . 520
Allsop V. Day . . . 1940
Allsopp V. Wheatcroft . 529, 534
Almada and Tirito Co., Be . 700
Alman v. Oppert ... 42
Almeda, Be . . . . 1519
Alms Corn Charity, Be . . 2035
Alpha Co. Ld., Be
" Alpiuo " Trade Mark, Be
130,
1352,
1971
2330
PAGJ3
Alsager v. Rowley . . . 1504
Alsbury, Be, Sugden v. Als-
bury .... 1621, 1700
Alsop V. Bell . . [1338]
V. L. Oxford . 262, 287, 293
Alston, iJe ([1901], 2 Ch. 584) . 1622
• ,Exp. . . . 2022
V. Trollope . . . 1388
Alt I). Alt .... 1626
Lord Stratheden . 1300, 1544
[449, 450, 451],
2285
. 1943
. 2435
Kinnaird [1036],
1460, 1461
. 331
Pneu-
V.
Alton V. Harrison
Altree v. Altree
Aluminium Co., Be
Alvanley (Baron) v.
Alvine v. Bond
Amalgamated Dunlop
matio Tyre Co., Be
Amalgamated Society of Rail
way Servants, Be 164, 312,
Amalgamated Society of Rail-
way Servants v. Osborne
Ambition Investment Building
Soc, Be . . . 2056, 2064
Ambler, Be . . . 1168, 1469
, Woodhead v. Ambler
V. Bolton .
(Jeremiah) and Sons v.
Bradford Corp.
V. Gordon
V. Lindsay, Be Lovett
[385]
1421
712
881
2119
245
558
1358,
1503
41, 136
Exp.
. 2269
Ambroise v. Evelyn
Ambrose Lake Co., Be,
Taylor
American Braided Wire Co. v.
Thomson . [650], 651
Exchange v. Gillig . 458
Tobacco Co. v. Guest 625
Ames, Be, Ames v. Ames . 1753
• V. Taylor . 1137
■ V. Birkenhead Docks 742, 745
V. Cadogan .
V. Comyns .
■ V. Parkinson
Amesbury v. Brown
Amicable Soc, Be .
Amies' Estate, Be .
Amies v. Skillem
Amiss V. Hall
Amory v. Brown
Amos, Be, Carrier v.
■ V. Chadwick
V. Heme Bay
Co. .
Amott, Be
Amphlett v. Parke
Ampthill, The
295
1801, 1818
. 1430
. 1871
. 1172
. 859
. 894
. 1124
. 631
1512
. [797], 801
Pavilion
. 39
[2461], 2464
. 1491, 1619
. 756
Price
Table of Cases.
xli
PAGE
Amstell V. Lesser . . . 787
Anoaster (Duke of) v, Mayer . 1474
Ancell V. Rolfe . . . 1810
Andenshaw School, Re . . 2403
Anderson's Case, Be Scottish
Petroleum Co. . . . 2260
Anderson, Exp. . . . 2283
, Exp., Be ToUemache 152
, Be . . 2330, 2333
, Be . . . 1624
■ • V. Abbott 1627, 1635, 1648
V. Anderson (25 Beav.
190) . ■ . . 2109
V. Anderson (13 Eq.
381) . . . 1539
V. Anderson ([1895] 1
Q. B. 749) . 2311
V. Atkinson, Be At-
kinson . . 1520
V. Bank of British
Columbia 62, 70, 76,
85, 89, 90, 93, 94
V. Beard . . 2298
V. Boynton . . 1033
V. Butler's Wharf Co. 1898
V. Dean . . 816
■;;. Dublin (Corp. of) 693
V. Dwyer . .1572
• V. Elsworth . . 2272
V. Lewis . .511
V. London City Mis-
sion, Re Wood . 1558
V. Midland Ry. Co. . 703
V. Pignet . . 2045
V. Itead . 1617, 1618
■ V. Stamp . . 506
V. Wrights of Glasgow 1290
Anderton & Miner's Contract,
Re 2207
Andrade v. Knowles . [557]
Andrew V. Aitken . . 118,532
■ — ■ V. Andrew . . 1422
V. Cooper, Be Bowden 1096,
1114
V. Crossley . . 2316
V. Grove . . 242, 820
V. Raebum . .146
V. Swansea Cambrian
Bldg. Soc. . 2062, 2064
V. Williames, Be Wil-
liames . . . 544
Andrewe, Be . . . . 1630
Andrewes v. George . . 1446
Andrews' Case . . . 996
Andrews, Exp., Be Wilcoxon . 2120
■ •, Be, Exp. Barrow . 2287
(17 Beav. 510) 263
(L. R. 8 Q. B.
153) . . 996
PAGE
Andrews, Be, ([1902], 2 Ch. 394) 1561
Edwards v. Dewar 851,
870
V. Aitken . . 2151
■ • V. Andrews . . 2162
V. Andrews, Be D'An-
gibau . 947, 1630, 2149
V. Barnes 131, 243, 244,
399, 1030, 1128, 1269
V. Gas Meter Co. 706, 1992
V. George . . 1446
V. Hulse . [2305], 2305
•«. Mitchell . .1172
■ ■ V. Mockford 297, 834, 2248,
2261
V. Partington . 964, 966,
1507, 1509
■ V. Ramsay & Co. 1333,
2269
■ V. Salmon . . 712
• — V. Salt 954, 994, 996, 999,
1000
• V. Tyrell . . .894
V. Waite . [555], 560, 563
V. Walton . . 460
V. Weall, Be Weall 1085,
1135
V. Williames, Be Wil-
liames . . 1377, 1388, 1553
Andros, Re, Andros v. Andros . 1520
Angel V. Jay . . 806, 2206, 2220
Angel V. Smith . 448, 452, 1897
Angell V. Baddeley . . 437
■ ti. Dawson . . . 1165
V. Hadden . . .439
V. Haddon . . .1379
Angelo, Be . . . 1180, 1181
Angerstein, Exp. . . 1127, 1136
V. Angerstein 1560, 1654
V. Martin . . 1618
Angier v. Stannard . .1136
Anglesey, Marquis of, Be 474, 479,
482, 760, 762, 2031
Marquess of. Be . 1343
Anglo- African Steamship Co.,
Re ... . 13, 19
Anglo-American Brush Light
Co. V. Crompton . . 643
Anglo-Austrian &c. Union, Re . 289,
290, 291, 294, 296
Anglo-Danubian Co. v. Roger-
son ..... 510
Anglo-Egyptian Nav. Co., Re . 296
Anglo-French Co-operative Soc.
459, 1321
Anglo-French Exploration Co.,
Re 2430
Anglo-Greek, &c. Co. (No. 2),
Re 372
xlii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Anglo-Italian Bank, Be . . 2436
Anglo-Italian Bk. v. Daviea . 738,
758, 759, 760, 2004
Anglo-Maltese Hydraulic Dock
Co., Be ... . 1039
Anglo-Moravian Co., Be . . 1031
Anglo-Oriental Carpet Co., Be . 1964
Anglo-Swiss Milk Co. v. Met-
calf . . . .621, 2343
Angus V. Clifford . 2247, 2248, 226
Angus «. CUfiord .2247,2248,2261
V. Maclachlan . 1042, 1991
Ankerson v. Connelly . . 563
Anlaby v. Praetorius . .189
Annaly, Be Lord . . . 1677
Annandale (M.) v. Harris . 2291
Anne Walker, Re . . 1013, 1014
Annesley's Case, Vaughan v.
Vanderstegen . . . 1981
Annesley v. Muggridge . . 495
Anning v. Hartley . . . 399
Anon. (1 W. R. 10) . . 357
(12 Sim. 262) . 268, 372
■ (31 Beav. 310) . . 2235
(3 Madd. 495) . . 2169
(18 Ves. 258) . . 1367
(4 Sim. 359) . . . 1443
(2 Moll. 467) . . 1461
(2 Ves. 661) . . . 1572
■ (1 Coll. 273) . . 1920
■ (3 Atk. 17) . . . 2230
■ 18 Jur. 742) . . 2368
(18 Jur. 770) . . 933
(2 Eq. Ab. 8, n.) . . 1342
(Cro. Eliz. 68) . . 1324
(3 Atk. 691) . . . 1312
■ (8 Sim. 346) . . .952
■ (1 Atk. 489) . . .951
■ (11 Jur. 258) . . 933
(3 Jur. N. S. 839) . 893, 900
(W. N. (76) 38) . 55, 77
(W. N. (76) 23) . . 793
(22 Beav. 481 ; 23 Beav.
273) ... 95
• (W. N. (76) 105) . . 373
■ (W. N. (76) 12) . . 513
■ (W. N. (76) 21) . . 513
(2 K. & J. 441) . . 683
■ (5 N. R. 358) . . 506
■ (12 Ves. 5) . . : 750
(6 Ves. 288) . .451, 452
(1 Y. & C. Ex. 331) . 460
Anon V. Bolton . . . 494
Andsell v. Ansdell . . .924
Ansley v. Cotton . . . 241
Anson's Settlt., Be Lovelace (E.)
?>. Anson . . . 1108, 1147
Anson (L.) i;. Hodges . .2185
V. Potter . . .1150
PAGE
Anson v. Towgood . . . 334
Anspach (Marg.) v. Noel [2171], 2185
Anstey, iJe .... 1732
V. N. & S. Woolwich &e.
Co 69
Anstice, Be, Anstioe v. Hibbell 42
Anstis, Be, Chetwynd v. Morgan 1627,
1630, 1677
Anstruther v. Chalmer . . 1521
Anthony, Be, Anthony v. An-
thony 1479
Anthony Birrell, Pearce & Co.,
Be 109
Antoniadi v. Smith . . 1944
Aphn V. Cates . . .498
Apollinaris Co., Be 29, 2328, 2329,
2330, 2331, 2334,
2337, 2338, 2342,
2343
— Trade Mark, Be 31
V. Edwards . 616
■ V. Norrish . 626
Apollinaris Co. v. Wilson . 29
Applebee, Be, Leveson v. Beales 1366,
1504
Appleby, Be, ([1903] 1 Ch. 565) 1150,
1489, 1543
V. Duke . . . 1883
Appleford v. Judkins . . 817
Appleton, Be, Barber v. Tebbit 1539
■ ■ V. Rowley . 866, 1512
, French & Scrafton
Ld., Be . 106, 242
Apthorpe v. Apthorpe . 445, 479
Arab, The .... 2021
Arbenz, iJe . . . 1,2333
Arbib and Class, Be . 2166, 2202
,Be .... 1166
Arbuckle, iJe . . [960], 968
Arbuthnot v. Bunsilall . 1345, 1870
Arcedeckne, Be, Atkins v. Arce-
deckne . 1935, 2080
V. Howard (L.) . 2078
Archdale v. Anderson . . 332
Archer's Case, Be, W. Austra-
lian Co 2269
Archer v. Archer . . . 762
V. Harrison [2053], 2057
■ V. Hudson . . . 2273
■ U.Kelly . . . 1631
V. Lavender . . 1085
• V. Pratt, Be Smeed . 968
V. Stone . . .2151
Arden, Be . . . 1145, 1189
(Ld.) . . . 2363
V. Arden . 480, 761, 1033,
1081, 1928, 2036, 2040
Ardley v. St. Pancras Guardians
552, 578
■Table of Cases.
xliii
PAGE
Arkwright v. Newbold 2247, 2248,
2266
Armfield-Merrow v. Bennett, Be
Redish .... 1301
Armit, Re . . . 1016
Armitage, Be ([1893] 3 Ch. 337)
1700
■ , Be, Exp. Moore and
Robinson's Bank-
ing Co.
V. Askliam
V. Coates
■ V. Elworthy
V. Pitzwilliam
■ V. Parsons
V. Walker
• ■ V. Williams
Armitstead v. Durham
Armour v. Walker .
Armston, Be .
Armstrong, Be
-, Exp. Boyd
Gilchrist
. 1951
. 2406
358, 872
. 1420
5
174, 188
. 2060
. 1509
. 509
. 108
. 1159
. 1185
. 879
876
V. Armstrong (I. R.
7 Eq. 84) 104
• V. Armstrong (3
My. & K. 45) . 370
• V. Armstrong (12
Bq. 614) 771, 1456,
1461, 1515
— V. Armstrong (18 Eq.
541) . . 1665
V. Burnet . . 1557
V. Milburn . .1385
V. Reeves . .1300
V. Stockham . 229
■ V. Stone . . 1879
■ V. Storer 1352, 1407, 1851
• V. Wilkin, Be
Weeding . 1556
and Sons, Be . 1062
Armstrong's Patent, Be, Yates
V. Armstrong ; . 2326
Army and Navy Co-operative
Soc., Ld. V. Army, Navy, and
Civil Service Soc. of India,
Ld 628
Amett V. Swann . . [1293]
Amison v. Smith 188, 836, 837,
[2257], 2261
Arnold, Exp., Be Battersea Park
Acts . . .981
, Be . . . 2139, 2362
, Arnold v. Arnold 2150,
2195
V. Arnold . . 1232, 1519
■ ■ V. Blaker . . .580
V. Burt, Jeffery, Be . 971,
[976]
PAQB
Arnold v. Dixon . 980, 1490, 1803
■ — V. Ennis . . .1108
V. Furness Ry. . . 599
■ ■ — V. Gamer . . . 1700
V. Kayess.iJeTaber 869, 1568
■ V. Morgan . . . 580
V. Smith, Be Smith 1498,
1617
V. Woodhams . . 863
Arnot's Case . . . 838, 2237
Arnot V. United African Land,
Ld 705
Arnott, Be (60 L. T. 109) . 91
1;. Archbold . . 1003
V. Hayes . . [61], 82
Amould V. Grinstead . . 1147
Arrowsmith, Exp., Be Leveson 1930
, Be . . 1206, 1220
Arthur, Be, Arthur v. Wynne . 1405
Average Assoc, Be . 322
J). Higgs . . [1887]
■ ■ — V. Hughes . . . 1424
V. Lamb . . . 541
V. Mackinnon . . 1553
Artistic Colour Printing Co. . 797
Artizans' Dwellings Act, Be,
Exp. Jones . . . 2401
Artisans' Land &c. Corp., Be . 1382
Artola Hermanos, Be, Exp.
Chale . . . 1523, 1524
Arundell «. Bell . . . 2111
Asbury, Be, Asbury v. Asbury 1449
Ascherson v. Tredegar . . 2075
Ashbumer v. Macguire . . 1557
V. Sewell 2164, 2165, 2196
Ashburnham's Trusts, Be , 1156
Ashburnham v. Ashburnham . [992]
Ashburton v. Ashburton
Ashbury, &c. Co. v. Riche
V. EUis .
Ashby, Be Exp. Wreford
V. Blackwell
V. Costin
• — ■ V. Day
V. Hincks .
• V. Wilson .
Ashcroft, Be, Exp. Todd
Ashenhurst's Patent
Ashenhurst v. James
Ashforth, Be ([1905]
535) .
Ashford v. Brooke, Be Hooper 1478
980
. 702
. 723
. 2286
. 2242
. 2058
2081, 2084
. 541
. 535
. 2285
. 2315
. 1872
Ch.
. 1543
Ashhurst v. Mason
Ashley v. Ashley .
V. Taylor .
Ashlin V. Lee
Ashling V. Boon
Ashmead's Trusts, Be
[2069], 2078,
2080
. 1403
45, 116, 122
. 1383
. 153
. 2467
xliv
Table oj Cases.
Ashover Muor Spar Mines v.
Jackson .... 406
Ashton, Be (27 Beav. 107) 1253, 1292
(23 Beav. 288) . 1263
■ (23 Ch. D. 217) . 1187
■ ■ (W. N. (00) 109) 475
• , Exp. McGowan . 1033
, Ingram v. Papillon 1667
■ V. Cgrrigan
1841, 1980,
2140
942, 1981
. 364
. 1300
. 946
1570, 1579
567, 573
. 1080
V. Dalton .
: V. Emanuel
V. Jones
V. MoDougall
V. Ross, Be Ross
V. Stock
V. Wood
Ashton Vale Iron Co. v. Bristol
Corp 2364
Ashwell.iie .... 1571
V. Staunton . . 1869
Ashwin, Be . . . .818
Ashwofth, Exp. . . . 1407
V. English Card
Clothing Co. . 646
V. Hebden Bridge
Local Board . 706
— • V. Lord . . . 1903
■ V. Outram (5 Ch. D.
923) . . 860,876
V. Outram (No. 2) (5
Ch. D. 943) 432, 435,
466, 622, 820, 824
V. Outram (9 Ch. D.
483) . 297,834,835
■ V. Roberts . . 84
2260
Askew's Case
Askew V. Askew
■ V. Millington
• V. N. E. Ry.
• V. Thompson
• V. Woodhead
1513
2214
37
1370, 1426
[2386], 2389,
2404
Askham v. Barker . . . 1675
Aslatt V. Southampton Corp. . 512,
[693], 695, 705
Aspden v. Seddon . . 284, 568
Aspinall v. Bourne . . 322
Aspinalls and Powell, Be . 2196
Asser v. Goetze . . . 402
Assets Development Co. v.
Close Bros. . . .246
Astbury, Exp. . 1950, 1951, 1952
■ V. Astbury
Aste V. Stumore
Asten V. Asten
Astle V. Wright
Astley V. Essex (E.)
1084, 1384,
1867, 1874
. 63
. 1553
. 2112
. 1540, 1655
PAGE
Astley V. Micklethwaite . . 1540
V. Powis . . . 1403
and Tildesley Coal Co.,
Be ... . 574,1385
Aston's Case .... 97
Aston, Ue .... 1174
, In the Goods of . . 1554
V. Aston (1 Vez. 264) 540,
541
— V. Aston (3 Atk. 302) [917]
— V. Exeter (L.) . . 99
. V. Meredith . . 1803
— V. Wood 322, 1299, 1303,
1308
Atcheson v. Atcheson . . 906
Atherton, Be . . 1750, 1754
V. Brit. Nation Co. . 841
Athill, Be, Athill, v. Atliill 1476,
1477
Atkin's Trusts, Be, Smith v.
Atkin . 875, 1021, 1022, 1023
Atkins, Exp 1990
, Be, Exp. Edmonds . 1363
Estate, Be . 118, 373, 2363
V. Aroedeokne, Be Aroe-
deokne . . . 1935
• V. Cooke . . 28, 372
■ V. Delmege . . 1056
V. Farr . . . 2240
V. Shephard, -Be Shep-
hard . . 115, 118, 747, 759
Atkinson, Be (26 Beav. 161) 260, 761
■ (30 Ch. D. 606) . 1749,
1751
• (31 Ch. D. 577 . 1754
— (Ir. Rep. 5 Eq.)
219) . . 1590
— (M. R. 2 Aug.
1852) . . 985
([1904] 2 Ch. 140) 1622
, Anderson o. At-
kinson . . 1620
— — , Procter v. Atkin-
son 1362, [1400], 1982
, Waller v. Atkin-
son . 887, 888
V. Abbott . 1029, 1031
■ V. Barton . . 1813
V. Britton . . 643
V. Button . . 174
V. Leonard . . 2229
— V. Little wood . 1538, 1668
V. Lord, Be Taylor . 1114
V. Mackreth . 1066, 2123
V. Ormerod, Be Orme-
rod . . [1044]
■ V. Powell, Be York [791],
794, 1410, 1470
V. Smith . . .880
Table of Cases.
xlv
PAGE
Atkyns V. Wright ... 79
Atlantic Mutual Iiis. Co. v.
Huth . ■ . [1330], 1333
Atlas Metal Co. v. Miller . 251
Attenborough, Re . . .1939
V. St. Katherine
Dock Co.. . . . .494
Atterbury v. Wallis . . 2035
Attey V. Etough . . . 356
A.-G., Exp.i Re Chaffers . . 132
-, Re Higginson and
Dean . .1585
- V. Acton Local Board 526,
606, 609, 610
- V. Ailesbury (M. of) 980, 983
- V. Akers . . 1018, 1019
- V. Albany Hotel Co. . 509
- V. AJford . 1122, 1123, 1342
- V. Anderson 711, 1255, 1289,
, iJeWood 1490,
1585
- V. Andrews . . . 692
- V. Anglo-Argentine tram-
ways Co. . . . 158
- V. Antrobus . . 553, 580
- V. Arkcoll . . .361
- V. Ashbourne Recreation
Ground . . 513, 688
- V. Ashburnham . . 1269
- V. Aspinall . . 705, 1289
- V. Bagot . . . 1256
- V. Barry Dock & Ry. Co.
576, [577], 582, 686, 690
- V. Basingstoke (Corp. of) 608
- V. Batley (Corp. of) . 705
- V. Beoher . . . 1301
- V. Belgrave Hospital . 1301
-V. Berkeley(SirG. H. P.)
and Wife and Lord
Hotham . . [1286]
- V. Berkeley ... 93
- V. Bermondsey (Vestry of) 515
- V. Beverley . . 1256, 1292
- V. Biphosphated Guano
Co 532
- V. Birm. (Corp. of) 52, 1858
- V. Birm. Council 608, 609, 610,
612
- V. Birm. Drainage Board 611
- V. Birm. Tame &c., Drain-
age Bd. . . 518, 694
- V. Blagdon . . .658
- V. Blizard . . . 1301
- V. Boddington . [1246]
- V. Boucherett . 1276, 1290
- V. Bournemouth Corp. . 2425
- V. Bovill . . . 1246
- V. Bowyer . . . 1257
■ V. Bradford Canal 609, 612
TAOB
A.-G. V. Bradlaugh . . 818
V. Brandreth . 1246
V. Brecon (Corp. of) . 696
V. Brentford Sch. . . 1292
V. Brereton . . . 1251
V. Brettingham . . 1290
V. Brewers' Co. . .1135
V. Brickdale . . . 1248
V. Briggs . . .534
V. Brighton, &c. Supply
Assoc. . . . 579
V. Bristol . 1255, 1287, 1291
V. Brooke . . . 1251
V. Brown ... 96
■ V. Bunce . . 1255, 1257
V. Caius Coll. 1246, 1257, 1259,
1269, [1287], 1290, 1292
V. Calvert . . 1256, 1257
V. Camberwell Vestry . 705
V. Cambridge (Corp. of) . 698
V. Cambridge Gas Co. . 600
V. Camelford . [1246]
V. Campbell . . . 1357
V. Cardiff Corp. . . 705
V. Carlton Bank . . 161
V. Carrington 250, 252, 1454
V. Chambers 315, 572, 1823
— ^— V. Chapman . . . 1428
• V. Charles . . . 514
V. Chester (Bp.) . . 1253
■ V. Chester Corp. . 1250, 1269
V. Chesterfield . .1331
V. Christ Church, Oxford
(13 Sim. 214) . . 2180
V. Christ Church, Oxford
(3Gifi. 514) . . 1288
V. Christ Church, Oxford
([1894] 3 Ch. 524) . 1261
V. Christ's Hosp. ([1896] 1
Ch. 879) . . . 1261
V. Christ's Hosp. (4 Beav.
73) . . . 1290
■ V. Church Army, Re
Church Army . . 1280
V. Clack . . . 1166
V. Clapham . 163, 710, 1170,
1245, 1257, 1290
■ — —• V. Clarendon (E.) . . 1290
V. Clements . . 1018, 1019
V. Clerkenwell Vestry 609, 610
V. Cookermouth L. B. 609, 694
V. Cole . . . 600
V. Colney Hatch Asylum 607,
609, 610, 612
V. Conduit Colhery Co. . 568
V. Constable . . 383
V. Cooper . . 1263, 1277
V. Coopers' Co. [1250], 1251,
129
xlvi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
A.-G. V. Copeland . . .581
V. Cordwainers' Co. . 1292
V. Coulson . . . 1745
■ V. Craven (E.) . . 1247
V. Crewe, Be Sandbach
School . . .1302
V. Crofts . . . 1861
V. Coventry (Mayor of) . 452
■ V. CuUum . . . 1259
V. Cuming . 708, 710, 1128
V. Dalton . . [1287]
V. Daniel . . [1285]
V. Davey 1287, 1288, 1290
• V. Da vies . . . 1345
V. Day (2 Mad. 246) . 739
([1900] 1 Ch. 31) 1253,
1302
V. Dedham School . 1254
■ V. De Tastet . . 424
V. Devon (E.) . . 1245
■ V. Dodd . . . 1489
V. Dorking Guardians 609, 610,
611
^- — V. Drapers' Co. (4 Beav.
67) 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292
■ V. Draper's Co. (9 Bq. 69)
287, 298
V. Drapers' Co. (4 Beav.
305 . . . . 289
• V. Drummond . . 1256
■ V. Dulwich Coll. . .1254
V. Eastlake . 692, 696, 1301
V. East Retford . . 1288
V. Emerson 73, 86, 841, 843
V. Esher Linoleum Co. . 580
• V. Etheridge . .711
V. Ewelme Hosp. . 1254, 1255
V. Exeter (Corp. of) [1247]
V. Faa . . . [380]
V. Felixstowe Gas Light
Co 158
V. Fishmongers' Co. 1269,
1292, 1304, 1307
V. Fitzgerald . 1256, 1518
V. Foord . . . 1288
V. Forbes . . .240
V. Foster . . . 1247
V. Foundling Hosp. 1254, 1290
■ V. Francis . . 595, 601
. V. FuUerton . . .1823
V. Furness Ry. 520, 576, 689
V. Gains . . . 1288
V. Gardner . . . 1251
. V. Garner . . [47], 581
V. Gascoigne . . 1259, 1292
V. Gas Light, &c. Co. . 599
V. Gaskill 62, 67, 69, 84, 85,
126, 2215
v.Gee. . . . 610
A.-G. V. Gell
V. Gibbs .
— '■ — V. Gibson . .
V. Gilbert, Be Fowey
V. Glasgow Coll. .
V. Glegg, Bennett
Honeywood .
V. Gloucester Corp,
V. Glynn
V. Gore
V. Gosling
V. Gould
V. Grant
V. Green
V, Greenhill
V. Grocers' Co,
V. G. E. Ry.
PASE
. 241
. 1448
. 1017
[1287]
. 1245
ij.
. 1257
. 1259
1257, 1288, 1300
. 1251
. 159, 1403
. 711, 1255
. 1493
. 1262, 1263
[1246], 1288
. 1292
586, 674, 699,
701, 702, 828
442, 690, 701
V. G. N. Ry.
V. G. W. Ry. . . 689
V. G. W. Ry. & Mid. Ry. 689
V. Haberdashers' Co. 1251,
1258, 1259, 1260
V. Hackney Bd. . .611
V. Halifax (Corp. of) 379, [606],
608, 609, 612
V. Hall . . 1259, 1287
V. Hamilton . . . 1819
V. Hanmer . [1250], 1268
V. Han well Urban Council 601,
697
V. Harrison . . [1283]
V. Harrow School 1254, 1255,
1422
V. Hartlebury School . 1248
— ■ V. Heath . . .606
-V. Heelis . . 1300, 1301
V. Herrick . . . 1252
V. Higham . . . 1428
V. Hinxman . . 1304
V. Hope's Executors . 1256
V. Horner . . . 594
— V. Hotham . [1286], 1301
— V. Hughes . . . 1268
— V. Hurst (E. Winchelsea) 1451
— V. Hussey . . . 600
— V. Hutton . . .1255
— V. Ilchester (Corp. of) [1244]
— V. Ironmongers' Co. 1251, 1268
— V. Jacobs-Smith . . 1403
— • V. Jefferys . . . 1540
— V. Jesus Coll., Oxford . 1291
— V. Kell .... 1251
— ■ V. Kerr 1268, 1285, 1288
— V. Kingston - on - Thames
(Corp. of) . . 610
— V. Kohler . . 1122, 1595
— V. Lambeth Vestry . 696
— V. Lascelles, Be Agar Ellis 1046
Table of Cases.
xlvii
PAGE
A.-G. V. Lawes . . . 1450
■ V. Leather Sellers' Co. . 1066
V. Ledge . . . 1258
■ V. Leeds (Corp. of) [675], [676],
608, 609, 612
■ V. Leicester (Corp. of) 703, 1288
■ V. Leonard
• V. Lepine
■ V. Littledale
• V. Liverpool
1362
1257
241
(Corp.
of)
514
I'. Llewellyn
■ V. Lock
■ V. Lomas
■ V. London (Corp. of)
1291
. 822
. 1254
. 1491
85, 1269
V. London County Council
702, 706
- V. London & N. W. Ry. Co.
([1900] 1 Q. B. 78) . 604
- V. Lonsdale (B.) . . 588
- V. Lovelace . . . 240
- V. Lucas . . 97, 1018
- V. Lucas, Be Manser 1303,
1305
- V. Ludlow (Corp. of) . 1345
- V. Luton Bd. 606, 608, 610
- V. Magdalen Coll. 1254, 1288
- V. Manchester (Bp. of) (3
Eq. 436) . . 1264, 1288
- V. Manchester (Bp. of) (3
Eq. 453) . . . 1251
- V. Manchester Corp. 603, 610,
702
- V. Manchester, Dean and
Canons of . . 1276
- V. Manchester, &c. Ry. . 696
-V. Marchant 1257, 1258, 1292
- V. Margate Pier and Har-
bour Co. . . .245
■ V. Marlborough (D.) . 545
- V. Marsh . . . 515
V. Mathieson . . 1280
• V. Matthias . . [1250]
• V. Mercers' Co. 71, 1255, 1269
■ V. Merchant Venturers'
Co 1292
• V. Mersey Ry. Co. . . 702
• V. Merthy Tydfil Union
164, 695
• V. Met. Bd. of Works 606,
609, 610, 611
601, 702
592, 593
519, 526
. 158
. 1255
. 1288
. 1254
. 1018
■ V. Met. Ry. Co.
- V. Meyrick .
• V. Mid-Kent Ry.
■ V. Midland Ry. Co
■ V. Moor
• V. Morgan
■ V. Mosley
■ V. Mullay
J'AUE
A.-G. V. Munby . . 1299, 1307
V. Munro . . . 710
■ V. Murdoch . . .711
V. Murray . . . 932
V. Nash . . . 1256
V. National Hospital, &c. 1279
V. Nethercote 253, 299, 1269
■ V. New York Breweries'
Co 1460
V. Newark (Corp. of) . 1251,
1288, 1290
■ V. Newbury (Corp. of) . 1289
V. Newcastle Corp. ([1899]
2Q. B. 478) . . 86
V. Newcastle (Corp. of) (5
Beav. 318)
■ V. Newcastle (Mayor of)
(23 Q. B. D. 492)
■ V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Corp. ([1897] 2 Q. B.
384)
■ V. Newcombe
V. Nichol
V. North Eastern Ry. Co.
V. N. Met. Tram. Co.
V. Northumberland (D. of) 1302
■ V. Norwich (Corp. of) 696, 705,
1131
• V. Nottingham Corp. . 603
1285
705
72
1351
599
703
85
- V. Odell
■ V. Oglender .
■ V. Onslow (L.)
■ V. Owen
■ V. Painters' Co.
■ V. Pargeter .
• V. Parker
• V. Payne
■ V. Peach
■ V. Peacock .
• V. Pearson
2041, 2242
1251
[1249], 1259
1745
1258
1288
1255
1287
1823
692
710, 711, 1250,
1289, 1301
. 1822
. 1288
- V. Penruddook
- V. Pilgrim
- V. Pontypridd Urban Dist.
Council . . .697
- V. Pontypridd Water
Works . . .695
- V. Power . . .1306
-u. Powis (E.) . [708]
- V. Pretyman . 1287, 1290
- V. Queen Anne Mansions 563
- V. Ranee . . . 1252
- V. Rathdonell . . 1406
- V. Rawworth . . 1247
- V. Read . . 1018, 1019
- V. Rees ... 70
- V. Regents' Canal and
Dock Co. . . .158
- V. Richmond . . 606
xlviii
Table of Cases.
PAOE
A.-G. V. Rochester 1251, 1256, 1257
V. Rochester (Mayor) [2396]
2400, 2404
■ V. Rowsell . . .230
V. RufEord & Co. . [688]
V. St. Cross Hosp. 1254, 1255,
1259
V. St. David's (Bp. of) . 1269
V. St. James, Clerkenwell 607
V. St. John's Hosp., Bath
(1 Ch. 92) . 1259, 1289
V. St. John's Hosp. Bath
(2 Ch. D. 554) . . 1259
• • V. St. John's Hosp., Bath
([1893] 3 Ch. 151) [2381,
2397], 2402, 2405
V. St. John's Hosp., Bed.
ford
1250, 1256
V. St. Leonards
. 692
V. Salkeld .
[1285]
V. Scott
. 845
V. Selborne .
230, 1631
V. Severne .
1018, 1017
V. Shearman
. 1290
V. Sheffield Gas Co.
600, 610
V. Sherborne Sch. .
. 1257
V. Shield
. 1571
■ V. Shore . . 1259, 1289
- V. Shrewsbury Bridge Co.
581, 604, 609, 694
- V. Sidney Sussex Coll. 1255,
1277, 1279
- V. Simpson . . . 837
- V. Sittingboume Ry. Co.
1991, 2224, 2225
- V. Skinners' Co. . 1258, 1287
- V. Smitliies 1254, 1255, 1258,
1292
-D.Solly . 1123,1124,1290
- 1'. S. Sea Co. . . . 1288
- V. Stag Copper Extracting
Co 595
- j;. Stamford (B.) . 1245,1246,
1258, 1259
- V. Stephens 1253, 1265, 1823,
1824
- V. Stewart 1254, 1259, 1269
- V. Strong . . [550]
- V. Sturge . . 1251, 1257
- V. Sunderland (Corp. of) [693],
699
- V. Swansea Co. (7 Ch. D.
46 . . 826, 842, 843
- V. Swansea Corp. ([1898]
1 Ch. 602) [692], 696, 1291
- V. Tanored . . . 1307
- V. Tastett . . .768
- V. leather ; . . 1017, 1018
- V. Terry . . [585]
A.-G. V. Tewkesbury, &c. Ry. 689
V. Thames Conservators 588,
639
■ V. Thetford (Corp. of) . 1269
• V. Thompson . 75, 1315
V. Tod-Heatley . . 602
V. TomUne, 124, 125, 538,
539, 543, 546, [552], 568,
589, 828
V. Tossel . . .600
V. Trinity Coll. . .1292
V. Tyndall . . . 2020
V. Vigor . . . 770
■ • V. Vyner . . .362
• V. Wahlstatt . . 1519
• V. Walthamstow Bd. . 443
V. Ward . . . 1265
V. Wareing . . . 1019
V. Warren . . . 1251
V. Waxchandlers' Co 1285,
1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291
V. Webster 1269, 1300, 1301,
1303
V. Welsh Granite Co. . 569
• V. West . . . 1255
■ V. West Gloucester Water
Co. . . . [584], 702
V. West Hartlepool Im-
provement Commrs. 692,
696
V. Whiteley . . 1251, 1257
V. Whitwood L. B. . 80
V. Whorwood . . 1307
■ V. Wigan (Corp. of) 696, 1291
• V. Wilkinson . . 1257
■ V. Williamson . . 886
V. Willshire . . .932
■ ■ V. Wilson (0. & Ph. 1) . 1288
(9 Sim. 526) 74, 78
■ ■ • (16 Sim. 222) . 1248
(2 Keen, 680) 1251,
1292
— (W. N. (01) 5) 383,
793
V. Wimbledon House
Estate Co. 513, 520, 688
V. Winans . . . 1519
V. Winchelsea (E.) 1308, 1451
V. Windsor 1255, 1257, 1268,
1291, 1292
■ V. Woodall, Be Wilson 20, 146,
317
V. Worcester (Bp. of) 1259,
1262, 1263
V. Wrench . . [575]
V. Wright . . .588
V. Wyggeston Hosp. 1259,
1288, 1289
u. Wyville . . . 1130
Table of Cases.
xllx
I'AOX
A.-G. V. York (Abp. of) 1251, 1259,
1288
for Canada v. Haws [1329]
of Lancaster v. L. & N. W.
Ry. . . 38, 39
of Victoria, Re . . 801
Attorneys Act, 1870, Be . . 267
Attwood V. Small . . 2248, 2252
V. Taylor . . 1344
Atwell V. Atwell . . . 1489
Atwood V. Maude . . 2100, 2112
Atwool V. Perrier ... 37
■ — • V. Merry weather . . 695
Abuin V. Daly . . . 1569
V. Holt . . 2139, 2213
Aubrey, Re . . . . 2359
V. Hooper . . [1889]
■ V. Popkin . . . 1053
Auckland (L.) v. W. District
B. W. . . 798
V. Westm. L. B. . 694
Audain, Exp., Re Licensed
Victuallers' Assoc. . . 700
Audsley v. Horn . . . 1877
Augustinus v. Nerinckx . 42, 64
Auriferous Properties, Re . 1321
Austen Friars Steamship Co. v.
Strack . . .830
■ V. Boys . . 2096, 2097
■ V. Collins . 1656, [1693]
• V. Halsey . . . 1014
Austerberry v. Oldham Corp. 531,
532
Austin, Re . . . 1041, 1189
, Exp. Sheffield . 1950
V. Amhurst . . 2384
V. Austin (11 Jur. N. S.
536) . . 163
(4 Ch. D 233) 860
(4 D. J. & S.
717) . . 993, 999
V. Beddoe . . . 1429
ti. Jackson . . .2114
V. Mead, Re Mead . 1561
V. Tawney . . 2139, 2167
Australasia (Bank of) v. Nias . 1523
V. Palmer 2146
Australasian Inv. Co., Exp., Re
Queensland Mercantile, &c.,
Co 2034
Australian Auxiliary Co. v.
Mounsey . . 1967
Estates &c., Co., Be 2434
Mortgage v. Aus-
tralian and New
Zealand Mortgage 628
Wine Co. . 2335, 2343
Wine Importers, Be 2336
Austria (Bmp. of) v. Day , 629
VOL. I,
PAGE
Austrain Lloyd Steamship Co.
V. Gresham Life Assur. . 389
Automatic Self Cleaning Co. v.
Cuninghame . 696
Machines, Re . . 1971
Weighing Macliine v.
National Exhibi-
tion Assoc. . 635
Weighing Machine
Co. V. Combined
Weighing, &o. Co. 841
■ — ■ Weighing Machine
Co. V. Knight . 654
Autothreptio Steam Boiler Co.,
Re 400
AveUne v. Melhuish . . 965
Averall v. Wade . . . 2021
Averill, Re, Salsbury v. Buckle 971
Avery, Re (36 Ch. D. 307) . 2324
■ (1 Russ. & M. 356) . 2464
V. Andrews . . 522
V. Griffin . 864, 897, 2152
V. Langford . 529, 2140
■ ■ V. Wood . . 244, 652
Avery's Patent, Re . . 634
Avis V. Newman, Re Cartwright 544
Avison V. Simpson . . .1513
Avory v. Andrews . . 511, 1171
Axmann v. Lund . . . 636
Ayorst v. Jenkins 1586, 2291, 2292
Ayles V. Cox . 1210, 1215, 1218,
2151, 2195
Aylesford (E.) v. E. Poulett . 304,
432, 433, 1126
■ ■ (E. of) Settled Estates 1768,
[1777], 1780
■ ■ V. Morris [2277], 2278,
2279
■ — Settlement, Re [949]
Aylett V. Ashton . .861, 2168
Aylmer v. Winterbotham, Re
Loveday . . . .891
Aylward v. Kearney . . 978
— V. Lewis . . 122, 1920
Aynsley v. Glover . 558, 559, 562
V. Reed . [1483], 2006
Ayr Harbour Trustees v. Oswald 706
Ajres, In the Goods of . . 885
■ V. Ayres . . 433, 465
Ayscough V. BuUar . . 51
B.
B., Be (a Solr) . [1067, 1068]
Bach, Re, Walker v. Bach . 1499
V. Hay . . . .361
Bache, Re . . . .1181
Backhouse v, Alcock . . 105
d
Table of Cases.
Backhouse v. Carlton
V. Eoroyd
■ V. Hornsey
■ V. Paddon
Bacon, Exp., Re Bond
, Re (62 L. J. Oh. 445)
, Re, Grissel v. Lsathes
PAGE
. 1983
[1847]
938, 941
. 1802
. 152
. 1620
1573,
1574
. 877
. 93
, Re, Toovey v. Turner
V. Bacon
■ V. Camphausen 1084, 1090,
[1103]
■ • V. Clark . . . 1402
V. Ford, Re lord Ken-
sington . . 1999, 2001
■ ■ V. Jones . 362, 514, 631
Bacon's jSettlement, Re Hutton
V. Anderson 1090, 1428,
1447, 1595, 1678
Will, Re, Camp v. Coe . 1540
Bacup (Corp. of) v. Smith . 742
Badcock, Be . . . . 1217
■ — , Kingdon v. Tagert 1626,
1643
• — — ■ V. Cumberland Gap
Park Co. . . . 12, 13
Baddeley v. Bailey . . 102
V. Curwen . . 1504
Badeley v. Consolidated Bank
479, 480, 2076, 2127, 2129
Badham v. Allen . . [1492]
V. Harris . . . 2348
Badische Anilin v. Levinstein 146,
632, 635, 650,
654
. ■ ■ V. Basle, &c.
Works . 632
. V. Hickson . 632
. , &c. V. John-
son
-, &c V. Scholt
16
529
Badman, Exp., Re Portuguese
Mines .... 1324
Baerlein v. Chartered Mercantile
Bank . . , .794
Bagel V. Miller . . 2117, 2125
Bagge V. Whitehead . . 419
Baggett V. Meux . . . 869
Baggott V. Blackham . [1226]
Baggs, Be . . . 1752, 1762
Bagley, Re . 110, 414, 481, 2287
. V. Searle . .178, 289
Bagnall v. Carlton . 77, 473, 1334,
2264, 2265
V. Edwards . . 2095
. — V. Villar . . 626, 1898
Bagot, Be, Paton v. Ormerod . 1554
Bagot's Ssttlement, Be, Bagot
V. Kittoe . . [1689], 1698
I'AOE
Bagot ('. Bagot [538], 542, 543, 645,
646, [1681], 1681
(,'. Chapman . . . 2245
V. Easton . 37, 164, 1855
V. Legge . 1451, 1605, 1655
Bagot Pneumatic Tyre Co, v.
Chpper Pneumatic Tyre Co.
2154, 2317
Bagshaw, Exp., Re Ker . . 1407
■ V. Buxton Bd. . . 681
■ V. E. Union Ry. . 702
V. Winter . . 910
Bagshawe, Re . . . 264
Bagster v. Eaokerell . . 1490
Bahai, &c., Be . . . 2242
Bahin v. Hughes . 884, 1084, 1090
Baile v. Baile 1047, 1048, 1051
Bailes v. Sunderland Bldg. Soc. 2060
Bailey's Trusts, Be . . 1858
Bailey, Be (34 Beav. 393) 264, 273
([1909] W. N. 110) . 292
, Bailey v. Bailey . 1368
V. Badham . . . 2050
i>. Birchall 1047, 1048, 1050
V. Birkenhead Co
. 695
V. Clark .
587, 588
V. Collett .
229, 358
V. Edwards
. 2085
V. Ekins
. 1350
V. Pinch
1319, 1322
V. Hobson .
541, 1809
V. Isle of Thanet
Rail-
ways
. 2347
V. Johnson .
. 1322
V. Ryves
. 1007
V. Thurston and Co. 50, 117
V. Tindal .
. 230
V. Watson .
. 248
Bailie's Trusts, Re 813, 829, 830,
832
Bailleau v. Victorian Soc. of
Notaries .... 229
Baillie, Re . . . .1
— V. Bailhe (3 Dec. 1867,
A. 2766) [721]
• (5 Eq. 175)
V. Edwards
— ■ — — V. Jackson .
— — — V. McKewan
— — ■ — ■ V. Trehame
Baily v. British Equitable
Assrce.
V. De Crespigny
■ V. Lambert .
V. Taylor
722,
1525
. 1320
[942], 1371
Bain v. Bain, Re Smith
— — V. Pothergill .
V. Sadler
2032
909
1992
. 534
. 236
661, 663
. 28
. 2155
1466, 1470
Table of Cases.
li
PAGE
Bainbridge v. Kinnaird . 2168, 2194
Bainbrigge v. Blair 741, 750, 751,
781, 1170
V. Brown [2270], 2273
■ V. Moss . . 27
Baines v. Bromley . 241, 251, 400
V. Geary 520, 531, 2150, 2157
Baird v. East Riding Club . 1837
V. Moule's Earth Closet
Co. . . . [643]
■ V. Wells . . .712
V. Williamson . . 589
Bake v. French . 252, 265, 1050
Baker's Trusts, Re 899, 1025, 1026
Baker and Sherman, Re . 2169, 2186
. 1714
. 281
-, Exp., Re Pople
-, Re (32 Beav. 526)
- (A.) & Co., Re ([1908]
Ch. 86) .
(W. N. (87) 9) .
, Collins V. ]3aker
, ColUns V. Rhodes
Connell v. Baker
Lsuton V. Brudenell
I Nichols V. Baker
■ V. Ambrose .
■ V. Baker
• V. Barnett, Re Bamett [1526],
1530
2338
265
2077
1112,
1385
105
1376
794,
1410, 1470
1942, 2287
. 1573
• V. Bayldon .
• V. Blaker
- V. Bradley
- V. Clarke
- V. Paber
- V. Parmer
- V. Gray
- V. Hedgcock
- V. Henderson
- V. Ker .
■ V. Martin
- V. Met. Ry. Co,
- V. Monk
■ V. Rawson
■ V. Sebright .
- V. Wadsworth
■ V. Wait
. 908
. 127
, 1633, 2273
. 788
. 832
. 1430
. 2015
530, 2150, 2157
. 1038
. 859
1360, 1568
. 2170
2256, 2272
2330, 2337, 2342
536, 540, 545
. 823
. 807
V. Williams 2172, 2220, 2224
■ V. Wind . . 1876, 1877
■«. Wisbech (Corp.) . 611
■ V. Yorkshire Ass. Co. . 389
• , Lees & Co., Re . 260, 294
Bala and Pestiniog Ry., Exp. . 310,
2362, 2391
Balaghat Gold Mining Co., Re 81,
1965
Baloh V. Symes . . . 1051
Bald, Re, Bald v. Bald . .1357
I'AOE
Balderson v. Wood . . 1222
Baldock v. Green, Re Green 1475,
1573, 1609
Baldwin's Estate, Re . . 1880
Baldwin v. Baldwin . 908, 1307
V. Graham, Re Graham
[1399]
Roche .
Baldwyn v. Smith
Balfe V. Lord
V. Redington
Balfour v. Cooper
■ V. Wylie
1674
983, 1491
1837, 2066
. 1810
. 1665
. 14
Ball's Patent .... 2320
Ball (John) goods of. Re . 1183, 1353
,Exp 1092
, Re (L. R. 8 C. P. 104) . 432
■ ([1899] 2 L R. 313) . 117,
1594, 1949
-, Exp. Hutchinson . 2288
V. Coutts . 910, 1013, 1014
• V. Harris . 1480, 1481, 1605
■ V. Kemp-Welch . 1798, 1810
V. Ray . 595, [596], 602
Ballanoe, Re, Ballance v. Lan-
phier . . . .1541
Ballard v. Marsden . 1431, 1588
V. Milner . . . 119
— V. Shutt . . .2180
V. TomUnson 187, 435, 587,
589
V. White . . .939
Balls, Re ([1909] 1 Ch. 791) . 1436
Balmanno v. Lumley . 2162, 2168
Baltic Co. V. Simpson . . 559
Bamford, Re, Exp. Games . 1949
V. Bamford [912], 914
• V. Turnley . . 600
— — V. Watts . . . 342
Banco de Portugal, Exp., Re
Hooper . . . .837
Bancroft, &o. Trade Mark, Re . [8]
Band v. Randle . . . 122
Bandon (L.) v. Becher . . 348
Banfield v. Tupper . . 1389
Bangor (Bp. of) v. Parry . 1289
Banister, Re, Broad v. Munton
329, 330
V. Bigge . . 598, 602
Bank v. Bank . . [995]
Bank of Africa v. Cohen . . 2274
V. Salisbury Gold
Mining Co. . 1992
Bank of Australasia v. Nias . 1523
— — — — — V. Palmer . 2146
Bank of England, Exp., Re S.
American, &c. Co. . . 139
Bank of England v. Booth . 712
Bank of Ireland v. Cogry Co. . 2023
Hi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Bank of Ireland v. McCarthy
1480, 1536
Bank of Montreal v. Stuart 2274
Bank of New South Wales v.
O'Connor 78, 1872, 1874, 1875,
1877, 1878
Bank of New Zealand v. Simp-
son . . . . 2143, 2146
Bank of Turkey u. Ottoman
Bank . . . 515, 1443
Bankart v. Houghton . 601, 603
■ V. Tennant 252, 2157, 2209
Bankes, Be, Reynolds v. Ellis
869, 923
■ V. Le Despenoer 541, 1650,
1656
V. Small 1717, 1718, 1841,
2142
Bankhead, Be . . . . 1092
Banks, Be, ([1905J 1 Ch. 547) . 1275
■ , (75 L. T. 387) . 1851
■ , Dawes v. Sladen [1393,
1850]
V. Banks . . [1497]
■ — V. Braithwaite . .1571
V. Cartwright . .1314
■ V. Gibson . . 684, 685
V. HoUingaworth . . 804
• V. James . . . 2330
w. Whittal . . . 1990
Bankruptcy Notice, Be . . 191
Bannatyne v. Direct Spanish
Tel. Co 2431
Bannatyne v. Molver . . 1967
Banner, Exp., Be Blyth 124, 126,
2236
V. Berridge 1112, 1327, 1384,
1870, 1872, 1900, 2015
• V. Jackson ... 91
Bannerman, Be, Bannerman v.
Young . .1571
. V. Clarke 2152, 2181,
2190
Bannister, Be, Broad v.
Munton . 329, 330, 2163, 2164
Banque Franco-Egyptienne v.
Lutcher . . . .112
Banque Russe v. Clarke . . 11
Ban wen Iron Co., Be . .78
Barber's Settled Estates, Be
1108, 1712
Barber, Exp. 1092, 2104, 2106,
2118
■ , Be, Exp. Stanford . 1946
(36 Ch. D. 77) . 262
(39 Ch. D. 187 1185,
1186, 1218, 1219
. (19 Beav. 378) . 1068
— — (6 Jur. N. S. 1098) 1159
PAGE
Barber, Be, Burgess v. Vinni-
come 30, 353, 1137,
1138, 1376, 1448, 1539
— , Dardier v. Chapman 909
, In the Goods of . . 1590
V. Barber . . . 1326
V. Blaiberg ... 40
■ V. Furlong . . . 1087
V. Gregson . . . 861
■ V. Jeckylls . [1829], 1915
■ V. Lamb . . .722
V. Mackrell 189, 1122, 2084,
2104
V. Mexican Land Co. . 696
. V. Penley . . 602, 605
V. Stone . . . 1061
■ V. Tebbit, Be Appleton. 1539
• V. Walker . . . 1358
Barclay, Exp., Be Gowan . 1951
Joyce . 1950
. Be, Barclay v. An-
drews 1097, 1121, 1123,
1124, 1447
■ V. Maskelyne 1258, [1295],
1301
1253, 2156
. 1621
. 2404
306, 432
. 1317
2113
602
1477, 1627
Baring, Be, Jeune v. Baring 1710,
1711
V. Abingdon 578, 592, 2311
V. Ashburton . . 1700
• V. Inland Rev. Commrs. 160
V. Nash . . . 1800
1333
V. Messenger
■ V. Wainwright .
Bareham, Be
Barfield and Rush, Be
V. Kelly .
V. Loughborough
Barham v. Hodges
V. E. Clarendon
• V. Stanton .
Baring Bros. v. N. W. of Uru-
guay .... 360
Baring-Gould v. Sharpington
Syndicate . . . .390
Barker's Estate, Be, Hethering-
ton V. Longrigg . . . 1541
Barker (Susannah), Be . 1300, 1304
, Be (17 Ch. D. 241) 980, 1803
(1 Ch. D. 43) . 1187
(53 L. T. 23) . 2336
■ , Sherrington v. Dean
&o. of St. Paul's 1303
, Exp. Kilner . 2289
, Buxton V. Campbell
1113, 1432
, Ravenshaw v. Bar-
ker . . . 1111
V. Barker . . . 1822
, Be Parker 1643
Table of Cases.
liii
Barker v. Birch
V. Boucher
■ • V. Cox
V. Furlong
V. Hemming
V. Hempstead
V. Illingworth
PAGE
[1496], 1504
. 1367
. 897, 2193
. 104
. 1050
. 247
1857, 1901
V. Ivimey, Re Tamer . 1090
V. Jarvis . . . 1032
■ V. Lavery . . . 844
■ V. Mariott . [767]
■I). Peile . . 1156, 1158
■ V. Perowne, Ee Clarke 1699
V. Purvis
• V. Venables
V. Wardle .
Barkley v. Barkley
■ V. Reay (L.)
188
2152, 2190
. 1404
. 424
750, 779
. 578
[1163]
225, 967
. 1157
Barkshire v. Grubb
Barkworth v. Barkworth
Barlow's Will, Re .
Barlow, Re
^ ([1903] 1 Ch. 382) . 1753
, Barton v. Spencer 838,
1361
— V. Bailey . . 99, 601
V. Gains . . .738
• V. Orde . . . 1522
• V. Osborne . . 334
— V. Ross . . . 2348
V. Yorke, Re Yorke . 1780
Bamaby v. Tassell . 52, 356
Barnard, Re (2 D. M. & G. 359) 264,
275
•, Barnard v. White 1521
, Edwards v.Bamard 1421
V. Acklom . . 942
V. Bagshaw . . 1084
• V. Bowyer [937], 941
• V. Ford . . .909
V. Hunter . . 67
V. Pumfrett . . 1428
V. Scoles . . .314
V. Tomson . 2056, 2057
Barnardo v. Ford, Gossage's
Case . 815, 818, 999
V. McHugh 815, 818, 996,
999, 1004
Barnby's Ld., Re, Fallows v.
Bamby's .... 1972
Barned v. Sax, Re Sax . . 1541
Barnes, iJe . . . [1177]
V. Addy 88, 1064, 1086, 1087,
1188
V. Akroyd . . . 601
V. Bond . . . 1620
■ — • V. Dowling . . . 544
V. Bddleston . . 601
-^ V, Foster . , , 1545
Barnes v. Fox
• V. Glenton .
V. Loach
V. Raoster .
V. Robinson
PAGE
[1908]
1381, 1865
. 562
. 2021
906, 908
■ V. Southsea Ry. Co.
I'. Toye
■ V. Vincent
V. Wood
■ V. Youngs
2352,
2353
. 944
. 855
897, 2143, [2191],
2193
391, 392, 393,
2108
Barnett's Case, Re . . . 1321
Bamett, Exp. . . . 1934
, Re Tamplin . 1945
, Re . . . . 1301
, Baker i\ Barnett
[1526], 1430
, Hoares & Co. ?'. South
London Tram. Co. . 2250
■ V. Howard . . 853
V. King . . . 1405
V. Marzetti . . 548
V. Weston . 2023, 2044
V. Wilson . . 882
Barney, Re, Barney, v. Barney 1087
— , Harrison v. Barney
1621, 1696
■ V. Stubbs, Re Stubbs . 754,
755, 824
V. United Telephone Co.
636, 637
Barnwell v. Iremonger . 1450, 1477
Baron Hermann Frederick Carl
von Brentano, Re . . 1356
Baron, Re ... . 951
Baron Rodnej', Re . . 974
Barr v. Barr .... 747
V. Harding . . .312
V. Wilhs . . [1312]
Barrack v. McCuUock 865, 866, 2284
Barraclough v. Brown . 164, 165
Barratt v. Wyatt . . .1108
Barren, Exp. . . . 2188
Barrett's Trusts, Re . .1585
Barrett, Exp. . . . 2380
, Re, Whitaker v. Barrett 1348,
1350, 1369, 1467
V. Day . . 636, 637
V. Godfrey . . . 1227
• V. Hammond . . 432
V. Hartley 1341, 1905, 2273
Barretto v. Young . . 1357, 1677
Barrington, iJe(27Beav. 272) . 372
, {1 J. & H. 142) [1692]
■ • (33 Ch. D. 523) 1694
, Gamlen v. Lyon 546,
574, [1690], 2384
liv
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Barrington v. Liddell . .1666
Barron, Re . . . . 1211
■ — V. Willis 880, 1055, 1056,
1057, 1634, 2274
Barrow Hesmatite Steel Co., Be
(39 Ch. D. 582) 2428, 2431, 2432
Barrow HsBmatite Steel Co., Be
(No. 2) ([1900] 2 Ch. 846) 2431,
2433, 2436
Barrow-in-Furness Corp., Be . 1482
Barrow-in-]?umess Corp. v.
Rawlinson .... 2384
Barrow's Case . . . 1344
Barrow, Ex-p. . . . 2303
■ , Be Andrews . 2287
■ , Be (17 Beav. 547) . 278
• — , (V.-C. M., Dec. 15,
1871, A. 3165) [1734]
■ V. Barrow 865, 906, 908, 910
2237
■ ■ V. Griffith . . . 1480
V. Isaacs . . . 2309
■ V. Manning . . 863
■ V. Smith . . . 1919
Barrowman's Patent, Be . 2325
Barrs v. Pewkes . . . 841
V. Jackson . . .,J514
Barrs-Haden's Settled Estates,
Be . . 1741, 1742, 1755
Barry Ry. Co., iJe . . . 2424
V. Barry . . . 1537
V. Croskey . . . 2248
V. Hamilton . . . 1422
V. Harding . . . 1557
V. Marriott . . .1621
V. Moroney . . . 2083
V. Peruvian Government 794
V. Qninlan . . . 1358
V. Scully ... 87
V. Stevens . . 1331, 1341
V. Wrey . . . 1884
Barter, Exp. . . . 2286
■ t). Dubeux . . .117
Barsht v. Tagg . . . 2182
Bartholomew, Be . . . 951
V. Freeman 326, 329
Bartle v. Wilkin . . . 1884
Bartlett, Be . . . [989]
, Newman v. Hook 334
and Berry, Be 34, 37, 2202
. V. Bartlett (1 D. & J.
127) . 488
-(4 Ha. 631) 1443
-v.Charles,iJeByton 232,488
- V. Ford's Hotel Co. . 391
- V. Franklin . .1872
■ V. Higgins . . 299
■ V. Maj^fair Property
Co. . . . 1965
PAGE
Bartlett v. North Avenue Co. . 754
— V. Phillips . . 547
V. Pickersgill . . 2146
V. Rees [1831], 1840, 1909
V. Salmon . 2249, 2252
— ■ — V. Stinton . . 466
— — ■ V. The London Pro-
perties Development
Corp. . . [1959]
V. Wells . . .945
■ V. West Met. Tram.
Co. . 380, 754, 1846
V. Wood . . . 1452
Bartley v. Bartley . . 81, 1165
V. Thomas, Be Thomas
314, 315
Barton's Trusts, Be . . 1700
Barton, Be (31 July, 1858, A.
1527) . . 229
and Irvine, Be . . 303
V. Barton . . [1613]
• V. Cook . . .969
V. Downes . . 347
V. Latour . 232, 342, 352
V. L. & N. W. Ry. [23],
147, 2242
V. N. StafiordsHre Ry.
Co. [102], 107, 112, 1384,
2104, [2240], 2242
V. Rock . . .748
V. Spencer, Be Barlow . 838
V. Vanheythuysen . 1415,
2290
Barton-upon-Humber and Dis-
trict Water Co., Be
Bartrum, Be .
Barwell v. Parker .
Barwiok v. Enghsh Joint Stock
Bank
■ V. Yeadon L. B.
Baschet v. London Illustrated
Standard Co. . 664, 66€
1846
270
1342
2249
110
,669
Basevi v. Serra . . . 1455
Basham, iJe, Hannay V. Basham 1128
Bashford v. Cann . . 1936, 2049
Basingstoke Soh., Be . . 1266
Basire v. Passingham, Be Davis [962]
Baskcomb v. Beckworth . 2150
V. PhilUps . 2208
Baskett v. Skeel . . . 1875
Basnett v. Moxon 1215, 1230, 1234,
1808
Bassano v. Bradley . . 1278
Basset v. Percival . . [1608]
Bassett, Be, Bassett v. Bassett 378,
434
V. Allen Be Allen . 1383
V. Nosworthy . . 204
Bastable, Be . . . 2154, 220^
Table of Cases.
Iv
PAGE
Bastard v. Clark . . .1841
Baatin v. Bidwell 2148, 2155, 2208
Batavier, The . . .838
Batoheldor v. Yates, i?e Yates 1940
Batchellor v. Lawrence . . 2076
Batohelor, Re, Sloper v. Oliver. 895,
906, 1587, 1593
V. Middleton 1839, 1862,
1867
Bate, Re, Bate v. Bate . .1635
V. Hooper 1081, 1109, 1135,
1313, 1623
■ • V. Robins . . . 2167
Bateman, Exp. . . [783], 876
, Re (9 Eq. 660) [783], 876
■ — (21 L. J. Ch. 691) 2359
(Baroness) and Parker,
Re . [2200], 2311
• — V. Boynton . . 399
■ V. Earl Roden . . 1474
■ — (Lady) v. Paber 865, 869,
1115
V. HotchkJn . [537], 545
V. Hunt . 492, 1928, 2031
V. Kenrick . . [1]
— V. Margerison 152, 1095,
1359
V. Poplar Bd. of Works
610, 611, 698
■ V. Ross . . 881, 921
• V. Wiatt . . .521
Bater v. Bater . . 1522, 1523
Bates, Re ([1907] 1 Ch. 22) 1616,
1618, 1619
■ , Exp., Re Pannell . . 1406
V. Bates . . . 1062
V. Brothers
V. Eley
V. Heard
V. ffillcoat
V. Johnson
• V. Kesterton
V. Maokinley
V. Moore
. 750. 757
. 1317
. 2240
. 1910, 2005
[1885, 2025], 2044
. 1745, 1749
. 1700
. 310
V. Packman, Re Packman
[1203]
and Redgate, Re . . 2314
Bateson v. Gosling . . 2086
Batey, Re, Exp. Neal . . 1406
Bath's Case . . . .126
Bath, Exp., Re Pliillips . . 2058
, Exp 1408
V. Bath . . . 226, 488
V. Standard Land Co. 1087, 1093
(M.) Exp. . . 985, 2399
■ ■ and Wells (Bp. of). Re, . 1746
Bathe v. Bk. of England . 890
Batho, Re . 1207, 1219, 1220
Bathurst v. Erringt-on . 1655, 1664
PAGE
Bathurst v. Murray . .1013
Batley v. Kynock 293, 298, [639],
643, 645, 646, 653
Batson v. Newman . 493, 1378
Batstone v. Salter . . . 1669
Batt's Settled Estate, Re 898, 1741
Batt's Trade Marks, Re 835, 2338,
2343
Batt, Re ... . 2328
Battams, Exp., Re Wenham . 412
and Hutchinson, Re [272]
Battell, Re . . . . 1160
Batten, Re, Exp. Milne . . 2244
• — V. Earnley . . .1572
V. Gedye . . . 547
V. Wedgwood Coal Co. 252,
342, 755, 1049, 1063, 1880,
1884
Batten & Co. v. Dartmouth Har-
■ hour Commrs. 1132, 1469, 1880
Batten Pool v. Kennedy . 574
Battersby, Re (10 Ch. D. 228) . 373,
1157
(16 Jur. 900) . 1189
Battersea Park Acts, Re, Exp.
Arnold . . . .981
Battersea (Lord) v. Commrs. of
Sewers for City of London . 561
Batthyany, Re, Batthyany v.
Walford 116,722,
1518, 1525
■ , Strattman v.
Batthyany . 1518
• V. Bouch . . 2142
Battison v. Hobson 1067, 1334,
2040, 2255
Batts & Co. V. Dunnett . . 2334
Batty V. Chester . . . 2291
■ V. Hill . . . 622, 627
Baumann v. James . 2141, 2146
Bawden, Re, Nat. Bank v. Cress-
well 1536, 1559, [1602], 1606
Bawtree v. Errington, Re Baw-
tree . . .872
('. Wilson . . . 1050
Bax V. Palmer, Re Knott 1136, 1595
• V. Whitehead . .163
Baxendale v. Lucas . 344, 2179
V. MoMurray . 603, 608
V. North Lambeth
&c. Co. . . 578
Baxter, Re . . . 1212, 1216
V. Bower 518, 519, 554, 560
V. Conolly . . . 2140
■ V. Prance ... 21
■ — V. (No. 2) . 21, 178
■ V. Holds worth . .145
V. Middleton [2027], 2042
V. Thompson . [1796]
Ivi
Table of Gases.
PAGE
Baxter v. West . . 751, 752
Bayley's Settlement, Re . . 1663
Bayley, Re ([1911] 1 K. B. 317) 1942
(18 Beav. 415) 278, 279
V. Cass ... 77
■ V. G. W. By. Co. 562, 578
■ • V. Went . . 780, 784
V. Williams . . 2272
, Worthingfcon & Cohen
Re ... 2181
Baylies v. Baylies . . 729, 768
Baylis, Re . 266, 279, [300], 302
BayUa, Exp., Re Thompson . 266
■ V. A.-G. . . 1252, 1257
— V. Watkins, Re Hooper. 1378
Buyly, JExp., Re Went . . 719
V. Went . . 745, 750
Baynard v. Woolley . 1095, 1109
Bayne, Re, Parnell v. Pamell [1471]
Baynton v. Leonard
Bayspoole v. Collins
Bazeley v. jForder
Beadel v. Perry
Beak v. Beak
Beal, Exp.
V. Appleton
■ V. Morris
Beale, Re
■ V. Arabin
V. Kyte
V. Symonds
[565]
1627
884
518
1339
664
1826
[131]
265
884
2235
1222, 1232, 1367,
1460, 1861
Beale's Settlement, Re . . 1529
Beales v. Brown . . . 907
Beall, Re, Exp. Official Re-
ceiver . . . 2034
• V. Smith [1059], 1060, 1061
Beamish's Estate, Re . 1490, 1803
Beamish v. Austen
V. Beamish
■ V. Parmer
Beaney v. Elliott .
Bear v. Smith
Bearblock v. Tyler
Beard, Re, Beard v. Beard
Simpson v. Beard
Beardmore, Exp., Re Clark
■ V. Beardmore
V. Gregory
V. Tredwell
Beardsley v. Beardsley
Beasley v. Rooney
Beasney, Re .
Beater v. Murray
Beaton v. Boulton
Beatson v. Skene
Beattie, Re .
V. Ebury (L,
. 749
. 2133
. 1572
. 352
. 152
. 364
[383]
. 1556
. 1950
[1794]
. 1358
. 599
. 139
850, 877
. 1590
. 2118
. 1914
. 95
. 1964
249 287
[840], 841, 2248
PAGE
Beattie v. Johnstone . . 953
Beaty v. Curson . . .1158
Beauchamp (E.) v. Winn 2235, 2236,
2237
V. G. W. Ry. . 706
Beauclerk, Re . . . 1155
V. James, Re Brooks-
bank . . 1529, 1530
• V. Mead . . . 1490
Beaufort (D.) v. Berty . . 954
V. Morris . . 743
■ ■ — V. PhilUps . 263
Beaufoy, Re . . . . 2390
Beaumont's Settled Estates, Re 1768
■ Trusts . . 1680
Beaumont, Re (32 Beav. 191) . 1305
([1893] 3 Ch. 490) 1523
([1902] 1 Ch. 889) 1561
— , Woods V.
mont
• V. Boultbee
Beau-
. 761
. 1342
■ • V. Carter . . 893
V. Emery . . 597
V. Kaye . 857, 879
V. OUveira . 1300, 1306
V. Senior . . 252
Beaupre's Trusts, Re . . 877
Beavan's Trusts, Re . . 1542
Beavan and Whitting, Re . 1086
, Re . . . . 1387
, Re, Beavan v. Beavan 1555
V. Beavan . . . 1622
V. Cook ... 78
V. Oxford (L.) . 474, 1999,
2001, 2290
Beaver v. Master in Equity . 2135
Beazley v. Soares . . . 624
Bebb V. Bunny . .341, 2182
Becher v. Delacour . . 1383
Bechervaise v. G. W. Ry. . 66
■ V. Lewis . . 2075
Beck V. Kantorowicz . . 2268
V. Pierce . 856, 857, 879
259, 278,
281, 282
. 1107
. 1271
. 2081
32, 824
. 2005
. 1990
[2088]
Beoke, Re (5 Beav. 409)
• (18 Beav. 462)
Beckenham Char., Re
Beckett v. AddjTnan
V. Attwood
V. Buckley .
■ V. Cordley .
• — V. Mioklethwaite
■ V. Ramsdale, Re Hodg-
son 1376, [2121], 2125,
2126
V. Sutton . . . 1233
Beckett v. Tasker . . 875, 880
V. Tower Assets Co. . 1938
Beokford v. Kemble . .721
Table of Cases.
Ivii
PAGE
Beckford v. Tobin . . . 1446
Beokhausen v. Hamblet 2298, 2299
Beckwith v. Booth . . 1461
Bective {Earl of) v. Hodgson . 970
Beddall v. Maitland . . 39
Beddington, Re, Micholls v.
Samuel . . 1447
V. Atlee . . 562
V. Baumann . 1556
Beddoe, Ee, Downes v. Cottam
819, 1129, 1159
Beddoes, Exp. . . 2365, 2399
Beddow v. Beddow . 395, 512
Bedford Char., Re 1254, 1263, 1269
, &o. Ry. Co. V. Stanley
2139
V. Leigh . . 1351, 1851
Bedford (D.) v. Abercorn (M.) . 1645,
1653
V. Bacchus . . 2041
V. Brit. Museum . 534
■ V. Coke . . 1572
— V. Dawson . . 699
• V. Ellis . 49, 120
■;;. L. & N. W. Ry. [705]
Bedingfield, Re . . . 1166
• ■ , Re, Bedingfield v.
D'Bye . . 1133
■ — ■ and Herring, Re 1673,
1674
Bedoyere v. Nugent . . 542
Bee V. Stafford and Uttoxeter
Ry. Co. . . 2139, [2221]
Beech v. Keep . . . 1630
V. St. Vincent . . 1666
Beeley v. Waterhouse, Re Side-
bottom .... 1298
Beeman, Re, Fowler v. James . 1469
Beeny, Re, Ffrench v. Sproston 1083
Beer v. Bell . . . .884
■ V. London and Paris Hotel
Co 2154
V. Tapp . . . 1134
Beeston, Re . . . . 421
Beeswing, The . . . 838
Beetham, Re, Exp. Broderick . 1980
Beevor v. Luck 1910, [2013], 2014,
2015
Begbie v. Penwick .
Behrend's Trust, Re
Behrens, Re .
V. Richards
Beioley v. Carter
Belaney v. French .
Belcher v. Belcher .
V. Smith
V. Williams
340.
250,
Belding v. Read
Belfast Banking Co, v, Doherty
1950
1949
1159
582
2163, 2167
1041
800
495
1810
1948
946
PAGB
Belfast Ropeworks Co. v. Boyd 584,
587
Improvement Acts, Re,
Exp. Reid 1773, 2363, 2383
393, 2113
1469
773
769
483
238
1900
379
1057, 1113
. 2210
. 290
1358, 1514
16
. 2146
. 2091
924, 1588
. 355
Belfield v. Bourne
Belham, Re .
Bell's Estate, Re .
Bell, Re (6 Ves. 419)
(34 W. R. 363)
— (W. N. (94) 9)
([1896] 1 Ch. 1)
, Bell V. Kendall
, Carter v. Stadden [469], 474,
475
, Lake v. Bell
Bros., Re
V. Aitkin
V. Alexander .
V. Antwerp Line
V. Balls .
V. Barnett
V. Bell .
V. Cade .
V. Carter 1837, 1850, 1851
■ V. Danson, Re Danson . 1666
V. Denver . . 340, 2185
i;. Dudley (E.) . . 570
V. Holtby 1718, 2167, 2170
V. Hull & Selby Ry. . 517
V. Joell . . . [563]
V. Johnson
V. Kennedy
• V, Marsh
■ • V. Mid. Ry.
■ V. Read
■ V. Stocker
V. Sunderland B. B,
V. Taylor
V. Thompson .
V. Turner 111, 328, 1091, 1135
V. Walker . . . 667
V. Wilson . 543, 546, 568
Bellairs v. Tucker 2248, 2259, 2261
Bellamy, -Re . . . . 1032
— & Met. Bd. of Works,
Re . . . 2184
V. Briokenden 1882, 1904,
1905
2145, 2148,
2158, 2168
V. Jones . . . 107
V. Sabine . . 2041
V. Wells [597], 600, 602
Bellasis, Re . . . .1653
Bellcaim, The . . .125
Bellerby v. Rowland and Mar-
wood's Steamsliip
Co. . . 700,2430
V. Smith , . , 2187
87
. 1518
2248, 2273
. 705
. 1317
. 857
Soc. 2045
. 1038
. 1638
• V. Debenham
Iviii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Bellerophon, The ... 95
Bellew V. Bellew . . .1354
Bellinger, Re, Durell v. Bellin-
ger . . . [1140], 1480
Bellis, Be ... . 1536
Bellot V. Littler . . 1145, 1657
Belmonte v. A3T)ard . . 29
Belniore (Otess.) v. Kent County
Council .... 580
Beloe V. Brawre . . 1230, 1813
Belsham v. Percival . .186
Belt's Estate, Re . . . 897
Belt, Re . . . 1591, 2383
V. Hustwick . . . 429
Belton, Re . . . . 466
■ V. Lend. Co. Coun. . 2349
Beman v. Rufford . . 708
Bemment v. Balls, Re Ward . 1425
Benand, Re . . . . 950
Benbow v. Low . 85, 89, 179
Benoe, Re, Smith v. Benoe . 1542
■ V. Shearman . . 1928
Bendelow v. Wortley Union. 316,
[596], 599, 601, 604
Bending v. Bending . . 916
Bendy, Be, Waffis v. Bendy . 1632
Benett, Re, {[1906] 1 Ch. 216) . 1468
-, Re, Dyer v. Richards . 1454
■ V. Wyndham . . 1991
Benfleld v. Maomurdo, Re Mac-
murdo . . . 1990
V. Solomons . . "1504
Bengough v. Walker . . 1668
Benham, Re . . . . 1590
V. Keane 2001, 2030, 2040
Beningfield v. Baxter . . 1096
Benington v. Met. Bd. of Works 2354
Benjamin, Re . . . 1590
Benn, Re, Benn v. Benn . . 1513
Bennet v. Bennet 1538, 1655, 1670
v. Houldsworth . .1669
• D. Lee . . . 939
• V. McUwraith . . 50
Bennett, Re (6 April, 1876) . 261
(8 Beav. 467) 277,282
(10 Ves. 401) . 1056
— ([1903] 2 Ch. 136) 1750
([1907] 1 K. B. 149) 1949
Jones V. Bennett . 1130,
2134
V. Baxter . . 1042, 1461
V. Bennett, Re Ksh 279,
935, 1137, 1315, [1414],
1418
V. Bo wen. Re Bo wen . 174
V. Burgis . . 1162, 1165
V. Bury (L.) [797], 801
V. CoUey . . .751
V. Cooper . . .1869
PAGE
. 2137
. 87
. 565
. 340, 348
. 940, 941
. 1254
. 1257
. 1464, 1594
. 1598
. 126, 943
179, 180, 181
. 2162, 2169
. 2181
. 330
. 1320
. 2207
. 1515
Bennison, Re, Cutler v. Boyd . 1084
Bennitt v. Whitehouse 565, 572, 646
Benno-JafEe, &c. Pabrik v.
Richardson ... 88
Benns v. Moseley -
Bennett v. Fowler .
V. Glossop
V. Griffiths
• V. Hamill .
■ V. Harfoot
V. Hayter .
V. Honywood
■;;. Lytton .
■ V. Marshall
V. Merriman
V. Moore .
V. Rees
V. Stone .
V. Wheeler
V. Wlute .
V. Womaok
V. Wood .
Benson, Re, EUetson v. Fillers
■ V. Heathom
■ V. Lamb
439
1083,
1443
2268
2185
Bent V. Cullen , . .1569
V. Young ... 62
Bentall v. Sharp, Be Sharp 790, 793,
799
Benthal v. E. of Kilmorey . 1277
Bentham v. Wilson, Be Parker 1511
Bentinok, Be, Bentinck v. Ben-
tinck 1362, 1364, 1469
■ — V. L. Jt. Stock Bank 2038,
2039
Bentley, Be . . . .995
V. Landor . . [987]
V. Mackay . . 1643
V. M. S. & L. Ry. Co. 574,
[2346], 2352
— V. Rotherham, L. B. . 697
Benton, Be, Smith v. Smith . 869
Bentsen v. Taylor ... 28
Benwell v. Inns . . 528, 531
Benyon v. Amphlett, Be Sidney 1403
V. Benyon . . . 925
V. Ktch . . . 2279
• V. Nettlefold . . 2291
Benzon, Be, Forster v. Schle-
singer .... 358
Berdan v. Birm. Small Arms Co. 831
■ V. Greenwood
Berdoe v. Dawson .
Berens, Be
■ — V. Fellows .
Beresford v. Browning
• V. Hobson
Bcrgmann i: Macmillan
37, 108
1634, 2272
165, 1632
. 1512
. 2119
. 910
1312, 1333
Table of Cases.
lix
TAQB
Beridge, iJe .... 2377
Berkeley's Will, -Be . . 2359
Berkeley v. Berkeley . [103]
. V. King's Coll. . . 756
V. Standard Discount
Co. . . . 66
V. Swinburne . 1508, 1531
V. York (Abp. of) d.
Roe . . . 2238
Berkely, iJe, Berkely i;. Berkely 1188
Berkhampstead Grammar
School 1260, 1261
■ School Case 1245,
1259
1509, 1531
. 2154
580,
581
Bernal v. Bernal . . . 1356
Bernard v. Norton . . . 1920
Bernasconi v. Atkinson . [1531]
Berndston v. Churchill 129, [2302]
• V. Strang [2302], 2303
Berners i'. Bemers, Re Bullen-
Smith .... 1520
Berney v. Sewell 747, 749, 750, 1897
Bemicia Steamship Co., Re . 2441
Berridge, Re, Berridge v. Turner 1301
Berkley ?>. Swinburne
Bermingham v. Sheridan
Bermondsey Vestry v. Brown
V. Berridge . . 2080
Berrie v. Howitt . . . 1047
Berry, iJe .... 1155
, Berry v. Berry . 933
; Daffield v. WilUams 116
■ V. Armistead [2251], 2252
- V. Exchange Trading Co. 380
- V. Gibbons . . 333, 1479
- V. Halifax Commercial
Banking Co. . .1846
- V. Hancock, Re Hancock 1982
• V. Hebblethwaite 1372, 1852
. 747
. 773
. 1910
. 780
1034, 2032,
2035
431
1544
80,
V. Keen . ,J
Bertie v. Abingdon (L.) .
Bertlin v. Gordon .
Bertrand v. Davies
Berwick & Co. v. Price
■ Re, Berwick v. Lane
-, Ryle V. Ryle
(May. of) V. Murray
1123, 1342
. 988, 997
531, 881, 920, 921
. 2109
50, 345, 1096, 2196
[1713]
. 1512
— , Jarvis v. Birmingham
Corp. . . .1301
V. Applegate . . . 1922
Besant, Re
■ V. Wood
Besch V. ITrohck
Besley v. Besley
Best, Exp.
, Be
PAGE
Best V. Hamand . 2163, 2164 2188
Bestwick v. Orpen, Re Orpen's
Estate . . . .1588
Betagh v. Con cannon . . 1442
Bethell, Re, Bethell v. Bethell 1327,
1384
V. Hildyard 1522,
1586
V. Abraham 1147, 1148,
1656, 1669
— V. Clark . . . 2303
Bethlehem and Bridewell Hosp. 2362,
2402
Bethlem Hosp., Re [2364], 2365,
2399
Bethune v. Kennedy . . 1616
Betjemann v. Betjemann 1326, 1385,
[2094], 2096, 2104, 2248
Re
Bettesworth and Richer,
Betton's Charity, Re
■ — Estate, Re
Betts, Re ([1907] 2 Ch. 149)
-, Exp. Harrison
Betts' Patent
Betts V. Betts, Re Symonds 318,
2183
1261
915
1450,
1605
. 1894
2320, 2321
1423
■ V.
■ V.
V. Cleaver . . 291, 294
Clifford . . .291
De Vitre . 629, [649]
Gallais . . .651
G. E. Ry. . . . 707
Menzies . . 92, 631
V. Neilson . . .77
V. Thompson . . [590]
• V. Wilmott . . 631, 632
Betty, Re, Betty v. A.-G. 1465,
[1684], 1696
Beulah Park Estate, Re . .1134
Bevan and Whitting, Re . 1041
, Re . . . .293
V. Habgood . 1893, 1895
V. Malcolm-Hagan . 1656
■ V. Waterhouse . . 1623
V. Webb ([1901] 2 Ch. 59) 2105
■ ([1905] 1 Ch. 620)
1711,2111
Beverley v. Crowe . . . 504
Beverly, Re . . . 1430, 1431
Bew V. Bew . [814], 819, 823
Bewick, Re ([1911] 1 Ch. 116) . 1543
Bewicke v. Graham
Bewley v. Atkinson
Beyer v. Adams
Beyfus and Master, Re
73, 74, 86
151, 561
. 1378
2151, 2163,
2164, 2201
Beyfus v. Lawley . . 1606, 2153
Beynon, Re Be5T3on v. Beynon 1427
V. Cook . . 2278, 2279
■ I'. Godden
242
Ix
Table of Cases.
Bianca, The .
Biok V. Mosley
Biokersteth, Be
Biekerton v. Walker
Bickett V. Morris .
Bickford v. Skewes
Bickham v. Cross .
Bieknell v. Bicknell
PAGE
. 147
. 1123
[995]
. 2031
520, 587
. 364
. 1921
[931], 934,
[1462, 1495]
Bidder v. Bridges 85, 86, 107, 151,
264, 279, 297, 299, 835
V. Croydon L. B. 608, 609
— V. N. Staff. Ry. Co. 574,
2349
V. Riohards . . 607
Biddle v. Bond . . .494
Biddies v. Jackson . 894, 1015
Biddulph, Be . . 1155, 1557
V. Fitzgerald . .1461
■ V. St. George's Vest
599
520
705
2336
1607
1573,
1871
Biggerstafl v. Rowatt's Wharf 1039,
1323
1061
1033
1022
1933
1856
1150, 1674, 1800,
1801
■ V. Terry . . . 1001
Bignall v. Brereton . . 1572
Bignell, Be, Bignell v. Chap-
man . . . 740, 1134, 1138
Bidwell V. Holden
Bros., Be
Biegel, Be
Bierdermann v. Seymour 52
Bigge, Be ([1907] 1 Ch. 714)
Bigges V. Head
Biggs V. Bree
V. Dagnall
V. Evans . . 1932,
V. Hoddinott
V. Peacock
Bignold's Trusts, Be
Bignold, Be {9 Beav. 269)
260
■ (7 Ch. 223) . 1186,
1186
279,
281
1216
495
V. Audland
V. Bignold (45 Ch. D.
496) . . . 1446
• V. Springfield . 1263, 1266
Bigsby V. Dickinson 295, 297, 813,
835, 836
Bilborough v. Holmes . . 2126
Bilham, iJe . . . 1513
Bilke V. Roper, Be Smith 886, 887
Bill V. Edge, Be Edge . . 1227
V. Kinaston . . . 1559
• — ■ V. Sierra Nevada Co. . 697
Billage v. Southee . . . 2273
Billing V. Brogden, Be Brogden 1081,
1594
•^ V. Tracy , , ,839
PAGE
Billing v. Webb . . . 1372
Billinge, Be . . . [2355]
Billingsley v. Critchett . . 965
Bills V. Tatham, Be Patrick . 1927
Billson V. Scott . . . 1914
Bilston (Curate of), Exp. [2373]
2400, 2402, 2405
Bindley v. Mulloney . 919, 922
Binford v. Bawdon . [893]
Bing, Exp.i Be Mason . . 2129
Bingham v. Bingham . . 2235
V. Corbitt . . 2085
V. King . . . 1848
Bingley, i?e . . . [867]
School, Be . . 1277
V. Marshall . . 106
Binks V. L. Rokeby . . 2194
Binney v. Hammersmith & City
Ry. Co. . . . 2354
V. Mutrie . . . 2106
Binnie v. Broom . . .1104
Binnington v. Harwood . . 1904
. V. Hill . . . 654
Binns, Be, Lee v. Binns . . 1588
V. Nichols . . 1432, 1467
Birch, Be (4 July, 1873, A. 1617)
[729]
(2 K. & J. 369) . 1160
(10 Jur. N. S. 673) . 2389
([1909] 1 Ch. 787) . 1478
, Roe V. Birch 1109, 1112,
1385, 1387
V. Birch 125,
138, 445, 757,
116
V. Cropper .
. 1165
V. Joy .
. 2880
V. Mather
62, 643, 646
V. Sherratt .
. 1173
V. Williams .
. 538
Birchall, Be, Birehall v. Ashton 1165
, Wilson V. Birchall
126, 943, 1149
V. BuUough . .157
V. Pugin . . 1047, 1048
Bircham, Be . . . .303
Birchan v. Lord Advocate . 343
Birch Wolfe v. Birch . . 546
Bird's Estate, Be . . . 2395
— — -Trusts, iJe . [1643], 1645
Bird, Be, Exp. Hill
, Dodd V. Evans
, Pitman v. Pitman
V. Andrew
V. Bird .
■ V. Bird's Patent &c. Co
■ V. Eggleton
■ V. Harris
■ V, Heath
2288
1622
1489
834
924
703,
704
. 706
1029, 1539
. 1040
Table of Cases.
Ixi
PAGE
Bird V. Lake .... 514
V. Lee, Be Rogerson . 1304
■ V. Littlehales . 424, 451
V. Philpott . . 282, 1950
V. Wenn, . . 1877, 2015
Birds V. Askey 1087, 1088, 1475
Birkbeck Land Society, Re . 2187
Birkenhead, &o. Ry. Co., Exp.
[2414]
■ Docks V. Laird . 165
Birkett, Re . . . .1159
1). Hibbert . . . 1013
Birkhead v. Manaton 1338, [1472],
1703
Birkin, Re . . . 310, 1157
■«. Wing . . . 2152
Birkman v. Lord Kimberley,
ReCanie .... 1570
Birks V. Micklethwait . . 1453
V. Silverwood . 807, 1351
Birley v. Birley
V. Kennedy .
Birmingham v. Kirwan .
Birm. Bkg. Co. v. Ross .
Birm. Breweries, Ld., Re
Birm. Canal Co. v. Burman
V. Cartwright
■ V. Dudley (E.)
■ V. Swindell
Birm. (Corp.) v. Baker .
Birm. &c. Co. v. Carter .
Birm. & District Land Co. v.
AUday ....
Birm. & District Land Co. v.
L. & N. W. Ry. Co
1675
2095
916
562
1972
607
1543
571
571
1993
488
533
20, 21, 164,
249, 697, 2077
Birm & District Tram. Co.,
Exp 2418
Birm. Estates Co. v. Smith . 40
Birm. Excelsior Money Society
V. Lane 854, 855, 859, 878, 880
Birm. &c. Gas Co. v. RatclifEe . 392
Birm. & Lichfield Juno. Ry.
Co., Re 756, 2422, 2424, 2425
Birm. (Mayor of) v. Allen . 568
Birm., &c. Ry. Co., Exp. . 2393
Birm. Vinegar Brewery Co. v.
Powell . . . .620
Birm. Waste Co. v. Lane . 180
Birt, Re . . 743, 1467, 1469
V. Burt .... 1469
Biscoe V. G. E. Ry. . . 698
V. Jackson . . . 1252
Bisgood V. Henderson's Trans-
vaal Estates . . . 704
Bishop, Exp., Re Pox, Walker
& Co. . 838, 1345, 2077
, Be, Exp., Langley . 423
V. BalMs Co. . . 2243
PAGE
Bishop V. Bishop 42, 920, 921, 924,
925
V. Church . . . 1319
V. Elliot . . . 1952
V. Holt, Re Cheadle . 1553
V. Mantell . . . 1886
V. Smyrna & Carsaba
Ry. Co. . . . 700
V. Taylor . . . 2207
V. Willis . . . 1061
Bishop's Waltham Ry. Co., Re 2003
Bishopsgate Foundation, Re [2397],
2405
Bishton, Exp.
Biss, Re
Bisset V. Burgess ,
Bissett V. Antrobus
V. Jones
. 2464
. 292, 1711
. 1377
. 1459
169, 1835, 1836
Bissicks V. Bath Coll. Co. . 418
Bithray, Re .
Bizzey v. Flight
Blachford, Re,
Worsley
Black, Exp. .
V. Dawson
■ V. Homersham
V. Williams .
. 2003, 2004
. 1627
Blachford v.
. 1446
. 2286
. 821
2210, 2296
. 1952
. 348
738
Blackbeard v. Lindigren .
Blackborough v. Ravenhill
Blackburn, & Co., 2Je, Buckley's
Case . . . 2289
, Re, Smiles v. Black-
burn . . . 1427
Bldg. Soc, i?e2050, 2065
■ Bldg. Soc. u. Cun-
lifEe Brooks & Co. 1967,
2061, 2062
Bldg. Soc, Re, Exp.
Graham . . 2050
■ — ■ — — , Low & Co. V.
Vigors . . 2246
— —V. Belcher . .1535
V. Caine . .1920
• V. Gregson . . 364
— ■ V. Stables . . 1652
Blackburne v. Hope Edwards 1575,
2049
V. Somers
Blaokett v. Bates .
V. Blackett
Blackford v. Davis 1839
BlacMe v. Clark
■ V. Osmaston
Blacklidge v. Anderton
Blacklock v. Harland
Blackman v. Fysh .
Blackmore, Re
V. L. & S. W,
. 588
2141, 2149
569, 727
1881, 1904
1014, 2272
. 42
. 42
. 1232
759, 1540
. 273
Ry. 707,
[845]
Ixii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Blackmore v. White 544, 1388, 1695
Blackpool Motor Car Co., Be 2079,
2289
Blaokwell, Re, Bridgman v.
Blackwell . . 188
w. Bull . . . 1496
V. Crabb . . 627
Blackwood v. London Chartered
Bank . . 2031
V. Beg. . .1364
■ V. The Queen . 1524
Balgrave v. Bradshaw . . 1655
. ■ V. Routh . 1054, 1341
Blagrave's Settled Estate, Re . 1778
Blaiberg, Uxp., Re Toomer . 1944
and Abrahams,iJe 2186, 2201
. V. Beckett . .1947
■ V. Beeves
157,
. 2235
. 1212
. 269
. 265
. 1066
. 817
300, 1370
. 612
. 247
. 81
1387, 1868
1850, 2230
627, 2336
. 772
Blaine, Re
Blair & Girling, Re
, Exp. .
V. Bromley
V. Clark
■ ■ V. Cordner
■ V. Deakin
V. Eisler
• V. Massey
■ V. Nugent
V. Ormond
V. Stock
V. Toppitt
Blake's Patent
Blake, Be {W. N. (87) 173)
. (W. N. (95) 51)
(3 Ell. & E. 34)
, Blake v. Power
, Jones V. Blake 1148, 1418,
1419
■ V. Albion, &c. Soc. 37, 2249
■ V. Beech . . .818
V. Blake (7 Mar. 1854) . 1489
(18 W. R. 944) . 723
■ — (2 Soh. & L. 26) 1442
V. Bunbury . . . 1697
V. Gale . . . 1593
, Be Gale . 1112, 1387
2321
1168
1219
1071
881
Harvey
133, 185, 187,
1314, 1836
. 263
1939
541, 545, [1705]
. 1404
V. Hummell
. — V. Izard
■ V. Peters
V. Simpson
V. Summersly . . 1920
Blakeley's Trusts . . .716
Blakeley v. Blakeley . .1120
Blakely Ordnance Co., Re (46
L. J. Oh. 367) . . .475
Blakely Ordnance Co., Re (3 Ch.
154) .... 1927
■ V. Seager
Blakesley, Re
Blakey v. Hall
V. Latham
650,
PAGE
Blakemore v. Glamorgan Can. . 515
Blakeney v. Dufaur . . 751
Blaker v. Herts and Essex
Water Co. 746, 753, 1846,
1969, 1970
. 503
. 263
188, 379
827, 828,
833, 1050
Blarney t). Blamey . . .111
Blamire v. Blamire . [1484]
Blanohard's Estate, Re . . 1215
Blanohard, Re 1060, 1174, 1186, 1215
. V. Cawthome . 429, 757
Bland's Case, In re Westmore-
land Green and Blue Slate
Co 2269
Bland, Re, ([1905] 1 Ch. 4) . 1631
, Miller v. Bland [1614],
1616
V. Daniell . . . 1515
V. Dawes . . . 859
V. Gayford . . . 2168
■ V. Low . 191, [1374]
Blandford v. Blandford . . 925
Blandy v. Blandy . . [772]
V. Kimber . . . 1873
Blandy- Jenkins v. Earl of Dun-
raven .... 150
Blane, Exp., Re Hallett & Co. . 1089
Blank v. Footman, Pretty & Co. 250
Blann v. Bell . 1451, 1616, 1620
Blantyre (L.) v. Babtie
Blatch V. Wilder .
Blatchford v. Reed
-v. Woolley
Blathwajrt v. Taylor
Bleakley v. Smith .
Blease v. Burgh
Bleazby v. Bleazby
Bleckley v. Rymer
Blencowe, Exp.
Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp
398
. 1367
. 1232
863, 1606
. 1419
. 2143
. 1850
. 86
. 83
. 1092
78, 83,
92
Blest V. Brown . . . 2083
Blew, Re, ([1906] 1 Ch. 624) . 1543
Blewitt, Re . . . 1715, 1717
• — ■ V. Proctor, Nothard v.
Proctor . 739, 804
V. Roberts . .1568
V. Tritton . . .158
Bligh, iJe . . 951,956,967
V. Bligh . . [993]
V. Rathangan River Drain-
age Board . 603, 609
V. Tredgett , , .932
BUght, Re . . . .260
■ ■ ■ ■ V. Damley (E.) . . 1604
Table of Cases.
Ixiii
Blight V, HartnoU
1»AGB
1542, 1564,
1568
Bliss V. Putman . . . 122
Blithman, Re . . 1524, 1525
Blizard v. Phillips . . . 2144
Blockley, Re, Blockley v.
Blocldey . . . 1537, 1669
Blogg V. Johnson 1122, 1345, 1572
Blomfield, Re
■ V. Eyre .
2368
516, 979
[923], 924
1233, 1820
. 2242
2235, 2238
. 147
. 2144
[1294]
121,
1351
. 1365
. 1557
Blower v. Blower . . . 1433
Bloxam v. Clutterbuok, Re
Clutterbuek . . 865
V. Pavie . . . 1356
■ V. Met. Ey. 378, [691], 696,
Blood V. Blood
Bloomar, Re .
Bloomenthal v. Ford
Bloomer v. Spittle .
Blore V. Ashby
• V. Sutton
Blosse V. Eagles
Blount, Re, Naylor v. Blount
■ V. Doughty
V. BKpkins .
Bloj'e, Re
Bloye's Trusts
Bluok V. Capstick
■ V. Lovering
• V. Mallalue
Ass.
699
1153, 1159
. 1056
2109, 2112
. 1041
. 702
Soc,
. 1144
1380, 1451
Blue Ribbon Life
Re . . .
Bluett V, Jessop
Blumberg v. Life Interests, &o.
Corp 1877
Blun's Trusts, Re . . .1543
Blundell's Trusts, Re . . 872
Blundell, Re [949], 952, 1669, 1700,
[1701]
■ ■ V. Blundell 744, 752, 1064,
1132, 1465, 1499
■ V. Catterall
■ V. Rex
Blunden v. Desart
Blunt's Trusts, Re, ([1904] 2 Ch.
767) .
Blunt, Re
V. Olitherow
V. Heslop
V. Lack
1304
487
770
259
1530
BIyth, iJe . . . . 1
Blyth's Trusts, Re . . 2360, 2399
Blyth and Fanshawe, Re . 292
and Young, Re 826, 831, 838
, Exp., Hood-Barrs v.
Heroitt . . .857
V. Carpenter 1887, [1891], 1930
582
2458
1038
Blyth V. Fladgate
V. Green
Blythe, Exp., Re Blythe
, Re, Exp, Banner
V. Scholefield
PACK
1030, 1033, 1066,
1084, 1104, 1123
. 929
. 2120
124, 126,
2236
. 778
320, 822
[784]
. 38
Boake v. Stevenson
Boaler, Re .
V. Holder .
Board of Trade v. Employers'
Liability Assroe.
Boarder v. Lindsay
Boards, Re, Knight v.TS..,
Boatwright v. Boatwright
Bock V. Gorissen
Boddington, Re, Boddingt-on v.
Clariot . . . .
Boddy V. Kent
Bodega Co. v. Owens
Boden, Re, {[1907] 1 Ch. 132)
■ V. Hensby
2075
64
1536
1387
2301
1569
116
2332
1537,
1573, 1871
. 1041
. 1088
1981, 1983
1801, [1817]
. 1312
Bod-
. 1556
774, 2075
506, 2217
Bodenham v. Hoskyns
Bodger v. Bodger .
Bodicoate v. Stears
Bodkin v. Clancy .
Bodman, Re, Bodman v.
man .
Boehm v. Goodall
V. Woods
Bohlman, Re, Schuler v. Bohl-
man .... [1442]
Bolokow, Vaughan & Co. v.
Fisher . . 62, 69, 70
Bold V. Hutchinson 1626, 1643, 1646
2248
Bolden v. Nioholay . . 861
Boldero v. London & West-
minster Discount Co. 2284, 2285
Bolding V. Lane . . . 1874
Boles and British Land Co.'s
Contract, Re . . 1088, 2255
Bolingbroke v. Hinde . 177, 1882
Bolitho & Co. V. Gidley . 856, 870
— — V. Hillyar . . 1634, 2082
BoIIand, Exp. . . 370, 2289
-, Exp., Re Cherry . 2288
■ , Exp., Re Roper . 1941
V. Young . , . 475
Bolter V. Chapman . . 709
Bolton Estates, Re . . 1730
- Russell V.
Meyrick . . . 918
- Junction Ry., Exp. . 226
■,Re. . . . 1775
-, Re, Brown v. Brown . 1511
• Partners i'. Lambert 1324,
2144, 2154
Ixiv
Table oj Cases.
PAGE
Bolton V. Aldin . . .671
V. Bolton (2 Ch. D. 217) 112
— (23 July, 1891) 1014
■ (7 Eq. 298) . 1802
V. Buckenham . . 2085
V. Carlisle (Bp. of) . 2238
■ ■ V. Curre . . 870, 1110
V. Lane. & Yorks Ry.
Co. . . . 2303
V. Liverpool (Corp. of) 86, 93
V. Lond. Sch. Bd. 509, 514, 2163
V. Natal Land Co. 699, 700,
2106, 2433
■ V. Powell . . . 1361
• V. Salmon 1859, 2085, 2089
■ V. Stannard . . 1481
V. Ward . . 1801, 1814
Bombay Civil Fund Act, Be . 240
Bomore Road, No. 9, Be . 1186
Bompas v. King . . 1899, 1905
Bonar v. Macdonald . . 2084
Bonass, Exp. . . .302
Bond, Be, Bacon, Exp . . 152
■ , Be, Panes v. A.-G. 1514,
[1581], 1585
V. Barrow Hssmatite Steel
Co. .
V. Bourdillon .
■ V. Kent
V. Millbum
V. Tone .
■ V. Walford
Bonella v. Twickenham Board
of Health ....
BonelU's Electric Telegraph Co.,
Be
Bonfield v. Hassell
Bongiovanni o. Sooiete
rale
Bonhote v. Henderson
. 699
[1178]
. 2225
. 2112
. 316
[1636], 1637
610
18
1628
Gene-
104,
Bonithon v. Hockmore .
Bonnard v. Perrjnnan
Bonnardet v. Taylor
Bonner, Be, Tucker v. Good
V. Bonner .
V. G. W. Ry. Co.
Bonnewell v. Jenkins
2298
1644,
2237
. 1905
612, 676
. 81
. 1511
. 1604
. 701
. 2144
Bonnin v. Neame . 393, 1859, 2107
Bonomi v. Backhouse . . 568
Bonser v. Bradshaw . . 1051
. V. Cox 1408, 2082, 2083, 2084
Bonsfield v. Grant . . .933
Bonville v. Bonville . . 2113
Boodle V. Davies . . . 400
Booker, Exp., Be West of Eng-
land Bank
,Be .... 1529
. , Be Booker v. Booker . 2230
Booker, Be, West of England
Bank v. Murch .
Booking v. Bendell
Boor, Be, Boor v. Hopkins
PAGE
Boord V. African, &c. Co.
Boosey v. Eairlie .
V. Whight
1165
[1923]
1377,
2182
81, 1965
669, 670
. 670
. 1290
. 1355
Booth, Be (14 W. R. 761)
(1 Gifi. 46)
Booth «, Booth ([1894]
2 Ch. 282) [990], 1569
and Kettle well, iJe . 1860
• V. Coulton 738, 1572, 1573
V. Creswicke 1877, 1884, 1913
V. Leycester 721, 1572, 1850
V. Smith . . . 2050
V. Trail, Be Hayson . 479
V. Walkden Spin. &c. Co.
133, 798
Bootle V. Blundell . . . 1474
Cold Storage, &c. Co.,
Be 1964
Boots' Cash Chemist v. Grundy 37
Booty V. Groom . . 1449, 1450
Borax Co., Be, Forster v. Borax
Co 1968, 1969
Bord V. ToUemaohe . . 750
Bordier v. Burrell . . . 362
Boreham v. Bignall . . 1452
Borland's Trustee v. Steel 1543, 2096,
2120
Born, Be, Ournook v. Born 1046,
1047
■ V. Turner . . 561, 1901
Borneman v. Wilson . 117, 838
Borough's Estate, Be . . 1930
Borough Com. & Bldg. Soc, Be 2430
Com. &c. Soc, Be
([1894] 1 Ch. 289) . 289
Borries v. Imp. Ottoman Bank 1323
Borthwiok v. Elderslie Steam-
ship Co. . . 837
V. Evening Post 626, 627,
670
— V. Ransford . 1314, 1418
Bos V. Helsham . 345, 388, 2196
Boaehoek &c. Co. v. Euke 704, 705
Bostook V. N. Staf . Ry. . 598, 602
V. Pearson . • [10]
V. Ramsey Urban Dis-
trict Council . 241, 246
V. Smith . . .914
Boston Deep Sea, &c. Co. v.
Ansell 1093, [2267], 2268, 2269,
2270
Boston V. Boston . . .21
V. Bosville . . .925
Boswell, Be . . . 298, 1383
Table of Cases.
Ixv
PAGE
Bos well V. Coaks . 296, 299, 816
V. Gurney, Re Summers 1370
Bosworth, Be, Howard v. Eas-
ton . . 1465
— , Martin v. Lamb 1129
Botelar v. AUington . . 97
Bothamley v. Slierson . . 1557
Bothomly v. Fairfax . . 742
Bott V. Smith . [2281], 2283
Botten V. City and Suburban
Bldg. Soo 2065
Bottle V. Knocker . . [1546]
Bottomley v. Ambler . . 398
Boucas V. Cooke . . .671
Bouch, Re, Bouoh v. Sproule . 1621,
1700
• V. Sevenoaks Ry. . 482
Boucher v. Wood . . . 374
Bouchier v. Taylor . . 1514
Boucicault V. Chatterton . 665
V. Delafield . . 665
Boughton, Re, Leigh v. Bough-
ton . . . 278
V. Boughton . 1041, 1530
Boulnois V. Peake . . . 615
Boultbee v. Stubbs . . 2085
Boulton V. Beard . . .1596
V. Houlder Brothers &
Co 77
Bourband v. Bourband . . 516
Bourdillon v. Adair . . 895
V. ColUns . . 2143
Bourgoise, Re . . 156, 953
Bourke, Re . . . . 1215
V. Davis 46, 110, 552, 580
588, 593
Bourne, Be . . . 2109, 2119
— ■, Bourne v. Brand-
reth . . . 1555
, Davoy v. Bourne . 431
, Rymer v. Harpley 1540
• V. Bourne . . . 1490
V. Buckton . . 842
V. Coulter . . .129
u. Mole . . . 1083
V. Swan & Edgar . 625
V. Taylor . . .569
Bournemouth Commrs. v. Hol-
den . . . . 379,509
Bouron, Be, Exp. Brandon . 260
Boursot V. Savage . . 2035, 2242
Bourton v. Williams . . 3841
Bousfield V. Dove, Be Dove . 322
V. Godefroy . 157, 2230
V. Hodges . 333, 2167
V. Lawford . . 1588
Bouts, Exp 2464
Bouverie, Exp. . . . 2402
Bovill V. Cowan . . 73, 77
VOL. I.
Bovill V. Crate
V. Endle
V. Goodier
^(2)
V. Hadley
• V. Hitchcock
PAGE
514, 640, 801
. 1872
641, 643
. 640
. 653
360, 640
. 2330
513, 625, 633
Bovril, Re
Bow V. Hart
Bowden Bros. v. Amalgamated
Pictorials, Ltd. . . .664
Bowden, Re, Andrew v. Cooper 1096,
1114
Bowden's Patents Syndicate v.
Smith & Co. . . 2318
V. Henderson . . 1590
• V. Layland, Be Mars-
den . .1112, 1387
V. Russell . . . 458
V. Yoxall . . .823
Bowen, Be . . . 273, 466
Bennett v. Bowen .
-, James v. James
-, Lloyd - Phillips v.
Davis
174
887
1543
180
744
• V.
■ V.
■ V. Bowen
■ V. Brecon Ry.
■ V. Churchill, Be Dave-
ron . . . 1543
■ V. Cobb . . . 2038
■ V. Evans . . 348, 2042
■ V. Pearson ... 93
- V. Phillips [716], 748, 1503
- V. Cooper . . . 2186
Hett . . .422
Marris . . . 1370
Smith . . .1633
Bower-BarfE Patent, Be . . 2320
Bowerman, Be . . . 1479
Bowes, Be ([1907] W. N. 198) 224
, Earl of Strathmore
V. Vane (37 Ch. D.
128) . . 1493, 1992
. Strathmore (E.) v.
Vane ([1900] 2 Ch.
251) . . .298
, Strathmore v. Vane
(Jan. 11, 1901, A.
79) . . [223]
, Strathmore (E.) v.
Vane (No. 2)
([1896] 1 Ch. 507) 1553
, Strathmore v. Vane
(33 Ch. D. 686) . 1992
, Exp. Jackson
■ Estate (2), Re
■ Act, Re
■ V. Bute (M.)
• V. Pernie
• r'. Law
1894
. 2401
[1679]
. 1810
. 73
518, 534
Ixvi
Table of Cases.
PAGK
Bowie V. Marquis of Ailsa . 1022
Bowker v. Austin, Be Lawrence 1039
■ — V. Bowker . . 1570, 1579
■ — V. Bull . . 2088, 2089
• — V. Evans . . .399
V. Henry . . . 2111
■ — V. Hunter . . .124
Bowlby, Re Bowlby v. Bowlby 970,
971, 1445
Bowles, Re ([1902] 2 Ch. 650) 1544,
1677
([1905] 1 Ch. 371) 1542
V. Hyart, Re Hyatt . 1112,
1387
• V. Round . . . 2252
• ■ V. Rump . . 1801, 1818
■ ■ V. Stewart . . . 2240
Bowman, Re . . . . 1513
V. Hyland . 2157, 2165
V. Pleydell . . [6|
Bowmer, Re . . . . 1220
Bown, Re, O'Halloran v. King 869
V. Stenson . . . 341
Bowiai;. Wright 941,1229,1233,1820
Bowring v. Shepherd
Bowser v. Colby
V. Maclean .
Bowsher v. WatHns
Bowshire v. Watkins
Bowyear v. Pawson
Bowyer v. Grififin .
• V. Marshall,
shall
• V. Woodman
■ Smijth, Re .
Re
2296, 2297
381
574
1603, [2131]
. 1096
. 1321
. 112
Mar-
. 320
[948]
895
589
907, 910, 1356
2402
Box V. Box
• V. Jubb
Boxall V. Boxall
Boxmore, Trustees of, Exp.
Boyoe, Re 1185, 1197, 1206, 1208,
1220
V. Edbrooke . .1762
. V. Gill . . . .517
Boycott, Re . . . 277, 278
Boyd's Settled Estates . 1146, 2360
■ Trusts, Re
Boyd, Exp. Re Armstrong
, Re Kelly v. Boyd .
-, Neild V. Boyd
V. Bischofisheim
V. Boyd
V. Brooks
V. Dickson
■ V. Horrocks
• V. Petrie
■ V. Shorrock
Boydell v. Millar
Boyer v. Maclean, Re Wells
1427
823
1669
1470
2164
634
. 75, 79, 82
1950, 1951, 1952
. 1035
980,
792
879
1145, 1149
PAGE
Boyes V. Cook . . • 1427
V. Liddell . . . 2162
Boylan v. Cusack . . . 1121
Boyle, Exp 1838
,Re . . . .279
V. Bettws, &c. Co. 753, 754
V. Sacker . . 20, 377
Boynton, Re, ([1910] 1 Ch. 519) 1880,
1884
— , Hoffman v. Boyn-
ton . 740, [764]
BojTiton V. Boynton (4 App. Ca.
733) . 118
— (C. A. 19
June, 1878,
A. 1271) [2234]
(1 Bro. C. C,
18) .
■ (2 Sw. & Tr.
275)
916
Boys V. Bradley
V. Ford .
Boyse, Re, Crofton v. Crofton
157, 722, 1376
. 364, 1514
. 2272
925
1514
1841
108,
- V. Colclough .
• V. Rossborough
Boythorpe Coll. Co., Re, James
V. Boythorpe Coll. Co. . 1967
Bozelli's Settlement, Re . 1522, 1586
Bozon V. Altrincham U. D. C. . 827
— V. BoUand 1038, 1041, 1045
— — V. Parlow . . 2096, 2140
Braby, Re ... . 2334
Brace, Re, Welch v. Colt . 1426
V. Calder . . . 2127
V. Duchess of Marlborough
1851, 2044, 2046
V. Wehnert . . . 2141
Bracey, Re . . . 260, 262
Bracken's Settlement, Re . 1755
Bracken, Re, Doughty v. Town-
son 1352, 1375, 1595
V. Bentley . . 1559
Brackenbury's Trusts . . 1147
Brackenbury, Re . . 208, 1188
V. Gibbons . 1540
Bradbrook, Re, Lock v. Willis . 1696
Bradburn v. Morris . . 578
Bradbury v. Beeton . 621, 627
V. Cooper . . 42
V. Dickens . . 683
V. Hotten . . 662
V. Sharp . . .663
V. Wild . . . 2057
Bradby v. Southampton Board 2349
Brader v. Kerby . . . 1207
Bradford, Re . . . 1061
Thursby and Pa-
rish
820
Table of Cases.
Ixvii
FAOE
Bradford and District Tram-
ways (Extensions)
Order,. Be [2417], 2423
Bank v. Cure, Be
Clough . . 32, 2119
Banking Co. v. Brigga 1992,
2043
Corp. V. Perrand . 587
• (E.) V. Romney 1643, 2236
(Earl of). Be, Brad-
ford (Earl of) V.
Bridgman . [1690]
■ (Mayor of), Exp., Be
Hargreave's Trusts
2362, 2379
(Mayor of) v. Pickles
251, 587
Tram Co., Be . 2420, 2425
V. Brownjohn [1706], 1711
. 1444
■ V. Nettleship
■ V. Young 1356, 1519, 1520,
1521
. Be Fal-
842
1522
conar's Trusts
Bradlaugh v. De Rin
Bradley's Settled Estates, Be .
1811, 1233
Settlement, Be [1197]
Bradley, iJe .... 1181
, Exp. Walton 1092, 1126
, Brown v. Cottrell. 1508
V. Borlase
V. Bradley
— : V. Carritt
V. Clayton
■ V. Munton
V. Peixoto
■ V. Riches
■ V. Stelfox
Bradshaw, Exp.
,Be
([1902] 1 Ch,
1883
921
1856
1210, 1218
. 1541
. 2036
. 800
2398, 2399
. 1212
.436) 1529,
/ 1675
([1906] W. N. 86) 831
V. Bradshaw . 952, 966
V. Pane . . . 2402
■ V. Huish, Be Huish . 1538
• V. Outram . . 1862
V. Tasker . . 1267
V. Waldy, Be Waldy [470]
■ V. Widdington 836, 1383,
1868
Brady's Case . . . 2147
Brady, JJe . . 278,279,291
Braham v. Beachim . 618, 626
V. Bustard . . 626
Brain, Be . . . 381, 383
Braintree Local Bd. v. Bo'yton . 601
Braithwaite, Exp. . . . 2399
PAGE
Braithwaite, Be Braithwaite v.
Wallis 1083,1107,1443
V. Keams . . 106
Bramble, Exp., Be Toleman . 1040
Bramley, Be . . . 1554, 1700
Bramwell, Be, Bramwell v.
Starkey . [1125]
V. Halcomb . . 661
■ • f . Lacy . . . 535
Brand, Be, Exp. Francis . 2303
V. Mitson 513, 515, 716
Brandao v. Barnett . 1992, 2302
Brandon's Estate, Be . . 2402
Trusts [103, 956], 967
Brandon, Exp., Be Bouron . 260
• V. Brandon (5 Madd,
473)
V. Hughes,
Be
V. McHenry
V. Woodthorpe
Brandram, Be
Brandreth, Be (60 L. J.
501)
V. Colvin, Be Pitcairn 1616
Brandt v. Dunlop Rubber Co. . 492
Branmer's Estate, Be [2396], 2400
769
(1 Dr. & S.
16) .
(3 D. & J.
524) 775,2075
(3 N. R.
287) .
(13 W. R.
287) .
(W. N.
(66)253) 1513
(3 Swa.
318)
(4 Ves.
800)
Hughes,
887, 923, 1607
. 423
. 895
310, 2362
, B.
1071
774
1425
1899
1513
1700
Branson v. Stammers
Branston v. Weightman,
Hall ....
Brant, Be . . .
V. Parsons, Be Smith
2144
Be
. 1510
. 1354
[1787]
, 1938
Brantom v. GrifBts
Brasher's Trusts, Be (6 W. R.
406) .... 2368, 2376
Brasnett's Case, Be Norwich
Equitable Co. . . . 822
Brassey, Exp. . . [892]
Brassington v. Cussons . [181]
Braund v. E. of Devon 1276, 1277,
2363
Braunstein v. Lewis . 852, 875
Bray v. Briggs , . . 2151
■ V. Gardner . [647], 648
V. Milner, Be Milner . 1427
Ixviii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Bray v. Stevens . . . 1536
V. Tofield, Be Greaves . 121,
1351, 1388
■ V. West . . . 1136
Braybrooke (Lord) v. A.-G. . 242
• V. Inskip . 1181
Braye, Exp 2401
, Be ... . 2363
Brazier v. Camp . . . 1085
V. Hudson . . . 1459
Brazilian Rubber Co., Be . 832
Breadalbane (M.) v. M. Chandos 1643
BrearolifE v. Dorrington . 474, 488
Breay v. Royal British Nurses'
Assoc 703
Brecon (Mayor of) v. Seymour 1856,
2045
Bredicot (Rector of), Exp. . 2359
Bree v. Marescaus . . .16
Bremer v. Freeman . . 1357
Brenan v. Brenan . . . 1653
Brenchley v. Higgins . . 2278
Brent, Be ... . 1621
Brentnall, Be . . . 1188
Brentwood Brick and Coal Co.,
Be . . 1991, 2224
■ Co., Be . . . 2201
Brereton, Re, Todd v. Brereton
[1787]
V. Edwards [469], 473,
474, 716, 762
Breslauer v. Barwick . .1319
Breton's Estate, Be, Breton v.
881
1629
1455
1990
1379-
345, 578, 2196
2141
910
Woolven
Breton, Be, Breton v. Woolven
Brett, Be ([1906] W. N. 78) .
, Exp. Irving
Carmichael
Clowser
B. India Ry. Co
Greenwell
Monarch Investment
2063
225
870
1383
Bldg. Soc. .
Brettingham, Be
Brettle, Be .
Brew V. Brew
Brewer, Exp. Wilts
Somerset Ry., Be . . 950
Brewer v. Broadwood 2148, 2167,
2168
and
■^•^ V. Brown
— V. Pocock
V. Square
— ■ V. Yorke
Brewin v. Austin .
V. Briscoe .
Brewood Ry. Co., Be
Brewster v. Prior .
V. Woodall
. 2150,2195,2196
. 1465
[1844], 1846, 1847
. 842
. 1914
. 1033
. 2416
. 1428
102, 2162
Brioe v. Carroll, Be Carroll
V. Stokes
Brickenden v. Williams .
Bridewell Hosp., Be
V. Ward
PAGE
Briant, Be, Poulter v. Schackel
905, 906, 907, 1587
• V. Dennett . . . 1444
1060
1083
. 886
303, 1258
. 661
Bridge, Be, Pranks v. Worth . 312
V. Beadon . . 1928, 2034
V. Branch . . .788
V. Bridge . . .1630
■!). Brown . .1134,1459
V. Quick . . . 2307
Bridgend Gas Co. y. Dunraven 2149
Bridger, Be, Brompton Hosp.
V. Lewis . 1298, 1556
• V. Deane, Be Deane . 1671
■;;. Penfold . . .334
V. Savage . . . 1378
Bridges, Be, Hill v. Bridges 1405, 1607
V. Brdges . . 980
V. Hindman . .1362
■ V. Shaw, Be Shaw . 1448
V. Stephens . . 545
Bridgetown Waterworks Co. v.
Barbados Water Supply Co. 162
Bridgewater v. De Winton . 78
Bridgman, Be . . . 1170
■ V. Blackwell, Be Black-
well
V. Gill .
Bridgwater Navig. Co., jBe
Bridle, Be . . .
Bridson v. Benecke
■ V. M' Alpine
■ V. Smith
Brien v. Swainson .
Brier, Be, Brier v. Evison
. 188
. 1087
. 1621
. 1558
. 631
. 631
. 180
. 2144
322, 352,
1085
Brierley Hall Local Board v.
Pearsall .... 392
Briesemann v. Smith . [100]
Brigg V. Thornton . . . 535
Briggs, Be ([1906] 2 K. B. 209) 2124
and Spicer, Be . . 2285
V. Chamberlaine . . 896
V. George . . .1536
• V. Jones . . . 2031
• V. Massey . . . 1929
■ V. Ryan, Wheeler's Set-
tlement, Be . 855, 876
■ V. Upton . . . . 1512
— V. Wilson 1383, 1384, 1387,
1434
Bright's Settlement . . 1928
Bright's Trustees v. Sellar 293, 294
Bright, Be, Smith v. Druce [791]
■ V. Campbell . 1870, 1906
Table of Cases.
Ixix
PAGE
Bright V. HuttoD . . . 2094
■ V. Larcher . . .1571
V. Legerton 1030, 1109, 1113
■ V. North . . .696
• V. River Plate Construc-
tion Co. . 395, 398
V. Tyndall . 165, [354.], 357
• ■ (Charles) & Co. v. Sellar 188,
816
Brighton and Dyke Ry. Co., Re 2410
Hotel Co., Be, Forbes
V. Brighton Hotel
Co. . . [1953]
■ ■ Marine v. Woodhouse 391
Brignall v. Whitehead . .118
Brigstoclie v. Brigstooke . . 1712
Brinckman v. Matley . . 582
Brindley v. Partridge, Be Nor-
rington . 1107, 1617, 1619
Brine v. G. W. Ry. . . 698
Brinkley v. A.-G. . . 1522, 1586
V. Frost . . [500]
Brinklow v. Singleton, Be Dunn 1128
Brinsden v. Williams . 1064, 1086
Brinsley v. Lynton and Lyn-
mouth Hotel Co. . . 1971
Brinsmead & Sons, Be . . 626
Brinton v. Lulham, Be Lulham 1711
Briscoe, Be (20 W. R. 504) . 127
(2 D. J. & S. 249) . 2401
• V. Briscoe . . 1046, 1047
Bristed v. Wilkins . . 473, 1614
Bristol's (M. of) Settled Estates,
Be ([1893] 3 Ch. 161) . 1772, 1780
Bristol (Corp. of) v. Westcott . 638,
2167
(E.) V. Hungerford . 2044
(M. of), Be, E. Grey v.
Grey . . 1666
V. Inland Rev.
Commrs. . 159
• ■ (Mayor of) v. Cox 74, 94
and N. Somerset Ry.
Co., iJe . . . 2411
&c. Bread Co. v. Maggs 685,
2144, 2145
■ ■ &c. By. Co. V. Somerset
and Dorset Ry. Co. . 2139
Grammar School . 1259
■ School, Be . . . 2385
Tramway and Carriage
Co. V. Nat. Telephone
Co 682
■ United Breweries v.
Abbot ..... 1963
Bristow V. Booth 1174, 1197, 1210
• V. Bristow . . 1605
Bristowe v. Needham 771, 773, 1884
Britain v. Hanks . . .671
PAGE
Britain v. Overton .
. 1277
V. Rossiter .
. 2145, 2147
Britannia Bldg. Soc, Be 2057, 2065
— -Mills, TJe . . 2428
Brit, and American Trustee and
Finance Corp. v. Couper 706,
2430, 2431, 2432, 2433
Brit, and Foreign, &c. Co. v.
Wright .... 65
Brit. Burmah Lead Co., Be,
Vicker'sCase . . . 2260
Brit. Columbian Estates, Ld., Be 2443
Brit. DjTiamite Co. v. Krebs . 185,
845
Brit. Electric Traction Co. v.
I. R. Comms. . . .158
Brit. Bmp. Co. v. Sugden [1831], 192
Brit. Emp. Shipping Co. v.
Somes .... 62
Brit Equitable Co. v. Baily . 2057
Brit. Equitable Co. v. G. W.
Ry. Co 2247
Brit. Guardian Life Ass. Co., Be 1094
Brit. Homes Assur. Corp. v.
Paterson .... 2123
Brit. India Steam Navigation
Co. V. Commrs. of Inland
Revenue . . . .157
Brit. Insulated Wire Co. v.
Presoot Urban Council . 2150
Brit. Land Co. of America, Be. 2434
Brit. Linen Co. v. S. American
and Mexican Co. . . 739
Brit. Motor Syndicate v. Taylor
& Son . . . 632, 651
Brit. Museum v. White . . 1307
Brit. Mutoscope and Biograph
Co. V. Horner . . . 2317
Brit. Mutual Banking Co. v.
Chamwood Forest Ry. Co. . 2249
Brit. Mutual Invest. Soc. v.
Cobbold . . . 1062, 1331
Brit. Mutual Invest. Soc. ■;;.
Smart . . . 1362, 1982
Brit. Natural, &c. Assoc, v.
Bywater .... 244
Brit. Oil and Cake Mills v. I. R.
Commrs. . . . .160
Brit. Power Traction & Co.,
Be., .... 740,2075
Brit. Seamless Paper Box Co.,
Be 1093
Brit. S. African Co. v. Com-
panhia de Mozambique 367, 1524
Brit. South African Co. v. De
Beers . . 694, 723, 1856
Brit. Tea Table Co., Be . . 1039
Brit Vacuum &c. Co. v. New
Vacuum &c. Co. . 621, 628
Ixx
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Brit. Wagon Co. v. Gray 13, 16
British Widows' Assur. Co. . [387]
Briton Medical Assoc, Be . 133
Briton Medical Assoc, v. Bri-
tannia Fire Assoc. . . 85
Briton Medical Assoc, v. Jones 801,
825
Briton Medical and General Life
Assoc, Be . . . . 784
Briton Mutual Assoc. . . 798
Britten v. Britten . . 893, 900
Brittin v. Partridge, Be Wasdale 2034
Brittlebank, Be, Coates v. Brit-
tlebank . . 1670
• ?;. Goodwin . 1112,1388
— i;. Smith . 111,229
Broad, Exp., Be Neck . . 2301
, Be . . . .292
■ , Be, Smith v. Draeger . 1427
V. Munton, Be Banister 329,
330, 2163, 2164
■ V. Perkins . . .786
■ V. Selfe 1856, 1877, 1906
V. Wickham . . . 745
Broadbent v. Barlow . 1332, 2022
V. Barrow, Be Ovey
(29 Ch. D. 560) . 1253, [1532]
Broadbent v. Barrow, Be Ovey
(31 Oh. D. 113) . . . 1305
Broadbent v. Barrow, Re Ovey
(20Ch. D. 676) . . . 1554
Broadbent v. Groves, Be Cock-
croft .... 126, 1477
Broadbent v. Imp. Gas Co. . 599
Broadhurst v. Balguy . . 1098
Broadwater Estate, Be . . 1779
Broadwood's Estate, Be . 1699, 1719
Broadwood, Be (55 L. J. Ch.
646) . . 310
— — (lCh.D.438) 1444,
2383
— — ■ — , Lyall V. Broad-
wood . . 1607
Broch V. Kellook . . . 1591
Brock & Co., Be . . 2331, 2336
Brocklebank v. E. London Ry.
Co. . . 744
V. Lynn Steamship
Co. . . 28
V. Thompson . 593
Brocklehurst v. Jessop 1351, 1851,
1868
Brocklesby, iJe . . . 1159
■ ■ 1). Temperance BIdg.
Soc 1927,2032
Brockman, Be [254, 255], 262, 298
Broder v. Saillard 385, 597, 602,
604
Brodericik, Exp., Be Beetham . 1980
Brodie v. Barry .
V. Bolton
■ V. Johnson .
V. Kilmorey .
Brodribb v. Brodribb
Brogden, Be
PAGE
750
1404
810
[325]
459
1165
Billing V. Brogden
1081, 1594
■ V. Llynvi Ry.
Bromage v. Davies
Bromhead, Be
Bromilow v. Phillips
Bromley, Be (7 Beav. 488)
— (21 W. R. 155)
[686]
348, 1062
. 1038
. 459
. 259
. 862
-, Sanders v. Bromley 1621
V. Brunton . . 1561
v. Kelly . . . 1930
Brompton, Exp. . . . 1263
, Incumbent of, Exp. [1247]
■ Hospital V. Lewis
Be Bridger 1298, 1156
■ Waterworks, Exp. [2413],
2420
Bromwell v. Parr . . . 721
Brook V. Brook 1165, [1582], 1586
V. Evans . . . 678
v. Hertford . . . 1800
V. M. S. & L. Ry. Co. . 2353
v. Stone . . . 1904
■ — — V. Wigg . . . 361
Brooke, Be . . . 2401, 2404
• , Brooke v. Brooke
([1894] 2 Ch. 600)
1497, 1901, 1939, 1951
• — , Brooke v. Rooke . 1536
■ , Ridsdale v. King [1505]
■ V. Brooke (25 Beav. 342) 865
V. Brooke (17 Ch. D. 833) 229
V. Brown . . [1229]
V. Browne . . . 1818
■ V. Edwards, Be Edwards
433,464,465
■ V. Garrod . . . 2139
• V. Hamyes . . . 1429
■ V. Hicks . . .907
■ • V. Inland Rev. Com. . 161
■ (L.) V. Mostyn 896, 943, 1149
■ (L.) V. Rounthwaite 2194,
2195
— V. Pearson . . . 2286
■ V. Todd . . .148
■ ?>. Wigg . . .362
Brooke and Premlin, Be . . 864
Brooker v. Brooker . .1120
Brookes v. Hanson . . 2266
Brookfleld v. Bradley . . 1609
Brooking, Re . . 2383, 2400
(Rev. Philip), Re . 1298
u. Brooking, iBeWood [1012]
Table of Cases.
Ixxi
FAOE
Brooking v. Maudslay 36, 713, 714,
2241, 2246
Brookman v. Hales . .1711
Brooks' Mortgage . . . 1859
Brooks, Re . . . [2356]
, Exp., Re Speight . 838
■ V. Cohen, Re Cohen . 1674
V. Greathed . . 452
■ •«;. Keith . . . 1632
V. Miekleston . . 1930
& Co. V. Lyoetts Saddle
&o., Co. . . 182,648
■ , Jenkins & Co. v. Tor-
quay (Mayor of) 696, 1031
■ V. Sutton . . . 1340
Brooksbank, Re, Beauclerk i'.
James
Broom v. Phillips .
Brooman v. Withall, Re
Broome v. Wenham
Broomfield v. Williams .
Brooshoof's Settlement, Re
1529, 1530
. 2161
Kidd
1477, 1991
. 692
519, 562
2402,
2403
964, 1148
. 1755
Brophy v. Bellamy
Brotherton, Re
Brothwood v. Keeling, Re Salt . 1605
Brougham, Exp., Re Derby . 1093
■ V. Cauvin . . 79
■ (L.) V. Powlett 1366,
1450, 1606
Broughton v. Broughton
Coghlan
V. Hutt .
Broun V. Kennedy .
Browell v. Pledge .
V. B«id
Brown's Settlement (18 Ch. D.
61) .
, Re (10 Eq.
349)
. 2119
Re
. 1630
. 2235
1102, 2306
. 1920
. 751
979
1674
1680
488,
Trust Estate, Re
Trusts, Re (5 Bq. 88)
1927, 2033
■ Trust, Re (V.-C. S.
Nov. 7, 1862, A. 2011) [1679]
Will, Re 1541, 1631, 1768
Brown, Exp. (Coop. 295) 295) . 1262
■ ■, Re Albion Ass. Co. 210
, Re Hastings . 1077
, Re Stephenson
([1897] 1 Q. B.
638) . . 2286
, Re Suffield 1049, 1052
, Re (29 Beav. 401) . 368
(4Eq. 464) . . 287
(16 W. R. 962) . 453
(3 August, 1878) [2396]
Brown, Re ([1896] 2 Ch. 666)
PAGE
967,
1157
, 1641
, 481
([1904], 1 Ch. 120)
, Exp. Smith .
, Bayley and Dixon,
Exp. Roberta . 1839
, Brown v. Brown 1386,
1865
, Brown v. Hastings
[1077], 1083
, Dixon V. Brown 1090
2236
, Llewellin v. Brown 475,
984, 1366
- — , Paden v. Finlay . 1301
, Penrose v. Manning 1610
, Ward V. Morse . 251
-, Janson & Co. v. Hutchin-
son & Co. [2123], 2130
-, Shipley & Co. v. Inland
Revenue Commrs. . 160
-, Shipley & Co. v. Keough
1990, 2301
-and Sibley's Contract, Re
1181,1644,2201
- V. Ackroyd . . 884
- V. Alabaster . . 579
- V. Barkham . .1403
- V. Bateman . . . 1939
- V. Black . . [2294]
- V. Brown (2 Eq. 481) 1630,
1628, 1648
(1 Vem. 157) 399
(7 Eq. 185) . 920
; Re Bolton .1511
- V. Burdett . . 248, 1449
- V. Clark . . .910
- V. Commissioners for
Railways
• V. Cole
• V. Collins (25 Ch.
D. 57)
■ (13 & 30 July,
Reg. Min.
Book/. 165)
2348
1855
816,
960
167
1508
■ V. Cottrell, Re Bradley
■ V. De Tastet 1318 [2117],
2119
■ V. Dibbs . . . 2183
■ V. Dimbleby . . 853
- V. Dunstable Corp. [607],
609, 610
- V. Earebrother . . 333
■ V. Fenwick . . . 2400
- V. Gellatley 1610, 1617, 1618,
1619, 2134
- V. Haig ... 28
- V. Heselton . . 207
• V. Hull
[1640]
Ixxii
!rable of Cases.
PAGE
Brown v. Inland Revenue Com-
missioners . . 160
V. Kennedy . 1053, 2237
V. Lake (1 D. & S. 150) 1375,
1379, 1415, 1428
(2 Col. 623) . 1352
V.
Liell
63
V.
Met., &o. Soc
, ,
.
1895
V.
Newall .
517
V.
Oakshott
9S
,334
V.
Pearson .
.
179
V.
Pringle .
1591
V.
Rutlierford,iJc Ruther-
ford .
.
,
1389
V.
Rye
1351,
1834
V.
Sewell 80,
287, 292
,295,
2227
. 2229.
2231
V
Smith .
965, 966,
1519
V
Stead
2045
V
Stedman
2032
2035
V
Thames, &c.
Cc
, ,
71
V
Thornton
,
99
V
Tolley .
1072
V
Trotman
1051
V
Wales .
87
1823
V
Walter .
[7351
V
Watkins .
85,71
V
Weatherby
.
1362
, Janson & Co.
V
Hut-
chinson & Co., No. 1
([1895] 1 Q. B. 737) . 412
, Janson & Co. v. Hut-
chinson & Co., No. 2
([1895] 2 Ch. 126) . 412
Browne's Hospital, Stamford, Re 1259
■ ■ Policy, Re, Browne v.
Browne . 873, 878
Browne, Re, Exp. Ador . .1377
(15 Beav. 61) 278, 279
(27 Beav. 324) . 1570
(1 D. M. & G. 322) 278
• (2 Ir. Ch. Rep. 151) 1000
(14 W. R. 298) . 2362
(6 Ry. Ca. 733) . 2376
■ V. Black . . .264
■ V. Butter . . . 1087
■ V. Collins (12 Eq. 586) 1317,
1621, 1700, 2134
— . (V.-C. H., 22
Jan. 1875, A.
119) . . 1501
(62 L. T.
566) . . 1768
V. Fleuer . . . 560
V. Freeman . .621
. V. Groombridge . 1366, 1476
■ V. Hammond . . 1559
V. La Trinidad . 703, 704
. )'. Lockhart . 1874, 1884
PAGE
Browne v. MoClintock 362, 370, 2250
V. Peto . . . 1897
V. Savage . . 1628, 1927
V. Wamook . . 1591
Brownell v. Brownell . . 1341
Browning, Exp., Re Craycroft . 419
V. Browning . . 2106
. • V. Sabin . . 424
Browlie v. Campbell 2151, 2220, 2235
. V. Russell . . 2057, 2064
Brownrigg v. Pike . . . 887
Brownson v. Lawrence . 1477, 1478
Brownsword v. Edwards 96, 2241
'&WiD&,Exp 1980
,Re . . . [960]
([1905] 2 Ch. 372) . 1753
([1908] 2 Ch. 682) . 1587
(Lord Henry) v. Marq.
of Ailesbury 1823, 1754,
1767, 1769
— — V. Bruce . . . 1675
V. Garden . . . 1935
Bruere v. Pemberton . 1122, 1367
V. Wharton . . 1914
BrufE V. Cobbold . . .824
Bruin v. Knott . . . 966
Bruiton v. Birch . . .122
Brumbridge v. Brumbridge . 1079
Brune v. James . . .513
Brunei v. Brunei . . . 1519
Bruner v. Moore . . . 2145
Brunning, Re . . . 1569
Brunsden v. Humphrey . .139
Brunsdon v. Allard . . 1050
Brunskill v. Caird . . 1145, 1695
Brunt, Re ... . 1186
Brunton v. Dixon . . . 921
■ V. Electric Engineering
Corporation . . . 1039
Brutton v. St. George's, &c
Vest 689
Bruty V. Mackey, Re Buck 1252,
1253
Bryan, Re, Godfrey v. Bryan . 906
— — V. Bull . . .738
V. Clay . . . 1377
■ V. Cormick . . . 750
Bryant, Exp., Re Padstow Total
Loss Assoc. . . 832
, Re, Exp. Bryant . 2289
, Re (4 Ch. D. 98) 511, 521
(W. N. (76) 252) . 187
(50 L. T. 450) . 1061
, B. V. Hickley 966, 1148
— • and Barningham, Re 348,
1757, 2169, 2185
and May, Re . . 2329
V. Bull . .751, 759
— V. Busk . . . 2167
Table of Cases.
Ixxiii
Bryant v. Reading .
Bryoe v. Bannister
Brydges v. Phillips
Brydone's Settlement, Be
Brymbo (Vicar of). Be
PAGE
. 497
156, 157
1474
1513
2379
Bryon, Be, Dnunmond v. Leigh 1510
-V. Saloon Omnibus Co,
546
Bryson v. Whitehead
Buhb V. Yelverton
Buccle V. TUbo
Bucoleuch (D.), Be
V. Eden
■ -v. Met. Bd. of
Wks. 399, 588
V. Wakefield
Buchan's Case
Buchan v. Artlett .
Buchanan v. Andrew
V. Greenway
Buck, Exp. .
, Be, Bruty v. Mackey
V. Bowker
■ V. Faweett .
V. Robson
Buckeridge, Be
• V. Wlialley
1967
2140
1539
1359
52
1326
,2347
570
1147
553
568
1914
2399, 2406
1252,
1253
. 1118
. 124
157, 1361
[1735]
323, 1338,
1339, 1902
Buckham v. The Trustees, &c.
of Whitehaven [1141], 1148, 1878
Buckingham, Be . . . 2360
V. SelUck . .1807
Buokland v. Buckland . . 879
— V. Papillon . . 2139
Buckle, Be, Williams v. Marson 1571
V. iPredericks . . 534
• V. Lordonny [2054], 2057
Buckley's Case, Be Blackburn
& Co. . . 2289
(W. N. (93)
95) 1666
Buckley, Be . . . . 1026
and Caton's Contract,
Be . . [327]
V. Howell . . 1680
V. Hull Dock Co. . 367
Buckmaster v. Buckmaster 862, 896
■ V. Lockhart . [490]
Bucknell v. Vickery . 1856, 1905
Bucknill v. Morris, Be Buoknill
1108, 1147
Bucks & Oxon Bank v. Hill [1917]
Bucks Ry. Co., Be . . . 2400
Buckston V. Rose . . [791]
Buckton V. Hay, Be Ridley . 872
— V. Higgs . . .249
Buokwell & Berkeley, Be . 269
Buckworth v. Buckworth . 965
Budd V. Davison . . . 105
Budden v. Wilkinson
Budding v. Murdock
Budge V. Gummow
Budgen v. Sage
Budget V. Hulford .
Budgett, Be .
V. Budgett (No.
298,
- V. Improved Finance
PAGE
73, 74, 86
. 45
1104, 1105
. 799
. 1302
. 2121
290,
1129
2)
Syndicate .... 754
Buenos Ayres Gas Co. v. Wilde 458
South Dock Co.
Be . [2444]
Buest V. Bridge . . .430
Buffy V. Stevens . . [595]
Bugden v. Bignold . . 2021
V. South ... 76
Building Societies' Trust, Be . 373
Bulkeley v. Bulkeley [2226, 2227]
V. Hope . . . 357
V. Jones . . 150, [586]
• V. Stephens ([1896] 1
1699
1628, 1696
. 1474
. 1704
. 1818
1039, 1899, [1995],
2005
. 2041
Sch. Bd. . 296
. 1159
. 522
. 2128
Bemers v.
. 1520
. 1081
563
1047, 1993
Ch. 241)
Bull, Be, Bull V. Smith
— — Catty V. Bull
V. Birkbeck .
V. Bull .
V. Faulkner
V. Hutchens
V. West Lond,
Bullass, Be .
Bullen V. Ovey
V. Sharp
BuUen-Smith, Be,
Bemers
BuUer v. Plunkett .
BuUers v. Dickinson
BuUey v. BuUey
Bulh Coal Mining Co. v. Osborne
573, 574, 1385, 2183
Bulhn V. Teece . . .524
BuUis V. Jones, Be Jones 187, 1758
BuUivant v. A.-G. for Victoria 90, 91
BuUmore, Be, Bullmore v.
Wynter .... 1512
Bullock, Be, Goode v. Liokorish 1149
, Exp. Ward . . 1945
& Co. V. Corrie & Co. . 93
• V. Bullock . 1085, 1104
V. Crockett . 2096, 2112
V. Downes 1432, 1508, 1513
■ V. London General Om-
nibus Co. . 241, 252
1). Wheatley . . 1081
Bulman v. Young ... 86
Bulmer, Be, Exp. Johnson . 2077
• ■ — V. Hunter . . . 2284
Bulmore v. Williams . 2291, 2292
Ixxiv
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Bulpett V. Sturges . . . 2036
Bulstrode v. Bradley . 1120, 1317
Bulteel V. Plummer . . 1678
Bulwer Lytton's Will, Be . 1779
• V. Astley 1572, 1871, 2049
Bumpstead, Re . . .1174
Bumpus V. Bumpus . . 1555
Bunbury v. Bunbury 90, 94, 721,
722, 778, 779
Bmidti. Green, iJeKibblewhite [1163]
Bundy v. Board . . [167]
Bunn, Be, Isaacson v. Webster 1543
V. Bunn ... 97
Bunnett, Be . . . .373
■;;. Poster . . .1451
Bunning, Be . . . . 1406
Bunny, Be . . . .153
Bunting v. Marriott . . 1465
V. Sargent . 1287, 1382
Bunyard, Be, Exp. Griffin . 1377
Burbridge v. Robinson . . 78
Burch V. Coney . . . 1362
Burchell v. Hawes, Be Hawes . 1868
• V. Wilde
525, 685, 2111
Burd V. Burd . . .304
Burdekin, Be . . . 305
Burden v. Burden . [2131, 2132]
Burder v. Veley . . . 785
Burdett v. Hay . . [508], 516
V. Rockley . . . 444
V. Standard Exploration
Co [55]
Burdick v. Garrick 841, 843, 844,
1057, 1093, 1113, 1123, 1124, 1135,
1326, [1328], 1331, 1387
Burdon, Muller, Be . [2097]
V. Barkus 2097, 2098, 2105,
2110
Burfield v. Eouoh 2096, 2106, 2111
Burford, Be . . . .974
Burge V. Ashley . . . 1378
■ V. Brutton . . 1468, 1469
Burgess's Case, Be Hull and
County Bank . . . 2263
Burgess, Be . . . . 1188
• , Burgess v. Bot-
tomley . . 933
V. Booth 545, 981, 1490, 1803
V. Burgess (3 D. M. &
G. 896) . 621, 626
V. Burgess (1 Feb.
1877, A. 559) . 326
■ V. Eve . . . 2082
■ V. Hills . . 523, 625
— V. Mawbey . . 1871
V. Morton 356, 824, 846
■ V. Vinnicome, Be Bar-
ber 30, 353, 1137, 1138,
1376, 1448, 1539
PAGE
Burghes I). A.-G. . . 165,383
Burgoine v. MoordafE, Be Bur-
goine . . 362
■ — V. Taylor . . 138
Burgoyne, Be . . 2330, 2337
Burham Brick Co., iJe . . 2344
Burke, Be {2 D. P. & J. 124) 967,
1155, 1570
■ (W. N. (91) 2) . 2344
, Burke v. Burke . 1143
V. Burke, Be Pike . 1459
V. Gore . 1757, 1758, 1775
V. Lord Rokeby . . 2183
■ V. Rogerson . . 2082
Burkett v. Spray . . . 1453
Burkill, Be, Godfrey v. Burkill [447]
Burkitt V. Ransom . . 1449
Burks V. Myddleton . [2072]
Burland's Trade Mark, Be, Bur-
land V. Broxburn Oil Co. . 16
Burland, Be . . . 2337, 2338
V. Earle . . .353
Burley v. Evelyn . . . 1491
Burlinson v. Hall . . 492, 1928
Burlton v. Carpenter . .416
Burmester v. Moxon . . 1847
Burn V. Carvalho . . . 2301
V. Herlopson . . . 756
Burn-Bums, Trustee of v.
Brown . . . .421
Burn-Murdook v. Charlesworth 1630
Bumaby's Settled Estates, Be . 1698
Burnaby v. Baillie
Equit.
Rev
179
153, 1677
Int.
909, 2169
. 280
. 66
2385, 2401
. 2255
. 2195
, 1784, 1807
. 2167
111, 1706
. 493
. 636
. 1305
1264, 1282,
1288
Burnley Equit. Soc. v. Casson . 946
Burr, Be, Exp. Clarke . . 2225
V. Wimbledon Local Board 2161
Burrage, Be . . . .1149
Burrard v. Calisher . 405, 406
Burrell, Be, Burrell v. Smith 1367,
1449, 1922
V. Delevante . . 1574
V. Egremont (E. of) . 1868
Burridge v. Bellew . . 1033
■ V. Row . . 1109, 1481
Soc. .
Burne, Be
Burned's Banking Co., Be
Burnell's Estate, Be
Bumell, Exp.
V. Brown .
V. Bumell
• V. Eirth .
Burnett, Be .
V. Anderson
V. Tak
Burney v. Macdonald
Bumham Nat. Sch., Be
Table of Cases.
Ixxv
FAQE
Burroughes, Be, Lynn & Sex-
ton . [2197], 2200
and Lynn, Re . 2162
Burroughs, Wellcome & Co., Re,
JSap. Wellcome . 2335
. 1504
. 2162
2157, [2192]
2194
. [526], 534
. 1433, 1503
. 1082, 2247
. 1837
. 1921, 2039
. 588
V. Elton
v. Oakley
Burrow v. Scammell
■ V. Sharp
Burrowes v. Gore .
■ V. Lock .
V. MoUoy
Burrows v. HoUey .
V. Lang .
V. Matabele Gold, &o.
Co. . . .
V. Rhodes
Burrows v. Walls
Bursill V. Tanner
Burstall v. Bejffus
■ V. Bryant
V. Pearon
704
. 2247
. 1109
90, 91, 94, 855
38, 39, 63, 88,
1062
. 497
. 118
Burt, iJe .... 1209
V. Arnold, Re Jefiery . 971
?;. Hellyar . .1511,1802
V. Trueman . . . 1479
Burt, Boulton & Hayward v.
Bull 774
Burton, Exp. . . . 2288
■ , Re, Burton v. Burton 935
, &c. Co., Re . .75
, Re ([1901] W. N. 202) 291
& BUnkhem, Re . 1071
V. Damley (E.
V. Gray
V. Pierpoint
V. Roberts
V. Sturgeon
V. Todd .
Bury V. Allen (1 Col. 589)
- — V. Alsen (1 Coll. 559)
V. Bedford
V. Johnson
• ■ V. Oppenheim
Busby V. Seymour
. 1002
1088, 1980
. 1607
481, 482
926, 1637
2161, 2182
. 2105
2112
624
348
2273
1351
Busfield, Re, Whaley v. Busfield 13,
19
Bush, Re . . . 263, 267
■ V. Bush . . . 1461
V. Summers, Re Newland 1121
V. Trowbridge, &c. Co. 249,
699, 2348
V. Watkins ,
Bushby v. Munday
■ V. Seymour
Bushell, Re, Exp. Izard
V. Bushell .
152, 1419
721, 722
. 1388
740, 770
. 2041
PAGE
Bushell V. Pocock . . . 2144
• V. Welshpool Standard
Granite Co. . . 367
Bushnan v. Morgan 1345, 2229, 2231
Bushnell, Exp. . . [1716]
Busk V. Aldam . . . 1677
Bustros V. Lenders . 393, 400
V. White . 62, 73, 76, 83,
94, 824
Butcher, Exp., Re Mellor . 2126
■ •■W.Nash . . . 2143
V. Poolej: 241, 819, 820,
2114
V. Stead . . . 2289
Butchers' Co., iJe . . . 2400
Bute's (M. of) Case 950, 951, 953
Bute (M. of), iJe . . . 1207
Bute V. Ryder 1696
■ V. James [102], 109,
112
^ V. Walker, Re
Dickinson .... 1319
Butler's Trusts, Re, Hughes v.
Anderson • . 909
Butler's Wharf Co., Re . . 858
• Will, Re . . 1719, 2383
Butler, Re, Le Bas v. Herbert . 1605
V. Borton . . . 1685
V. Butler (13 P. D. 73) 459
■ V. Butler (3 Atk. 60) . 964
V. Butler (5 Ch. D. 554 ;
7Ch. D. 116). . 1106
V. Butler (14 Ch. D.
329) . . . 1090
V. Butler (14 Q. B. D.
831; 16 Q. B. D.
374) . 853, 878, 881
V. Butler (28 Ch. D. 66) 1556
V. Carter . . . 1109
■ V. Cumpston . 863, 865
V. Duncomb . . 1403
V. Freeman . . . 1013
• ■ V. Knight . . 125, 1032
V. Kynnersley . . 545
• — V. Lowe . . [1117]
V. Mathews . . 438
V. Powis . . . 2149
■ • V. Wearing . . . 481
V. Withers . . .1144
Butlin V. Masters . . . 370
Butt V. Wright, Re Haddock . 291
Buttanshaw ?'. Martin . .1717
Buttenshaw v. Williams . [2160]
Butterfield, Re . . . 2404
V. Heath . . 2290
Butterknowle Coll. Co. v. Bishop
Auckland &c. Co. . 569, 570
Butterley Co. v. New Hucknall
Coll. Co 569
Ixxvi
Table of Oases.
PAGE
Butterworth, Be, Exp. Russell. 2283
D.Walker . . 2150
V. West Biding of
York. Rivers Bd. 611
Buxton, Exp., Be Miller . . 1984
V. Buxton . . 1503
V. Campbell, Be Barker 1113
■ V. Lister • . . 2095, 2140
■ V. Monkhouse . . 749
BwUfa & Merthyr &c. Co. v.
Pontypridd, W. W. Co. 572, 2348
Byam v. Byam . . .1165
V. Sutton . . . 1569
Byerley v. Brevost . . 1940
Bygrave v. Met. Board of Works 2394
Byng's Settled Estates, Be . 1744
Byng V. Gwallini . . . 994
Byram v. TuU, Be Dixon . 874
Byrch, iJe . . . .255
Byrd v. Nunn . . 46, 47
Byrne, Exp 77
V. Brown (22 Q. B. D.
657) . . 50, 405
V. Brown (37 W. R. 592) 2242
• V. Noroutt . . . 1135
V. Reid 2095, 2097, 2141
■ V. Van TIenlioven . . 2145
Byron's Charity, Be . 227, 1142,
1774, 2360
Estate, Be . . 2404, 2405
Settlement, Be, Wil-
liams V. Mtehell . 1426
■ Trusts . . . 2403
Byron, Be ... . 2399
C. M. G., Be . . . 1219, 1221
Caballero v. Henty . 2037, 2151
Cabbum, Be . . . .1135
Cable V. Bryant . . 560, 561
■ V. Marks . . .667
Caokett v. Keswick . . 2266
Cadbury v. Smith . . . 1428
V. Walter . . .599
Caddick, Be . . . .952
V. Cook . . . 1859
Cadell 1). Bewley . . . 2290
• V. Smith . . .448
Cadiz Waterworks Co. v. Bamet 696
Cadman v. Cadman 944, 968, 1490
Cadogan, Be, Cadogan v. Palagi
1554, 1555
■ V. Ktzroy, Be Hamil-
ton .. . 1305
■ V. Lyric Theatre . 761
Cacrleon Tin Plate Co. v. Hughes 389
Cafe V. Bent . 1166, 1431, 1616
Cahill V. Cahill
• V. Martin
PAGE
864, 869, 881, 897,
910, 918, 920, 1115
910, 1115
Cain V. Moon . . . 1561
Caine, Be . . . .897
Caird v. Moss . 138, 139, 2237
V. Sime . . 663, 669
Caimey v. Back . . . 480
Calcott and Elvin, Be . . 2039
Calcraft v. Guest ... 92
V. Thompson . . 559
Calcutt V. Calcutt . . .428
Caldecott v. Caldecott 1515, 1614,
1616, 1618, 1620
V. Harrison . . 899
Calder v. Dobell . . . 1324
Caldicott, Exp., Be Hart . 1407
■ — V. Brown . . 1695
Caldwall v. Baylis . . . 544
Caldwell v. Matthews . .1878
V. Pagham Harb. Re-
clamation Co. [47], 512
V. VanvUssengen . 632
Caledon v. Evory . . .1360
Caledonian Ry. v. Belhaven . 571
Caledonian Ry. v. Carmichael 1343,
1344, 1345
Caledonian By. v. Glenboig
Union Fireclay Co. . . 569
Caledonian Ry. v. Greenock, &c.
Ry 392
Caledonian Ry. v. Oglivy . 2348
Caledonian Ry. v. Solway Junc-
tion By. Co. . . . 696
Caledonian Ry. v. Sprot . 568, 571
Caledonian Ry. v. Turcan 2348, 2349
Caledonian Ry. v. Walker . 2348
Caley v. Caley . . .935
Calgary & Edmonton Co., Be . 2436
& Medicine Hat Land
Co., Be . . 130, 1971
Calham v. Smith, Be Horlock . 1538
Oalifomian Pig Syrup Co., Be 2331,
2344
Callagan, Be, Elliott v. Lam-
bert . . . [994], 1001
Callender v. Wallingford . 1318
Calley v. Richards ... 90
CalHs, Be . . . .279
Callisher v. Bischofisheim . 126
Callow V. Bridge . . . 430
■ V. Callow 910, 1488, 1555
— V. Young . . .522
Calmady v. Calmady 860, 1802, 1810
Calne Ry. Co., Be . [1999], 2004
Calton's Will, Be . . 310, 2362
Calton V, Bragg . . . 1343
Calver v. Laxton, Be Jones 1466,
1467, 1469
Table of Cases.
Ixxvii
PAQE
Calverley's Settled Estate, JJe 1778,
1780
Calvert, Re . . . 1379, 1951
V. Godfrey 340, 348, 979
V. London Dock Co. . 2084
Camberwell, &o. Building So-
ciety V. HoUoway 2151, 2163,
2164, 2195, 2196
Cambrian Mining Co., Re, Exp.
Fell . . . 1901
Ry. Co., Be 420 [2409],
2409, 2410, 2412
Cambridge (Corp. of), Exp. . 2366
V. Rous . . . 1444
Camden (M.) V.Murray 952,980,1148
Cameron, Be, Nixon v. Cameron
1368, 1491
and Wells, Re . . 1627
Camille v. Donato . . . 289
Camp V. Coe, Be Bacon's Will . 1540
Campana v. Webb . . .514
Campbell's Policies . . 1630
Campbell & Sons (Robert),
Limited and Reduced . [2430]
Campbell, Exp. (5 Ch. 703) . 90
, Re, Campbell v.
Campbell 1106,
1431, 1467, 1478
(3 D. M. & G. 585) 264
([1902] 1 K. B.
113) . . 1745
^([1911] 2 K. B.
992) . 1936, 2279
, Cronin v. Otway 1565
V. AUgood . . 541
t). A.-G. ... 72
V. Bainbridge . . 1632
V. Beaufoy . . 1356
■ — V. Campbell 935, 1459,
1668
V. Cie. Gen. de Belle-
. 764
. 895
1350, 1418
. 1587
. 894
118, 379,
[1913], 1922
. . . 1136
. 1517
. 1648
735, 746,
749
. 1001
garde
• V. French
V. Gillespie
V. Graham
• V. Harding
■ V. Holyland
■ V. Home .
• V. Houlditch
• ti. Ingilby
■ V. Lloyd's Bank
■ V. Mackay
■ V. Mayor &o. of Met.
Borough of Pad-
dington
- w.'Poulett (L.) .
• V. Radnor (E.)
Campbell v. Rothwell
V. Scott .
■ V. Shugar
■ V. Solomans
PAGE
2087
662
1923
498
552
Campbell-Davys v. Lloyd
Campden's Charities, Re 1253, 1256,
1258, 1260, 1263, 1264
Campion v. Cotton . . 2284
Canada, Dominion of, &c. Co.,
Re 1969
Canadian Land, &c. Co., Coven-
try and Dixon's Case 1094
■ — Meat Co., Re, Tamp-
lin's Case . . 2260
Pacific By. Co. v.
Parke . . .603
Pacific Ry. v. Roy 603,2348
Candery, Be, London Joint
Stock Bk. V. Wightman
. 1040
Candler v. TiUett .
. 1085
Candy v. Maughan
. 494
Cane, Be, Ruff v. Sivers .
. 354
V. Martin
[1036]
Cane's Trusts, Be .
. 1212
Canham v. Neale .
[795]
Cann, Re . , .
. 2377
, Exp. Hunt
. 1941
604
63
1306
V. Cann . 345, 1086, 2196
V. Wilson . . 1333, 2253
Canning v. Canning . . 1819
V. Catling . . . 2147
Cannings Ld. v. Middlesex C. C. 2351
Cannington v. Nuttall . . 634
Cannock and Windlebury Col-
liery Co., Re . [1956]
V. Jauncey . . 79
Cannon Brewery v. Gilby . 821
, Son & Morten (Solici-
tors), Be, Be Coolgardie
Goldfields 156, [1060], 1061
. 1810
695, 704
520, 576
[130], 793
. 833
. 2384
. 382
. 2389
2379,
2400
• , Mayor of v. Wy-
bum . . 1299, 1306
Cantley, Be . . . .1181
Capdevielle, Be . . . 1519
Cape Breton Co., Be . . 2268
V. Fenn 1030, 1031,
1096
Copper Co. v. Comptoir
d'Escompte de Paris . . 107
V. Johnson .
V. Trask
■ V. Villars
Cannot v. Morgan .
V. Oppenheim
Cant, Be . . .
Canterbury v. A.-G.
(Abp. of), Exp.
(Dean of), Exp,
Ixxviii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Capel V. Butler . . . 2087
■ ■ V. Powell . . .858
V. Wood . . . 1710
Capell V. G. W. Ry. Co. . . 2351
V. Winter . . . 1065
Capital and Counties Bank v.
Henty . . .677
and Counties Bank v.
Rhodes . . . 2046
Fire Ins. Co., Be 1038, 1039,
1041
Capon's Trusts, Be. . . 1675
Capper, Be . . . 738, 772
V. Terrington . . 1880
Capps V. Norwich and Spalding
Ry. Co.
Capron v. Capron .
Caproni v. Alberti .
Car V. Countess Burlington
Caratal New Mines, Be .
Cardell v. Hawke .
2184
. 1699
, 671
. 1608
. 705
104, 1376,
[2121]
. 1964
699
1093
Cardiff Cottage Co., Be
Ry. Co. V. TafE Vale By.
Co
Savings Bank, Marquis
of Bute's Case .
■ — Steamship Co. v. Ber-
wick 247
Cardigan v. Curzon-Howe 1148,
[1548], 1719, 1754, 1773
^ (L.) V. Montagu . 1821
Cardinall v. Cardinall
V. Molyneux
Cardross, Be .
Carew's Estate, Be
Carew, Be (8 Beav. 150)
■ (30 Beav. 274)
■ (7 D. M. & G. 43)
V. Cooper .
■ V. Davis
■ V. Johnston
Carey v. Cuthbert
■ V. Doyne
- V. Wlittingham
146, 361
540, 547
947, 1061
2082, 2152
278, 281
. 1364
2248
. 124
57,80
, 939
93
1869
374
Cargill V. Bower . 46, 2249, 2264
Carington (L.) v. Wycombe Ry. 707,
2139
Carl Hirth, Be . . . 2283
Carlill V. Carbolic Smoke Ball
Co 157
Carling's Case . . 1094, 2269
Carlish v. Salt . . . 2252
CarUsle and Cumberland Bkg.
Co. V. Bragg . . 2245
, Be, Clegg V. Clegg . 389,
392
■ , &c. Ry. Co. . . 2405
■'Bank, Exp. , , 2288
PAGE
Carlisle City and District Bank-
ing Co. V. Thompson 2044,
2058
(Corp.) V. Berkeley (L.) 741
V. S. E. Ry. . . 700
Carlton Illustrators v. Coleman
& Co. Ld. 513, 664, 668
— V. Carlton, Be Watson . 1355
Carlyon, Be, Carlyon v. Carlyon 312
V. Spry . . . 1145
V. Truscott 1371, 1422, 1479,
2167
Carmiohael v. Evans . 2106, 2108
V. Carmichacl 1339,
1358, 1359, 1460
V. Gee . . . 1573
■ • W.Wilson , .1124
Camao, Be, Exp. Simmonds . 2236
Came, Exp 2077
V. Long . . . 1303
Came's Settled Estate, Be 1749, 1757
Carnegie, Be . . . . 997
Carney, Be . . . . 2400
Camforth Co., Exp. . . 836
Carolan v. Brabazon . . 2155
CaroU V. Hurst . . . 179
Carpenter, Be . . 1181, 1233
V. Deen 1943, 1944, 1949
V. Sol. to Treasury . 741
V. Parker . . 1895
Carpmael v. Powis .
• V. Profltt
90, 2237
. 2406
. 2320
908, 909
. 1949
. 1718
. 910
. 677
Carr's Patent
Trusts, Be .
Carr v. Acraman .
V. Anderson .
V. Bastabrooke
V. Fracis Times & Co.
• V. Griifith, Be Griffith 1557, 1699
V. Ingleby . . 1570, 1579
V. Lynch . . . 2143
V. Morice . . . 514
V. New Quebrada Co. 92, 95
V. Taylor . . .906
Carr Bros. v. Dougherty . . 407
Carriage Co-operative Supply
Assoc, Be, Robert's Case 1321,
2268, 2269
Carrick v. Wigan Tram. Co. . 1880
Carrier v. Price, Be Amos . 1512
Carrington, Exp. . . . 864
,Be . . [892]
V. Holly . . 370
y. Payne . . 1654
V. Wycombe Ry. Co.
707, 2139
Carritt v. Bradley . . . 1856
V. Real and Personal
Adyance Co. . . 2030, 2032
Tahle of Cases.
Ixxix
PAGE
Carrodus v. Sharp . . .2182
Carroll, Be, Brice v. Carroll . 1060
■ •«. Graham . . 244,1136
Oarron Co. v. Maclaren 721, 722,
799
Carrow v. Ferrier . . 516, 747
Carruthers v. Churcliill . [678]
Carry-Elwes' Contract, Re . 2185
Carshalton Park Estate, Be . 1969
Carshore v. N. E. Ry. . 20, 21
Carson v. Pickersgill . . 1023
V. Sloane . . 1090, 1095
Carta Para Co., Be . 27, 29
Carter's Application, Batt &
Co.'s Trade Marks . 835
Case, Be G. W. Forest
of Dean Coal Co. . 1062
Medicine Co., Be . 2344
Carter and Kenderdine, Be . 228
■ ,Exp. . 1197,2015,2120
■ , Be Threappleton 1914
• , Carter v. Carter 1038,
1042
, Dodds V. Pearson 1553
■ V. Barnadiston . . 1475
V. Beard . . . 1378
■ V. Carter (4 Jur. N. S.
63 ; 3 K. & J. 617) 1136,
2031
V. Carter (8 Eq. 551) . 1630
V. Carter([l 896] 1 Ch.
62) 864, [1164.], 1718
■ V. Cropley . . 708, 1264
■ ■ V. Eey . . . 377
■ ■ V. Green . . 1304, 1305
• V. Hughes . . . 2004
• V. James . . . 1903
V. Leeds Dsily News Co. 68
V. Roberts . . .379
V. Salt . . . 1573
V. Sanders . . 1362, 1982
■ • V. Sebright 1218, [1706], 1712
V. Silber 947, 1529, 1627
■ V. Stadden, Be Bell [469],
474, 475
• V. Taggart . . 905, 910
■ V. Wake 1926, [1979], 1982,
1983
V. White . . . 2087
V. Williams . . 532
Carthew, Be . . 263, 268, 281
Cartier v. Carlile . . .623
Cartwright, Be (16 Bq. 469) . 264
• : (13 Nov. 1875,
A. 2305) [286]
■ (8 W. R. 492) . 1215
, Avis V. Newman 544
V. Cartwright . 1638
j;. Green . . 96
Cartwright v. Last .
Regan
PAGE
385, 556, 604
. 1945
Oarus-Wilson and Greene, Be . 388
Caruth, Exp. . .301, 306
Carven, Be . 262, 267, 270, [272]
Carver v. Bowles . . . 1530
V. Pinto Leite . 76, 83
■ V. Richards
Carvill v. Carvill
. 1676
[1417]
Gary and Lott, Be 1351,
1353, 1429,
1595
V. Abbot
1252, 1253
V. Hills .
. 1358
V. Kearsley .
. 672
Oasamajor v. Strode
. 2197
Case V. Case .
. 1633
V. James
. 1089
V. Met. Ry. .
. 315
Casey, Be, Stewart v. Casey 2318,
2340
Cash V. Belcher
. 1882
V. Cash .
. 626
V. Parker, Be Parke]
. 118,
727, 747
Cashin v. Craddock
65,75
37, 823
. 1332
Cassaboglow v. Gibbs
Cassels v. Stewart .
. 2107
Cassidy v. Belfast Banking Co. 1561
Cast V. Poyser
. 1376
Castel-Plorite v. Griesbauer [995],
Castell and Brown, Be
. 2032
Castellain v. Preston
. 2079, 2184
Castellan v. Hobson
2294, 2297
Castello's Case
. 945,2296
Castle, Be
. 287
897, 2152,
2139, 2194
Castle Bytham (Vicar of;
, Be 1746,
1772
, 1775, 2360
Castledine, Exp.
. 1714
Castlehow, Be, Lamondy v. Car-
ter 1147
Castlemain (L.) v. Craven . 543
Castle Sterry, Be . . .1189
Castner Kellner v. Commercial
Development Assoc. 197, 654, 835
Castrique v. Imrie . . . 1523
Castro V. Murray . . .131
Gate V. Devon and Exeter News-
paper Co 670
Cater, Be . . . 1159, 1466
Cathcart, Exp., Be Deakin 411, 443
, Be Lumley 411, 430,
443
, Be Stuart . 266
, Be (W. N. (93) 107) . 291,
834
Ixxx
Table of Gases.
PAGE
Cathoart, Be ([1893] 1 Oh. 466)
472, 820
■ , Re {[1902] W. N. 80) 204
Catherine Hall, Be, Exp. Inge . 1254
Catholic Publishing Co. v. Wy-
man 289
Catley v. Sampson 1372, 1483, 1862
Catlin, Be . . . 272, 287
Cathng's Estate, Be . . 2404
Catling V. G. N. Ry. Co. . . 2180
V. King . . . 2143
Cato V. Thompson 2163, 2188, 2194,
2195
Caton V. Caton . 1626, 1628,
2145, 2147
V. Coles . . . 1422
V. Lewis ... 83
Cator V. Lswisham Local Bd. . 609
V. Mason . . . 1014
Catt's Trusts . . . 1655
Catt V, Tourle . . 527, 532
V, Wood . . .401
Cattell V. Simons . . . 1477
Catterina Chiazzare, The . 722
Cattle V. Thorpe . . .530
Cattley v. Arnold . . 1698, 1801
1090
260
1810
21
1474
396
1870, 2077
838
2105
44
■ V. West, Be Linsley
Cattlin, Be .
Catton V. Banks
■ ■ V. Bennett .
Catty V. Bull, Be Bull .
Caucasian Trading Corp., Be
Caulfield v. Maguire
Cavander's Trusts, Be
Cavander v. Bultell
Cave V. Carew
- V. Cork .
- V. Harris
- V. Hastings
- V. Mackenzie
- V. Myers
• V, Roberts
• V. Torre
(ISBeav. 227) . 1014
-(15Ch. D. 639) 1082,
1089, 2030
. 1354
. 1556
. 2145
. 2163
. 618
. 1514, 1586
. 42
Cavendish v. Cavendish (10 Ch.
319) 342, 1079, 1422,
2167
V. Cavendish (30 Ch.
D. 227) . . 1556
- V, Dane, Be L,
ham .
- V. Geaves
• V. Mercer
■ V. Strutt
. 1529
. 1322
. 965
. 295
Cavendish-Bentinck v. Fenn 1094,
2268, 2270
Cawdor (Earl), Be . . [1679]
Ches-
Cawley and Whatley, Be
&Co.,Be .
V. Burton .
PAGE
279
2210
67
1159
Cawthome, Be . . .
Caxton and Arrington Union v.
Dew 2082
Cayley v. Sandycroft . . 86
— V. Walpole . . . 2144
Cazenove, Be, Cazenove v. Caze-
nove . [1578], 1579
V. Pilkington [2280], 2283
Cazet de la Borde v. Othon 424, 768,
2111
Cazneau, Be . . . 1156, 1160
Cecil V. Juxon . . . 898
; V. Langdon . . 1168
Cellular Clothing Co. v. Maxton
and Murray . . . 620
Central London Ry., Be . . 2420
Ry. Co. of Venezuela v.
Kisch 2248, 2249, 2250, 2259
Cercle Restaurant Castiglione
Co. V. Lavery . . 133, 696
Chabord v. New Russia Co. . 149
Chadbum v. Moore . . 2146
Chaddock v. Brit. S. Africa Co. 66
Chadwick v. Bowman . . 92
V. Doleman . .1663
V. Grange, Be Grange 983
V. Heatley . 1460, 1466
V. Holt 253, 473, 1363,
2000
V. Manning . . 2248
V. Turner . 2040, 2041
Chaffers, Alexander, Be, Exp.
A.-G. . . .132
V. Lord Esher . . 1022
Chale, Exp., Be Artola Her-
manos . . . 1523, 1524
Chalinder & Herington, Be 298, 1137
Chalker, Be . . . .897
Challen v. Shippam . . 1086
Challender v. Royle . 636, 637
Challie v. Gwynne . . . 1841
Challinor, Exp., Be Rogers 1941,
1942
Chalmers, Exp. . . 825, 2304
V. Wingfield, Be
Marrett .... 1519
Chamber Colliery Co. v. Hop-
wood . . . .588
Chamber Colliery Co. v. Roch-
dale Canal Co. . . . 572
Chamberlain, Exp., Be Met.
Street Act . 2384
, Be (22 Beav. 287) 1613
(Morg. 43, n.) . 2389
V. Bradford Corpo-
ration
245
Table of Cases.
Ixxxi
PAGE
Chamberlain v. Knapp . . 918
D. Lee . . 2169
■ ■ V. Napier . 1521, 1678
Oliamberlain's Wharf v. Smith 712
Chamberlajme v. Brockett 1253,
[1293], 1295, 1296
V. Dummer [536]
Chamberlin v. Springfield, Be
Springfield . . . 1509
Chambers, Exp. . . 968, 2421
, Re (34 Beav. 177) . 263
, Hutchinson v.
Town . . 7
V. Bicknell . 1347, 1359
V. Crabbe . 1634, 2273
V. Davidson, Leith's
Est. . . .780
i). Golthorpe . . 399
• V. Goldwin 780, 1340,
1341, 1871, 1905
— — V. Green . . .786
■ V. Howell . .2133
V. L. C. & D. Ry. Co. 2353
V. Manchester, &c.
Ry. Co. . . 1972
V. Smith 966, 1079, 1149
— V. Toynbee . . 378
Chamley v. L. Dunsany . . 1313
Champ V. Stokes . . .268
Champion, Exp. . . . 1343
, Re . . . 229
, Re, Dudley v. Cham-
pion . . 1089, 1556
— — V. Rigby . . 1056
Champneys v. Burland 1038, 2004,
2046
Chancellor, Re, Chancellor v.
Brown 1497, [1615],
1617, 1618
V. Morecroft . . 1419
Chancey's Case . . . 1538
Chancey v. Fenhoulet . . 97
Chandler, Re ... 1070
V. Bradley . .1762
• V. Pocock . . 1489
Chant, Re 1383, 1513, 1867, 1868
V. Brown ... 91
Chantrell, Re ([1907] W. N.
213) . . . 1478
V. Chantrell . . 1669
Chapleo V. Brunswick Building
Soc 702,2061
Chaplin's Trusts, Re . .1145
Chaplin, Re . . . .934
, Exp., Re Sinclair . 2286
• ■ V. Aishton . [1548]
■ • V. Puttick . . 99
V. Rickards . . 326
V. Young 738, 757, 1898
VOL. I.
PAGE
Chaplin v. Westminster Cor-
poration .... 579
Chapman's Estate, Re, Fardell
V. Chapman . . .1421
Chapman, iJe( 10 Q. B. D. 54). 292
(9 Q. B. D. 254) 320
(15 Eq. 75) . 722
(54 L. T. 13) 1083, 1443
(72L. T. 66) .1136
, Exp. Clark . 1449
, Cocks V. Chap-
man [1104], 1107,
1503, 1616
• , Exp. Johnson . 1941
, EUick V. Cox . 1514
and Hobbs, Re . 2186
■ V. Andrews . [1831]
V. Auckland Union 518,
520, 611, 2157
V. Biggs . . 855, 856
V. Bradley [1636], 1637
■ V. Brown . 1252, 1304
• u. Browne . . 1111
V. Chapman 1060, 1062,
1351, 1444, 1981
V. Corpe . . . 1867
•■!;. Day . . .116
• V. Esgar . . . 1608
V. Gilbert . [1336]
V. Knight . . 1944
V. Michaelson . .164
• V. Miller, Re Miller . 323
• V. Monmouthsliire Ry.
Co. . . . 2349
V. Smith . . .367
■ V. Turner . 1467, 1468
■ — ■ V. Wood, Re Smith . 869
Chappell, Re, Exp. Ford . 1377
V. Boosey . . 670
— V. Charlton . . 886
V. Davidson 509, 658, 670
V. Griffith . . 684
— • V. North . . .391
V. Sheard . 658, 670
Chappie, Re, Exp. Izard . . 1944
, Newton v. Chap-
man . . . 1137
~ • V. Crow . . [557]
Chard v. Jervis . . 435, 838
Charig, Re, Abrahams v. Charig 1430
Charing Cross Bank, Exp., Re
Parker .... 1941
Charing Cross Ry., Re [2415], 2423
Charitable Gifts for Prisoners,
Re 1278
Charity Commrs. v. Green, Re
Herbage Rents, Greenwich . 1251
Charity Commrs. v. Wybrants . 1112
Charlemont v. Spencer . . 887
/
Ixxxii
Table of Cases,
PAGE
Charles Bright & Co. v. Sellar . 188
V. Burke . . . 1426
; — V. Finohley Local Bd. 606,
610
V. Jones (33 Ch. D. 80) 819,
1900
(35 Oh. D. 544) 1848
— Duval & Co. V. Gans. . 16
Charlesworth, J?e (101 L. T. 908) 1300
, Exp., Be Eyton 822
V. Clayton . 28
1). Holt . . 922
■ V. Jennings . 2092
■ —«. Mills . . 1938
Charlton Chalk, Land, &o. Co.
j;. l\iller . . 316
• V. Charlton (52 L. J.
Ch. 971) . . 1047
V. Charlton (16 Ch. D.
273) . . .839
— V. Charlton (31 W. R.
237) . . .287
— V. Charlton ([19061] 2
Ch. 523) . . 1677
— V. Coombes . . 91
■ — V. Durham (E.) 1084, 1480
— V. Newcastle By. 702, 708
■ V. Kendall . . 1654
■ V. Rolleston, Be Swin-
don By. Co. 2394, 2399
Charman v. Brandon . . 292
— V. Charman . .150
Charriere, iJe, Duret v. Charriere 914,
[1485], 1514
Charrington, Exp. . . . 761
■ V. Camp 738, 746, 749
Charter v. Charter . . . 1509
■ V. Trevelyan . . 1056
■ V. Watson . . . 1865
Chartered Bank of India v. Rich 72,
94,95
Chasemore v. Richards . . 587
■ V. Turner . .1384
Chastey v. Ackland . . 560
Chatard's Settlement Trusts,
Be ... . 1158, 1523
Chatenay v. Brazilian Tel. Co. 229
Chater v. Maclean . . . 1066
Chatfield v. Berohtoldt . .1520
V. Sedgwick . . 247
Chatteris, Exp. . . . 416
, Be Humphrys 1336
■ — — Ramsey (L. of Manor
of), Exp. . [2451]
— — V. Isaacson . 524, 684
— ■ — ■ V. Young . . 1451
Chatterton v. Cave . 661, 662
— — ■ V. Sec. of State for
India . . 382
PAGE
Chatterton v. Watney . 479, 480
Chattock V. MuUer . . 2148
Chauncey, Be . . . 1185
Chawner's Settled Estates, Be . 1763
Ohawner, Be . . . . 1079
Chaytor, Be ([1900] 2 Ch. 804) 1694,
1763
— — , Be ([1905] 1 Ch. 234) 1617,
1618, 1619
Chaytor's Settled Estates (25
Ch. D. 651), Be . 247, 1754, 1772
Cheadle, Be, Bishop v. Holt . 1553
Cheale v. Kenward . . 2140
Cheavin v. Walker . . 623, 2333
Cheek v. Cheek . . .178
Cheese v. Keen 1055, 1057, 1065,
1341, 1878, 2278
Cheeseman v. Price . . 2109
Claeesman, Be 277, 278, 279, 824
Chell, iie .... 1220
Chelmsford Land Co., Be . 2428
— School, Be . . 1259
Chelsea Waterworks Co., Be . 2384
Cheltenham & Swansea Wagon
Co., Be . . . 458, 679
Chennell, Be, Jones v. Chennell 352,
819, 835, 836, 1146
Cherry's Settled Estate, Be . 2407
Cherry, Be, Exp. BoUand . 2288
Chesebrough's Trade Mark, Be. 2332
Chesham's (L.) Settlement, Be
1560, 1654
Chesham (L.), Be, Cavendish v.
Dacre .... 1529
Chesham, Boxmoor &c. Steam
Tram, iJe . . . [2418]
Cheshire, Be . . . . 1712
■ Banking Co.,iJe,DufE's
Executor's Case . . 1147, 1468
Cheshunt College, iJe 2363, 2376,2401
Cheslyn v. Dalby . . . 1055
Chesshire's Settled Estates . 1741
Chessum v. Gordon . .188
Chessyre v. Biss . . . 2045
Chester v. Chester . . . 1307
V. Phillips, Be Peppitt 121,
122, 1505, 1510
— V. Rolfe . . . 1361
• — V. Thomas . . . 1356
(Dean of) v. Smelting
Corporation . 600, 605
Chesterfield Brewery Co. v.
I. R. C 159
Chesterfields (L.) Settled Estates
Be 1561
Chesterfield's Trusts, Be 1617, 1622,
1623
Chesterfield Co. v. Black 34, 46,
[54], 69, 2268
Table of Cases.
Ixxxiii
Chesterfield v. Janssen
Cheston v. Wells .
Ohesworth v. Hunt
Chetham v. Higinbotham
PAGE
2277
1915
1944
[1349]
■ V. Hoare . . 1385, 2240
V. Williamson . . 2310
Chetwynd's Settlement, Re,
Scarisbrick «. Nevinson 1174,1188
Chetwynd, Exp. . . . 459
V. Allen . . . 2046
V. Chetwynd . . 925
V. Morgan, Re
Anstis . . 1627,1630,1677
Chibnall v. Paul . . .602
Chicago and N. W. Granaries
Co., iJe .... 1970
Chichester v. Bickerstafi . 1491
V. Coventry 1538, 1667,
1668
V. Donegal 78, 1874, 1875
Chick V. Blackmore . . 1378
V. Nicholas . . . 1042
Chicks, Exp., Re Meredith . 448
Chidgey v. Whitby . .1446
Chievly v. Bond . . . 1326
ClufEeriel, Re, Chifieriel v. Wat-
son . . . 314, 352, 2195
Child & Co. V. Thorley 1086, [1103]
V. Douglas . . 518, 534
Cliilds, .E/xy. . . [1713], 1714
Chillingworth v. Chambers
(No. 2) . 828, 1090, 1109, 1110
Chilton V. Crosby . . .182
V. Progress, &c. Co. . 669
China Steamship Co. v. Com.
Union Ass. Co. . . 76
■ , &c. Co. V. Marine Ins.
Co 793
Chinery, Exp. . . 408, 481
Chinnery v. Evans . . 1383, 1869
Cliinnock v. Marq. of Ely 2143, 2144
Cliippendale, Exp. . . . 2112
Chipperfield v. Carter . .2144
• V. Rust . [802]
■ V. Walsh . . 1020
Chipping Sodbury Sch., Re . 1262
Chisholm's Sett., Re . 864, 1676
Chisholm v. Ferguson . [1925]
Chissum v. Dewes . . 1466, 1467
Chitty, Re ... . 1061
Cholditch V. Jones . . . 304
Cholmeley School v. Sewell 40, 2308
Cholmley v. Cs. of Oxford 1483, 1853,
1921
Cholmondeley v. CUnton 1061, 1863
Chorley Corp. v. Nightingale . 850
Chorlton v. Dickie . 117, 138, 148
Chowne, Re . . . 277, 281
Chowne v. Baylis 1934, [1986], 1989
PAGE
Christ's Hosp., Governors of,
Exp. {20 Eq. 695) . 2398, 2399
Christ's Hosp., Governors of,
Exp. (2 H. & M. 166) . 1657, 2404
Christ's Hosp., Governors of,
Exp. (27 W. R. 456) . . 2404
Christ's Hosp., Governors of,
Exp., Re Prisoners' Char. . 1260
Christ's Hosp., Governors of.
Re (15 App. Ca. 172) . 1261, 1262
Christ's Hosp., Governors of,
D. A.-G 1290
Christ's Hosp., Governors of,
V. Grainger 1266, 1304, 1543
Christ Church, Oxford, Exp.
(13 Eq. 334) . . . 2404
Christ Church, Oxford, Exp.
(9 W. R. 474) . [2396], 2405
Christ Church, Oxford, Exp.
(23 L. J. Ch. 149) . . 2389
Christchurch, Dean of, v. E. &
W. Junction Ry. Co. . . 2410
Christchurch Inc. Act, Re . 1300
Christchurch Inc. Act, Re A.-G.
V. Meyrick .
Christian v. Devereux
V. Field . 1038;
V. Foster
V. Whitaker,
Whitaker .
Christiansberg, Re .
Christie v. Cameron
V. Christie .
V. Davey .
V. Gosling
V. Noble .
592, 593
1432, 1539
1483, 1861
. 1451
Re
879, 1632
132, 722
. 935
36, 508, 511
602
1560
389
V. Northern Counties
Bldg. Soc. 393, 402, 2060
V. Ovington . 37, 1182
■«. Taunton, &c. Co. 1319,1321
Christison v. Bolam, Re Greg-
son . . . . 1319, 2046
Christmas v. Jones, Re Jones 1123,
1128, 1588
Christopher v. CroU . . 830
Christophers v. White
Christy's Settled Estates,
Christy v. Courtnay
V. Tupper .
V. Van Tromp
Chubb V. Carter
V. Griffiths .
• — ■ V. Pettipher
V. Stretch .
Re
. 1137
. 1742
. 1367
. 2331
[1844], 1847
, 1444
, 945
[1230]
, 863
G. V.
Church Army, Re, A,
Church Army .
Bldg. Soc. V. Coles
Estate Char., Wands-
worth, Re . . 1247
1280
1296
Ixxxiv
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Church Patronage Trust, Be,
Laurie v. A.-G. . 1283, 1303
Stretton Mineral Water
Co., iJe . . .147
V. Browne . . . 2207
V. Tyficke, Be Walker . 1513
Church's Trustees v. Hibbard 421,
433
Churcher v. Martin 1112, [1294],
1299
Churchill, Be, Manisty v.
Churchill 1362, 2088
V. Churchill . 1530, 1531
V. Denny . .1633
V. Sal. & Dorset Ry. 527,
690
V. Shepherd . . 1631
i;. Small . . .974
Churchman v. Ireland . . 1530
Churchward v. Churchward 870, 924
V. The Queen . 383
Churston (Ld.) v. BuUer . .2141
Churton v. Douglas 682, 684, 2096
• V. Prewen . . 293
Citizens' Bank v. First Nat.
Bank of New Orleans 2081, 2247,
2301
City and County Investment
Co., Be . . . .825
City and South London Ry.
Co., Be . . 698, 2349, 2392
City Bank Case . . 1981, 1992
V. Barrow . . 1932
V. Sovereign Life
Ass. Co 1935
City Disc. Co. v. McLean . 1325
City livery Co., Be, Meech's
Will 1303-
City of Berlin, The . . 838
City of Dublin Junction Rys.,
Be, Oxp. Kelly 2402, 2403, 2406
City of Glasgow Bk., Be . . 195
Ry. Co. V.
Hunter .... 2348
City of Lond. Brewery Co. v.
tiland Rev. Comm. . . 158
City of Lond. Brewery Co. v.
Tennant . 519, 554, 559, 560
City of Montreal v. Standard
Light and Power Co. . . 581
Civil, Naval and Military Out-
fitters, Be . . . .822
Civil Service Co-op. Society v.
General Steam Nav. Co. . 2154
Civil Service Musical Ins. Assoc.
V. Whiteman . . 2157, 2236
Clabbon, iJe .... 1026
Clack V. Carlon . . . 1137
V. Holland 1081, 1481, 1504
fAGE
Clacks. Wood ." . 837,1336
Clagett, Be, Exp. Lewis . .1370
Claggett, Be, Fordham v. Clag-
gett 831
Clanricarde (M.) v. Henning . 1058
Clapham «. Shillito . . 2248
Clarapede v. Commercial Union
Assoc. .... 45
Clarborough v. Toothill . . 394
Clare's Trusts, Be . . . 897
Clare v. Clare . . . 1128
• , V. Dobson . . . 2307
■ — — ■ V. Joseph . . . 267
■ ■W.Wood . . . 1884
Clarendon (E.) v. Hornby . 1819
Claridge v. Hoare ... 96
Clark, Exp., Be Chapham . 1449
■ Be (1 Ch. D. 497) . . 1253
■ • (1 D. M. & G. 43) . 262
(13 Beav. 173) . . 268
([1904] 1 Ch. 294) . 1556
([1906] 1 Ch. 615) [2370],
[2396], 2400
■ Exp. Beardmore
- — , Clark V. Clark .
, Clark V. Randall
, Cumberland v. Clark
, Husband v. Martin
- V. Adie .
- V. Bates
• V. Burgh
■ V. Clark
1905
747
1539
[795]
1305
635
1428
882
, 1085, 2255
924
1322
[1416, 1500]
. 1165
. 631
1645, 1646
. 2107
. 1136
1881, 2036
. 379
684, 2097
699, 2392
919, 920
— — V. Clark & Lindsay
V. Cort .
V. DalrjTuple
V. Penwick
V. Pergusson
• — — V. Girdwood
V. Harb .
V. Henry
— V. Hoskins 1080
■ V. Jaques
■ V. Leach
V. Lond. Sell. Bd.
V. Malpas 1645, 2238, 2256, 2272
V. Sewell . . . 1446
■ V. Sonnenschein . . 406
• V. Taylor . . 1253, 1257
V. Wray . 2, 3, 46, 2206
Clarke's Charity, Be . . 1262
Estate, Be (13 W. R.
401) . . 897,2383
Estate, Be (24 Peb.,
1863, Oust, 147) . 779
Estate, Be (21 Oh. D.
776) . . 204,2402
Patent . . . 2320
Settled Estate ([1902] 2
Ch. 327) . . 1778
Table of Gases.
Ixxxv
Clarke's Trusts, Be
Clarke, Exp., Be Burr
, Be 21 Ch. D. 817)
PAQii;
. 869
. 2225
954, 995,
399, 1000
([1898] 1 Ch. 336) . 1366
, Exp. E. & W. India
Dock Co. . 823, 824
, Exp. Schulze . 881
, Barker v. Perowne
1699
, Clarke v. Clarke
, Coombe v. Carter
• V. Abbott .
■ V. Abingdon (L.)
• V. Bennett
- V. Birley
• V. Bradlaugh
• V. Brown
• V. Byiie
• V. Chamberlin
• V. Clarke (9 Ha. xiii)
1303
1948,
2141
. 2044
. 1869
65,89
. 2085
2,414
[57], 1558
. 495
. 1718
1423
(W. N. (99)
130) . . 67
V. Clayton 1801, 1813, 1818
. . 362
. 2249
915, 1491, 1589
. 298
. 895
. 1508
. 1539
. 298
Co., Be
. 1972
1340, 1559
2031,
2032
2291
527
■ V. Cookson
■ V. Dickson .
• V. IVanklin
- V. Gill
■ V. Green
- V. Hayne .
- V. Hilton
- V. Malpas .
- V. Meaby &
Meaby & Co
- V. Ormonde (E.)
- V. Palmer, Be Palmer
- V. Periam
- V. Price
- V. Ramuz
■ V. Roche
• V. Royle
• V. Saffery
• V. Skipper
- V. Smith
. 2183
31,32
. 2224
. 106
361, 362
. 734
• • V. Thornton 741, [773], 1571,
1755, 1780
V. Tipping 1312, 1316, 1330
1335, 1340
V. Toleman 1882, 1883, 1884
V. Wilmot . . . 1883
V. Wilson . . . 2184
V. Woodward . 900, 1444
— V. Wright . . . 1627
w. Yorke . . .139
Clarkson v. Robinson, Re
Robinson
■ V. Edge
1936, 2279
[524]
Clarkson v. Henderson
■ V. Robinson
PAGE
1867, 1872,
1874
Class V. Marshall .
Claver v. Laxton, Be Jones
Clavering's Case
V. Clavering
— V. Ellison
Clay and Tetley, Be
(Hy.) and Boch
Be . . .
Claydon v. Pinch .
— ■ — V. Green .
Claypole, R. of, Exp.
Clajrton's Case
1137
2110
743
. 2157
. 542
. 1568
831, 1479,
1481, 1482
Co.,
. 2332
. 444
. 2156
2379, 2400
1088, 1324, 1325,
1967, 2077
Clayton and Barclay, Be . 1949
— • Engineering &o. Co., Be 253
■ —Mills Co., 2ie . . 832
■ v.A.-G,. . . .382
V. Clarke . 933, 935, 950
V. Gresham . 1557, 1621
V. Leech . . 345, 2196
V. Meadows . . 262
■ — V. Renton . . . 1160
Cleather v. Twisden . 1066, 2124
Cleaver v. Mutual Reserve Fund
877, 921, 2147
Clegg V. Castleford L. B. . 520
V. Clegg 933, 1311, 1316, 1352
■ , Be CarUsle 389, 392
V. Edmondson . . 89
• V. Fishwick
■ V. Hands
• V. Rowland
Cleland, Be
734, 752, 2133
533
543, 1351, 1594,
1595
. 1050
Clement & Cie.'s Trade Mark,
Be 2338
Clement v. Cheesman
V. Maddiok
Clements, Be ([1901] 1
200)
, Clements v.
sail 970
V. Clifiord
■ V. Hall .
K,
■ «;. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. 943
• V. Matthews
• V. Norris
. 1561
619, 670
B.
. 414
Pear-
, 1446, 1447
129, 235
. 2131
• V. Ward, Be Smith
1948, 1950
362, 680
V. Welles
Clemow, Be .
Clench v. Dooley .
Clennell v. Clennell
Clergy Orphan Corp.,
Eq. 280) .
887,
1296
. 532
. 1366
. 498
. 148, 180
Be (18
. 1290
Ixxxvi
Table of Cases.
Clergy Orphan Corp., Be
([1894] 3 Ch. 145) 1280,
2404
■ -Soc, iJe , . . 1257
■ (Sons of) Corp. & Skinner 1279
■ — ■ — ■ — (Sons of) Corp. v. Stock
Exchange . . 1276
Clergymen's Widows, &c. Char.
V. Sutton . . . 1280, 1281
Clerke v. Clerke . . .884
Clermont (Ld.) v. Tasburgh . 2249
Cleveland, Duke of, Be [1760], 2362
■ ■ — ■ — — — — ■ — , Hay V.
Wolmer 1622
■ , Wolmer
V. Forrester
[1690]
■ , Harte Es-
tates, Be 2362, 2401
Water Co. v. Redcar 553,
704
of) Settled
1085, 1138, 1149,
1489, 1556, 1774
Clibborn v. O'Brien, Be Friend's
Free School . . . 1303
Chfden, Lord, Be . . . 1383
ChflE's Trusts, Be . . . 1356
Cliff, iJe .... 1521
, Edwards v. Brown . 1157
■ V. Wadsworth . . 1876
ClifEe V. Wilkinson . . 26, 268
Clifford, Be ([1902] 1 Ch. 87) . 1755
■ , Be, Clifford v. Kendall
[2027]
V. Arundell . 1568, 1573
V. ChfEord . . 922, 925
• V. Gumey, Be Gumey . 2001
V. Holt . . ' . 560
V. Inland Rev. Commrs. 158
V. Koe . . . 1511
V. Timms . . . 2108
V. Turrill 185, 1041, 1574,
2139
• V. Washington, Be
Cleveland's (Duke
JEstates, Be
Smith's Estate
Chft V. Watkin
Clifton's Patent, Be
Clifton V. Burt
V. Tempest
Chmie v. Wood
Chmpson v. Coles .
Clinan v. Cooke
CUnch V. Financial Corp,
CUne's Estate, Be .
Clinton's Trusts, Be
Clinton, iJe . . 723
. 884
[733]
. 2325
. 1607
. 2226
. 1950
. 1938
2146, 2147
71, 695
. 1699
. 1631
1624, 2361
Jackson v. Slaney 188
, Hooper . . .882
PAGE
CHtheroe's Estate, Be . . 1712
Chve V. Beaumont . [2137], 2153
V. Carew . . • 866
V. Clive . . 1656, 1699, 1700
Cloak V. Hammond, Be Taylor . 1509
Cloake, Be
Clogherry, Be
Close, Exp., Be Hall
— V. Close (4 D. M.
176)
(24 July,
A. 1169)
Closmadeuo v. Carrell
Clossey, Be .
Clothier v. Chapman
V. Webster .
Clothworkers' Co., Exp.,
Einley
Clough, Bradford Bank
Cure
V. Bond
V. Reddish .
110
1407, 1453
. 1940
& G.
2075, 2086
1851,
. 504
157, 2230
. 1714
. 1824
Be
2009
32, 2119
1084, 1086
[235]
Cloutte V. Storey . 126, 232, 1674
Clover V. Adams 309, 1042, 1048,
1051, 1052
V. Wilts & Berks B. B.
Soc 1314
Clow V. Harper . . . 403
Clowes, Be . . . 1553, 1556
■ — V. Higginson . . 2147
V. Hilhard 49, 51, 1419, 1514
V. Hughes . . .1894
V. South Staff, W. W.
Co.
Clutterbuck, Be
Ch.
([1905] 1
200) .
, Bloxam v.
Clutterbuck
608
1666
1632
CSutton, Exp.
■ V. Lee
V. Pardon
865
. 1188
178, 2042
182, 1038, 1041
Clydebank &c. Co. v. Castaneda 531
Coaks, Be, Coaks
• V. Boswell
i. Bayley . 1623
331, 334, 1057
2210
Coalport China Co., Be
Coats I'. Liland Revenue Com-
missioners . . . .159
Coates to Parsons, Be 1166, 1168,
1266
V. Brittlebank, Be Brit-
tlebank . .1670
V. Chadwick . 468, 679
■ V. Coates (3 N. R. 355) 1454,
1466
■ ([1898], 1 L R.
258) . . 1638
(33 Beav. 249)
1587, 2087
Table of Cases.
Ixxxvii
PAGE
Coates V. Jenkins . . . 2089
■ ■ V. Legard . . . 1419
— V. Moore . 497, 816, 1942
V. Willcocks . .591
Coatsworth v. Johnson . . 2206
Cobbe, iJe . . . .1159
Cobbett V. Brock . . 2272, 2273
■ • V. Wood . . .260
■ V. Woodward . . 667
Cobbold, Be ([1903] 2 Ch. 299) 1509
V. Pisk . . .335
V. Pryke . . 513, 1351
Cobden v. Maynard . .331
Cobeldick, Exp. . . . 1060
Cobham v. Cobham . . 780
V. Dalton . 420, 435, 460
Cobum V. Collins . . . 1939
Ck)oh V. Allcock . . .108
Cochrane, Exp. . . 743, 745
— • V. Pearon . . 372
• V. Green . . . 1321
■ — — - V. Macnish . . 624
— V. Moore . . .1628
V. O'Brien . 493, 495
V. Robinson 1377, 1465,
— V. Willis . . 2149, 2150
Cock, Me, Exp. Rosevear China
Clay Co. . 2303
■ — ■ — Shilson . . 2009
Cockbum v. Edwards 243, 244,
1054, 1056, 1868, 1870, 1900
V. Raphael . 742, 780
Cockcroft, Re, Broadbent v.
Groves . 126, 1477
V. Sanderson, Be Ains-
worth .... 1461
Cockell V. Bridgeman . . 2230
V. Taylor . . 1876, 1877
Cockerell, Exp. . . .896
V. Barber . . 1459
V. Cockerell 1519, [2131]
. — — V. Essex (E.), Be
Johnston . . . 1560, 1654
Cockle V. Joyce . [137], 138
V. Treacy . . [849]
Cockrell's Estate, Be . 10.50, 1051
Cooks, Exp 297
V. Chandler . .615, 626
- — ■ — ■ V. Chapman, Be Chap-
man [1104], 1107, 1503,
1616
V. Gray . . 1882, 1898
V. Manners . . 1300, 1302
Cocks, Biddulph & Co., Exp.,
Be Hallett & Co. . 1408, 1839
Cocksedge v. Met. Coal Assoc. . 2264
Cockshott V. London Cab Co. 117,
138, 148, 834
Cocq V. Hunageria Co. . . 799
PAGE
Codd V. Delap ... 83
Coddington v. Jacksonville, &c.
Ry 329
Codrington's Charity, Re 1290, 2383
Codrington v. Codrington 1528, 1530,
1627
V. Johnstone 742, 780,937
Codrington v. Lindsay
V. Parker
Coe V. Wise .
Coifin V. CofBn
V. Cooper
Cofield, Exp.
Cogan V. Duffield
■ — — ■ V. Stevens
1627
750
Cogent V. Gibson .
Coghlan, Re, Broughton v. B.
V. Cumberland
Cohan v. Cohan
Cohen's Exors. & L. C. C, Be
Cohen v. Bayley-Worthington
. 542
1675, 2169
. 2361
907, [1639], 1643,
1646
. 1491
. 2140
1630
834
952
1353
1718,
2167
1674
. 281
. 419
117, 1949
520, [596]
. 1144
, Re, Brooks v. Cohen
• — V. Cohen
■ — — • V. De Las Rivas .
■ V. Mitchell .
V. Poland
V. Waley
V. Wilkinson . . 702
Colbeck, Re, Hall v. Colbeck . 50
Colbourn v. Hardy . . 698
Colbum V. Simms . . . 663
Colby V. Gadsden . . 2152, 2155
Colchester (Mayor of) v. Lowten 1290
Tram. Co., Re [2419], 2424
■ Union, Guardians of.
V. Moy
Colclough V. Bolger
V. Sterum
. 1086
. 348
340, 348
. 157
. [426]
482, 1046, 1049
. 97
. 1451
. 124, 823
. 1430
. 1109
. 1109
Cole V. Binks
V. Cole, Re Lawes
V. Eley .
■ V. Francis
V. Jealous
V. Langford
■ V. Miles
V. Mills .
• — — V. Muddle
V. N. W. Bank 1931, 1932, 1933
V. Park, Re Park 240, 264, 285
V. Peyton, Re Ennis . 2078
V. Saqm . . . 653
V. Warden . . .1367
V. West End of Lond., &o.
Ry. . [687], 2353
— V. Willard . . . 1668
Colebourne v. Colebourne 377, 514,
516, 737, 738
Ixxxviii
Table of Gases.
Coleby v. Coleby .
Colegrave v. Manby
■ — ■ V. Manley
PAOB
. 1982
. 1711
. 1042
Coleman, Ee, Henry v. Strong . 1148
& Co. V. Pearson [675]
& Jarrom, Be . . 1508
V. Bucks & Oxon Bk. 1086
— V. Llewellin [938], 1915
: — u. Mellersh 1054, 1340,
1902
• — — V. Seymour . . 1674
— ■ — V. W. Hartlepool Ry.
80, 616, 678
y. Winch . . 2046
Coleridge's Sett., Ee . . 1773
Coles and Ravenshear, Be . 832
—,Be .... 1570
V. Bristowe . . . 2296
V. Ciyil Service Supply
Assoc. [23], 146, 147, 622,
626, 627
■ V. Coles . . . 1631
V. Courtier, Be Courtier 544,
751, 1148, 1465, 1697
■ V. Forrest . . 1877, 1884
V. Gibson
- V. Pilkington
Sims
Coley, Be
Colgan, -Re
2240
2147
531
1512
969
CoUng v.Haden.iJeHaden 1632,2310
CoUard V. Allison
■ V. Marshall
■ V. Sampson
631
512, 513, 676
. 2167
CoUas V. Hesse . . . 1354
Colledge v. Pike . . .801
Collen «;. Wright . . . 1332
Colleton V. Garth . . .915
CoUett V. Dickenson . . 853
Collette V. Goode . . 46
Colley V. Hart . . .637
Collie, fie .... 1408
Collier v. M'Bean . . .2167
Colling, Be . . . 1181, 1233
Collinge's Settled Estates, Be . 1746
Collinge v. Heywood . . 1335
Collingham v. Sloper ([1893] 2
Ch. 96) .... 2237
ColUngham v. Sloper ([1894] 3
Ch. 716) . . . .127
OoUingridge v. Emmott . 664, 669
Collings V. Wade . . .1115
Collingwood, iJe . . . 1181
V. Jenison . . 1822
■ V. Row . . 1490
— — V. Stanhope 1663, 1664
Collins Co. ■y. Brown . [613], 625
■ — , Be, Collins v. ColUns 965, 968
— V. Baker, Be Baker , 2077
Collins V. Barker
PAGE
[730], 746, 752,
2111
V. Carey . . . 1137
V. Castle . . . 533
- V. Collins (26 Beav. 306)
388, 2113
— (2 My. & K.
703) . 1616
- V. Cowen . . . [613]
■ V. Porman . . . [347]
■ V. Jackson . . . 2105
- V. Lewis . . . 1606
• V. Locke . . 392, 529
- V. London Gen. Omni-
bus Co. ... 94
■ V. N. British, &c.Ins.Co.
14,17
- V. Paddington (Vestrv
of) . . 828,831,832
- V. Rhodes, Ee Baker 1112,
1385
• — ■ — — V. Slade
■ V. Stimson
■ ■ — V. Vining
■ V. Walker
■ V. Welch
• V. Worley
Collinson v. Ballard
V. Collinson
V. Je fiery
V. Lister
CoUis' Estate, Be .
CoUis V. CoUis
V. Hibernian Bk,
V. Laugher
■ V. Lewis
■ V. Robins
CoUison, Be, CoUison v. Collison
. 579
. 1089
. 1166
[613]
. 241
. 296
. 1350
. 1813
135, 1914
186, 1480, 1497,
1498, 2133
2359
1083
2039
558
503
1130
777
• V. Warren 377, 516, 710
Colls V. Home & Colonial Stores
519, 553, 558, 559, 560
V. Robins
CoUyer-Bristow & Co., Be
CoUyer v. Ashburner
V. Dudley .
• 1'. Fallon
Colman and Watson, Be
■ , Be .
V. E. C. Ry. Co.
V. St. Albans (D.)
Colmer, Ld., Be
V. Ede
Colmore v. North
Colonial Bank v. Cady
V. Exchange
9
. 281
. 1555
1330, 1342
. 445
. 1949
388, 821
2337, 2344
. 701
. 1898
. 2431
. 1038
. 741
2038, 2039
Bank of Yarmouth 628
Noya Scotia . , 2235
Table of Cases.
Ixxxix
PAOE
Colonial Bank v. Hepworth . 2038
v.WMnney 1091,1929
■ Life Abs. Co. v. Home
and Colonial Ass. Co. 628
Sees. Tr. Co. v. Massey. 834
Trasts Corp., Be . . 1968
Colorado Mortgage and Invest-
ment Co., Be . . [2429]
Colquhoun, Be . . 253, 1033
Colson V. Williams 719, 1857, 1900
Colson's Trusts, Be . .1154
Colston, iJe .... 1259
• V. Roberts, Be Fleck . 1478
Colt V. WoUaston . . . 2247
Columbine v. Penhall . . 2284
Colverson v. Bloomfleld . . 505
Colwelly V. St. Pancras Boro.
Council . . . .600
Colyear v. Musgrave . . 1627
Colyer v. Clay . . 2235, 2238
V. Colyer 74, 77, 320, 1380
V. Mnoh 723, 1480, 1481,
1835, 2035, 2042
Combe v. Hughes . . [1534]
V. London Corp. 72, 84, 86, 93
Comber v. Leyland . . 15
Combined Weighing Co., Be . 480
Combined Weighing Co., v. Au-
tomatic Weighing Co. . 636, 637
Combs, jBe . 1185,1186,1220
Comfort V. Betts . . . 1929
Commercial Bank of South
Australia, Be . 1332,
1378
Bank of Tasmania
V. Jones . . 2086
Bank, &c., Be, Fer-
nandes'Bxecutors'
Case . . .1358
Union Co. v. Lister 2079
Commins v. Scott . . . 2143
Commrs. for Railways v.
O'Rourke . . . 290, 298
Commrs. of Income Tax v.
Pemsel 1252, 1300, 1301, 1308
Commrs. of Inland Revenue v.
Angus .... 157
Commrs. of Sewers v. Gellatly
120, 591
Commrs. of Sewers v. Glasse . 72,
[142], 591
Commrs. of Stamps v. Hope . 1425
Commrs of Works, Exp., Be
Mill's Estate . . 240, 2407
Commrs. of Works, Exp., Be
Wood's Estate . . . 2407
Committee of London Clearing
Bankers v. Inland Revenue
Commrs, , , , ,158
Compagnie Financlere v. Peru-
vian Guano Co. . . 72, 73
Compagnie Gfenferale d'Eaux
Min&ales, iJe . . . 2343
Compagnie Pacifique v. Guano
Co 64
Compagnie du SfinSgal v. Smith
393, 739, 2113
Companhia de Mogambique v.
British South Africa Co. 146, 723,
2142
Compania Tausinena &c. v. Hol-
der Bros 49
Companies Act, 1900, Be [2513]
Component Tubes Co. v. Nayor 2260
Compressed Peat Charcoal, Ld.
and Reduced, Be . . 2432
Compton, Be, Norton v. Comp-
ton 827, 829, 836, 1468,
1469, 1470
V. Bagley 2156, 2170, 2188
— V. Bloxam . . 1356
— V. Preston . 2, [35]
Comyns v. Comyns . . 1905
■ V. Hyde . . . 671
Conacher v. Conaoher . . 378
Concaris v. Duncan . .676
Concessions Trust, Be, McKay's
Case 2243
Concha v. Concha 105, 106, 139, 1521
V. Murrietta 116, 154, 293,
1525
Conder, Exp., Be Woodham . 418
Condon v. VoUum . . .997
Conduit V. Soane . 1157, 1560,
1591
Condy v. Mitchell . . .627
V. Taylor . . .623
Conelly v. Steer . . . 1943
Coney, Be, Coney v. Bennett 409,
414, 737, 761
V. Bennett . . . 759
Conflans Quarry Co. v. Parker . 2229
Congreve v. Evitts . . 1948
Conington v. Gilliat 291, 907, 910
Conlan's Estate, Be . . 1383
Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v.
Kavanagh .... 836
Connell, Be . . . . 1408
V. Baker, Be Baker 105, 106
Connolly Bros. Ld., JRe . . 132
-, Exp.
Connop V. Hayward
V. Hodgson
. 305
. 1339
[2305]
Conolan v. Leyland . 853, 875
Conoley v. Quick, Be Delany . 1300
ConoUy v. Farrell . . .1559
Conquest's Case . . . 1115
Consejla ii Levinstein . , 643
xc
Tahle of Cases.
PAGE
Consett V. Bell 743, 1055, 1109,
1503, [1685], 1685
■ Iron Co., iJe . . 2441
Consolidated Credit Corp. v.
Gosney . . 1947
Exploration and
Finance Co. v.
Musgrave 531, 2149,
2292
• ■ Investment, &c.
Co. V. Riley [2023]
• ■ South Band Mines
Deep, iJe . .27
Telephone Co., Re 2434
Const V. Barr . . 453, 467
1;. Harris . . 512,752
Constable v. Constable (34 W. R.
649) . . .997
■ • V. Constable (11 Ch.
D. 681) . 1557, 1699
■ • V. Constable (32 Ch.
D. 233) . . 1757
V. Howick . . 1915
Constantine & Co. v. Warden . 21
Constantinidi v. Constantinidi &
Lance .... 924
Constantini, The ... 32
Consterdine v. Consterdine . 1165
Continental Oxygen Co., Be,
Blias V. Co. , 1971
Union Gas Co., Re 2431
Conway v. Fenton 312, 981, 1134,
1696
■ V. Wade . . .601
Conybeare, Re . . .1188
■ '■ V. Lewis 46, 130, 826
Conyer's Gram. Sch., Re . 1264
Good V. Good . . .722
Cook's Claim, Re . . .1160
■ — Mortgage, Re . . 1210
Cook, Re, Exp. Cripps . . 1052
, Tyndall v. Lawledge 1809
V. Andrews . . . 2183
V. Bath (Mayor of) . . 581
■ ■;;. Bolton . . . 1461
V. Bramwell ... . 2031
• V. Catchpole (34 L. J.
Oh. 60) . 391,
393
J.
■ (34 L.
Ch. 857) . 2113
- V. Collingridge . 1318, 2098
- V. Oulverhouse, Re Cul-
verhouse . 1553, 1557
■ V. Dawson . 1368, 1481, 2167
■ V. Dey .... 4
■ V. Duckenfield . . 1258
■ V. Enchmarch . . 2
■ V. Erawell . . .732
PAGE
Cook V. Eshelby . . .1323
V. Fearn . . . 1644
■ V. Fowler . . . 1343
V. Fryer . . . 1014
V. Gregson . . 1363, 1367
■ ■ V. Guerra . . .. 1895
■ ■ V. Hart . . 1848, 1852, 1879
V. Haynes . . . 179
V. Martyn . . . 1428
V. Mtcham Common Con-
servators
• V. Rosslyn (E.)
V. Thomas
V. Whellock .
■ V. Wright
Cooke's Trusts, Re
Cooke and Holland, Re
■ , Exp. .
•, Re Strachan
, Re (Ir. Rep. I
240)
• V. Benbow
• V. Catchpole
• V. Cholmondeley
. 592
. 495
. 1898
. 30
. 126
1519, 1523
. 2168
. 1091
. 1088
Eq.
. 1590
. 2113
391, 393, 2113
1368, 1696,
1697
. 2152
[2117], 2119
. 392, 1544
. 1079, 1080
. 980
. 600
. 1653
. 1444
■ V. Clayworth
V. Collingridge
V. Cooke
■ V. Crawford
- V. Dealey
- V. Forbes
- V. Fryer
- 17. Fuller
- V. Gibson, Re Crawford's
. 927
. 1358
[1790]
. 2272
. 139
[2114]
64, 74, 794
Settlement
■ V. Gittings
• V. Hunter
- V. Lamotte
■ V. Rickman
■ V. Ridley
■ V. Smith
■ V. Stevens, Re Stevens
■ • V. Turner
■ V. Wiggins
■ — — ■ V. Wilby
■ — — V. WilUams
— V. Wilton
Cookes V. Cookes
V. Hellier
Cookeny v. Anderson
Cookson V. Bingham
V. Catton .
V. Lee
1120,
1122
. 291
1572, 1574
111, 229
. 909
. 2044
739, 1314, 1773,
1774
2240
2103
358
292
929
Coolgardie Goldfields, Re, Re
Cannon, Son & Morten
SoUoitors) . 156, [1060], 1061
Coombe, Exp. . . . 1980
Table of Cases.
xci
PAGE
Coombe v. Carter, Be Clarke 1948,
2141
V. Steward . . 1914
V. VincentjiJe Stedman
1784, [1797], 1797, 1806
Coomber, Be Coomber v. Coomber
2273, 2274
Coombes, Be .
V. Brookes
Coombs, Be .
V. Brookes
V. Coombs
V. Wilkes .
Coope V. Carter
■ V. Cresswell
■ V. Tw3Tinam
. 1187
. 1388
362, 1514
. 1388
2143, 2145
. 1121
738, 1362, 1383,
1867
Cooper Cooper & Co., Be
, Exp. {6 Ch. D. 255)
(10 Ch. D. 313) ,
(11 Ch. D. 68)
• (19 Aug. 1834) ,
, Be Lond. Ry. Co,
■ Pennington
(2 K. & J. 251) ,
■ (4 W. R. 729)
(4 Ch. D. 802)
(37 W. R. 330)
2078
2435
746
838
2303
1017
2403
2284
. 1160
. 1185
. 1422
[1994],
2004
, Exp. Hall . . 2288
, Cooper V. SUght 1670,
1674
Cooper V. Vesey 820,
2033, 2043
, Goods of . . 886
- & Allen's Contract 341, 342
-& Allen, iJe . . 2201
- V. Belsey . . . 1746
- V. Benn . . .809
- V. Blissett . . .121
- V. Cartwright . . 2185
- V. Cooper (2 Ch. D. 492)
826, [840], 841, 843
(5 Ch. 203) . 1675
(8 Ch. 813) 1537,
1538, 1667, 1668,
1670
(L. R. 7 H. L.
53) 916, 1371,
1526, 1529, 1530
■ V. Crabtree 532, 600, 603
• V. Denson . . . 1513
- V. Dodd
- V. Emery
■ V. Eyans
■ V. Bveritt
■ V. Ewart
■ V. Fisher
192
2187
2083
322
262
[1816]
PAGE
[709], 710, 1286
. 475
. 99
713, 2083
. 1210
. 1326
. 2167
. 1544
■ V. Gjers, Ba Gjers 1465, 1696
Cooper V. Gordon
■ — ■ V. Griffin
V. Ince Hall Co
■ — ■ V. Joel
V. Jones
■ ■ V. Kendall .
V. Kynooh .
— • V. Laroohe .
V. L. C. & D. Ry. Co. 2184,
2190
■ • V. Macdonald 866, 872, 895,
1667, 1668, 1718
• V. Martin . . .2153
D.Morgan . [2136], [2172]
V. Page . . 2106, 2107
V. Phibbs 2151, 2232, 2235
V. Pitcher . . 1128, 145,
• V. Pritchard . . 1126
V. Reg. . . .383
V. Reilly . . .757
V. Skinner, Be Skinner . 1135
V. Stephens 667, 668, 674
V. Straker . . [554], 560
■ V. Tliomton . 449, 452
■ V. Trewby . . 343, 918
J). Wells . . .860
V. Whittingham 240, 509,
512, 523, 625, 662
V. Wicks . [1505, 1703]
V. Woolley . . .601
• V. Wormald . . 1628
Cooper-Dean v. Badham . 179
V. Stevens, Be
Dean . . 1303, 1543, 1569
Coote V. Cadogan, Be ^yce-
Coote . . 1745, 1778
V. Ford ... 37
V. French . . . 1871
• V. Ingram . . 146, 360
V. Jecks . . . 1943
V. Judd . . .664
V. Lowndes . [973], 1478
V. Miltown . . . 1871
V. Whittington
Cope, Be (16 Ch. D. 49) .
-, Cope V. Cope .
. 1358
. 1354
. 1482
. 1095
. 712
. 393
[1650], 1655
. 723
V. Bennett
V. Crossingham
• V. Cope .
V. De la Warr
■ V. Doherty
V. Evans 621, 627, [1488, 1506]
Copeland v. Mape . . . 452
Copestake v. West Sussex Co.
Council . . . .580
Copiapo Mining Co., Be . . 2440
Copin V. Adamson . . 13, 1525
Copland's Settlement, Be 1696, 1697
Copland, Be, Mitchell v. Bain . 1450
XCll
Table of Cases.
Copland v. Davies .
Copley, Exp.
V. Jackson
■ V. Smithson
PAGE
. 2040
2395, 2400
247
942
Coppard v. Allen
Coppin V. Femyhough .
• V. Gray
Coppinger v. Stapleton .
Corbet v. Davenant
Corbett, Be .
V. Commrs. of Works
■ V. Jonas .
■ V. Plowden
1095
2034
1388
1136
1819
1558
2167
562
1895, 2206
Corbishley's Trusts, Re . .1590
Corcoran v. Witt . . .379
Cordeaux v. Fullerton [1641], 1645
Cordingley v. Alliance Soo. . 1855
V. Cheeseborough.
2194 2196,
Cordner v. Guedella . . 2892
Cordwell's Estate, Re, White v.
Cordwell . . 906, 910, 1587
Cordwell v. Lever, Be Lever 1148,
6211
Coren v. Bame . . . 479
Cork & Youghal Ry. Co., Re [1957],
1967, 1972
(E.) V. Russell . 1858, 1882
Corkery v. Hickson . . 459
Corless v. Sparling . . .2153
Cormack v. Beisley . . 1049
Corn V. Matthews . . . 943
Cornbrook Brewery Co. v. Law
Debenture Corp. . . 1963
Cornell v. Hay . . . 2266
V. Hudson . . .1386
Cornfoot v. Fowke . . . 2249
Cornish, iJe .... 1114
V. Clarke . . 2281, 2287
V. Upton . . .522
Cornmell v. Keith . . 1630, 1631
Cornwall v. Hawkins . . 945
V. Henson . . 2188
Minerals Ry. Co., Re 1382
Cornwallis, Re, Cornwallis v.
Wykeham Martin . .1656
Corp. of Bristol v. Cos . 74, 94
■ of Bristol V. Westcott 683, 2167
of Cambridge, Exp . . 2366
of Huddersfield and Ja-
comb, Re . . . 397
of Rochester v. Lee 364, 365,
370, 587
of Rochester v. Owlett . 597
• of Salford v. Lever 66, 92, 1334
■ of Sons of the Clergy v.
Stock Exchange . 1276
— V. Skinner . 1279
—^ of Trin. Ho. v. Burge , 97
PAGE
Corrance v. Corranoe . . 924
Corsellis, Be ([1906] 2 Ch. 316) 1511
, Lawton v. Elwes 65,
933, 934, 1137
V. Batman . .1847
Corser v. Cartwright 1149, 1368,
1479, 1480, 1481
Cortauld v. Iiegh . . . 658
Cortioene, &c. Co. v. Tall & Co. 287
Cory Bros. & Co. v. Steamship
Mecca
■ (William) & Sons v. Harri-
son
V. Ejrre .
V. Thames, &c. Co.
V. Yarmouth Ry.
Corz and Hogg's Patent,
Cosens v. Bognor Ry. Co,
Cosgrave, Be
Cosier, Be
Coslake v. Till
Cosser v. Collinge .
Costa Rica Ry. v. Porwood
1124,
Costabadie v. Costabadie
1325
530
2030
2140
517
2324
2224
457
1666
2156
2207
1093,
1334, 2268
966, 1255,
1422
. 1105
. 2120
910, 1445
Be
2096
Costello V. O'Rorke
Coster's Exors., Exp.
Coster V. Coster
Coston V. Blackburn . . 98
Cotham V. West [1118], 1124, 1134,
1885, 1904
Cothay v. Sydenham . . 2034
Cottam V. E. C. Ry. Co. . 1084,
1099, [2240], 2242
Cotterell v. Stratton 819, 1129,
1876, 1877
Cotterill's Trusts, Be (17 Sol. J.
165) . 1144
(W. N.
(69) 183) 1189
Cottingham v. Shrewsbury (E.) 164,
1902
Cotton's Trustees & School Bd.
for London, Re . 1674
Cotton, Exp. . 719, 1945, 1950
• , Wood V. Cotton . 1427
— — V. Gillard . . .624
Cottrell, Re . . . 278, 967
— ([1910] 1 Ch. 402) 1570,
1579
, Joyce V. Cottrell . 1379
V. Briggs . . [169]
■ V. (Cottrell 2 Eq. 330) 344,
1215, 2186
■ (28 Ch. D.
628) . 1776
V. Finney . . 1872, 1876
■ V, Watkins , . 2168
Table of Cases.
xciu
PAGE
[1163]
, 2125
16, 863
, 2361
2292
444
2081
1839
376,
821
Couchman v. Thurnall
Couldery v. Bartrum
Coulson, Exp., Re Gardiner 85i
, Re .
V. AlUson 1637, 2273
Coulston V. Gardiner
Coulthart i: Clementson .
Coulthurst 1'. Smith
Coulton, Re, Hamlin g v. Elliott
Counsell v. Lond. & West.
Loan Co. . . . 1939, 1943
Counties Conservative, &o.
Building Soc, Re, Da vies v.
Norton [2055], 2057, 2062, 2065
County Council of Kent, Exp. . 824
of Gloucester Banking
Co. V. Rudry . . .735
■ Theatres and Hotels,
Richardson v. Le
Maitre . . .391
Coupe V. CoUyer 1319, 1991, 2031
Coupland v. Arrowsmith . 2144
Courage v. Carpenter
V. O'Shea .
[525]
[469], 472
771, 1884
. 296
. 1130
. 1031
. 1491
385, 407,
Courtenay v. Williams
• V. Wright
Courand v. Hanmer
Courier, The .
Course v. Humphrey
Court V. Berlin
V. Buckland .
V. Perrin, Re Perrin
[1349], 1373
. 1587
. 1935, 2049
Courtier, Re, Coles v. Courtier 544,
751, 1148, 1465, 1696
Courtney v. Ferrers . . 1621
Courtois, Re . . . .1158
Courtoy v. Vincent . . 485
Courts of Justice Commrs., Re. 2395
Cousens v. Cousens . . 287
■ V. Rose . . .578
Cousins, Re (31 Ch. D. 671) 1034,
2036, 2165
; Alexander v. Cross 2139
Coutts V. Aoworth . . . 1637
Coveney v. Atliill . . 102, 109
Coventry Chain Co., Re . [2442]
■ • (Justices of). Re . 232
■ & Dixon's Case, Re
Canadian Land, &o.
Co. . . . 1094
V. Barclay 1339, 2104, 2118
— V. Coventry 1165, 1632
V. Gladstone . . 2303
■ — V. L, B. & S. 0. Ry. 689,
707, 2139
V. Wright . .1411
Coverdale v. Charlton . . 581
PAGE
Coverdale v. Eastwood [1624], 1626,
2137, 2140
Covington, Re . . .1159
— v: Met. Dist. Ry. Co. 2351
Cowan's Estate, Rapier v.
Wright . . . 480,744
Cowan V. Cariill . . .415
Coward and Adam, Re . . 2201
and Adam's Purchase . 898
Cowbridge Ry. Co., Re . . 2004
Cowbum, Re, Exp. Firth 836, 837,
1941
Cowdell, iJe . . . .281
Cowdry v. Day 1054, 1837, 1856, 1877
Cowell V. Gatcombe
V. Sykes
V. Taylor
Cowen V. Truefitt .
Cowin, Re, Cowin v.
Cowley, Re .
, Souch V. Cowley
(L.) V. Byass
I'. Barton .
V. Gale
■ V. Wellesley
1084
. 1378
. 29
2220, [2233]
Gravett 87, 93,
1698
. 983
1554
515
. 68
. 2156
358, 545
. 578
. 1429
. 860
. 2181
. 2240
1208, 1234
. 519
Cowling V. Higginson
Cowman v. Harrison
Cowper's (L.) Case
Cowper V. Bakewell
V. Cowper .
V. Harmer .
V. Laidler .
V. Smith . . . 2086
V. Strathden, Re Strath-
den . . . . 1568
V. Taylor . . .449
Cowper-Essex v. Acton District
Local Board . . . 2347
Cowx V. Foster . . . 1677
Cox's Trusts, Re . [1004], 1699
Cox, iJe . . . [1374]
• & Neve, Re 2163, 2165, 2166,
2201
& Yeadon, Re . . 1757
V. Baker . . .602
■ V. Barnard . . . 1365
V. Bennett (31 L. T. 83) 465,
1013
([1891) 1 Ch.
617) 480, 851, 856,
880
(39 W. R
1465,
• V. Bishop
■ V. Bowen
■ V. Chamberlain
• V. Coverton
V. Cox 1155, 1447
■ V. Dolman
308) 1134
1983, 2206
. 497
. 1427
2151,2195
1622, 1818
1873, 2049
XCIV
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Cox V. Hakes . 815, 818, 999
■ — — V. Hiekinan . . . 2127
■ V. James . . 50, 1033
V. Land and Water Co. 661, 670
V. Middleton .
. 2143
V. Mitchell
. 723
V. Smith
. 2152
V. Stephens .
. 122
V. Taylor
. 122
V. Watson
. 1916, 1920
■ V. Willoughby
. 2097
■ V. Wright
. 928, 932
• Moore V. Peruvian
Corp. . 1968
Coxe V. Bassett
. 1368
Coxhead v. Mullis .
. 946
Coxon V. Gorst
. 1094
Coxwell V. Pranklinsky
. 1113
Coyte's Estate, Be .
. 2376
Coyte V. Coyte
. 1447
Cozen V. Hundred of Hoo Ry.,
Kent . . . 586, 686
Cozens, Be ([1903] 1 Ch. 138) . 1512
Crabtree, Be (V. C. W., 11 Jan.,
1866, A. 488) [1179]
■ V. Poole . . 2153, 2185
Crace, Be ... . 2081
Craokett v. Bethune . 1123, 1453
Cracknall v. Janson [237], 249, 837,
1840
Craddock's Trusts, Be
Craddook v. Piper .
■ V. Rogers
Cradook v. Owne .
• V. Piper
■ V. Witham
Cragg V. Taylor
Craggs V. Holme
Cragoe v. Jones
Craig V. Craig & Hamp.
V. Dowding
■ V. Greer 532
262,
907
1878
1054
1451
1137
. 1168
. 475
. 2152
. 2086
. 445
. 637
2142, 2155
V. PhiUips
■ V. Watson
V. Wheeler
Craignish, Be,
Hewitt
Crake v. Burgess
Cramer v. Mathew
Crampton v. Ridley
813, 832, 2264, 2266
[192, 44.1], 1061
. 1616
Craignish v.
. 1518, 1519
[1311]
. 502
. 400
■ V. Varna Ry. Co. . 2141
Cranbourne Sch., Be ... 1273
Crane's Estate, Be 2362, 2388, 2401
Crane, Be ([1908] 1 Ch. 379) . 1446
V. Drake . . . 1479
■ V. Jullion
■ V. Kilpin
■ V. Loftus
■ V. Ormerod
■ V. Smith
[4]
2182
118
503
730
PAGE
Oranley v. Dixon . [1611], 1620
Cranston, Be, Webb v. Oldfield 1300
Cranstown (L.) v. Johnston . 721
Cranswick v. Pearson . [766]
Craven, Exp. (17 L. J. Ch. 215)
1146, 2288, 2377
Bank v. Hartley . . 1922
V. Ingham . . 206, 322
V. Kaye . . .604
V. Stanley . . . 125
V. Stubbing . . 969
V. Tickell . . .1345
Crawoour v. Sadler . . 91
V. Salter 824, 825, 1938
Crawford's Settlement, Be,
Cooke V. Gibson . . 927, 1513
Crawford, Be . . . 1512
& May, Be May 881, 1469
V. Annally . 1573, 2050
V. Fisher . 495, 498
V. Hornsea, &c. Co. . 299
V. Toogood . . 2156
Crawley, Be, Acton v. Crawley 1697
V. Crawley . 1616, 1620
V. Puller . . . 1920
Crawshay, Be, Crawshay v.
Crawshay . 1675
, Dennis v.
Crawshay 252, 1420
V. Collins . . 2120
V. Maule . . 2097, 2110
V. Thornton . . 495
Craycroft, Be, Exp. Browning . 419
Craythome v. Swinburne . 2078
Creasor v. Robinson . 1358, 1359
Credit Assurance Co., Be . 2431
Co. V. Pott . . . 1941
Poncier of England, Be
2432, 2435
Crediton (Bishop) v. Exeter
(Bishop) . . . 155,2243
Credland v. Potter 1877, 2030
2040, 2041
Creed v. Henderson, Be Hudson 2149
Creighton v. Rogers . [1236]
Cremetti v. Crom . . . 480
Cresswell, Be, Parkin v. Cress-
well .
■ V. Cheslyn
■ V. Cresswell
■ V. Davidson
■ V. Dewell
870
V. Parker
Creuze v. Hunter .
Crew V. Cummings
Creyke v. Fox
Criocieth Pier Co., Be
Criohton v. Crichton
. 1560
. 1451
1537, 1538
532, 2308
895, 1432,
1593
. 18
1369, 1572
. 1944
[2205]
. 2442
. 1089
Table of Cases.
xcv
PAGE
Crick V. Hewlett . 134, 135, 147
Oickitt V. Crickitt . . .130
Cridland v. De Mauley .
Crigglestone Coal Co., Be
Crighton &c. Insurance Co., Be
Crimdon, The
Crippen, Be .
Cripps, Exp., Be Cook
• V. Wood
Crips, Be (95 L. T. 865)
Crisp V. Crisp
V. Platel
Crispin v. Cumano .
V. Doglioni .
78
328
390
1061
152, 1354
. 1052
. 1910
. 1782
. 924
79, 1875
444, 445
. 1357
Critohell v. L. & S
Crockatt v. Ford
Crockford's &c. Co,
Crockford v. Alexander
V. Salmon
V. Winter
Croft V. Day .
V. Graham
W. Ry.
,Be
37
2231
27
543
734
1344
. 626
1341, [2275], 2278
2279
. 17
• V. King .
• V. Rickmansworth High-
way Board . . [551, 553
Croft V. Waterton . . .1354
Crofton V. Crofton, Be Boyse
108, 157, 722, 1376
Crofts, Be
■ — ■ V. Haldane .
■ — V. Hume
V. Middleton
886
. 558
. 602
107, 864
. 1452
. 1047
. 1732
. 2106
. 572
Croggan v. Allen
Croghan v. MoflEett
Croke, Be
Croker v. Kreeft
Cromford Canal Co. v. Cutts
Crompton & Co. Trade Mark, Be 2334
■ ■ V. Anglo-American
Brush &c. Corp. 41, [642]
V. Jarratt . 1952, 2311
— V. Lea . . . 589
Crompton and Evans Union
Bank v. Burton . . . 1083
Cronbach v. Isaac, Be Isaac . 1130
Cronin v. Otway, Be Campbell. 1565
V. Twinberrow . . 431
Cronmire, Be ... 881
Crook, Be, Exp. Sheriff of
Southampton
■ V. Corp. of Seaford
- V. Crook
Crookenden v. EHiUer
Crookes, Be . .
Croome v. Lsdiard .
Cropper v. Cook
— — — — V. Smith
. 419
. 2203
1802, 1806
. 1521
[988], 1001
2169, 2189
. 1324
644, 648, 837, 843,
2316, 2324
PAGE
1308
2331
526
620
761
Crosbie v. Corp. of Liverpool .
Crosfield & Co., iJe
■ — ■ — ■ — ■ — & Sons V. Manchester
Ship Canal
■ — ■ — — — & Sons, Be
Croshaw v. Lyndhurst Ship Co.
Crosland v. HolUday, Be
Powell . . . .1509
Crosley, Be, Munns v. Bum 826, 827,
831, 1385
Cross, Be (27 Beav. 592)
• , Exp. Payne
• , Harston v. Tenison
1288
838
1109,
1111
1951
1048
2062
38
1449
1254
■ V. Barnes
V. Cross
V. Pisher
V. Howe (E.)
■ V. Kennington
■ V. Lloyd Greame .
• V. London Anti vivisec-
tion Soc, Be Foveaux 1300
• V. Maltby . . .323
V. Sprigg . . . 1365
Crossdell, Cammell & Laird, Be 828
Crosse v. Bedingfield . 1572, 2230
■ V. Duckers . . . 534
V. Gen. and Rev. &c. Co.
1372, 1852, 188C
Crosskill v. Bower . . . 1872
Crossley v. Andrew . . 2316
V. Beverley . . 633
V. City of Glasgow . 1935
■ V. Dixon . . .652
■ V. Dobson . .1378
V. Elworthy . 2284, 2287
V. Lightowler . 608, 6121
■ V. Maycock . .2144
V. Stewart . . 646
Grossman v. Bristol and S. W.
Ry . . . 689
— V. Richards . . 1807
Crosthwaite, Exp., Be Pearoe . 422
Eire Bar Syndicate
V. Senior
Crouch V. Waller .
Croughton's Trusts, Be
Crow V. Wood
Crowden v. Stewart
Crowder v. Tinkler
Crowe's Mortgage, Be
■ Trusts, Be
Crowe V. Del Rio
V. Menton
V. Price
642, 643
. 922
. 869
. 738
1468, 1469
. 599
1207, 1216,
1864
1173, 1212
. 62
1428, 1558
445, 479
Crowhurst v. Amersham Burial
Bd 599
Crowle V. Russell . . 800, 1479
XCVl
Table of Cases,
Crowley's Claim 1332, 1335, 2299
Crowley v. O'SuUivan . . 2095
Crown Bank, Be (44 Ch. D. 634)
188, 704
(North, J., May
1, 1890) [455], 457, 458
■ Co-op. Soc., iJe 1176, [1204]
Crowther, Be
-, Midgley v. Crow-
ther . 1497,
• V. Appleby
■ V. Elgood
1410
1617
95
432
1656
941
Croxon, Be ([1904] 1 Ch. 252)
V. Lever
Croxton v. May 905, 907, 910, 1591
Croydon Gas Co. v. Dickinson . 2084
Croysdale v. Sun bury-on-
Thames Urban Dist. Council 551,
653, [585], 610
Crozat V. Brogden ... 29
Crozier v. Dowsett . . . 1878
• Stephens & Co. v. Aner-
bach ... 16
Cruikshank v. DufBn 1479, 2167,
2170, 2189
Crumbie v. Wallsend Local Bd. 57
Crump, Be . . . .893
• V. Lambert . 600, 601
Crunden & Meux's Contract,
Be 1185
Cruse V. Howell . . .1508
V. Paine . [2295], 2297
Crush V. Turner . . .817
Cubbon, Be Goods of . . 888
Cubison v. Mayo . . . 805
Cubitt V. Heyward . [525]
W.Smith . 2141, [2211]
Cuddee v. Butter . . 2138, 2140
Cuddeford, Exp. . . .431
Cuddon V. Cuddon . . . 1623
• V. Tite . . . 2183
Cuenod v. LesUe . . 857, 858
Cull, Be . . . 1136, 1159
V. Inglis . . 88, 93
CuUen, Be ... . 1061
V.A.-G,. . . . 1304
V. Knowles . . 51
Cullerne v. London & Suburban
Bldg. Soc. . . . 702, 1093
Culley V. Wortley, Be Wortley [47]
Cullimore's Trusts, Be . . 1303
Cullwick V. Swindell . . 1950
Culverhouse, Be, Cook v. Culver-
house . 1553, 1557
• ■ V. Wiokens . . 481
Cumberland Union Banking
Co. V. Maryport Iron Co. . 1846
Cumberland v. Clark, Be Clark [795]
V. Richards . . 623
PAGE
Cumberlege v. Ware, Be Ware
1631. 1678
Cuming, Be 1181, 1220, 1233, 1864
Cumming, Be
V. Cumming
V. Eraser
Cummins v. Bromiield
V. Fletcher
V. Herron
V. Perkins
Cunard, Be .
S.S. Co., Be
S.S. Co. V. Hopwood
1361
. 1003
. 1356
. 1130
2014, 2015
[608], 828, 830
747, 751, 762,
862
. 1189
. 1964
1963
OundifE v. Pitzsimmons . . 2050
Cuninghame v. City of Glasgow
Bank .... 1147
Cunliffe, Brooks & Co. v. Black-
bum Bldg. Soc. . 2062
■ — V. Ash worth . .416
■ u. Cunhffe . . . 1555
Cunnack v. Edwards 1252, 1300,
[1580], 1585, 1629, 2103
Cunningham, Exf., Be Mitchell 1519
. ,Be . . .433
• & Co., Be Simp-
son's Claim . 1967
— and ErayUng, Be 1182
V. CoUing . [639]
V. Foot . . 1113
Cuno, Be, Mansfield v. Mans-
field .... 874,887
Cunyngham's Settlement, Be .
872, 1676
Cunjmgham v. Cunyngham . 779
Cunynghame v. Thurlow 872, 1676
Cupit V. Jackson . 749,
Curd V. Curd
Curl Bros. v. Webster
Curling v. Austin .
V. Plight .
V. Perring
V. Townshend (M.)
1574, 1675
83
684
2137, 2162
2162
90
1983
Curnock v. Bom, Be Born 1046, 1047
Curren v. O'Connor . . 529
Currey, Be . . . .871
, Gibson v. Way 869,
1632
Currie and Timmis' Patent, Be 2321
, Be (9 Beav. 602) . 278, 279
■ — (10 Ch. D. 93) . . 1220
, Birkman v. Kim-
berley(L.) . 1570
■ V. Consolidated Kent Coll.
Corp. .
V. Larkins
V. Misa
Curriers' Co. o. Corbet
Ourteis, Be
. 133
. 1663
. 2302
519, 667
. 1629
Table of Case^.
Xcvli
Curtis and Betts, Re
' , Be
■ — — , ELawes v.
■ V. Beaney
V. Curtis
V. Hutton
V. Mundy
V. Piatt
V. Price
II. Rippon
V. Sheffield
■ V. Westeven
Council
V. WilUamson
V. Wormald .
Curtius V. Caledonian Ins,
Curwen v. Milbum
Curzon v. Lyster
Cusack, Re
■ — V. L. & N. W,
Gust V. Middleton .
Custis, Re . . .
Cutbush V. Cutbush
Outfield V. Richards
Cuthbert v. Edinborough
V. Roberts & Co
Wharmby
Cuthbertson v. Irving
Cutler's Coiitract, Re
Cutler, Re ' .
V. Boyd, Re Bennison
PAGE
. 123, 283
. 996
Curtis . 881
. 92
. 914, 1373
. 1308, 1451
. 65
370, 639, 643
. 348, 1371
. 952
. 165, 831
County
. 580
. 1324
. 1491
Co. . 122
298, 1384
. 1819
. 281
Co. . 831
[974], 1726
1188, 1189
. 1498
1848, 1879
- . 2118
1992,
2302
1353, 1375
. 1895
[327]
905, 910
1084
Ry.
V. Reliance, &c. Ass. C-o. 490
Cyclists' Touring Club, Re . 2441
■ Co. V. Hopkin-
son . . 703
D.
D. V. A. & Co.
D'Abbadie v. Bizoin
Dacie v. John ' .
Da Costa v. Da Costa
'■ V. De Pas
431, 457, 511, 522
1674
. 753
. 933
1252, 1253
Dacre v. Patrickson . . 1585
DacreS-Patt'erson v. Foote 148
D'Adhemar 17. Bertrand . . 1165
Dadswell v. Jacobs 38, 63, 1331
Daffield v. Wilhams, Re Berry . 116
Dagdell, Re . ■ . . . 1560
Daggett V. Ryman 524, 527, 528,
Daglish V. Barton .
Dagnall, Re, .
■ Exp., Soan
Morley .
Daines v. Eaton, Re Eaton
Daintrey, Re, Exp. Holt .
VOL. I.
2214
817
876
87
1616
1455
PAGE
1321,
1323, 1406
. 2182
. 697
. 1630
331, 2169
. 192
. 1089
. 248
[2136]
330, 331, 2095,
2135
1621, 1700
. 701
[2007]
. 530
979, 1540
. 1950
508, 514, 516
Dalison's Settled Estates, Re 1772,
1780
Dallas, Re ■ . 1081, 1928, 2034
V. Glyn . . .430
V. Law, Re Towry 1560, 1654
Dallmeyer, Re . 1447, [1663]
Dallow V. Garrold 482, 1047, 1049,
1051
Daintrey, Re, Mant, Exp.
Dakin v. Cope
V. L. & N. W. Ry.
Daking v. Whimper
Dalby v. Fallen
Dale's Case .
Dale & Co., Exp. .
, Re, Stubbs v. Dale
■ V. Bateson
V. Hamilton
V. Hayes
V. Martin
V. Taylor
Dales V. Weaber
Daley v. Desbouverie
Dalglish, Exp.
V. Jarvie
D'Almaine v. Boosey
Dalmer v. Dashwood
Dalrymple v. Hall .
V. Leslie
Dalston v. Coatsworth
V. Nanson, Re Mul
caster
. 670
747, 750
. 1513
68, 69, 84
. 2240
Dalton, Re
V. Angus
V. Hayter .
• V. St. Mary Abbotts
V. Wilson .
D'Alton V. D' Alton
DalyiJe
V. A.-G.
V. Beckett
V. Dublin (Abp. of)
Damant v. Hennell
Damer v. E. Portarlington
Dames and Wood, Re
Damper v. Bassett
Danby v. Danby
Dance v. Goldingham
Dancer v. Hastings
Dando v. Dando
Dangar's Trusts, Re
Dangerfield v. Jones
D'Angibau, Re,
Andrews
Daniel v. Anderson
434
951, 1015
. 568
. 1483
51, 601
[2010]
. 997
. 1522
. 1259
. 543
. 710
935, 1453
. 1352
. 2165
. 580
. 1590
[718], 720,
1079, 2153
. 770
. 1445
[1058], 1061,
1063
. 652
Andrews v.
947, 1630, 2149
. 579
9
XCVIU
Table of Cases.
Daniel v. Arkwright
V. Davies .
V. Ferguson
V. Newton .
V. Skipwith
V. Trotman .
PAGE
1645, 1675
. 1415
518, 559
. 953
. 1850
779, 780
and Arter v. Whitehouse 627
Daniell, Exp., Re Deakin 1051, 1052
■ V. Sinclair 1319, 1341, 1871,
1904
1763
2037
1510
171,
2317
1666
Daniell's Settled Estate, Re
Daniels v. Davison .
Danily v. Piatt, Re Lowe
Dansk Rekylrifiel, &c. v. Snell
Danson, Re, Bell v. Danson
Danubian Sugar Pactories v.
Inland Bev. Commrs. . 159, 161
Darby's Estate, iJe , . 2022
Patent . . . 2320
DarbysHre v. Leigh . . 39
D'Arcy V. Blake . . .913
j;. White . . .303
Darcy (L.) v. Askwith . . 541
V. Whittaker . . 850
Darcys, iJe . . . .952
Dardier v. Chapman, Re Barber 909
Dare Valley Ry., Re 396, 398, 399,
2349
Darke tJ, Martyn . . . 1086
• V. Williamson . .1991
Darkin v. Marye . , . 341
Darley v. Darley . . . 964
V. Hodgson, Re Hodgson 1427
V. Tennant 1327, 1381, 1382
Main Colliery v. Mitchell 573
Darling, Re . . . . 1301
Darlington v. Hamilton . 2163, 2308
- — - — — • Waggon Co. v.
Harding .... 405
Darlow v. Bland . . 1941, 1947
Damley, (Re [1907] 1 Ch. 159) . 1619
— — (L.) V. L. C. & D. Ry.
2141, 2147, 2156
Darrell v. Tibbitts . . . 2079
Dartford Brewery Co. v. Moseley
241, 423
Dartmouth, &c. Ry. Co., Re . 2420
■ — — — — ■ — Harbour Commrs. v.
Mayor of Dartmouth . . 30
Dartnall, Re, Sawyer v. God-
dard 1082
Darvall v. Dougall . [598], 602
Dash, Re, Treasury Solicitor v.
Lewis .... 1561
Dashwood, Exp. . . 1714, 2398
,Re . . 783,786
— ■ — V. Dashwood . [1139]
V. Jermyn . . 1626
PAGE
Dashwood v. Magniac 537, 542, 546,
1693, 1696
Daubney v. Leake, Re Taylor 1456,
1514
V. Shuttleworth 376, 380,
821
Daubuz V. Lavington . . 1894
Daugars v. Rivaz 521, 709, 711,
1254
Dauglish v. Tennent . . 2287
Daun V. City of London Brewery
Co 2044
D'Auvergne v. Cooper . . 1839
Dauvillier v. Myers . . 98
Davenport's Charity, Re 1263, 1278
Davenport, Re. Turner v. King
[1672], 1676
V. Bishopp . . 1627
V. Charsley 2151, [2191]
V. Davenport (1 H.
& M. 775) 541, [1651]
1656, 1693
V. Davenport (1 S. &
S. 101) . . 935
■ — — V. Goldberg . . 640
— ■ — V. James . . 1859
V. Jepson [638], 646
V. King . . . 1804
■«. Marshall . 923,1630
— — — V. Moss . . .743
— — V. Powell . . 1459
■ V. Beid . . . 1022
V. Richards . . 631
■ V. Rylands 625, 651, 652,
653
V. Stafford 124, 185, 288,
289, 1081, 1121, 1122, 1429,
1430
Daveron, Re, Bowen v. Cliurchill 1543
Davey v. Bourne, Re Bourne . 431
• V. Bentinck . . 42
— V. Durrant . . 1857, 1990
W.Miller . . . 1222
— V. Shannon . . 2145
• • V. Ward, Re Hodges . 966
■ V. Wietlisbach . . 1805
— — — V. Williamson , . 1969
David, Re . . . .270
— — • and Matthews, Re 684, [2102],
2111
V. Frowd . . 1379, 1595
D.Howe . . .804
Lloyd & Co., Re . . 754
• V. Rees . . 252, 1050
Davidson, Re ([1899] 2 Q. B.
103 . . 1071
■ . . (15Eq. 383) . 1524
■ — ■ — ■ — , Martin v. Trim-
mer . 865, 1531
Table of Cases,
xcix
FAQE
Davidson, Re, Minty v. Bourne
1254, 1301, 1306
■ — V. Carlton Bank 1942, 1944
^ V. Donaldson . . 1324
• V. lUidge, Be Ulidge
1363, 1365, 1367, 1470
V. Kimpton . 1513, 1591
V. Wood . . .898
, iJeWood . 1378
. 1360
. 2210
. 873
Es-
[1760]
886, 1427
. 1218
. Ill
. 1181
312, 314
Young
Davies' Case
Policy, Re, .
— (Edward) Settled
tates, Be Rees .
■ Trusts
Da vies, Exp.
■ , Be {8 Eq. 98) .
■ ■ (12 Eq. 214)
(38 Cli. D. 210)
(21 Q. B. D. 241) . 466
(3 Mac. & G. 278) 1185
(21 W. R. 154) . 1302
(13 Eq. 163) 886, 1426
, Davies v. Davies
([1892] 3 Ch. 63) 1426,
1427, 1569
, Davies v. Davies
(38 Ch. D. 210) 312,
1421
— ([1909] W. N. 212) . 229
■ , ElUs V. Roberts 1101,
[1120]
— , Evans v. Moore 1113,
1429, 1432
— — ■ — ■ -, Issard v. Lambert 1317
- — — — , Jenkins v. Davies 243
~ — — and Caddick, Be Evans 2113
■ ■ ■ & Co. V. Andre & Co. . 411
- — — V. Bolton & Co. . . 1968
- ■ ■ V. Boulcott . . 122
■— V. Bush . . 1046, 1475
— V. Chatham Bldg. Soc. 401
V. Chatwood, Be Allen . 252,
1033
• — V. Cracroft . . . 773
■ V. Davies (36 W. R. 399) 544
■ _— (9 Eq. 468) . 946
■ — (2 D. M. & G.
54) ■. . 1570
— — ■ (36 Oh. D. 359)
529, 533, 2148
■ — (38 Ch. D. 499) 1742
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ (4 Beav. 54) . 2237
■ — (24 July, 1869) 1158
V. Dysart (E.) 288, 290, 291
— V. Felix _ . . ,837
V. Fowler . . . 1555
— V. Gas Light Co. . . 81
— V. Goodhew . . 1489
Davies v. Hodgson 870, 1109, 1115,
1188, 2090
V. Huguenin . 1664, 1665
■ V. Humphreys
V. Jenkins (6 Ch.
728)
—([1900] 1
B. 133)
2078
D.
853, 861
Q.
1941,
1946
. 2083
529, 530
803, 804
. 531
289, 515
- V. London, &c. Go,
- V. Lowen
- V. MacHenry
- V. Maokuna
- V. Marshall
- V. Napper, Re Lswis Hill 1254
- V. Nat. Ins. of New
Zealand . . 2152
- V. Nicolson . 1545, 1559
- V. Nixon . . .439
- V. Norton, Counties, &c.,
Bldg. Soc, Be [2055],
2057, 2060, 2065
- V. Otty . . .106
- V. Parry (1 Giff. 182) [1052],
1054
([1899] 1 Ch.
602) [1466], 1469
- V. Sear . . . 576
- V. Stainbank . . 2085
- V. Stanford . 863, 875
- V. Tagart, Be Weston . 1109
- V. Tliomas ([1900] 2 Ch.
642) 2224,2225
(W. N. (99)
244) . 562
(North, J.,
13 Nov.
1899) . [166]
- V. Topp 1373, [1550], [1598],
1604, 1605, 1607, 1608,
1852
■ V. Treharria Brewery Co. 852
- V. Vale of Evesham 353, 730,
746
■ V. Williams . . 806
■ V. Williams, Be Wil-
1386
1847
951
2061
2128
2380
. 1186
1252, 1253,
1254
- ([1891] 3 Ch. 119) . 1113
- ([1902] 2 Ch. 314) 1124,
2133
-, Basire v. Passingham [962]
liams
V. Wright . . 331
Davis's Case (1 P. Wms. 608) .
(12 Eq. 516)
Davis, Exp. (32 L. J. Bky. 68)
- ■ ■ (3 D. & J. 144) .
■ -, Be (12 Eq. 214)
— — (61 L. T. 530)
Tahte of Cases,
PAGE
Davis,iJe,Davis V.Davis 1119,1123
■ , Evans v. Moore 1113, 1429,
1432
■ , Fotliergill v. Davies [100]
— , Hannen v. Hillyer 1245,
1302
— , Muokalt V. Davis . 295
, Exp. Rawlings . 1938
and Cavey, Be 2151, 2163,
[2199], 2201
■ & Co. V. Cousmith
V. Howard
667
2298
526
382
753
■ & Sons V. Taff Vale Ry. .
■ V. Adams
V. Amer
V. Ashwin 328, 1847, 1848,
1970
V. Bank of England . 2242
V. Barrett . . . 1839
V. Benjamin • 667, 672
V. Browne . • • 1430
V. Bush . . • 1591
V. Chanter 1185, 1206, 1347,
1354
— — ■ V. Combermere . 1370, 1593
V. Davis (48 L. J. Ch. 40) 800
• — (2 Atk. 24) . 448
Davis V. Davis (13 Ch. D. 861) 125
. ■ — (10 W. R. 245). 1000
. — (1 H. & M. 255) 1553
, . - (24 W. R. 962). 1982
— ([1894] 1 Ch. 393)
1490, 2129, 2135
— — V. Dowding . • . 1851
— — V. Dysart (E.) 288, 290, 291
- V. Flagstafi Silver Mn
ing Co.
788
. 528
479, 1049, 1057
. 430
- V. Foreman
- V. Ereethy
- V. Galmoye
- V. Gardiner . . . 1475
- V. Harford . . • 1694
- V. Hyman & Co. . . 412
- V. Ingram . • [1793]
- V. James . . 36, 37
-V.Jones . . . 1940
- Leicester Corp. . . 533
- Marlborough (D.) 540, 739,
768, 1897, 2278
- V. Martin, Be Queensland
Land Co. [1956], 1970
-i;. May . . • 1903
-V.Park . . . 2142
- V. Pan'y ... 79
- V. Second Chatham Bldg.
Soc. . . . 2065
- V. Shepherd . . . 2207
- V. Shepstone . . 677
- V. Smaggasgale . [681]
fAGE
Davis V. Spurling . • 1340, 1341
-V.Starr . . 392,393
V. Stridbolt, Be Davis &
Co. . . . 2330
— — V. Town Properties &c.
Corp. . . .600
V. Treharne . . .569
v. Usher . . • 1947
V. Whitehead, Be Duke
of Marlborough . 1838
V. Whitmore . 1883, 1884
■!. Williams
V. Wright
Davison, Be .
V. Gillies
V. Watson
64,65
[1980]
. 1376
691, 699
[1608]
Davy, Be ([1908] 1 Ch. 61) 1447,
1617, [1663], 1666
. • V. Garrett 34, 36, 37, 819, 823
V. Soarth . . • 2111
Davys and Verden, Be . ■ 2164
Daw V. Eley 458, 521, 643, 679
V. Herring . . 2097, 2113
V. Rooke
■ V. Terrell
Dawdy, Be .
Dawes, Exp., Be Moon
. — V. Bagnell .
V. Creyke
- V. Sladen, Be Banks
. V. Treadwell
Dawkins v. Antrobus
. V. Lord Penrhyn
V. Morton .
V. Saxe Weimar
(Prince of)
. 2112
1980, 1981
388, 389
. 2310
. 1385
. 923
[1393,
1850]
1632, 2310
. 712
Dawson's Case
Trusts, Be (W.
(99) 134)
1717
1317
131
2243
N.
1187
953
1185
929
1591
747
422
872,
Dawson, Be (3 D. M. & G. 764)
— — (3 N. R. 397)
— (41 Ch. D. 415) .
([1899] 2 Q. B. 54)
■ ([1906] W. N. 20) .
— — , Exp. Dawson
. — — , Johnston v. Hill
936, 1544, 1591
■ — ■ i'. Beeson . . 377, 378
V. Dawson (4 Eq. 504) 357,
1667
(llJur. 984) 341
28 Beav.
605) . 281
(1 Atk. 1) . 1339
— — V. Eitzgerald . . 393
V. Pox . . .497
v.G.N.&CityRy. 492,1929
. . ■ V.Jay . . . 1001
Table of Cases.
ci
PAGE
Dawson v. Johnson . . 1898
■ V. Kearton . . 1365
V. Newsome . .127
V. Paver . . . 521
■ V. Raynes . . 775
V. Shepherd . . 242
■ V. Small 1302, 1303, 1304
V. Thompson . 950, 1013
V. Thomson . [1011]
V. Whitehaven Bank 882,
915, 1862
■ V. Yates . . .760
& Co. V. Bingley U.D.C. 698
Day's Trusts, Re . . 486, 1156
Day, Re, Day v. Sprake . [1463]
and Night Advertising Co.,
Re . . . .328
V. Batty . . 320, 1454
■ V. Bonaini, -Be Smith . 342
■ V. Brownrigg . . 512, 627
— V. Croft . . 739, 1425
— V. Day ( 1 D. & J. 144 ; 23
Beav. 391) . 488
(M. R. 4 Dec. 1847)
(31 Beav. 270)
— ■ V. Foster
— V. Freund
— V. Gudgen
— V. Kelland
— V. Longhurst
— V. Lukhe
— V. Newman
— V. RadclifEe
— V. Singleton
■ (1 Dr. & S. 261)
■(14W. R. 261)
■ (1 Drew. 569)
V. Snee
V. Tumell, Re Higgins
— — ■ V. Whittaker .
V. Woolwich
Soc.
Dayrell v. Hoare
Deacon v. Dolby .
- V. S. E. Ry. Co.
1372,
1872
1557
1477
1542
636
. 863
. 1882, 1883
1064, 1065, 1879
. 714
. 2156
. 2149, 2252
. 50
2155, 2157, 2168,
[2203], 2208
. 521
1633
794
Eq. Bldg.
. 1032, 2184
. 1897
. 406
579
PAGE
Dean &o. of Ely v. Bliss . 1381
V. Gayford . 123
Deaf (Society for Teachers of)
and Whittle's Contract . 1280
Deakin, Re, Exp. Cathcart 411, 443
■ Daniell . 1061, 1052
■ — , Starkey v. 'Eycee . 1678
V. Lakin, Re Shakespear
862, 856, 875
Dean, Re, Cooper-Dean v. Ste-
vens 1303, 1543, 1669
, Dean v. Wright 1368 ,
1420
■ , Ward V, Holmes , 304
V. Allen
V. Bennett .
■ ('. Dean
V. Harris
V. Lethbridge
V. McDowell
V. Morris
V. Thwaite
• — V. Wilson
Deane, Exp. .
-, Re, Bridger
Deanes v. Kitchin
Dear, Exp.
V. Bulmer
V. Sworder
V. Verity
Deare v. Soutten
Dearing v. Brooks, Re Parker
V. Deane
1464, 1594
. 711
. 1540
. 2127
. 1035
. 2105
. 1454
573, 1385
. 331
. 1061
1676
416
2126
1454
36
2148
884
717,
747
1928, 2034
. 1865
. 2079
. 502
Dearie v. Hall
Dearman v. Wyche
Dearsley v. Middleweek .
Death v. Harrison .
De Balinhard v. Bullock, Clarke
V. Clarke .... 1423
De Bary, Re . . . . [973]
De Bay v. Griffin . . . 1052
Debbon, Re, Debbon v. CoUes . 1835
De Beauvoir, Re . . . 2399
V. De Beauvoir . 1489
Debenham and Walker, Re . 264
V. Mellon . . 883
v.Ox. . . 2272
V. Sawbridge . . 2196
Debenture-holders' Actions, Re 2024
De Bernales v. Fuller . . 1344
■ V. New York
Herald .... 12
Debtor, Re a ([1898] 2 Q. B.
576) . . 876
([1903] 1 K. B. 705) 2279
([1903] W. N. 6) . 502
Exp. Petitioning
Creditors . 1320
([1910] 2 K. B. 59 97
Exp. Peak Hill
Goldfields . 1321
• ([1910] W. N. 224) 832
([1911] 1 K. B.
841) . . 822
([1901] 2 K. B.
364) . . 826
(SSL. T. 31) .2080
De Braam v. Ford . . . 1946
De Brassao v. Martyn . .2139
De Brimont v. Harvey, Re
Sheppard
J033, 1086, 1086
CI]
Table of Cases,
PAGE
De Britto v. Hillel . . . 109
De Burgh Lawson, Be . 887, 888
Do Burgh Lawson v. De Burgh
Lawson . 888, 1368, 1530, 1607
Dc Bussche v. Alt. . 1333, 1334
De Carteret v. Land Sees. Co. . 81
De Caux v. Skipper . . 2014
De Cetto v. Hope, Re Hope 815,
1132, 1560, 1768
De CHfford, Be, De Clifford v.
Quilter . [1104], 1110, 1111
De Cosse Brissac ■;;. Rathbone . 1523
De Costa v. De Costa . . 933
De Crespigny, Be, De Crespigny
V. De Crespigny . . . 1670
Deddington S.S. Co. ■;;. I. R.
Commrs. .... 160
Deeley v. Lloyd's Bank 1325, 1967,
2061, 2077
■ V. Perkes 648, [2322], 2325,
2326
Deeley's Patent, Be . 139, 2325
Deere, Re . . . 435, 460
Deering v. Bank of Ireland . 1408
De Falbe, Be . 297, 834, 1560
De Peucheres v. Dawes . .717
Defflis V. Goldschmidt . . 1507
De Prancesoo v. Barnum 531, 946
Defries, Re . . . . 1963
• V. Smith . . . 2085
Deg V. Deg . . . 1367, 1608
De Geer v. Stone . . 953, 1518
De Gendre v. Kent . . 1700
De Grey's Entailed Estates, Re
2362, 2380
De Greuohy v. Wills . . 857
De Hart v. Stevenson . 51, 120
De Havilland ■;;. Bowerbank . 1344
V. Saumarez . 1652
Dehaynin, Be (Infants) 1181, [1203],
1211, 1212
De Hoghton, Re, De Hoghton v.
De Hoghton ([1896] 2 Ch. 385)
918, 1675
De Hoghton, Be, De Hoghton v.
De Hoghton ([1896] 1 Ch.
855) 1751
De Hoghton v. Money 1857, 2147,
2149, 2161
Deighton and Harris, Re . 2165
De Jongh v. Newman . 178, 2161
De la Bere, Re . . [784]
De la Garde v. Lempriere . 907
Delagoa Bay Ry. Co. and Tan-
cred. Re ... . 828
Delany, Re, Conoley v. Quick . 1300
Delaney v. Eox . . . 1896
De la Pole v. Dick . . 11, 1032
De Larragoiti, Re . . 967, 1158
De la Rue v. Dickinson .
De la Touohe's Settlement
De la Viesca v. Lubbock
De la Warr's Estate, Re .
De la Warr (E.) v. Miles
Delevante,
Re
V. Child
Delfe V. Delamotte
Delhasse, Exp.
De Linden, Re
De Lisle v. Hodges
Delia Cainea v. Hayward
Delia Rosella's Estate, Re
Dellwick's Patent, Re
Delmar's Case
• Charitable Trust
PAGE
89, 646
1643,
1645
. 1360
. 1697
152, 297
591, 835
. 1121
. 152
658, 663
. 2129
. 967
. 1514
. 769
. 749
. 648
. 946
Re,
[1245],
Kerly v. Matheson
Delobbel-Plipo v. Varty
Delondre v. Shaw .
Delta Metal Co. v. Maxim Nor-
denfelt Co.
" Delta," The
De Lusi's Trusts, Re
Delves v. Delves
— V. Gray
V. Newington
1257
805
622
. 646
722, 1525
886, 1427
. 334
1088, 2255
. 1579
Demainbray v. MetoaKe . . 1927
De Mandeville v. De Mandeville 416
De Martana v. De Martana . 1590
De Mattos v. Gibson
De Mestre v. West .
De Moleyns, Re
De Montaigle v. Cane
De Mora v. Concha
. 509
. 1627
. 1752, 1762
991
105, 106, 149,
1521, 1525
. 341
Dempsey v. Dempsey
Denaby & Cadeby Main Col-
lieries Ld. V. Anson . . 589
Dence v. Mason . . . 627
Dendy v. Cary . . [575]
Denham & Co., iJe . . 701
De Nicholls v. Saunders . . 1895
De Nicols, Re . . . 297
V. Curlier 1522, 2135, 2140
(No. 2) 909,
1522
Denis v. Gorman . . . 132
Denman & Co. v. Westminster
Corp. . . . 688, 697
Dennehy v. Jolly . . 393, 2113
Dennett v. Atherton . . 600
Denning v. Henderson . . 341
Dennis, Re (12 W. R. 575) . 1189
(8 W. R. 649) 1713, 1714
V. Crawshay, Re Craw-
shay . . 252, 1420
V. Dennis . . . 914
Table of Cases,
cm
PAGE
. 1930
. 1212
. 2065
Evans, Re
. 252, 1450
. 2150
2330, 2331
. 29
[964],
969
■ V. Auction Mart Co. . 370
• V. Bennett . . 2272, 2273
• V. Clayton . . . 915
■ V. Dent (30 Beav. 363) . 1695
(1 Eq. 186) . 71
— {35 L. J. Ch. 112) 74
( L. R. 1 P,
366)
Dennison, Exp.
,Be
V. Jeffs
Denison-Pender v.
Whitaker .
Denny v. Hancock
Densham's T. M., Be
Denston v. Ashton
Dent, Re, Dent v. Harden
V. London Tram. Co.
V. Sovereign Life Assur.
V. Turpin
Denton, Re ([1904] 2 Ch
178
■ V. Davy
- V. Legge
- V. Maoneil
■ V. Manners
■ V. Strong
Denver Hotel Co., Re
112)
&M.
445, 757
. 700
363
624
2078,
2079
. 1459
. 391
1335, 2260
. 1305
. 396
700, 2430,
2433
De Pass v. Capital and Indus-
tries Corp 479
De Penny, Re, De Penny v.
Christie . . . .16
De Pereda v. De Mancha . 950
D'Epineuil, Re, Tadman v.
D'Epineuil . . 1405, 1948
De Peyrecase v. Nicholson 762, 2004
De Pothonier, Re . . . 1085
De Pradel, Re . . . 886
Depree v. Bedborough [347], 349,
2188
Derbishire v. Home . 1081, 1115
• • V. Montagu, Re
Montagu, 981,1134,1145,1696
Derbon, Re, Derbon v. Collie . 1422
Derby Corp. v. Derbyshire
County Council . 97
(Countess of). Char., Re [1275]
■ (E.) V. D. of Athol . 62
Municipal Estates, Re . 2366
Union v. Sharratt, Re
Webster . . . 1027
Waterworks Co., Re [2379]
Derbyshire, Re . . . 1555
Dering, Re . . . .1531
Dering's Patent, Re . . 2314
Dering v. L. Winohelsea . . 2078
De Rochefort v. Dawes . . 1477
PAQB
De Ros, Re, Hardwicke v. Wil-
mot .... 1626, 1632
De Rothschilds v. Morrison,
Kekewich & Co. . . . 495
Derrico v. Samuel . . . 805
Derry v. Peek 1082, 2247, 2248, 2261
De RuvignS's Case . . 2269
Desborough v. Harris . . 493
V. Rawlins . . 90
Deschamps v. Miller 15, 1524, 1835,
2142
Desinge v. Beare, Re Prater . .
Dessau v. Lswin, Re Michael
De Stacpoole v. De Stacpoole .
D'Estampes, Re, D'Estampes
V. Crowe . . . 1632,
1555
104.
352
1016
2310
D'Eate's Settlement Trusts, Re 1357,
1426
De Tabley (Lord), Re . 981, 1134
De Tessier's Settled Estates, Re
979, 981, 1777, 1778
De Tessier's Trusts, Re, De
Tessier v. De Tessier . . 1696
Detillin v. Gale
Detmold, Re .
De TrafEord, Exp.
Deuce v. Mason
1876, 1881
. 2286
[1713]
. 825
Deutsche, &c. Gresellschaft v.
Brisao . . . .389
Deutsche Nat. Bk. v. Paul 16, 17
Devas v. E. & W. Lidia Dock
Co 755,2410
Devaynes v. Noble . 2122, 2124
V. Robinson 90, 93, 1079,
1087, 1095, 1354, 1480
Development Co. of Central
Asia, Re . . . .700
Development Co. of South
Africa .... 2430
Dever, Exp., Re Suse . . 2301
Deverges v. Sandeman . . 1926
Devey v. Thornton 152, 1132, 1136
De Visme, Re . . . 1670
V. De Visme . 341, 2181
De Vitre v. Betts . . .651
Devitt V. Kearney . . . 1498
Devon and Somerset Ry. Co.
Re . [2409], 2409, 2410, 2412
Devon's (Eari of). Settled
Estates, Re . . . 1381
Devonport Corp. v. Tozer 513, 695
■ (Mayor of) v. Ply-
mouth Tram. Co. . . 604
Devonshire, Re . . . 372
V. Atkins . . 1559
V. O'Connor . . 592
(Duke of) V. Pattin-
son . . . 2310
CIV
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Dewar v. Brooke . . 1081, 1086
V. City and Suburban
Racecourse Co. . 602
■ V. Maitland . 1181, 1530
De Weever v. Rochport . 966, 995
Dewell, Be, Edgar v. Reynolds
1360, 1585, 1595
Dewliirst, Be . . . 1184
Dewburst, Be 2328, 2336, 2337
De Wilton, Be . . 1522, 1586
De Winton v. Corp. Brecon 744,
769, 774
De Witte v. Palin .
Dewson, Be .
Dexine, &c.. Be
Dexter, Be
Deyes v. Wood
D'Eyncourt v. Gregory
968
■ [60]
. 2430
2332, 2337
. 743
1148, 1560,
1655, 1951
D'Hormusgee v. Grey . . 29
Diamond Fuel Co., Be . .31
, Mitcalfe's
1093
422
1868
. 2139
1133, 1596
2433, 2435
. 1143
491,
Dibb V. Brook & Sons
V. Walker
Dibbins v. Dibbins
Dibbs V. Goren
Dioido Pier Co., Be
Dick, Be . . .
V. Eraser, Be' Macdonald
V. Haslam
Dickens v. Harris .
Dickenson v. Barrow
V. Grand Junction
Canal
V. Jardine
■ — V. Teasdale
1384
637
748
2147
. 526
2079, 2080
1383, 1389,
1432, 1867
. 559
. 1753
. 1407
1232, 1373
. 1165
Dicker v. Popham .
Dickin & Kelsall, Be
, Exp., Be Poster
V. Dickin
Dickinson's Trusts, Be
Dickinson, Be (1 Jur. N. S. 724) 1188
, Bute (Marquis
of) V. Walker 1319
V. Burrell . .1638
V. Dickinson, Be Ord. 1569
V. Dillwyn . . 1630
V. Dodds . 2139, 2145
V. L. C. & D. Ry. Co. 2216
Dicks V. Batten . 1803, [1813]
V. Brooks . . 668, 836
V. Hare, Be Hargreaves 1360,
1421
V. Yates 240, 662, 664, 820
Dickson's Case, Be Elham Val-
ley Ry. Co. ... 822
Dickson, Exp. (1 Sim. N. S- 37) 1656
PAGE
Dickson, Exp. (8 D. M. & G. 655)
278, 281, 282
, Be, Hill V. Grant . 970
V. Gayfere . . 2213
V. Harrison . . 822
1;. Hook . . .870
. V. Law . . 18, 20
• V. Murray, Be Murray 1088
Dickson-Poynder v. Cook, Be
Poynder's Settled Estates . 1741
Didisheim v. London & West
Bk. . . . 967, 1157, 1361
Diestal V. Stevenson . .531
Digby, Exp., Jackson v. Smith
[1045], 1047, 1051
V. Boycatt . . 1411, 1445
■ V. Craggs . . . 1871
Diggle V. Higgs . . . 493
Dighton V. Withers 1372, 1852, 1980
Dilkes V. Broadmead . . 1593
Dillon, Be, Duffin v. Duflfin 1376,
[1552], 1561
V. Ashwin . . . 1883
■ V. Coppin . . . 1801
Dimes V. Scott 1108, 1616, 1617,
1618
V. Steinberg . . 717
DimmockJJe . . . 1498
■ ■ V. Hallett 345, 348, 2151,
2195
Dimond v. Bostock . . 1509
V. Newburn, Be Freman 1696
Dimsdale v. Dimsdale . . 2273
Dingle v. Coppen 1588, 1866, 1874,
2046
Dinham v. Bradford 2090, 2096,
2105, 2113, 2148
Dinn v. Blake . . .397
Dinning v. Henderson 1369, 1372,
2402
Dinsdale v. Dudding . 1428, 1429
Diplock V. Hammond . . 493
Direct Spanish Tel. Co., Be . 2431
Di Savini v. Lousada . . 953
Dischamps v. Miller . . 723
Discount Banking Company of
England and Wales, Exp.,
Be Pox and Jacobs . . 1370
Disney v. Longbourne . . 64
District Bank of London, Exp.,
iJeGenese . . . .881
Ditcham v. Worrall . . 946
Ditton, Exp., Be Woods 263, 295,
1839, 1984
Dive, Be, Dive v. Roebuck 1107,
1111
Diver's Estate, Be . . 2398, 2406
Dix V. Burford . . . 1429
V, Emersop , , , 2173
Table of Cases.
cv
Dix V. G. W. Ry. .
Dixie, Be
V. Dixie
Dixon's Trusts, Be
Dixon, Exp., Be Henley
Smith
PAQB
51, 2161
[973]
[974]
. 908
. 1323
. 1331
. 1511
. 874
. 870
881,
-, In re Goods of
- Be, Bjnram v. TuU
-, Dixon V. Smitli .
— -, Heynes v. Dixon
1113, 1433, 1868
— , Tousey v. Siieffield 243,
189, 294
- V. Astley . . 2183, 2184
- V. Brown, Be Brown 1090,
2236
- V. Caledonian, &c. Ry.
Co 671
- V. Dixon . . 745, 2111
- V. Evans . . . 126
- V. Fraser . . . 2183
- V. Gayfere (17 Beav.
421) . . . 1388
-■y. Gayfere (1 D. & J.
655) . . 1991, 2224
- V. Holdin . . .676
- V. Jackson . . . 2376
- V. Kennaway 1094, 2242,
2243
- V. Loijd. Small Arms Co. 633
- V. Met. Bd. of Works . 589
- V. Morley - . . 1158
- V. Muckleston 1981, 2033,
2035, 2043
1697, 1870
330, 1677
131, 1542
915, 1862
. 452
2021, 2076
569, 570
1061, 1062
1838, 1902, 2032,
2035, 2036, 2037
. 475
. 1910
. 1465
. 1903
. 1904
. 1827
1123, 1160
Docker, Exp., Be Heritage . 277
V. Somes 1119, 1123, 1124,
2133
Docksey v. Else . . .1919
Docwra, Be, Docwra v. Faith [317],
897, 1029, 1182
Dodw. Dod .... 1653
Pod's Charity, i?e , , , 1281
- V. Peacock
- V. Pyner
- V. Rowe
- V. Saville
- V. Smith
• V. Steel
• V. White
■ V. Wilkinson
• V. Winch
— V. Wrench
Doble V. Manley
Dobson V. Carpenter
V. Laird
■ V. Land
V. Lee
V. Pattinson
PAGE
Dodd V. Evans, Be Bird . .1622
u.' Holbrook . . 460, 1066
V. Lydall . . 1320, 1850
• V. Salisbury, &o. Ry. . 697
V. TarnbuU . . .444
V. Wake . . . 1570
Dodds, Be, Exp. Pritchard . 1406
— • V. Grpnow . . . 1806
• V. Pearson, Be Carter . 1553
• — V. Preston . . . 2120
— V. Shepherd . 496, 820
V. Take 163, 1132, 1403,
1448
Dodkin v. Brunt . . 1165, 1186
Dodsley v. Kinnersley . . 667
Dodson, Be ([1908] 2 Ch. 638) . 1803
Yates V. Morton . 981
— ■ V. Bishop . . . 331
V. Downey . . 2107, 2186
• V. E. Kent Ry. Co. . 2393
V. Sammell 1464, 1465, 1594
Dodsworth, iJe . . . 1189
Dodwell, iJe . . . .457
Doe d. Knight v. Nepean . 1590
Palmer v. Eyre . . 1869
Stewart v. Sheffield . 1509
V. Adams . . . 1896
V. Boulton . . . 1893
V. Cadwallader . . 1893
V. Edwards . . . 1895
■ V. Hales . . . 1893
Hughes . . . 1481
. 1893
. 1867
. 710
. 769
. 1719
. 1895
. 1864
V. Maisey
V. Massey
V. M'Kaeg
• V. Read
■ V. Scarborough (E.)
V. Thompson .
V. Wroot
Doering v. Doering . 1090, 1132
Doetsche, Be, Matheson v.
Ludwig .... 1524
Doggett V. Cumow [539], 544
V. Revett, Be Youngs 125,
132, 825, 1120, 1358, 1425
. 1520, 1523
. 545
Doglioni v. Crispin
Doherty v. Allman
Doidge V. Carpenter
Dolan V. Maodermot
1252,
Dolcini v. Dolcini .
Dolling V. Evans
DoUman v. Jones .
DoUond V. Johnson
Dolman, Be .
V. Curling .
Doloret v. Rothschild
Dolphin V, Aylward
2311
1300,
1303
. 1942
. 2143
. 835
. 1364
[27], 372
[766]
. 2156
2020, 2021,
2290
CVl
Tahle of Cases.
Dolphin V. Layton
■ V. Robins
PAGE
479
1522
Dominion of Canada, &c. Co. . 1969
Dominion of Canada &c. Synd.
■V. Brigstocke . . . 701
Dommett v. Bedford . 1542, 1568
Domville v. Berrington . 330, 331
V. Lamb . . .357
V. Winnington . . 1664
Donald, Re., Moore v. Somerset 1300
V. Bother . . . 1359
Donaldson, Re 281, 295, 1878
— V. Corner . [1327]
■ — V. Donaldson [1074],
1628, 1695
V. Gillot . . 2239
Doncaster Building Soc., Re . 2063
Done's Case . . . 506, 1312
Don Francesco v. De Meo . 157
Donington Church Estate, Re
1278, 1282
-,Re
Donisthorpe, Re
Donkin v. Pearson .
Donne v. Lewis
Donnell v. Bennett
Donovan v. Brown
V. !Pricker
• V. Needham
1264
. 1181
. 806
187, 1604
519, 527
. 833
. 1903
1445, 1446
Dooby V. Watson . . 1057, 1064
Doodson V. Turner, Re Knowles 433
Doody, Re, Fisher v. Doody 295,
1065, 1137, 1878, 1906
V. Higgins . . 1512, 1515
Doran v. Simpson . . . 1504
Dore Gallery Co., iJe . . 113
D'Orleans, Duchesse, Re . 1357
Dorling v. Claydon
V. Evans .
Dorman, Exp.
Dormer v. Fortescue
■ V. Ward
Domford v. Dornford
Doming, Re .
Dos Santos v. Frietas
Douoet V. Geoghegan
Dougan v. Macpherson
Dougherty v. Teay
Doughty V. Bull
. 2167
2185, [2216]
. 2120
. 979, 2230
924
1122, 1124,
1344
. 1730
. 84
. 1519
. 2255
. 344
. 1489
■ — V. Townson, Re Brac-
ken . . . 1352, 1375, 1595
Douglas & Powell's Contract,
Re 1150, 1492, 1543, 1674
-, Re, Obert v. Barrow 1301,
1303
, Douglas V. Simpson 1296
■ — , Wood V. Douglas . 1514
■ — V. Andrews , . 965
Douglas V. Archbutt
V. Bolam .
V. Congreve
V. Cooper .
V. Culverwell
V. Douglas
PAGE
105, 1138
. 1238
. 1618
. 1452
1838, 2066
(V.-C.
K.B. llDec.1844,
A. 953) [1472,1527]
V. Douglas (12 Eq.
617) [1518], 1519, 1529,
1530
V. Forrest . . . 1387
V. Sidmouth, &c. Ry.
Co. . . . 2155
— Norman & Co., Re . 1042
Douglass V. Pintsoh's Pat. Co. . 636
Douglasse v. Waad . . 2290
Doulton V. Metrop. Board of
Works
Douthwaite, Exp.
■ V. Hensley
■ V. Spensley
. 2351
[2369]
. 322
. 206
. 322
. 1085
Dove, Re, Bousfield v. Dove .
V. Everard
Dover Coal Field Extensions,
Re . . . 1093, 1334
Harbour o. L. C. & D.
Ry. ... 515
(Warden of) v. L. C. &
D. Ry 699
Dovey v. Cory . 699, 1903, 1094
Dow V. Baker . . [I486]
Dowbiggin v. Trotter . . 1461
Dowd V. Hawtin, Re Hopkins 748,
771, 1425, 1503
Dowden v. Pook . . . 529
— V. Levis . . . 2084
Dowdeswell v. Dowdeswell . 1354,
1358
. 333
. 2031
2360, 2401
. 2140
. 165
1368, 1480
861, 862
. 1376
1367, 1861
. 281
Dowle V. Lucy
— ■ — V. Saunders .
Dowling's Trusts, Re
Dowhng V. Bettjeman
• — V. DowUng
• V. Hudson
V. Maguire
Down V. ElUs
Downe (V.) v. Morris
Downes, Re .
■ — V. Cottam, Re Beddoe 819,
1129
V. Jackson . .193
V. Jennings . [2279]
V. Morris . .. 1367, 1861
V. Ship . . 2260, 2264
Downie v. Summerson, Re Sum-
merson .... 2201
Downing v. Falmouth Sewage
Board 71, 76, 107, 605
Table of Cases.
evil
PAGE
Downing v. Hudson . . 1480
Downs V. Collins . . .2118
Downshire (M.) v. Sandys 521, 542
Dowse, Be, (50 J. L. Ch. 285) . 1538
, Dowse V. Glass . 1668
— V. Gorton 312, 1121, 1421,
1497, 1498, 1499
Dowsett V. Culver, Re Lepine . 1430
, Re, Dowsett v. Meakin 1558
Dowson V. Drosopher . . 831
& Jenkins' Contract,
Re
1900
2155
1596
Doyle and O'Hara, Re .
V. Blake
V. City of Glasgow Life
Ass. Co. . . .154
■ V. Kaufman ... 2
• V. Mulkem . . . 155
Doyley v. Doyley . . . 1257
Dracup, Re, Field v. Draeup . 1424
Drage v. Hartopp . . 1424, 1859
Drake, Re (8 Beav. 123) . . 278
{22 Beav. 438) 281, 282
V. Drake (25 Beav. 641) 149
(3 Ha. 528) . 842
■ V. Francke, Re Prancke 312,
738
V. Greaves . . 2385, 2400
V. Kershaw, iJe Kershaw 1478
V. Symes
V. Trefusis .
Drakeford v. Drakeford
Drant v. Vause
Draper, Re
■ V. Manch. &c. Ry
Drapers' Co. v. Davis
Drax, Re . 1665, 1869
Draycott v. Harrison
Drennan v. Andrews
Dresel v. Ellis
Dresser v. Gray, Re Gray
Drever v. Maudesley
Drew, Re (10 Beav. 368)
([1899) 1 Ch. 336]
69
1145, 1695
. 1570
1870,
V. Guy
■ V. Lockett
■ V. Nunn
V. O'Hara
V. Power
1116,
■ V. Willis
Drewe, Re
Drewery, Re .
Drew Heys v. Bawden
Drewitt v. Edwards
Drewry v. Barnes .
■ ■ — V. Darwin .
V. Thacker
1490
1190
81
1572
1982
856
1021
852
1558
773
278
1512
528
2088
. 883
. 1483
1339, 1340,
1341
. 474
. 1189
1025, 1026
[1786]
. 433
. 756
777, 779
521, 522, 799,
1428
2075,
PAGE
Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co.
(41Ch. D. 161) 39,62
V. Peruvian Guano Co.
(42Ch.D. 166; 43Ch.D.316)
519, 521, 573, 743, 1317, 1344
Drielsma v. Manifold . . 304
Driffield v. E. Riding Linseed
Cake Co. . . 636
Linseed Cake Co. v.
Waterloo Mills Cake Co. [630]
Drincqbier v. Wood . 49, 2262
Drinkwater v. Ratoliffe 897, 1804,
1805
Driver v. Broad . . 1968, 2145
Drogheda Steam Packet Co., Re 1382
Droitwioh Co. v. Curzon . . 2430
Drover v. Beyer . . 605, 506
Drucker, Re (No. 2) . . 1409
DruifE V. Parker (L.) . . 2236
Druitt, Re, Druitt v. Dehler . 1144
■ V. Seaward, Re Ains-
worth . . . 1508
V. Willons . . .896
Drummond's, Re . . . [276]
Drummond's Patent, Re . 2325
Drummond and Davie, Re 864, 874
V. Drummond . 2103
• V. Leigh, Re Bryon 1510
V. St. Albans (D.) . 1898
Drury v. Molins . . . 534
V. Orsmond, Re Orsmond 1369
V. Thorn . [795], 800
Drury-Lowe's Settlement, Re,
Exp. Stilwell . . .230
Dryden's Settled Estates, Re . 1742
Dryden v. Poster . . . 800
V. Frost 1876, 1881, 1882
Drysdale, Re ... 1185
V. Lovering . . 2077
■ V. Pigott . .1935
Duberley v. Day . . 1902, 1909
V. Waring . . 1909
Dublin City Market Co., Re,
Exp. Keatley . . 2406
• — '■ City of. Rys., Re, Exp.
Kelly 2402, 2403, 2406
Corp. V. Bray Comm. . 163
, Wicklow, and Wexford
Ry. Co., Re . . 2399
Du Bochet, Re . . 1510, 1511
Du Boulay V. Du Boulay . 626
Dubout V. Maopherson . . 19
Dubowski & Sons v. Goldstein
530, 2160
Du Cane and Nettlefold, Re 1745,
1746
Duce's Trusts, Re . . .1220
Duck V. Mayew . . . 2086
V. Tower Galvanizing Co. 1969
CVIU
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Duokett V. Gover ... 49
Duckle, iJe . . . [985]
Duckworth v. Lee . . . 1561
Duddell V. Simpson . 2165, 2194
Dudden v. Glutton Union . 587
Duder v. Amsterdamsoh Trustee
V. Kantsor . . .15
Dudgeon, Be, Truman v. Pope 1302
— V. Thomson 631, 635, 648
Dudley, lie . . 432, 460, 1060
, Exp. Monet . 1066
Gorp., i?e . . .572
, Gountess of, Be [1749],
1751, 1755, 1768
and Kingswinf ord Tram.
Co., Be . . . 2425
Navigation Co. v. Graze-
brook . . .571
V. Champion, Be Cham-
pion .... 1089, 1556
Dudson, iJe .... 1717
V. Norton . . .396
Dufaur V. Professional, &c.
Office .... 1935
Dufi's Executors' Case, Be
Cheshire Banking Go. . 1147, 1468
Duff V. PuUesteen . . . 1007
Duffield V. Denny . . .319
■ • V. O'Brien . [1460]
Tynmi, Exp 899
Duffin V. Duffin, Be Dillon 1376,
[1552], 1561
Dufforth V. Arrowsmith . . [795]
Duffy, iJe . . . .908
Dugdale, Be, Dugdale v. Dug-
dale
■ V. Dugdale
165, 1542
1515, 1542,
1606
. 343, 918
565, 568
. 374
. 1674
1188, [1193]
. 530
. 2163
. [193], 193
. 119, 805
. 1663
. 1645
. 42
. 2287
. 289, 1269
. 2185
. 2378, 2379
■ V. Barrow, Be Walker 1186
Dummer v. Corp. Chippenham 88, 96
Dunaburg, &c. Ry. Co., Be . 2432
Dunbar v. Dunbar . . . 861
Duncan, Be . . , 1277, 1280
■ V. Meadows
V. Robertson
Duggan, Be .
V. Duggan
Dugmore v. Suffield
Duignan v. Walker
Duke V. Burnett
V. Clarke
V. Davis
V. Doidge
■ V. Goldesborough
■ V. Wisden
Dulaney v. Merry .
Dulwich Coll., Be .
Duly V. Nalder
Dummer's Will, Be
PAGE
Duncan, Be, Terry v. Sweeting 116,
2249
, Pox & Go. V. N. & S.
Wales Bk. 2076, 2078,
2087, 2089
■ V. Campbell . . 910
■ V. Cannan . . . 909
V. Cashin . . . 865
V. Dixon . . 862, 946
V. Hill . 1335, 2298, 2299
1). Howell . . . 1802
V. Lawson . . . 1520
1;. Varty . . 364,365
— V. Watts . . . 1470
Duncombe v. Brighton, &c. Go. 1343
V. Greenacre . . 910
Duncroft v. Albrecht . . 2140
Dundas v. Dundas . . . 1005
V. Dutens . . 1628, 2284
Dundee Suburban Ry. Co., Be
The 191
Dundonald (E.) v. Masterman 1066,
Dungey v. Angrove . . 495
Dunhill V. N. E. Ry. Co. . 707
Dunkirk Coll. Co. v. Lever . 828
Dunkley v. Dunkley . . 910
V. Scribnor . 448, 449
Dunlop, Be, Dunlop v. Dunlop 1477,
2021
■ V. Higgins . . 787, 2145
Pneumatic T3rre Co. v.
Dunlop Motor Co. 626, 627
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v.
Dunlop Motor Co. . 626, 627
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v.
Neal ([1899] 1 Gh. 807) 631, 633
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Go. v.
New Seddon, &c. Co., Ld.
(76 L. T. 405) . . .637
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co.,
Ld. and the Pneumatic Tyre
Co., Ld. V. J. E. Hopkinson
& Co., Ld. . . . [649]
Dunlop, &c. Co. V. Moseley &
Sons ..... 632
Dunn's Assignees v. Hibernian
Co 1928
Estate, Be . . . 2364
Dunn, Be . . 771, 1448, 2337
([1904] 1 Ch. 648) . 1884
, Brinklow u. Singleton 1128
— — ; Graham v. Halliday [772]
, Simmons v. " Liberal
Opinion," Ld. . 1030
V. Bryan . . 541, 542
V. Campbell . . 1083, 1313
V. Dunn . . 57, 934
V, Flood 719, 720, 1150, 1543,
2153
Table of Cases.
cix
l)unn V. MaCdonald
■'- — ■ V. Snowden .
— V. Tatnall
V. Vere
Dunne v. Dunne
• V. English
Dunnill's Trusts
Dunning,
. 1332
. 1590
[1516]
. 2220
[1535], 1656, 1695
. 1333, 1334
. 1654
Re, Hatherley v.
Dunning . . 1468
V. Hards . . . 1380
Dunraven's (E.) Settled Estates,
Re 1778
Dunraven Coal, &c. Co., Re 372,
816
Dunsamy's Settlement, Be . 1631
Dunstan v. Patterson . 1121, 1876
Dunster, Re . . . . 1508
Dunt V. Dunt . . .282
Dunthome v. Bunbury . 126, 1050
Dupleix V. De Roven . . 1363
Dupont, Re . . . .178
Dupuy V. Welsford . 928, 934
Darant v. Roberts . . . 1324
Durell V. Bellinger, Re Bellin-
ger . . [1140], 1480
— V. Pritohard . . 519
Duret V. Charriere, In re
Charriere . 914, [1485], 1514
Durham, &c. Building Society
V. Davidson . . 2057
— V. Crackles . 908, 909
(E. of). Re, Earl Grey
V. Durham . . 2310
■ — (E. of) V. Legard 2150, 2196
{E. of) V. Wharton . 1667
Electrical &c. Co. v. In-
land Rev. Commrs. . 158
{B. of) V. Newcastle-
upon-Tyne (Corp.) [540]
■ — Bros. V. Robertson 492,
1928, 1929
Dumford, Re
Durrant & Stoner, Re
— — V. Branksome U,
■ V. Ricketts
. 277
. 896
D. C. 609
853, 855
. 2166
. 1303
Duthy and Jesson, Re
Dutton, Re .
■ • V. Bookfield, Re Jones . 1605
— V. Thompson 1129, 1131,
1132, 1135, 1638
Duval V. Mount . . . 2182
■ (Charles) & Co. v. Gans . 16
Du Vigier v. Lee . . 1865, 1873
Dux Hamilton v. Dom. Mohun 163
Dwan V. Bennett . . .711
Dyas V. Rooney . . . 2156
Dye V. Dye . . . 838, 885
Dyer, Exp., Re Lake . . 2288
Re, Dyer v. Paynter . 1804
PAGE
Dyer v. Dyer (10 May, 1859,
A. 1622) . 766
(34 Beav. 504) . 981
■ — ^(2 Cox, 98) . 1669
• V. Hargravo . 2182, 2194, 2195
V. London School Board 245,
706
— V. Rickards, Re Benett . 1454
Dyke's Estate, Re
Dyke v. Cannell
■ V. Rendall
V. Stephens
V. Taylor
Dykes v. Jamieson
• V. Thomson .
1672
402, 405
. 916
65, 933
525, 534
. 809
. 179
. 2399
178, 377, 1837
. 145
Dylar, Re .
Dymond v. Croft
Dymonds v. Croft
Dyne v. Vandeleur . [1844]
Dynevor Collieries Co., Re . 118
■ (L.) V. Tennant . 2311
Dyott V. Neville . . .822
Dyson, Re . . . .786
and Fowke, Re 1150, 1536,
1674
V. A.-G. . . 38, 165
V. Benson . . [679]
V. Foster . . .532
-— V. Hornby . . . 2181
■ V. Morris . . . 1837
E.
E. 0. Powder Co., Re . 2434, 2435
E. W. A., iJe . . . 2083
Eade, Re . . . .818
— V. Jacobs . 42, 62, 85
■ V. Nicholson, Be Nicholson 1108
Eaden v. Eirth . . 601, 640
Eades v. Starbuck Waggon Co. 635
[2136, 2203]
. 2206, 2207
. 569
. 2155
. 244, 969
. 1160
14
1066, 2122
866
Eadie v. Addison
V. Anderson
Badon v. Jeffcock
Eads V. WiUiams
Eady v. Elsdon
— — V. Watson
Eager, Re, Eager v. Johnstone
• V. Barnes
■ V. Furnivall
Eaglesfield v. Londonderry (M.) 2248
Eagleton v. Horner, Be Horner 1610
Eales V. Drake . . . 1580
Ealing Local Board, Exp., Be
Trehearne . . . .481
Eames v. Haoon
Eardley v. Granville (E.)
— — — V. Knight .
— — — ■ V. Owen
1358, 1360
[566], 574
299, 1869
. 1373
ex
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Earee & Wells, lie . . 1738, 1742
Earl, Re ... . 1357
Earle's Shipbuilding Co., Re . 1972
Earle & Webster's Contract, Re 1782
V. Kingscote . . . 857
Earle v. Sidebottom . . 1460
V. Wells . . [1471]
Earlom v. Saunders . . 1489
Early v. Rathbone . . 2311
Earnshaw Wall, Re . . 302
Earp. V. Lloyd . . 83, 87
E. & W. India Dock Co., Exp.,
iJe Clarke . . . 823,824
E. & W. India Dock Co., Re 420,
756, [2408], 2410, 2411, 2412
E. & W India Dock Co. v. Kirk
& Randall . . . .389
E. & W. India Dock Co. v. Lit-
tledale . . 493, 498
E. & W. India Dock Co. v. Shaw 784
E. & W. India Dock Co. v. Shaw,
Savill & Co. . . . 787
E. & W. Junction Ry. Co., Re 2410
East, Re . . . .1185
East Bergholt, iJe . . . 1264
Eastern & Midland Ry. Co., Re
756, 2411
Eastern & South African Tel.
Co. V. Cape Town Tram. Co. 589
East Ereraantle Corp. v. Annois 603
East India Co. v. Boddam 2229,
2230
— — — V. Keighley . 1318
East Lane. Ry. v. Hattersley . 514
Eastland v. Burchell . . 883
East Limehouse Bd. of Works,
Re Vallance . . .150
East Lindsey v. G. N. Ry. Co. 690
East London Ry. Co., Re,
Oliver's Claim . . 2349, 2360
East Moseley L. B. v. Lambeth
Waterworks Co. . . . 510
East of England Bank, Re (2 Dr.
& S. 284) . . . .438
East of England Bkg. Co., Re . 1345
Eastern Counties Ry. Co., Exp. 2393
— , Re . 398
. V. Hawkes 702
Eastern Tel. Co. v. Dent . 2309
Eastman Photographic Mate-
rials Co. V. Comptroller-
General . . . .2331
Eastman's Settled Estates, Re. 1749
Easton Estate and Mining Co,
V. Western Waggon and Pro-
perty Co 420
Easton v. Lander . . . 1135
■ V. London Joint Stock
Bank . . 292,295,2038
East Pant Du Co. v.
weather
East Stonehouse L,
toria Brewery Co.
Eastwood V. Clarke, Re Gadd
■ V. Honley U. Co,
■ V. Lever
- V. Vinke
Eaton, Re, Daines v. Eaton
V. Bennett
— ■ ■ V. Daines
— ■ V. Han well
■ — V. Storer
• V. Watson
Eaves v. Hickson
Ebbern v. Fowler
Ebbett's Case
Ebbw Vale Co.'s Case
PAGE
Merry-
. 695, 1031
B. V. Vic-
. 298
1148,
1164
610
515
1668
1616
1644
1187
1820
105
229
1133, [2241], 2242
1511
946
1345
■ Steel, Iron and Coal
Co., Re ... . 2432
Eberle's Hotel and Restaurant
Co. V. Jones . . 1321, 1400
Ebrard v. Gassier . 28, 29, 290
Ebsworth and Tidy, Re 348, 2163,
2200, 2201
Eccles.Comrs.,fei3. 2399,2400,2404
Eccles. Comrs. for England,
Exp [1713]
Eccles. Comrs. v. Kino 517, 555,
557, 558, 560, 561, 563
Eccles. Comrs. v. London Comrs.
of Sewers . . . 697,2349
Eccles Comrs. v. N. E. Ry. 574, 1385
V. Wodehouse . 547
■ — V. Pinney 1146, 1991,
2147, 2153, 2161
Eccleshill Local Bd., Re . 2180, 2394
Eccleston v. Skelmersdale (L.). 1313
Eckersley v. Eckersley . .188
■ V. Mersey Docks . 398
Economic Life Assur. Co. v.
Usberne . . 1345, 1376, 1870
Ecroyd v. Coulthard . 592, 2311
Eddowes v. Argentine Loan Co.
109, 111, 850, 876
Ede V. Knowles . . . 1980
Edell V. Cave . . . [22]
Edelsten, Re . . . .1199
— V. Edelsten 514, [615], 621,
623
— V. Sohuler & Co. . 2038
— ^— V. Viok 615, 620, 623, 629
Eden, Be, Eden v. Sutton [1141]
V. Bute (E.) . . .149
V. Naish 127, 377, 2214, 2215
• ■ V. N. E. Ry. Co. . . 570
V. Ridsdale Railway Lamp
Co. . . . 1093, 2269
Table of Gases.
CXI
PAGE
Eden v. Thompson . . 2402, 2404
• V. Weardale Iron and Coal
Co 40, 65
Edenborough v. Abp. of Canter-
bury . . 243, 708, 710, 1128
Eder v. Attenborough . . 63
Edevain v. Cohen , 46, 47, 1376
Edgar v. Plomley 232, 488, 1090,
1110, 1593
V. Reynolds, Re Dewell
1360, 1585, 1595
Edgoome, Re ... 421
Edgcumbe v. Carpenter . . 516
Edge, iJe . . . .793
— , Bill V. Edge . . 1227
V. Gallon . . .253
• V. Harrison . . . 2325
• V. Worthington . . 1980
& Sons V. NiccoUs & Sons
622, 2333
Edgington v. Fitzmaurice 2247,
2248, 2260, 2261
Edginton, Re, Edginton, v.
Edginton . . 616
— — V. Edginton 627, 674,
2343
Edinburgh (Mayor of) v. Blakie 594
(Ld. Prov. of) V. Ld.
Advocate . 1256, 1291
Edison and Swan Electric Co.
V. HoUand 20, 21, 67, 242, [629],
837, 839
Edison and Swan Electric Co.
V. Woodhouse . . . 635
Edison v. Swan United Electric
Co 650
Edison Telephone Co. v. India
Rubber, &o. Co. . [643], 644
Edmeade, Re . . . 2407
Edmonds' Patent . [2321], 2325
Edmonds, Exp., Re Atkins . 1363
, Re, Edmonds u.Gran-
ger . [1417, 1505]
■ — — • V. Benbow . . 619
V. Blaina Furnaces
Co.
- V. Edmonds,
Flower .
■ V. Foley .
■ V. Peake
■ V. Plew .
■ V. Robinson
. 1948
Re
. 1544
76, 77, 78
. 1081
. 528
189, 1122,
1420
Edmondson v. Birch & Co. . 68
V. Copland . .1872
— — ■ — ■ — — V. Harrison . . 486
Edmonson v. Keyton . . 465
Edmonton Union v. Deeley, Re
Taylor . . . 1026, 1157
PAGE
Edmunds v. A.-G. . . .131
V. Edmunds 479, 480, 481
V. Low . . . 1668
V. Powell . . 1225
• — • t). Robinson . .2112
V. Wallingford . 2077, 2078
V. Waugh . . 1874
— — — — • V. Render . . 530
Edridge v. Edridge . .715
Edward v. Lowther . . 50
— — VI. 's Almshouses, Re . 2364
Oliver, The . . 2022
Edwardes, -Be, fe^. Edwardes. 876
Edwards' Case . . . 2260
— Policy, Re . . 874
Settlement, Re 1750, 1751
Edwards, Exp. (9 Ch. 138) . 785
• (7 Q. B. D. 155) 1060
(12 Eq. 389) . 2390
— — , Re ToUemaohe 151
, Re (10 Ch. D. 605) . 950
• — (9 Ch. 97) . 1630
(V.-C. M. 18
May, 1877) . 1731
, Brooke v. Ed-
wards 433, 464,
465
, Lovell V. Ed-
wards . .791
, Owen V. Edwards
[417], 424
• Wilhams u.Trench
1343, 1344
— • and Sykes, Re . . 2194
V. Abrey . . .898
— ■ — ■ — ■ V. Applebee . . 1842
— — • V. Barnard, Re Bar-
nard . . 1421
— — V. Bingham . 1644, 1645
— V. Brown, Re Cliff . 1157
V. Carter 862, 943, 947,
1529, 1627
— — V. Cheyne . .881
V. Cunhffe . . 1913
■ . ■ ■ V. Dennis 2334, 2335, 2342
V. Dewar, Re Andrews
851, 870
V. Edmunds . 1108, 1107
■ V. Edwards (10 Ha.
Ixiii.) . . 1443
— — V. Edwards (2 Ch. D.
291) . . .742
V. Edwards ([1909]
A. C. 275) . .1543
V. Foley (L.) . . 325
V. Gray . . . 1222
— — V. Grove . . 225, 310
■ V. Griffiths . [1418]
V. Hall . [1244], 1305
Cxii
Table of Cas6s,
Edwards v. Hope
V. Janes
PAGE
1050
1384
593
859
1004
1774
805
1943
- V. Jenkins
■ V. Jones .
■ V. Kennedy
- V. Lloyd, Re Lloyd
- V. Mallan .
- V. Marcus
■ V. Martin 1837, 1909, 1928,
1934
■ V. McLean . . 2252
■ V. McLeay . 2251, 2252
■ V. Merrick 1053, 1056,
2255, 2256
■ V. Smith, Be Unite . 1254
• V. Standard Rolling
Stock Syndicate 746,
753
- V. Tuck .
- V. Vere .
■ V. Walters
- V. Warden
- V. Wickwar
. 1591, 1666
. 1344
. 1366
. nil
2151, 2163,
2164
. 534
420, 460
. 1630
. 1071
. 910
. 1555
. 729
18, 132, 722
. 1655
. 2162
. 2183
. 1419
Edwick V. Ha-wkes
Edye Re
V. Addison
Eode, Re
Eedes v. Eedes
Egan, Re
Egarr v. Egarr
Egbert v. Short
Egerton v. Brownlow
■ V. Jones
Egg V. Blaney
V. Devey
Eggleton V. Newbegin, Re New-
begin .... 1026
Eglin V. Sanderson . 1135, 1453
Eglinton v. Lamb ... 74
Egmont's (L.) Settled Estates,
Re ... . 1772, 1779
Egmont (E. of) v. Smith 2183, 2185,
2189
Egremont, Re . . . 2359
■ V. Egremont Co. . 64
■ V. Thompson . [974]
Egyptian Delta Land Co., Be . 2441
Ehrlioh v. Ihlee . 635, 643, 644
Ehrmann's Applications, Re . 2335
Ehrmann, Re ([1904] W. N. 48) 1971
, Bros., Re . . 1964
■ — V. Bartholomew . 529
■ V. Ehrmann ([1896]
2 Ch. 826) [58], 79, 89
■ — V. Ehrmann ([1896]
2 Ch. 611) . . 108
■ — ■ V. Ehrmann (71 L. T.
17) . . . 2109
PAGE
361
16
1481
1673
1480
297
312, 834, 1104, 1421
Elbome v. Goode . . 1449, 1451
Elcom, Re
Elden v. N. E. R. Co.
Elder v. Carter
'■ V. Maclean .
Ehrmann i). Ehrmann (72 L. T.
352, 548)
Eider, The .
Eidsforth v. Armstead
Eisdale v. Hammersley
Eland v. Eland
• V. Medland, Re Medland
Elderfield v. Goodall
Elderton, Re .
Eldon (Earl of) v. Eden
Eldridge, Re .
V. Burgess
896
. 2348
71,88
. 487
. 1024
. 997
[1229]
. 270
. 115
Electric Tel. Co., Re . . 315
Elementary Education Acts . 2406
Eley, Re . . 264, 278, 305
V. Read . 1898, 1900, 1904
EHord, Be ... . 1618
Elgood V. Harris . . . 1320
Elham Valley Ry. Co., Be,
Dickson's Case . . . 822
Elias V. Continental Oxygen
Co. . . 542, 1694, 1907
Co. . . . 1858, 1971
V. Snowdon Slate Quarries
542, 1694, 1907
Elibank (L.) v. Montolieu . 907
Elisha V. Elisha 1863, 1906, [2007]
Elkin V. Clark ... 89
EUdngton v. Hurter . . 2247
EUam V. Ellam . . .109
Ellenborough, Be . . . 1629
Ellen Giles, Be . . . 896
Ellenor v. Ugle . . . 1915
Ellerthorpe, Be . . . 1208
Ellesmere Brewery Co. v. Cooper
2078, 2084
EUeston v. Reaeher . . 2142
EUetson v. Fillers, Be Benson 1083,
1443
EUice V. Goodson 1337, 1347, 1354,
1375, 1411
EUick V. Cox, Be Chapman . 1514
Elliman v. Carrington . . 529
V. Sequah . . .127
EUinger v. Mutual Life Insur.
Co.
Ellington v. Clark
Elliot's Trusts, Re
EUiot, Goods of
, Be
2246
247, 654, 835
. 1159
. 888
. 1159
-, Kelly V. Elliot
■ V. Halmarack
■ V. Merriman
. 1541
. 457
1479, 1480
Table of Cases.
cxui
Elliot V. North
V. Remington
V. Bokcby (L.)
Elliott Be (M. R., June 23,
1863) .
([1900] 2 I. R. 439)
-, Elliott V. Johnson .
-, Raven v. Nicholson
-, Middleton v. Pol-
lock .
PAGE
885
900
838
2458
856,
876
1304
1302
V. Cordell .
V. Dearsley
• V. Garrett .
V. Lambert,
ghan
V. Minto (L.)
V. Turner .
V. Turquand
EUis's Trusts, Re
, Be,
Be
Ellis ....
EUis,, Exp. .
; Be . . .
([1909] 1 Ch. 618)
. 1155
. 908
1478, 1536
. 68
Calla-
[994], 1001
. 722
. 1120
. 1321, 1323
. 869
Kelson v.
. 312, 2234
. 1946
1207, 1212
. 1631
, Kelson v. EUis . 312, 2234
■ V. Barfield, Be Northage 1621,
1700
• V. Barker . . 1634, 2272
• V. Bedford (D. of) . [47], 590,
594
■ V. DesUva 242, 251, 398, 400
•U.Eden . . [1502]
V. Ellis .
V. Emmanuel
i;. Fleming
V. Griffiths
V. Glover v. Hobson
1091, 1356
. 2077
. 788
. 1914
. 1951
- V. Johnson, Be Glanvill 851,
869, 870, 871, 1115
■ V. Lewis . . . 916
■ V. Manch. Carriage Co. . 562
■ V. Marshall & Son . 664, 671
V. Maxwell
1440, 1560,
1666
. 39
1332, 1335, 2298
. 152
Roberts, Be Davies 1101,
[1120]
Rogers . . 2168, 2169
V. Rogers
V. Rowbotham . . 1699
V. Silber . . . 2283
V. Stewart ... 32
■ V. Wadeson ... 39
. «. Wilmot . . . 2086
ElHson's Estate, Be . . 2407
Ellison, Exp. The . . [893]
, Be . . . 1190, 1218
VOL. I.
Ellison V. Airoy
— ■ V. Cookson
V. Ellison
■ — V. Thomas
V. Wright
EUiston V. Reacher
Elmer v. Creasy
Elmhirst v. Spencer
Elmore v. Pirrie
Elms V. Hedges
Elmsley v. Young .
Ehnslie, Be (12 Beav. 538)
(16 Eq. 326)
PAGE
. 1368
. 1164
1628, 1630, 2149
824, 1663, 1664
. 1881
. 533
79, 89, 1899, 1092
, Boursier ,
599
2157
242
1513
261
264
632
Elphinstone v. Monkland Iron
and Coal Co. . . 531,2150
Ehington v. Ehmgton . 900, 1444
Elsas V. Williams . . .125
Else V. Else 330, 345, 348, 2163, 2164
Elsey V. Cox .... 2287
— V. Lutyens . . . 2040
Elsom, Be, Thomas v. Elsom 930,
935
Elston V. Jarvis . . [1890]
Elton, Be ... . 1072
• V. Curteis . . 1872, 1921
V. Elton . 1653, 1810, 1821
Elve V. Boyton . . . 1144
Elvy V. Norwood . 1382, 1874, 2046
Elwell V. Crowther . . 587
Elwes and Turner, Be . . 269
V. Brigg Gas Co. . . 1952
V. Elwes . . . 1643
V. Mawe . . . 1952
V. Payne 515, 516, 593, 594
Elworthy v. Billing . . 331
-j;. Harvey . 312,1166
V. Wiokstead . . 894
Ely, Re, Exp. Ely & Co. . 2261
V. Bliss . . . 1381
V. Gayford . . 123
Emanuel & Simmonds, Be . 302
CoU., Be . . . 2364
V. Bridger . 480, 481
■ V. Symon 12, 723,
1525,
2107
Embossed Metal Plate Co. v.
Sausse & Busche . . 632
Emden v. Carte 37, 50, 117, 1047,
1048, 1051
Emeris v. Woodward 125, 377, 2235
Emerson, Be, Planet Bdg. Co. . 471
Emery's Trusts 897, 898, 923, 926
Emery v. Hill . . . 1257
■ V. Wace . . .897
Emley v. Davidson, Be Robson,
1299, 1302
Emma 69
Mine, Be . 71, 74, 106
h
CXIV
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Emma Mine, Ee, Exp. Turner 1042
Silver Mining Co. v.
Grant 117, 363, 1126,
1334, 1335, 1405, 2265,
2269
■ Silver Mining Co. v.
Lewis . . . 1335, 2265
Emmet, Re, Emmet v. Emmet
828, 1123, 1124
Emmett,iJe,Emmetti>. Emmett 1508
. 400
. 248
. 1665
Se 1031,
2154
. 452
■ V. Heyes
Emmott V. Heys
Emperor v. RoUe .
Empress Engineering Co..
Empringham v. Short
Emsley v. N. E. Ry. Co. . 698
Emuss V. Smith . . 1474, 1490
Endo V. Caleham . . .1340
Engels V. Hubert Unchangeable
&c 637
England, Exp. . . 952, 968
, Re, Exp. Pannell . 1839
— , Re, Steward v. E. 1383,
1868
(Bank of), Exp., Re S.
American &c. Co. . 139
(Bank of) v. Booth . 712
■ V. Curling 680, [2090], 2095,
2137, 2141
V. Downs . . 1134, 1455
^ V. Tredegar (L.) 2229, 2231
Bnglefield ColUery Co., Re . 2269
Englehart v. Ordell . [1036]
English's Sett., Re 2401, 2402, 2404
English & American Machinery
Co. V. Bailey - [417]
& Aylinge, Re . . 418
, &c. Ins. Co., Re, Exp.
Maclure . . 1335
& Irish Church & Uni-
versity Ass. Soc. . 2128
& Scottish Inv. Tr. v.
Brunton . . 2037
V. Baring . [1336], 1340
V. Camberwell Vest. 313, 513
V. Metrop. Bd. of Works 587
V. Murray . . . 2194
V. Tottie . . 94, 95
Ennis, Re, Cole v. Peyton . 2078
Re, Westerton v. Enhis [1417]
EnniskiUen & Bundoran Ey.
Co., Re ... . 2422
Enniskilt Ry. Co. v.
Ennor v. Barwell
Eno V. Dunn
V. Tatham
CoUum . 1051
572, [582]
. 2336
. 1477
Enoch & Zardzky, Re . . 398
Enohin v. Wylie 1357, 1358, 1523
Enthoven v. Cobb .
Entwistle v. Cannon
V. Markland
Ermen, Re
& Roby, Be
PAOE
. 93
. 358
. 1619
. 246
. 2344
Ernest v. Loma Gold Mines . 705
V. Partridge . . 290
V. Vivian . . . 546
Errat v. Barlow . . . 964
Brrington, Re . . . 1544
, Bawtree v. Er-
rington . . 872
•, Turbrett v. Er-
rington . . 1666
V. Ackers . [1659]
V. Met. Dist. Ry. Co. 571
Erskine, Re . . . . 906
V. Adeane 534, 1071, 2146
V. Garthshore . . 37
V. Lawrie . . [1003]
V. Sachs . . . 2298
Esam V. A.-G., Re Wilkinson [1295]
1298, 1307
Escudier, Re . . . . 986
Esdaile, Re . . . . 1772
V. La Nauze . . 713
V. Payne . . 813, 832
V. Peacock . 1311, 1342
V. Stephenson . . 2180
V. Visser . 306, 435, 457
Eslick, Re ... . 1950
Espey V. Lake . . 714, 2273
Espin V. Pemberton 1082, 2035, 2036
Bspley V. Wilkes . . . 579
Esron v. Nicholas . . . 945
Essell V. Hayward . . . 2108
Essery v. Cowlard . . .1637
Essex V. Daniel . . 2184, 2188
■ (E.) V. Hatfield and St.
Albans Ry. Co. [1957]
Sheriff of Exp., Re Harri-
son . . . . 422
& Suffolk Ins. Co., Re . 2440
Estate Co., Re . . . 2432
Estcourt V. Escourt Hop Co. . 624
Esther Lyons, Re . . . 1003
Estwick V. Caitland . . 2285
Ethel Brown, Re . . . 997
Etheridge v. Womersley, Re
Womersley 474, 760, 799, 1364
Ethermgton U.Wilson 820,1289,1302
Eton Coll., Exp. (3 Ry. Ca. 271)
2395, 2399, 2402
Etty V. Bridges . . . 1928
■ V. Wilson . . .837
Euphrates & Tigris S. N. Co., Re 2440
European Ass. Co. v. Lee [426]
• V. Radcliffe,
iJeRadcliffe . 1368
Table of Cases.
cxv
European Bank, Be
■ Central Ry. Co.
PAGE
2302
1870
Eustace v. Lloyd . . 721, 1461
Evan Evans, Be . 310, 1156, 2362
— — V. Portreeve, &o. of Avon 88
Evanoe v. Hogg . . [2190]
Evans' Estate, Be . . . 888
Settlement, Be . 2362, 2383
Evans, Exp. (27 W. R. 712) . 746
(11 Eq. 151)
(7 Ch. 609) .
•, Be Watkins
265
. 1160
183, 742,
759, 2004
. 748
In the goods of
(D. & D. H.) Be ([1903]
W. N. 73) . . 2441
Be ([1905] 1 Ch. 290) . 303
(13 Ch. D. 252) . 758
, Exp. Evans . 1410
, Davies & Chaddick
389, 2113
, Evans v. Evans . 1499
V. Noton 11, [102]
434, 435, 457
, Welch V. Channell 966,
1134
. 1800
431, 432, 466
835, 1090, 1132
. 2031, 2247
■ V. Bear
• V. Benyon .
■ V. BickneU .
• V. Bremridge
• V. Brown .
• V. Carrington
- V. Chapman
■ V.
Cook
V. Coventry
V. Davies
V. Edmonds
V. Elliott .
[2074], 2082,
2083
. 1367, 1605
854, 922, 926
. 2234
. 106
701, 751, 2112
. 329
. 2248
. 1896
- V. Evans (31 W. R. 495) 1805
(W. N. (83) 48) 1804
- V. Griffiths, Be Thomas . 304
■ V. Harlow . . . 676
• V. Hoare . . . 2145
■ V. Hughes . . 684, 1813
■ V. Kinsey . . [1887]
• V. Levy . . . 241
■ V. Llewellin . . 2256
, Manchester &o. Ry.
Co. . . .
- V. Mathias .
-V. Maxwell, Be Orme
V. Mancnester &o.
589
769
1467,
1468
V. Merthyr Tydfil Dis-
trict Council . 151, 370
V. Moore, Be Davis 1113,
1429, 1432
V. Nicholson . 786, 788
PAGE
Evans v. Noton, Be Evans 11, [102],
434, 435, 457, 818
V. Prothero . . 370
■ • V. Roberts, Be Roberts. 1938
— V. Tweedy . . . 1389
V. Walker . 1542, 1568, 1569
■ V. Ware . 531, 943, 945
— V. Williams . 1364, 2001
V. Williamson, Be Roose 1556
V. Wills . . .789
• — V. Wood [2293], 2295, 2296
Eve, Be .... 1510
Evelyn, Exp. . . 1444, 1514
V. Evelyn . 36, 42, 135
V. Lewis . . . 745
Evennett v. Lawrence, Be Law-
rence . . . 831, 832
Everall v. Brown . . . 805
Evered, Be ([1910] 2 Ch. 147) . 1675
V. Evered . . 924, 925
Everett, Be . . . .1156
V. Everett . . 1558
V. Paxton . . . 853
V. Prytherch . . 751
V. Remington . . 533
Everitt v. Automatic Weighing
Machine Co. 715, 1864,
[1987], 1992
— V. Everitt [1634], 1637, 1646
Everley, Be . . . . 1027
Evers v. ChaUis . . .1542
Evershed v. Evershed . .921
Eversley, Be, Mildmay «. Mild-
may ..... 1655
Everson v. Matthew . . 1460
Everton Overseers, Exp. . 789
Evezard v. Burke . . . 504
Bvitt V. Price . 520, 673, 674
Ewart V. Chubb . . 890, 900
V. Ewart . . 357, 1632
V. Fryer [2306], 2308, 2309
V. WUliams . 1314, [1329]
Ewens & Co., Vernon, Be 1064, 1065
Ewer V. Corbet . . . 1479
Ewin, Be . . . .1520
Ewing, In the Goods of . .1521
,Be .... 1212
u. Ewing . .2106,2118
V. Orr-Ewing 132, 1523, 1524
— • V. Osbaldiston . . 96
Exchange & Hop Warehouses v.
Assoc, of Land Financiers 1835,
1841
Exchange Bkg. Co., Be, Flit-
croft's Case . . .1113
Exchange Bkg. Co., Be, Ram-
well's Case . . . 2288
Exchange Tel. Co. v. Central
News . . [673], 674
CXVl
Table of Cases.
Exchange Tel. Co. v. Gregory
& Co 674
Exeter, &c. Ry. v. BuUer . 695
(Bp.) V. Marshall . 710
V. Shutte . . [672], 673
■ — Corp. V. E. Devon . 588
V. Exeter . . 2233, 2238
Exmouth (V.), Be, Exmouth v.
Praed . . 1542
V. Praed [1550], 1654, 1655
Exploration Co. v. British Em-
pire Tyre Co., Ld. 1926, [1961]
Eynde v. Gould . . .430
Eynon, Exp., Re Wiltshire . 1941
Eyre & Corp. of Leicester, Ee . 394
. 1676
. 344
-, Re, Eyre v. Eyre
(4 K. & J. 268) .
- Coote, Re, Coote v. Cado-
gan .
- V. Barrow
- V. Bartopp
- V. Burmester
• V. Cox .
- V. Everett
■ V. Hanson
■ V. Harris
• V. Hughes
. 1745, 1778
. 460, 1066
. 2084
. 2042, 2243
. 1349, 1351
. 2085
. 1913
. 1506
1053, 1055, 1319,
1340, 1887, 1902, 1905, 1906
V. Marsden 1450, 1451, 1515.
1666
V. M'DoweU . . 1980, 2004
V. Rodgers . . 67, 87
Eyre v. Shaftsbury (C.) 951, 952,
1012, 1013, 1718
V. Wynn Mackenzie [1064],
1066, 1856, 1878, 1879
Eyston v. Simonds . .2168
Eyton, Re, Bartlett v. Charles 232,
488
■ , Exp. Charlesworth 822
— V. Denbigh, &c. Ry. 744,
756, [1958]
V. Eyton . . . 2240
Ezart V. Lister . . . 1061
P.
P. V. E. ([1902] 1 Ch. 688) [993], 999
Faber v. Montagu, Re Montagu
1208, [1230], [1231]
Fadelle v. Bernard . . 943
Fagg V. James . . . 2042
Fairbairn's Engineering Co., Re 2435
Fairbeard v. Bowers . . 1365
Fairbrother v. England . . 530
Fairburn v. Household . . 146
V. Pearson . . 752
Fairchild, Exp. . . . 1061
PAGE
Pairclough v. Marshall 50, 534, 1893
Fairer v. Park 1537, 1538, 1554 1668
Fairfield Shipbuilding Co. v.
London, &c., Co. . 1860, 1971
Fairhead v. Southee . . 2148
Fairholme v. Kennedy . . 750
Fairthome, Re . . . 1057
V. Weston . 2095, 2104
FaithfuU, Re . . . 1041, 1468
— — V. Ewen . . . 1049
• V. Woodley . 177, 1835
Falok V. Axthelm ... 42
Falcke v. Gray . . 2140, 2149
V. Scottish Imperial In-
surance Co. 815, 1481, 1905, 1936,
1990
Falconer's Trusts, Re, Bradford
V. Young ....
Falkingham v. Victorian Rail-
ways Commrs.
Falkner v. Somerset, &c. Ry.
842
Fallowes v. Williamson
Fallows V. Bamby's Ld.
V. Dillon .
398
688,
2353
116
1972
152
278, 279
Falls, Re
Famatina Development Corp. v.
Bury . . . .700
Fane, Re (W. N. (88) 231) . 1408
-V.-C. M., 7 May,
1875) . . . 1732
— — V. Fane 1450, 1560, 1574,
1633, [1635], 1660
■ V. Sandwich (E.) . . 1660
Faraday, Re . . . .888
Farbenfabrifcen, Application,
Re 2331
Farbenfabriken, vorm Bayer
& Co. V. Bower . . . 2316
Fardell v. Chapman, Re Chap-
man's Estate . . . 1421
Farden v. Richter ... 98
Pardon's Vinegar Co., Exp., Re
Jones . . . .839
Fardy v. Musto . . [1549]
Farebrother v. Prattent . . 495
V. Wodehouse . 2089
V. Woodhouse 1863,
2076
Farhall v. Parhall 1479, 1480, 1499
Farina's Case, Re .
Farina v. Silverlock
Farington, £e
V. Farington
Farley, Exp. .
V. Bonham .
Farman, Re, Farman v.
man
2343
622, 629
275, 293
. 925
. 1981
. 915
Far-
. 1661
-, Farman v. Smith 1376
Table oj doses.
cxvii
PAGE
Parmer v. 'Dean , . . 331
V. Inland Rev. Commrs. 159
V. Mills . . . 1580
V. Pitt . . . 2016
V. Waterloo and City
Ry. Co. . 686, 699, [2347], 2393
Farmers', &c. Co. v. Enkel . 2147
Parncombe, Re . . . 1675
Farndell, Re . . . .950
Farnell's Settled Estates, Re . 1742
Parnham's Settlement, Re . 1697
Farnham, Re . . 984, 2286
■ V. Millward
V. Phillips
Farquhar v. Hadden
V. Young
Farquharson v. Balfour
V. Floyer
V. King
■ V. Morgan
Farr v. Sheriffe
V. Ward
Farrand v. Yorkshire Banking
. 117
. 1667
. 2133
. 1915
. 77
[1600], 1606
. 1932
. 786
. 1130
. 1344
Co.
Farrands, Re
Farrant v. Blanchford
V. Lovel .
Farrar v. Cooper
V. Farrars, Ld.
2033
. 1354
. 1109
. 1907
395, 683
719, 1848,
1857, 1872, 1900, 2255
Farrell v. Wale . . .138
FarreUey v. Corrigan . . 370
Farrer and Champion, Re . 1656
V. Dain . . [1294]
V. Lacy, Hartland & Co.
(28 Ch. D. 482) . 31
■ — ■ V. Lacy, Hartland & Co.
(31 Ch. D. 42) [1829], 1835, 1882,
1901, [2178]
Farrington v. Forrester, Re
Jones 947, 1809, 2022
V. Lee . . . 1326
. 2336
819, 1129
. 859
Farrow, Re .
■ ■ V. Austin
■ V. Smith
V. Third &o.
Clerks
Mutual Soo. . . [101]
Faulder, Re . . . . 1181
Faulder's Trade Mark, Re . 2332
Faulder & Co.. Re ([1902] 1
Ch. 126) . . . 2336, 2338
Faulkner, Re . . . 304
— V. Bolton . . 1914
— ■ V. Daniel 779, 781, 1354,
1432
V. Elger . . .710
V. Llewellyn . [2204]
Fauntleroy v. Beebe . . 981
Faure Electric Co., Re . 701, 702
PAGE
Faveno v. Bennett . . . 1325
Pavershara Char., Re . 1277, 2363
(M. of) V. Ryder . 1305
Fawcet v. Fothergill . .1863
Pawcett and Holmes, Re 2163, 2194,
2195, 2196, [2198]
V. Laurie . . 699, 700
V. Lo-wther . . 1862
V. Neville, Greenlay v.
Neville . . .127
V. Whitehouse 1334, 2104,
2268
Pawkner v. Watts . . . 964
Pawsitt, Re, Galland v. Burton 1, 828
Fazakerly v. Culshaw . 1133, 1146
Fear v. Castle . . . 857
Fearns v. Young 1129, 1568, 1619
Fearnside & Dean's Case, Re
Leeds Bkg. Co. . 1499
V. Flint 1381, 1432, 1865,
2134
Fearnsides, Re . . . 1366
Fearon v. Atkinson . [1417]
■w. Aylesford(E.) 920,921,922
. 399
. 1942
. 633
• V. Flinn
Feast V. Robinson .
Feather v. Reg.
Feath«rstone's Trusts, Re 1509, 1558
Featherstone v. Cook
Featherstonhaugh v. Penwick
V. Turner
695
2110
2119
91
528
Peaver v. Williams
Peohter v. Montgomery .
Feilden v. Slater . 530, 532, 534
Feistel v. King's Coll. Camb. 517,
756
Felix Hadley & Co., Ld. v.
Hadley . . . 1093, 1336
Felkin v. Herbert 73, 86, [455], 465,
679
Pell, Exp., Re Cambrian Mining
Co.
, Re
— - V. Biddolph
V. Jackson
• — — V. Official Trustee
Charity Lands
Fellow's Settlement, Re
Fellowes v. Gwydyr (L.)
Fellows V. Barrett .
— V. Mitchell
V. Thornton
V. Wood .
Pells V. Read
Pelstead v. Gray
Feltham, Re .
Felthouse, Re
of
1901
. [993]
1509, 1539
[937]
. 1300
. 1215
. 2252
928, 932
. 1084
414, 482
. 531
. 2140
147, 1419
. 1159
. 154
Female, &o.
law .
Asylum v. Water-
2154
CXVlll
Table of Cases.
PAGE
. 965
. 74
. 493
. 513
. 75
[1912]
. 908
. 509
88, 89, 625
249, 625
. 362
[961]
. 260
. 106
[59]
. 1586
. 445
95, 1029
1451, 1605
. 2033
2161, 2185
, 1090, 1595
. 601
. 1080
. 1980
. 2066
. 433
. 1158
British
Ry. Co. . [2391],
■ & Co. to Buckley . 302
V. Ferguson [190], 191
431, 1126
V. Gibson 1403, 1466, 1470
Fendall v. Nash
• • V. O'Connell
Penn v. Edmonds .
Fenner v. Bedford .
V. Lord
■ V. Rowe
V. Taylor
V. Wilson .
Fennessy v. Clark .
V. Day
V. Rabbits
Fentiman v. Fentiman
Fenton, Re .
■ V. Cumberlege
■ V. Fenton .
V. Livingstone
V. LoTVther .
■ — • V. Queen's, &c. Co,
V. Wills
Fen wick & Co., Be
■ V. Bulman
■ V. Clarke 1086
V. E. Lond. Ry,
■ V. Greenwell
, V. Potts
V. Reed
Fereday, Re .
Ferguson, Be
-, Exp
N.
■ • V. Tadman . . 2183
, V. Wilson . 2140, 2158
Fergusson's Will, Be . . 1520
Fergusson v. L. B. & S. C. Ry,
Co.
2352, 2353
Fernandes' Executors' Case . 1358
Fernandes' Executors' Case, Be
Commercial Bank, &c. . 1358
Fernandez, Be (W. N. (78) 57). 265
Ferneley's Trusts, Re . 872, 1544
Fernie v. Young . 149, 370, 640
Ferns v. Carr . . 969, 1378
Fernyhough v. Naylor . . 109
Ferrall v. Curron . . .116
Ferrand v. Bradford Corp. 699, 2348
■ V. Hallas Land & Bldg.
Co. . . . 610
V. Wilson . . . 1460
Ferrers v. Ferrers . . .1572
, (E.) V. Stafford and Ut-
toxeter Ry. Co. . . . 2224
Ferris v. Mullins . . .1981
Festing v. Taylor . . .1571
Pewings, Exp., Re Snoyd 1345, 1870
Fewster, Re . . . 206, 431
PAGE
Ffrenoh's Estate, Re . 1089, 2030
Ffrench v. Sproston, Re Beeny 1083
Fickus, iJe .... 1626
Fiddey, Re, Jones v. Frost . 1048
, Heinrich v. Sutton 1051
Field's Trade Mark, iJe . [2340]
Field, Re (29 Ch. D. 608) 301, 302,
305
(9 Ha. 414) . . 1181
(1888, W. N. 36) . 1697
• V. Beniiett ... 14
■ V. Brown . 981, 1013, 1014
— — V. Carnarvon, &c. Ry. 687, 697,
2392
— — V. Dracup, Re Dracup . 1424
• V. Evans
■ V. Field
■ V. Hopkins
• V. Lewis
869
. 1085
295, 1065, 1856,
1878, 1882
. 615
— V. Lydall, Re Tillett 1056, 1504
V. Moore . 979, 1015, 1648
V. Peckett . . . 1536
V. Seward . . 1447, 1537
V. Titmuss . . . 1376
• V. White, Re Rownson . 1469
Fielden v. Buenos Ayres Ry. Co. 1061
V. Morley Corp. . . 345
^D. Slater . . .534
Fielder v. Higginson . . 340
Fielding v. Iverton . . 1559
V. Preston . . 1606
Fieldwiok, Be, Johnson v. Adam-
son . . . . 853, 887
Figg V. Moore . . .421
Filby V. Hounsell . . . 2144
Pilder v. L. B. & S. C. Ry. . 695
Finance & Issue v. Canadian
700
2430
2401
277
278
2362
1376
1376
Produce Corp.
Financial Corp., Exp.
Finch's Estate, Be .
Finch, JJe (16Beav. 585) .
• ■ (4 D. M. & G. 108)
■ — (14W. R. 472).
■ (23 Ch. D. 267)
-, Finch V. Finch
■ and Juke's Agreement
Re [2074], 2083, 2084,
2201
■ V. Brown . . . 1903
■ V. Finch . . 96, 97
■ V. G. W. Ry. Co. . . 578
■ V. Goutiere . . . [942]
■ V. Hattersley . . 1368
■ V. Prescott . . 1134, 1481
— — V. Shaw . 1911, 1913, 1914
, V. Underwood . 2155, 2208
Finchley Electric &c. Co. v.
Finchley U. D. C. , . 581
Table of Cases.
cxix
PAGE
Pinok V. L. & S. W. Ry. Co. 698, 699
Pindlay, Be . . . 1180, 1211
Finlason v. Tatlook . . 1512
Finlay «;. Chirney . . .116
V. Darling . . 866, 1632
V. Davis . . . 175
V. Howard . . . 1165
Knley, He, Exp. Clothworkers'
Co 2009
Finney, Re . . . . 1181
■!;. Hinde . . 414,475
Finnis to Forbes [1275], 1280, 1281,
2383
Finska Angf artygs Aktiebolaget
V. Brown .... 251
Firebrace v. Firebrace . . 1519
Firkins v. Lowe . . 56, 83
Firmin, Be, London Banking
432
. 1136
836, 837,
1941
. 1408
. 23
2141, 2147,
2180, 2211
Fish, Be, Bennett v. Bennett 279,
935, 1137, 1315, [1414], 1418
Co. V. Firmin
• V. Pulbam .
Firth, Exp., Be Cowburn
, Be, Exp. Sohofield
■ V. De las Rivas
— V. Mid. Ry. Co.
• , Be, Ingham v. Bayner
Fishburn v. Hollingshead
Fisher, Exp. .
, Be (42 L. T. 261)
■ , Be ([1894] 1 Ch. 450)
and Grazebrook, Be
1341
666
2289
277
241,
2407
1756,
1774
2272
1322
- & Co. V. ApoUinaris
- V. Baldwin .
■ V. Black and White Pub-
lishing Co. . . 701
■ V. Brierley 1296, 1299, 1445
■ V. Calvert . . .157
■ V. Coffey . . .374
• V. Doody, Be Doody 295,
1065, 1878, 1906
■ V. Dowsett
V. Fisher
• V. G. W. Ry.
■ ■ V. Hughes
V. Jackson
— • V. Keane
V. Melles
— V. Owen
V, Shirley
V. Smith
Fisk V. A.-G.
V. Norton
Fitch V. Bochfort
— — ■ V. Weber
1336
. 926, 2400
Co. . 400
98, 178
709, 711, 1277
. 712
. 2092
85, 97, 2242
874, 1630, 1631
. 1992
1243, 1306, [1531]
1507
517
1514
PAGE
Fitton, Be . . . .406
V. Macclesfield (E.) . 2241
Fitz V. lies . . 530, 534, 535
Fitz-George, Be . . . 2086
Fitzgerald's Estate, Be, Saunders
V. Boyd . . 1664
Trustee v. Mellersh
160, 1872
Fitzgerald, Be . . . 1513
V. Chapman . 926, 1637
V. Dawson . . 827
V. Fitzgerald . . 895
V. MacCown . 2082, 2083
Fitzgibbon v. Greer . . 95
Fitzhardinge (E.) v. Gloucester
&c. Canal Co. . 2350
(L.) V. Cobden, Be
Lucan(E.) . 1629
V. Purcell . . 582
Fitzherbert, Be . . • , H
I). Weld . . 1368
Fitzpatrick v. Mahony . 1338, 1339
■ V. McDonald . 82
Fitzroy v. Cave . . • 1929
■ — V. Harris, Be Harris . 1541
V. Richmond (D.) . 1675
Fitzsimmons v. Mostyn . . 302
Fitzsimon v. White, Be White
1047, 1050
Fitzwater v. Waterhouse . 178
FitzwilHam v. Kelly . . 1557
. — V. Price . . 1905
Flack V. Holm. . . .506
V. Longmate . .1921
Plagg V. James . . [2024]
Flamank, Exp. . . ■ 2384
, Be, Woods V. Cock . 881
Flanagan v. Flanagan . . 980
■ V. G. W. By. Co. 2154,
2207
Plarty v. Oldum . . .479
Plavel V. Harrison . . . 623
Flavell, Be, Murray v. Flavell 921,
1569, 2147
Fleck, Be, Colston v. Roberts . 1478
Fleet Market Act, Be . . 2363
V. Gladish . . ■ 1807
V. Murton . . ■ 1324
Fleetwood, Be, Sidgreaves v.
Brewer . 1539, 1554
— — V. Hull . . 632, 534
Flegg V. Prentis . 761, 762, 2004
Fleming v. Buchanan [152S, 1599],
1606
V. Dollar ... 37
V. East . . .352
V. Hardcastle 301, [974]
V. Hislop . . • 595
V. Loe . . • 2186
cxx
Table of Gases.
PAGE
Fleming v. Newport By. Co. . 2348
V. Self . 2053, 2057, 2059
— ■ V. Snook . . . 534
Flemon's Trusts . . 2360, 2399
Fletcher & Dyson, Be . 269, 302
, Exp., Re Hart . . 1840
, Re . . . . 2289
, Gillings V. Flet-
cher . . 1538
■ — ■ V. Ashburner . . 980
— V. Bealey 508, 515, 603
■ V. Birkenhead Corp. . 2349
— u. CoUis . .1109,1110
V. Fletcher . . 892
■ V. G. W. Ry. . . 571
• V. Green . 869, 1090, 1115
■ V. Lancashire & York.
Ry. . 1343, 2180, 2394
• V. Moore .
• V. Nokes .
• V. Rodgers
■ V. Rylands
■ V. Stevenson
Flewitt V. Walker
Flight V. Barton
■ — V. BoUand
• ■ V. Booth
• ■ V. Comae
Fhnn v. Fountain
Flint V. Howard
FlintofE V. Haynes
FHtcroft's Case
Flitcroft, Re .
Floating Dock of St
Co., Re
Flockton V. Bunning
V. Peake .
Flood, Re
V. Patterson
Florence Land Co., Re
■ • V. Mallinson
[1029]
. 2309
512, 722
. 589
1462, 1465,
1622
. 2194
. 2207
979, 2149, 2152
. 2195
. 341
. 2043, 2154
[2020], 2021, 2022
. 1370, 1380
701, 1093, 1113,
1321
. 1210
Thomas
. 2431
[1119], 1124,
2133
80, 291
. 872
. 1386
. 1968
240, 819
2393, 2399
1032
Flower, Exp.
■ ■, Re, (27 Ch. D. 592) .
(18 L. T. 457 ; 16
W. R. 749) . 264
■ (16 W. R. 749) . 264
■ — (19 W. R. 578) . 270
• — — — ; Edmonds v. Ed-
monds . . 1544
, Matheson v. Good-
wyn . . 1616, 1622
— and Metropolitan Board
of Works . . 1084, 2184
V. BuUer . . 853, 855
• V. Flower . .531, 920
■— V. Hartopp . . 340
PAGE
Flower v. Leyton Board . .611
V. Lloyd 99, 125, [644], 815
823, 842, 1049
— V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. . 943
V. L. B. & S. 0. By. . 697
V. Sadler . . . 2292
Floyd V. Buckland . . 2146
Floyer v. Bankes . . . 1695
Fludyer, Re, Wingfield v.
Erskine
V. Cocker .
Fluker, Re . . .
V. Taylor
Flux, Re . . .
Flynn v. Robertson
Foakes v. Jackson .
V. Webb
Foden v. Finney
Foley, Exp. .
, Re Spaokman
V. Bumell
V. Hill .
V. Wontner .
Foligno V. Goldner
■ ■ V. Martin .
Foljambe, Re
Follett V. Jeffryes .
■;;. Tyrer
FoUit V. Eddystone
V.
Quarries
Follows, Re, Exp. Follows
Folsom V. Marsh
Fooks, Re . . .
V. Horner, Re Horner
V. WUts Ry.
. 1593
. 2180
261, 270
. 1331
. 276
. 397
. 1670
90,91
. 905
. 1062
. 2286
. 1560
. 1330
. 711
. 2228
. 2219, 2220
. 273
. 91
. 866
Granite
. 1969
Foord V. Baker
Pootner v. Sturgis .
Forbes v. Adams
V. Brighton Hotel Co.
V. Eccles. Commrs.
. 502
. 661
. 2394
. 1344
. 549
. 1290
. 2005
. 896
[1593]
1299,
1307
— (Kay, 64) . 1518, 1519, 1523
V. Hume, Re Hume . 1298
V. Jackson . . . 2089
V. Lee Conservancy . 698
V. Peacock . . . 1480
V. Steven . . . 1519
— V. Tanner ... 89
Ford, Exp. . . 260, 502, 1092
— -, Re ChappeU . . 1377
, Re (32 Beav. 621) 891, 909,
910
■ • (3 Drew. 324) . . 1277
, Exp. Official Receiver 422
, Patten v. Sparks . 1508
— and Hill, iJe . . . 2201
V. Ager .... 1869
V. Bryant . . . 1121
■ V. Chesterfield (E.) . 1880, 1882
Table of Gases.
cxxi
PAGE
Ford V. De Pontes . . 94
V. Dolphin ... 78
— V. Foster [645], 621, 623
V. Met. Dist. Ry. Co. . 2347
V. Miesoke . . 20, 173
V. Peering . . .918
V. Plymouth, &o. Ry. Co. . 2393
V. Robinson . . . 485
V. Shephard . . .14
■ V. Tenant
■ V. Tjmte
90
315, [536], 542, 545,
1664, 1681
. 1914, 2005
: 1883, 1884, 2040
391
2255
■ — — • V. Wastell
V. White
Ford's Hotel Co. v. Bartlett .
Forder, Exp.
Fordham v. Claggett, Be Clag-
gett . . .831
V. Fordham [1716], 1718
V. WaUis 1383, 1384,
[1462, 1592]
Fore Street Warehouse Co., Be 2431
Foreign and Colonial Trust Co.,
Be 2441
Fores v. Johnes . . . 669
Forest, Be . . . [1273]
— V. Shore . . . 1914
Forget V. Baxter . . . 2296
Formby v. Barker . . . 532
Forrer v. Nash . . 2148, 2168
Forrest v. Elwes . . .780
• ■ V. Manchester Ry. 695, 701
■ V. Prescott . . . 1475
■ V. Timms . . . 779
Forrester v. Jones . . . 822
• V. Leigh (L.) . . 1475
Forshaw v. Higginson . 1133, 1165
Forster, Be . . . .786
■ V. Abraham 1188, 2167, 2189
V. CloTVser . . 501, 1946
■ u. Davies . . 291,1170
■ • V. Davis, Be McRae 799, 2125
■ V. Farquhar . . 241
■ ■ V. Hale . , . 2135
. ■ V. Mackreth . . 2123
V. Manch. & MiMord
Ry. . . [768, 1958]
— ■ V. Patterson . . 1866
. V. Ridley 1130, 1133, 1138,
[1497], 1499
— — — V. Sohlesinger, Be
Benzon. .... 358
Forsyth, Be 264, 265, 281, 1060
V. EUice . . . 1315
Fort, Re, Exp. Sohofield . . 2129
Fortescue v. Fortescue . . 73
V. Lostwithiel &
Fowey Ry. Co. 2141,
[2211]
Fortescue v. Mercantile Bk. of
Lond.
Forth V. SHngsby .
Fortnam v. Hadlow
Fortune, Be .
Fortune's Trusts, Be
Forwood & Co. v. Watney
V. Gcoschen
. 304
. 1868
[1795]
1158, 1159
. 1460
. 392
. 680
Foss, Exp 670
V. Harbottle . . 695, 1334
Foster, Be (2 D. F. & J. 105) 267,
277, 1053
- (8 Ch. D. 598)
- (45 Ch. D. 629)
- (26 May, 1882)
- (55 L. T. 479)
-, Exp. Diokin
. 293
. 1622
[1178]
. 1187
. 1407
- Greenwood v. Beaver
240
& Gt. W. Ry. Co., Be .
& Lister's Contracts, Be
1880, 1628, 2197, 2201
Borax Co.,
. 1968
• V. Borax Co
Be
■ V. Dawber
■ V. Deacon
■ V. Edwards
• V. Elsley
- V. Farquhar
. 1190
. 2183
. 174
1035, 1138
. 241
■ V. Foster (2 Ver. 386) . 749
(7 July, 1860). 1228
(1 Ch. D. 588)
980, 1490, 1803
■ (2 B. C. C. 616) 1122
■ V. Globe Venture Syndi-
cate . . 154, 810
■u. Handley . . 1367
■ V. Harvey . . 110, 1847
■ V. Hodgson . . 1326
• V. Inland Rev. Commrs. 159
• V. L. C. & D. Ry. Co. . 703
■ V. Lumb . . [574]
■ V. Mackinnon . . 2245
• V. New Trinidad Lake
Asphalt Co. 700, 1621,
2106
■ V. Parker [938], 940, 1234
• V. Rayner . . [272]
■ V. Reeves . . . 2308
■ V. Smith . . . 1573
■ V. Usherwood . . 805
V. Warblington U. D. C. . 60
V. Wheeler . . . 2158
Fothergill's Estate, Be . 1560, 1654
Fothergill v. Davies, Be Davis [100]
V. Hankey . [2071]
V. Kendrick . . 742
V. Rowland 527, 2140, 2142
Foulkes V. Williams, Be Wil-
liams . . . .1427
cxxu
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Fountain Livet's Patent . 2320
Fountaine, Be Pountaine v.
Amherst (L.) 151, 1115
u. Carmarthen By.
Co 1972
Four Solicitors, Be . . 1070
Fourdrin v. Gowdey . . 1308
Fourth City Mutual Soc. v.
WilHams .... 2058
Foveaux, Be, Cross v. London
Anti-vivisection Soc. . . 1300
Fowey, Be ... . 1263
Fowke V. Draycott 896, 897, 910
Fowkes V. Pascoe 1538, 1629, 1667,
1669
Fowle's Settled Estates, Be . 1741
Fo-wle, iJe . . . [2456]
• V. Freeman . . 2144
Fowler, Be . . . 544, 1696
• ■, Fowler v. Odell 735,
751, 1465
■ — V. A.-G. Be Univ. of
London, &c. Fund . 1252
— V. Barstow . . 18, 20
■ V. Bayldon . . .122
V. Broad's Patent Night
Light Co. . . 754
V. Churchill . . 475
■ V. Foster
• V. Fowler
■ V. Gard
- V. Haynes
- V. James
. 1940
1040, 1041, 1304,
[1488], 1643, 2237
. 643
. 744
1419, 1514
Be Beeman
■ V. Monmouth, &c. Co,
• V. Peirse
1469
307
. 1930
. 152, 1095
. 482
. 1804, 1875
1312, 1340, 1341
. 563
■ — V. Reynal
V. Roberts
■ — ■ V. Scott
V. Wyatt
Fowlers v. Walker
Fox and Braithwaite's Case, Be
Northumberland Avenue
Hotel Co. . . 2148, 2154
— — and Jacobs, Be, Exp. Dis-
count Banking Co. of
England and Wales . 1370
■ , Walker & Co., Be, Exp.
Bishop . 838, 1345, 2077
V. Amhurst . . 2382, 2384
V. Bearbloek . 109, 151, 323
V. Buckley . . . 1090
V. Dellestable . . 651
«;. Dolby . . .1108
D. Fox . . . . 1543
V. Garrett (No. 1) . . 1468
. ■ V. HawJis . 1629, 2031, 2036
V. Henbury . . . 683
PAGE
Fox V. Lownds . . . 1299
■ V. Maokreth . 1056, 2247, 2255
«;. Martin . . [1987]
V. Rail. Passengers' Ass.
Co 393
V. Scard . . .528
V. Star Newspaper Co. 41, 129
V. Suwerkrop . . [930]
«;. Wallis . . . 822
Foxlowe V. Amcoats . . 2162
Foxon V. Gascoigne . . 1048
Foxton V. Jackson . . [337]
Foxwell V. Bostock . . 634
V. Lewis,*iJe Lewis . 1492
V. Van Grutten 738, 747
V. Webster . [640], 801
Fozier v. Andrews . . . 1135
Frampton v. Stephens . . 916
France v. Clark 1926, 1927, 1983,
2038, 2243
■ — V. Cowper .
• V. France .
V. White
Frances Handford
Exp. Frances
Co. .
Francis, Exp., Be Brand
V. Clemow .
V. Dodsworth
V. Francis .
V. Harrison
— V. Hayward
V. Wigzell .
Pranoke, Be, Drake v. Francke
. 1841
. 979, 1818
. 1321
Co., Be,
Handford &
856, 876
. 2303
. 1536
. 1319
. 1089
1861, 2015
. 549
2152
312,
738
1256
445
400
1315
2348
916
871
Franoklin's Charity, Be .
Francklyn v. Colhoun
Frank James & Sons, Be
Frank Mills Mining Co., Be
— Warr & Co. v. L. C. C. .
— V. Frank
V. Muzeen, Be Wormald
Frankenburg v. Great Horse-
less Carriage Co. . 49, 2262
Frankenstein v. Gavin's, &c. Co. 86
Frankes v. Weaver . . 622
Frankland v. Hampden . . 2241
• V. Lucas . . 1062
Franklin, Be . . . . 1208
V. Colhoun . . 448
Franklinski v. Ball 1896, 2lS4, 2208
Franklyn, Exp. . . . 2360
— , Be . [1196], 1209
• V. Masson . . 772
Franks, Be, Exp. Gittins . 72
V. Bollans . 864, 896, 897
V. Worth, Be Bridge . 312
Frape, Re . . . [300]
, Exp. Perrett 266, 267, 279
Table of Gases.
cxxui
Fraser, Be ([1904] 1 Ch. 726)
, Yeates v. Eraser
PAGE
1478
1258
• V. Brescia Steam Tram.
Co. . . . 246
• V. Burgess . . . 780
■ V. Byas . . 1926, 1983
■ V. Cooper ... 61
V. Cooper, Hall & Co. 24, 121
V. Ehrensperger . . 389
V. Eraser . 403, 817, 1591
■ V. Jones (5 Ha. 481) 1876,
2034
• V. Kershaw . . 683
- V. Murdook 1131, 1430, 1450,
1595
■ V. Renton, Be Rhodes . 1590
V. Thomas
■ — ■ V. Thompson
— ■ V. Whalley
■ V. Witt
• V. Wood
Pray v. Drew
V. Voules
Frazer v. Jones (17 L.
353) .
■ V. Thompson
. 2171
. 2284
695, 704
. 2303
. 2190
. 1862
. 125
. Ch.
. 2042
. 1033
Freakes' Settlement, Be . . 1778
Freake v. Cranefeldt . 1387, 1389
Freason v. Loe . . 135, 631
Free Church of Scotland v.
Overtoun (L.)
Freeland v. Pearson
■ V. Stansfield
Freeman's Settlements, Be
Freeman, Be .
, Hamilton
Thomas
— — — ■ — V. Butler
V. Cooke .
V. Cox
711, 1260
340, 1511
752, 2112
. 1133
. 1189
V.
■ [10]
. 78, 1875
. 1324
196, 1083, 1313,
1442
V. Freeman . [773]
■ — • V. General Publishing
Co. . . . 798
V. Laing . . . 2034
■ — V. Lomas . 1319, 1588
V. Pennington . . 1425
V. Pope [2280], 2283,
2284, 2286, 2287
V. Tatham . . 99
Freemantle v. Banks . . 1667
Freemen of Sunderland, Exp. . 370
Freer, Be, Freer v. Freer 985, 1558
V. Hesse . 2167, 2169, 2189
Freke v. Calmady, Be Hotchkys
1489, 1653
V. Carbery (L.) . 1520, 1666
Freman, Be, Dimond v. New-
burn ..... 1696
PAGE
Freme's Contract, Be . 166, 332
Freme, Be, Freme v. Logan
(W. N. (91) 113) 1540
, Freme v. Logan
([1894] 1 Ch. 1) 1745,
1774
1). Brade . . . 1935
■ ■ — ■ V. Clement . . . 1559
French, Be, Miller v. Miller,
Love V. Hills . 37
V. Baron . . .1905
■ V. Bombernard . . 1938
— • V. Chichester . . 1476
V. French 1367, 2283, 2284
—v. Hope . . . 2031
— V. Howie . 52, 884, 1531
■ — ■ V. Municipal Perm.
Bldg. Soc. . . . 401, 2059
Frere & Staveley Taylor & Co.,
Be . . . . 821
& Co., and North Shore
Mill Co., Be . . 395
• V. Winslow, Be Winslow 1090,
1450, 1595
Freshfield's Trusts, Be . . 2034
Freshwater, Yarmouth and
Newport Ry. Bill, Exp. [2417]
Freston, Be 432, 460, 1060, 1066
Frewen, Be, Frewen v. Frewen 1558,
1594
— ■ V. James . 1772
V. Frewen . . . 1490
V. Law Life Ass. Soo. 1653,
[1685]
Friary, Holroyd & Healey's
Breweries v. Singleton 1983, 2208
Fricker v. Van Grutten . . 1030
Friedeberg, The . . . 240
Friedheim, Exp., Mitchell v.
Weise . . . .2112
Friend's Settlement, Be . . 1513
Free School, Be, Clib-
born V. O'Brien . 1302
Friend v. SoUy . . 289, 290
■ — V. Young 3326, 1384, 1386,
1446, 2104, 2125
Frinneby v. Latohford [1472, 1487]
Fripp V. Chard Ry. . . 764
Frisby, Be, Allison v. Frisby 1381,
1865
— V. Owen, Be Owen 1497, 1498
Friswell v. King . . . 1039
Frith, Be ([1902] 1 Ch. 342) . 1499
■ ■ , Newton v. Bolfe . 1091
and Osborne, Be . .1801
— V. Cameron 973, [1692], 1696
V. Cartland . . . 1088
. V. Cooke . . . 1919
V. Forbes . . . 2301
CXXIV
Table of Cases.
VAQHS
Frith V. Norfolk (D.) . . 2004
& Sons V. Inland Rev.
Commrs. . . .161
Fritz V. Hobson 1888, 379, 520, 579,
625
Frogley, Re . . . .1511
■ V. Phillips . . 1445
Frost's Settlement, Re . .1186
Frost, Re, Frost v. Frost . 1542
V. Brook . 65, 67, 89
V. Greatorex, Re Travis . 1666
V. Olive Series Pub. Co. . 671
V. Ward 799, 800, [931], 934
Frowde v. Hengler, Re Hengler
1421, 1622
V. Williams . . 2129
Fruer v. Bouquet .
Fruhling v. Sohroeder
Fry V. Capper
■ V. Ernest
V. Fry 1079, 1081
V. Lane .
V. Moore .
V. Noble .
V. Tapson
Fryer, Re
■ • V. Ewart
• V. Royle, Re Royle
■ V. Ward
V. Wiseman .
. 1540
. 1344
. 1676
. 459
, 1314, 1342
2256, 2278
13,14
914, 915
1085, 1105, 1146
1084, 1086, 1120
2307, 2308
121, 1351
. 1554
. 104
Fryman's Estate, Re, Fryman
V. Fryman .... 1407
Fuente, Re . . . . 2329
Fuentes v. Montes . . 1931, 1932
Fuge V. Fuge . . .1540
Fuggle V. Bland . 737, 760, 856
Fuller, Exp., Re Long . 1038, 1039
, Re . . . 1191, 1220
V. Blackpool Winter
Gardens, &o. Co. . 670
— • V. Barle . . . 475
■ V. Green . . . 1404
■ • V. McMahon, Re Mc-
Mahon . . . 1405
V. Redman . . . 1387
• . V. Taylor . [508], 514
Fullerton's Will, iJe . . 1694
Fullerton, Exp. . . [1716]
. • V. Martin . .1652
FuUwood V. FuUwood . 614, 622
Fulton V. Andrew . . . 370
Furber, Exp., Re King . 1869, 1870
. -,Re . . . .305
. v. Cobb . . . 1947
. V. Furber . . .1882
. V. King . 14, 69, 70
• •V.Taylor . . . 2001
Furlong andSheehan, Re . 2166
Furneaux & Hird, Be . . 2200
PAGE
Furness, Re . . . . 1538
Furness Ry. Co. v. Cumberland
Bldg. Soo. . . 2348
V. Davis . [237], 248
. Withey & Co. v. Picker-
ing . . . 20, 21
Furniss v. Mid. Ry. [687], 2353
Furnival v. Bogle . . .124
V. Brooke . . 936
Furnivall v. Hudson . . 1942
Furtado v. Furtado . . 928
Furze v. Hennet . . . 1461
Fusee Vesta Co. v. Bryant and
May 648
Fussell V. Dowding 118, 165, 831,
926, 1419
Futvoye v. Kennard . 459, 1216
. . 123
1062, 1087, 1106,
1108, 1109
Fyfe's Case .
Fyler v. Fyler
Fynn's Case .
Fynn, Re
I^son, Re
G,
. 950
277, 281
955
G., Re, ([1892] 1 Ch. 292)
G., Re, (15 Ch. D. 78) . . 899
G. E. B., a Debtor, Re . . 1321
G. J., Re . . . . 413
G. w. L. . . . 438, [1003]
Gabbett v. Cavendish . 73, 77, 80
Gabriel, iJe . . . .270
Gadd, Re, Eastwood v, Clarke 1148,
1164
V. Mayor of Manchester 631, 635
Gaffee, .Be . . . .871
Gage, Re, Hill v. Gage . 1544, 1677
Gaines v. Arabon . . . 145
Gainsborough v. Watcombe
Terra Cotta Co. 1034, 1503, 2166
Gainsford v. Dunn .
Gairloek, The
Gaitskell, Re .
Galbraith, Re
V. Grimshaw
V. Poynton
Gale, Re, Blake v. Gale
V. Abbot
V. Gale (M. R,
1871) .
V. Gale (6 Ch. D. 144)
1536
. 834
. 260
. 1146
. 481
. 1695
1112, 1387
. 517
25 Feb.,
[1416, 1506]
1626
V. Luttrell
V. Squier
Gall V. Fenwick
Gallagher v, Nugent
• (Fry, J., 7th June,
1877)
. 1319
2171, 2186
1477, 1478
. 85S
Table of Cases.
cxxv
PAGE
Gallagher v. Ferris . . . 1499
GaUand, Be . 488, 1038, 1040,
1041
V. Burton, Re Fawsitt 1, 828
Gallard, Re . . . 1031, 1057
, Exp. Harris . . 304
GaUiers v. Met. Ry. Co. . . 238
Gallop, Be . . . .397
Galloway v. Hope, Be Jump . 1150
V. Key worth . . 40J
— — V. London (Corp. of) 26§,
689, 698
(No. 2). 844
V. Mackersey . [1815]
■ V. Young . [2138]
GaUy, iJe .... 3356
Galmoye v. Cowan . 856, 880
Galton V. Emuss . . .2139
Galwey v. Carleton . [1224]
Gambart v. Sumner . . 669
Gambler v. Gambler . . 1520
Game, Be Game v. Tennent . 872,
1544
■ V. Young 1108,
[1614], 1616
Games, Exp 1050
■ , Re Bamford . 1949
V. Bonner . 2168, [2171]
Gamlen v. Lyon, Re Barrington
546, 574, [1690], 2384
Gammon v. Stone . . . 1877
Guiaston, Rector of , Exp. 1145,
2380, 2400
Gandee v. Stansfield . . 87
Gandy v. Gandy. 50, 919, 920, 921,
922, 2147
■ ■ V. Macauley, Re Gamett
312, 1376,2234,2236
Gann v. Gregory . . . 1356
. V. Johnson . . 152, 845
Gapp V. Bond . . . 1940
Garbutt v. Fawcus . . 797
Gard v. Comm. of Sewers 688, 697,
2354
Garden v. Badcoek . . 774
Gardener v. Ennor 1053, 1054, 1056
V. Fooks . . . 2148
Gardiner, Re (33 Ch. D. 590) 1184,
1187
(W. N. (87) p. 69) 121
, G. V. Smith 1695, 1697
. , Exp. Coulson 856, 863
. • V. Hardy . . 178
■ ■ V. JeUicoe . . 1655
V. Young . . 1541
Gardner, Be, Long v. Gardner . 1446
— (No. 2) . 828
— ■ V. Blane . . 741, 954
V. Broadbent . . 631
PAGE
Gardner v. Charing Cross Ry.
Co. . . . 2364
V. Cowles 1180, 1181, 1211
• V. Dangerfiold . . 80
V. Ennor 1053, 1054, 1056
V. Fremantle . . 712
V. Hodgson's Kingston
Breweries Co. . 580
— V. Irvin . . 74, 90
V. Jay . . 145, 361
V. Lawrence . [1577]
■ — V. L. C. & D. Ry. 81, 753,
764, 770, 1970, 1998, 2003
, Grissell's Case
1998, 2003
V. Marshall . . 910
V. Tapling . . 178
V. Townshend (M.) . 275
V. Walsh . . . 2083
Gardener's Trusts, Be 1206, 1218,
1220
Gare, Be ... . 2316
Gare's Patent, Be . . . 648
Garey v. Whittingham . . 1465
Garfitt V. AUen . . 1536, 1898
Garland, Exp. . 1131, 1498, 1499
V. Littlewood . . 1121
— • V. Mead . . . 1210
V. Oram ... 85
V. RadclifEe . . 2240
GarUck v. Jackson . . .1914
■ V. Leslie . . [1416]
V. Locke . . . 763
Garhng v. Royds . . .361
Garmeson, Be, Garmeson v.
Sharrod . . . [237]
Garmstone v. Gaunt . . 942
Garner v. Briggs . . 1363, 2000
V. Hannyngton . . 1698
V. Murray . . .2110
Games, Be, Games v. Applin 946,
[1075]
Garnett's Case . . . 1000
Garnett, Be, Gandy v. Macaulay
312, 1376, 2234, 2236
, Robinson v. Gandy
1631, 2236
, Orme, & Hargreave, Be
1149, 1663, 1756, 1757
V. Inland Rev. Com. . 159
Garnham v. Skipper 1314, 1350, 2044
Garrard, Be, Gordon v. Craigie
1302, 1306
V. Dinorben (L.) . 1365
V. Edge 99, 249, 253, 646,
653
V. Franckel 2235, 2237
2238
V. Meek . . . 1942
CXXVl
Table- of Cases.
PAGE
Garratt v. Lanoefield . . 1465
■ ■ — V. Rankin . . [1923]
Garrett v. Banstead Ry. . 515
V. Noble . 1120, 1121, 1497
— • V. Sal. & D. Ry. . . 690
• V. Watson . . [2054]
Garrod, Be . . . .1185
Garrud, Re, Exp. Newitt . 1939
Garstang Sch., Be . . . 1263
Garth v. Cotton . . 540, 546
V. To-wnsend . . 1676
Gartside, Be . . . .1186
V. Outram . 83, 91, 95
■ V. Silkstone & Dods-
worth Coll. Co. . . 1967, 2030
Garwood, Be ... 2107
Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Towse
1695, 2206
Gascoyne, Be . . . 951
Gaselee, Be . . [2355], 2360
GaskeU & Walter, Be . . 1586
, Exp. (2 Ch. D. 360) . 2404
, Re ([1894] 1 Ch. 485 [1777]
{11 Jur. N. S. 786) 869
V. Bayley . . 600, 601
■ V. Chambers . . 92
V. Gaskell . . . 1800
V. Holmes . . 1419
Gaskin v. Balls 512, 518, 520, 2155,
2157
V. Rogers . . . 1569
1084, 1085
. 1302
. 2162
. 1632
. 568
. 1374
Gasquoine, Re
Gassiot, Be .
Gaston v. Frankum
Gataker v. Reynardson
Gateley v. Martin .
Gates V. Williams .
Gateshead (M. of) v. Hudspeth,
Be Hewitt .... 1302
Gathercole v. Norfolk, Re JoUy
1381, 1867
V. Smith 756, 1320, 1931
Catling Gun Co., Re . . 2431
Gatti V. Webster . . .181
Gaudet Freres Steamship Co.,
Be ... . 127, 377
Gaulard & Gibbs, Be . . 2325
V. Lindsay [647], 648
Gaunt V. Fynney . . 600, 603
. V. Taylor 1130, 1132, 1403,
1448, 2002
Gay V. Hancock
V. Labouohere
Gayford v. Moffat .
Gaze, Exp., Be Lane
Geoke v. Ross
Gcarns v. Baker
V. Smith
Geary-, Re
98, 466
. 69
. 579
. 1384
. 1344
534, 541
[1891]
1252, 1253
PAGE
Geary v. Newton . . . 622
Geddis v. Bann Reservoir 603, 609
Gedge v. Traill . . . 1503
Gedling Rectory, Re . . 2403
Gedney, Re, Smith v. Grummitt 1321
Gedge, Be (15 Beav. 254) 270, 275
V. Commrs. of Works 2189,
2384
— — V. Matson . . 1859, 2089
Gee, Be (64 L. J. Ch. 606) . 1773
, Laming v. Gee . . 835
V. Atherton . . [764]
V. Bell 1, 172, 178, 312, 738
— v.Gee. . . . 932
V. Liddell . . . 1587
V. Mahood [1117], 1450, 1455,
1573
V. Pearse
V. Pritchard
Geifel's Patent, Be
GeiUnger v. Gibbs
. 2155
. 673
2325
131, [1028], 1029,
1030
Geipel, Re . . . .648
Geisse v. Taylor . . . 480
Geldard v. Hornby . 1913, 1914
V. Randall . . .331
Gelderd, Re, Gelderd v. Logan [1506]
General Accident Assur. Corp.
Re ... . 1186, 1213
General Accident Assur. v. Noel 531
General Auction Co. v. Smith . 1966
General Council of Bar v. Inland
Rev. Commrs. . . . 161
General Credit & Discount Co.
V. Glegg 1832, 1856, 1906, 1909,
1926, 1983
General Estate Co., Re [234], 1927
General Exchange Bank, Re . 1050
General Exchange Bank v.
Horner . . 458, 678, 679
Gteneral Finance, &c. Co. v.
Liberator Bldg. Soc. . . 356
Gteneral Furnishing, &c. Co. v.
Venn .... 1940
General Horticultural Co., Be,
Exp. Whitehouse . . 479, 480
General Horticultural Co., Be . 480
General Industrial Syndicate, Be 2436
General Prov. Co. . . . 3965
Gteneral Railway Syndicate, Be,
Whiteley's Case . . . 2264
General Service Co-operative
Co., Be . . . .797
General Share Trust Co. v. Wet-
ley Brick, &c. Co. . . 185
General South American Co.,
Be . [1956], 1965, 1968, 1969
General Steam Navigation Co.
V. Bolt . . . 2084
Table of Cases.
cxxvii
General Works Co., Re Gill's
Case .....
Genery v. Fitzgerald
Genese, Be, Exp. District Bk.
of London
, Exp. Gilbert
■ V. LasceUes
1321
970
881
96
818
Da
161
Genforsikrings &c. Co.
Costa
Gent and Eason'a Contract, Be
1147, 1556
— — , Be, Gent-Davis v. Harris
469, 782
. 545, 546
. 1520
. 2307, 2309
1445, [1760]
V. Harrison
Gtentili, Be
Gentle v. Faulkner
George, Be
King V. George
■ V. Clagett .
• V. Grose, Be West
1554
1323
. 1539
George Newman & Co., Be . 1093
Gepp V. Majendi . . . 1841
Gerard, Be ([1906] W. N. 21) . 1560
V. Penswick . . 83
(Ld.) and L. & N. W.
Ry. Co 571
Gerard's (L.) Settled Estates, Be 1778
Gerhard v. Montague & Co. . 496
Gterm Milling Co. v. Robinson [645],
646, 653
German v. Chapman . . 535
Gerrard v. Dawes . 485, 1045, 1046
Gerson v. Simpson . . . 1335
Gertrude, The . . .793
Gerty v. Mann . . 278, 1041
Gestetner's Trade Mark, Be 2330,
2331, 2333, 2338
. 1554
. 2315
1340, 1341,
1342
. 1086
. 906
2329, 2342
. 2303
. 172
1478, 1606
. 769
G6thin V. Allen
Gething, Be .
V. Keighley
Ghost V. Waller
Giaoometti v. Prodgers
GianaeU, Be .
Gibbes, Exp.
Gibbings v. Strong
Gibbins v. Eyden .
V. HoweU .
V. Met. Asylum Bd. . 2144
• V. N. E. Met. Asylum
District . .2169
V. Taylor . . . 1086
Gibbon's (John) Trusts, Be .1169
Will, Be . . . 1159
Gibbon, Be, Moore v. Gibbon . 916
■ V. Campbell, Hoskins v.
CampbeU . [796]
• — • V. Paddington Vestry . 697
■ V. Walker . . .883
Gibbons v. Buckland
V. Eyden .
V. Fletcher
V. Kibbey
PAGE
. 423
. 1606
. 756
893, 895
Gibbs, Be ([1907] 1 Ch. 465) . 1554
V. Cruiokshank . 1893, 1895
— V. Daniel 841, 843, 1056, 2255
V. David . . 746, 753
V. Flight . . . 2000
V. Guild . . .1385
— — - V. Hale-Hinton, Be Hil-
ton .. . 1147
V. Harding [919], 920, 2137
V. Haydon . . . 1804
V. Ongier . . . 2022
V. Phillipson . . 460
V. Sidney . 2244, [2245]
Gibert v. Gonard . . . 1091
Giblan ^..National, &c.|Labourers
Union . . . .601
Gibney v. Clayton. . . 81
Gibson, Be . . . 1026, 1386
V. Bott 1446, 1568, 1614,
1617, 1618, 1619
V. Carrathers . . 2303
• V. D'Este . . . 2252
V. Evans ... 85
— V. Fisher . . . 1531
— V. Gibson . . . 916
V. Hammersmith Ry.
Co. . . 2354, 2393
V. Ingo . . . 1035
V. Jeyes 1056, 2255, 2256,
2273
V. Kinven . . . 163
- V. May
• V. Montfort (L.)
- V. Seagrim .
■ V. Styles
• V. Way, Re Currey 869, 1632
V. WeUesley
V. WooUard
Giffard, Exp.
— • V. Hort
— V. Williams
1039
1609
2022
[1472]
1905
329
2080
824
1802
[1833], 2045
GifEord V. Fitzhardinge
Gilbert, Exp., In re Genese
; Be ([1898] 1 Q. B. 282)
1368, 1467
, Gilbert v. Huddle-
stone . . . 820
V. Aviolet . . . 1489
— V. Comedy Opera Co. . 104
■ V. Cooper . . . 1062
■ V. Deneley . . . 740
V. Endean 109, 125, 150,
161, 208, 408, 836, 2235
— ■ V. Guignon . . 287
— ■ V, Lewis . . .859
OXXVlll
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Gilbert v. Overton . . . 1629
V. Russell . . 182, 351
■ V. Smith (V.-C. M., Jan.,
31, 1877) . [100]
(2 Ch. D. 686)
179, 353, 828, 1784, [1795],
1805
V. Whitfield . . 1677
Gilbey v. Rush . . 1767, 1768
Gilchrist, Exp., Re Armstrong . 876
Educational Trust, Be
[1274], 1280, 1281
V. Cator . . 909, 910
V. Herbert . 157, 1626
Giles, Be . . 1155, 1160, 1450
, Jones V. Pennefather
1467, 1470
• ; Real and Personal
Advance Co. v. Mit-
chell 312, 313, 822, 1421,
1836, 2037
-, Ellen, Be
■ V. Hart .
■ V. L. C. & D. Ry.
■ V. Nuttall
V. Walker
Gill's Case
Gill, Be
■ V. Continental Gas Co. . 475
V. Dickenson . . 569, 570
896
524, 528
687, 2354,
2393
. 754
. 1099
. 599
. 1321
1215, 1216
1481, 1905, 1935
. 1875
V. Downing
V. Eyton
■ V. Newton
■ V. Woodfin
Gillam v. Taylor
Gillebrand, Exp.
Gillespie, Be, Exp. Reid & Co,
• Robarts
• V. Alexander
719
172
1301
370
1321,
1406
1377,
1405
1379, 1592,
1593
. 2464
. 1186
. 1509
392, 393 2097,
2113
Gillette Safety Razor Co. v.
Gamage . . . [355]
Gillette Safety Razor v. Luna
Gillett, Exp. .
■ , Be .
■ V. Gane
■ V. Thornton
Safety Razor
Gilliat V. Gilliat
GiUiatt V. GiUiatt .
GiUibrand v. Goold
Gilliland v. Crawford
V. Newton
Gillingham v. Beddow
[647]
330
2152
1666
1695
[1225], 1234
[681], 2127
PAGE
GDhngs V. Fletcher, Be Fletcher 1538
Gillins, Be ([1909] 1 Ch. 345) . 1554
Gillis V. Gillis . . . 1520
Gillott V. Ker . . .180
GilHs, Be ... . 1000
Gilpin V. Cohen . . . 460
Gilroy v. Stephen [1074], 1097, 1124
Gilson, Be, G. v. G. . 20, 21
Gingell v. Stepney Boro. Council 594
Ginn v. Robey . . .291
Ghaud, Be . . . .1190
Girdlestone v. Creed . . 1296
V. Lavender . . 1847
Gisborne v. Gisborne . 966, 1148
Gist, Be . . . .984
Gittins, Exp., Be Pranks . 72
Gjers, Be, Cooper v. Gjers 1465, 1696
Gladdon v. Stoneman . .751
Gladstone, Be . . .1762
Gladstone v. Gladstone . 925, 926
Gladwin v. Gladwin . [120]
Glamorgan Cty. CI. v. G. W.
Ry. Co 291
Glamorganshire Bank, Be, Mor-
gan's Case .... 81
Glannibanta, The . . .836
Glanvill, Be . . . .480
■ , Ellis V. Johnson 851,
869, 870, 871, 1115
Glanville's Trusts, Be . . 1213
Glasbrook v. David . . 418
■ V. Richardson 2153, 2156
Glascodine, Be . . . 277
Glascott V. Lang . . .517
Glasdir Copper Mines, Be 740, [764],
1880, 1884
Glasgow (Provost of) v. Parie . 571
Glasier «;. RoUs 188,297,834,2247,
2261
Glasson, Be, Glasson v. Glasson 353
Glazbrook v. Gillat . 372, 486
Gleadon v. Leetham . .1571
Gleaves v. Marriner . . 1377
V. Paine . . .822
Gledhill v. Hunter . 2, 1422, 1802
Gledstone, Be . . . 207
Gledstanes, Be, Gledstanes v.
Croydon . . . [1395]
Gleeson v. Byrne . . .915
Glen V. Gregg . . . 1277
Glencross v. Pulman [1887], 1906
Glenfield, Be, Glenfield v. Glen-
field .... [141]
Glengall v. Barnard . .1617
■ V. Eraser ... 73
Glenister v. Harding, Be Turner 153
Glenny and Hartley, Be . .1166
— ■ V. Smith . . 627, 684
Glenorohy (L.) v. Bosville . 1652
Table of Gases.
cxxix
PAGE
Glenton, iJe .... 2165
Gloag & Miller, Re 2162, 2168, 2195
Globe, &o. Co., iJe . . . 829
Insoe. Co., Be . . 1965
— ■ Iron and Steel Co., Be . 1965
Glossington, Be . . , 1553
Qiossop V. Harrison . . 775
V. Heston, &c. Local
Board . . 104, 609, 610
Gloucester Bank (County of) v.
Rudry Methyr Coll.
Co. . . 746, 749
Bkg. Co. V. Rudry
Coal Co. . . 735
— Char., Be 1264, 1265,
1266
(Corp. of) V. Wood 841,
1452
— (Dean of), Exp. . 2389
Gloucestershire Banking Co. v.
Phillips . . . 146, 855
Glover, Be . . . .983
— V. Giles • . . 2056, 2246
— • V. Greenbank Alkali Co. 815
^j;. HaU ... 86
• V. Hartcup . . . 1668
V. Heehs . . . 1489
• V. Reynolds . . 494
Glubb, iJe .... 2247
Gluekstein v. Barnes 703, 1334,
2265, 2268, 2269
Glyn, Exp., Aberdare Ry. Co. [2392]
, Mills & Co. V. E. & W.
India Docks Co. 2153, 2303
V. Caulfield . . 78, 89, 92
V. Duesbury . . . 495
Glynn v. Houston . . . 2241
V. Locke . . 493, 498
Goatly V. Jones 244, 875, 876, 969
Godard v. Gray . . . 1523
Godber v. Lawrie . . . 894
Goddard v. Jeffreys . 2150, 2162
V. Thompson . 792, 843
V. Whyte . 2087, 2089
Godden, Be, league v. Fox . 1622
V. Corsten ... 41
V. Hythe Burial Board . 704
Godfrey's Trusts, Be . 1208, 1210
Godfrey, Be . . . .282
, Thome George v.
Godfrey [849], 851, 852
V. Bryan, Be Bryan . 906
V. Burkill, Be BurkiU . [447]
V. Palkner, Be Godfrey. 1105
V. George . . 408, 2001
V. Harben, Be Harvey's
Estate . . . 1607
V. Littel . . . 1823
V. Poole . 2004, 2284, 2290
VOL I.
Godfrey v. Tucker
— ■ V. Watson
Godkin v. Murphy
Godlee v. James
Godsman v. Nattrass
Godson V. Higginson
Godwin v. Prince, Be Prince
PAGE
. 2000
1881, 1905, 2005
. 1507
[2047]
[1517]
[2137]
1449,
1451
V. Schweppes . • 562
Goe, Be .... 2403
Gold, Be . . 281, 824, 825
V. Brennan, Be Steele . 1183
— ■ — • Coast Trust, &c. Co. v.
Electric Tram. Sjoidi-
cate . . . [454]
Reefs of Western Australia
V. Dawson . 130, [1029], 1030
Goldberg, Exp. . . . 1022
V. Liverpool Corpora-
tion 297
Golden v. Gillam, Be Johnson . 2284
Golder v. Golder . . .796
Goldicutt V. Townsend . 1626, 1628
Golding, Davis & Co., Exp., Be
Knight . . 2303
V. Wharton, &c. Co. 822, 823
Goldney v. Bower . . . 1084
V. Crabb . . . 1621
Goldring, Be, Groldring v. Gold-
ring . . [338]
V. Lancaster, Be Orm-
ston .... 248, 1449
Golds & Norton, Be . . 2181
Goldschmidt v. J'ones . . 2297
Goldsmid, Re, Exp. Taylor . 2288
V. Stonehewer . . 1859
V. The Great Eastern
Ry. Co. . [593], 594
— — ■ V. Tunbridge Wells
Commrs. . 442, 608, 609, 612
Goldsmith v. Goldsmith . . 444
V. RusseU 1394, 1404, 2287
Goldstone v. Williams, Deacon
& Co 92
Goldsworthy's Case . 996, 998
Gombault, Be . . . 374
Gomm V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. . 1150
Gonty and M. S. & L. Ry. Co.,
Be ... . 2348, 2351
Gooch's Case . 66, 72, 945
Gooch, Be . . . 2383, 2400
V. Clutterbuck . . 21
■ ■ — ■ V. Haworth . . 744
V. Lea, . . [1002]
• — — ■ — ■ V. London Banking As-
sociation . . 703
Good, Exp 2127
, Re Harington v. Watts 1300,
1303
cxxx
Table of Cases.
Good, Ee Lee
■ • V. Blewitt
Goodacre v. Goodaore
Goodall's Settlement, Be
Goodall, Re .
V. Little
Goodbarne v. Fothergill,
PAGE
. 1407
1351, 1593
[1789]
. 1782
2336, 2338
83,92
, Re
. 833
Barker
Goodghap p. Boberts, Re
Roberts . . 1344, 1345, 1870
Goodchild v. Dougal . . 899
■ V. Terrett . .1362
Goodden v. Coles . . . 1859
Goods, iJe . . . .751
■ • V. Job . . 1384, 1868
■ V. Licorish, Re Bullock 1149
■ ■ V. West . . . 1156
Goodenough, Re, Marland v.
Williams . .1622
V. Goodenough . 914
GoodfeUow v. Gray
■ V. Prince
Goodhart v. Hyett
Goodier v. Edmunds
V. Johnson
■ V. Lake
Gooding v. Bead .
Goodlock V. Cousins
Goodman's Trusts, Re
Will, Re
252, 482,
1050
620, 621, 626
. 240, 586
1150, 1489,
1542, 1543
. 1542
. 2230
. 1543
. 503
. 1520
. 1153
498, 503
1520, 1531
. 1837
516, 543, 1893
591,
Goodman v. Blake .
■ V. Goodman
V. Grierson
V. Kine .
■ ■ V. Mayor of Saltash
1255, 1300, 1303
• ■ V. Bobinson . . 478
. V. Witoomb . 751, 752
Goodright v. Moses . . 2290
Goodson V. Biohardson . 519, 520,
[548], 552
. 1511
. 1313
. 1079
. 1071
[2068], 2077
[336]
. 2038
Goold, Re, Goold v. Goold . 119
. V. league . . 1488, 1555
Goose V. Bedford . 595, [597], 601
Gophir Diamond Co. v. Wood . 530
Gordon, Exp. . . 2120, 2125
. ■ V. Calvert . . . 2083
■ V. Cheltenham By. 514, 517
V. Craigie, Be Garrard 1302,
1306
Goodwin's Trust, Re
Goodwin v. Clewley
V. Fielding
■ V. Gosnell
V. Gray .
■ V. Lanceman
• V. Bobarts
Gordon v. Gordon (3 Swa. 478) 163,
1633
— V. Gordon {[1904] P. 163) 85
V. James . . 1991, 2031
V. Jennings . . 479
V. Kensington Vestry . 697
— V. Merricks . . 885
V. Pym . . . 1331
— — ■ — ■ V. Silber . . . 862
■ V. Street . . . 2151
• V. Swan . . . 1343
— V. Trail . . . 1134
■ V. Woods, Re Luxmore . 434
Gordon Ives' Trusts, Re . [1237]
Gore V. Knight . . . 865
V. Stacpoole
Gore-Langton, Be
. 348
374, 2362, 2363,
2401, 2403
Gornall, Be . . . .952
Gorringe v. Irwell, &c. Co 1405,
1927, 1989
V. Land Improvement
Soe 2140
Gort (V.) V. Clark . . .599
V. Bowney . . 252
Gosford (E.) v. Irish Land Com-
mission .... 846
Gosling, Be . . . . 1301
• • V. Gaskell . . 743, 774
V. Gosling { Joh. 265) . 357
V. Gosling (V.-C. M.,
12 July, 1875, A.
2209) . . [1794]
■ • V. Woolf . . . 2208
Goslings and Sharpe v. Blake . 341
V. Blake . . . 2182
Gosman, Re . . . 1585, 1595
Gosnell v. Bishop . . 379, 509
's Case, Barnardo v.
815, 818, 999
. 1489
. 827
. 1838
. 1643
1935, 2049
. 663
Ford
Gosselin, Re .
Gossett V. Campbell
Gossip V. Wright .
Gossling, Re .
Gottlieb V. Cranch .
Goubaud v . Wallace
Gouoher v. Clayton . . 467
Goudie, Re, Exp. Official Be-
ceiver .... 738
Gough's Trusts, Re . 2402, 2403
Gough V. Bage . . . 1215
V. Bult . . . 1447
V. Offley ... 78
V. Wood . . . 1951
Gould, Re, Exp. Official Be-
ceiver .... 1409
Goulder v. Camm . . . 860
Gouldings' Settlement, Re . 1426
Gouldsmith V. Luntley . . 1444
TaUe of Cases,
cxxxi
Goulter V. Pearoe .
Goulton V. Lond., &c. Co.
Gourand v. Edison Co. .
Gouthwaite v. Gouthwaite
• V. Rippon
PAGE
[22]
[691]
94
[385]
612
836, 2266
Gover's Case
Governesses' Inst. v. Rusbridger
1083, 1443
Government Stocks Inv. Co. Ld.,
Re 2441
Government Stocks Inv. Co. Ld.,
Re (No. 2) . . . . 2441
Government Stocks Inv. Co. v.
Manila Ry. Co. . . . 1969
Gow V. Forster . . . 2134
Gowan, Re, Gowan v. Gowan . 905,
907, 1653
, Re, Exp. Barclay . 1951
V. Broughton . 1450, 1605
V. Christie . . . 2150
Gower v. Postmaster-General . 532
. 406
. 1883
1109, 1927
1325, 1622
1228, 2218
667, 668
. 1631
. 399
. 246
. 860
■ ■ V. Tobitt .
Gowing V. Mowberry
Goy & Co., Re
Grabowski, Re
Grace v. Baynton .
V. Newman .
Grafftey v. Humpage
Grafham v. TurnbuU
Grafton v. Watson
Graham's Trusts, Re
Graham, Exp., Re Blackburn
Bldg. Soc. . . 2050
, Re . . . .950
; Baldwin v. Graham
[1399]
, Graham v. Noakes
771, 775
V. Campbell 509, 510, 516,
819, 838
V. Chapman . . 1949
V. Clinton . . . 1810
■ V. Cole [1790], 1790, 1809,
1810
1380, 1594
133, 798
- V. Drummond
- V. Edge
- V. Graham 924, 1166, 1373
- V. Halliday, Re Dunn [772]
- V. Londonderry . . 860
- V. Massey, Re Haw-
thorne 723, 1524, 1835,
2142
- V. Maxwell . .721
-w. M'CuUock . .2110
- V. Needham . . 2228
- V. Noakes, Re Graham 771,
775
• V. O'Connor . . 2296
■ V. Paternoster . . 1305
PAOB
Graham v. Sutton, Garden & Co.
[56], 82, 132
«. Wickham .1130,1365
V. Works, &c. Commrs.
383, 1332
V. Wroughton . . 609
Grahame v. Swan . . . 526
Grainge, Exp. . . . 2363
V. Warner . . 488
Grand Canal Co. v. M'Namee . 545
Grand Hotel Co. of Caledonian
Springs v. Wilson . . 627
Grand Junet. Can. v. Shugar . 583
Grand Junction Waterworks v.
Hampton U. D. Council 245, 694,
798
Grane v. Cooper ... 80
Grange, Re, Chadwiok v. Grange 983
• V. Sturdy, Re Haseldine 1510
■ V. White . . 897, 1806
Grant, Bulcraig & Co., Re . 268
, Exp., Re Macdonald . 2078
Plumby 2299, 2300
, Re . . . .895
■. Wales V. JeSerys . [10]
■ — , Walker v. Mar-
tineau . 1573, 1620
V. Anderson . . 12, 13
V. Banque Pranco-Egyp-
tienne 31, 32, 840, 841,
843, 844
V. Ellis . . . 1381
V. Gold Exploration Syn-
dicate 1333, 2268,
2269
V. Grant (34 Beav. 623) 881,
1376
■ V. Grant (V.-C. E., Mch.
20, 1840) . . 1587
• V. Grant (L.-C, June 24,
1828) . . . 1007
V. Grant (L. R. 5 C. P.
380, 727) . . 1509
V. Heysham, Re Mihie . 1508
V. Holland . . . 1035
V. Roy. Ex. Assur. Co. . 1320
V. Yea . . . 1715
Grason, Re, Exp. Taylor . 2129
Grassi, Re ... . 1355
Gratrix v. Chambers . 1570, 1579
Gravatt v. Tann, Re Tann . 1448
V. Tann . . . 934
Graveley v. Winchester . . 682
Gravely v. Barnard . 524, 2140
Gravenor, Re . . [1715]
Graves v. Ashford . . . 668
V. Gorrie . . . 666
V. Hicks . . 1651, 2049
V. Terry . . .172
cxxxu
Table of Cases.
PAQE
Graves v. Wright . 1360, 2187
Gray, Exp 1068
,Re{Y.-G. E., Aug. 8,
1836) . [972]
(20 L. T. 730) . . 1030
-([1901] 1 Ch. 239)281, 1065
■ — ; Akers v. Sears . 1514
■ , Dresser V. Gray . 1558
• ; Gray v. Cole . . 1030
V. Adamson . . . 1882
• • V. Baddeley, Re Seabrook 1426,
1427
V. Bell .
V. Bonsall
■ V. Campbell
■ V. Chlswell
■ V. Hopper
V. Johnston
■ V. Lewis
V. Mathias
V. N. East. Ey. Co,
V. Paull
V. Seckham
■ V. Siggers
■ ■ V. Smith
• V. Stone
• V. Webb
Grayburn v. Clarkson
. 940
. 2308
. 465
. 1378
. 805
. 1479
695, 1095, 1334
. 2291
. 2350
. 943
. 2077
1107, 1108, 1616,
1618
684, 2135, 2140, 2145
. 2021
[35], 40
1107, 1502,
1617
Graydon, Be . . , . 1718
Grays, Re ... . 955
Grayson, Re . . . . 1511
Great Australian, &c. Co. v.
Martin .... 18
Great Britain Mutual Life Ass.
Soc, Be . . . [387]
G. E. Ry. Co. V. Lord's Trustee
1928, 1939
V. Goldsmid
■ V. Turner
594
. 1092
Great Laxey Mining Co. v.
Clague . . . .573
Great Luxembourg Ry. v. Mag-
nay . . . 89, 1093, 1334
G. N. Ry. Co., Exp. . . 2420
and Sanderson, Re .
332, 2168
V. Clarence Ry. . 520
V. Coal Co-operative
Soc. . . 1948, 1965
V, Inland Rev. Comm.
159, 161, 670
■ V. Manch. Ry. [442], 622
■ V. Tahourdin . 420, 756
V. Witham . . 2149
Great Ship Co., Be . . 482
Great Torrington Commons
Conser. v. Moore Stevens , 588
PAGE
G. W. Colliery Co. v. Tucker . 84
G. W. Forest of Dean Coal Co.,
Carter's Case . . . 1062
G. W. Ins. Co. V. Cunliffe 1315, 1331,
1333, 1345
G. W. Ry. V. Bennett . . 570
— — V. Birm., &c. Ry. . 575
V. Blades . .571
V. CarpaUa United
China Clay Co. 564,
569, 571
■ — — V. Cefn and Cribbwr
Brick Co. . 571
— ■ — — V. Inland Rev.
Commrs. . . 159
• — — V. Rushout . . 697
— V. Smith . . 571
V. Swindon, &c. Ry.
Co. 698, 2354, 2392,
2393
■ V. Talbot . . 678
• V. Waterf ord & Li-
merick Ry. Co. . 784, 785, 786
G. W. Steamship Co., Re . 2436
Great Wheal Polgooth Co., Re
1335, 2265
Great Yeldham Glebe, Re . 2399
Created v. Greated . . 1477
Greatheed, Re . . . 780
Greatorex v. Shackle . . 493
Greaves' Settled Estates, Re . 1665
Settlement, Re . . 1556
Greaves, Exp. . . 1081, 1092
, Be ([1904] 2 K. B.
493) . . 1409, 2125
, Bray v. Tofield 121,
1351, 1388
V. E. C. Ry.
— V. Hicks
V. Keene
V. Smith
V. Tofield
V. Wilson
Greedy v. Lavender
. 663
. 1676
. 466
. 1108
2040, 2049
. 2165
249, 910, 1449,
1455
Green's Application, Be . . 2324
Green and Balfour, Be . 389, 398
, Be (2 Col. 91) . . 1164
— (2 D. E. & J. 121) . 1464
— ( 1 Eq. 288) . . 1514
■ (W. N. (95) 69) . 747
— ([1904] W. N. 73, 105) 1405
— ; Baldook v. Green 1475,
1573, 1609
•, Green v. Green . 1052
■ V. Badley . . .1121
V. Bailey . . . 2230
V. Bennett . . 146, 367
V. Briggs . 292, 1847, 1884
Table of Cases.
cxxxiu
PAGE
Green v, Britten , 859, 1146, [1293,
1548, 1551], 1553, 1618
■ V. Busby . . . 1450
V. Gasooyne . . . 1666
V. Green . . 866, 1589
V. Hackney Corp. . . 697
V. Howell . . .2108
■ V. Humphreys 1326, 1384, 1868
■ V. Ingham . . . 1934
■ V. Knight . . .487
V. Lucas . . . 1336
■ V. Lyon . . . 862
V. Marsh . . 1894, 1937
V. Measures . . . 1423
V. Monks , . . 2162
■ V. Moore . . . 180
V. Otte . . 906, 910
V. Paterson . . 1626, 1718
V. Penzance (L.) . . 192
V. Pertwee . . . 1514
■ V. Pledger . . .378
V. Pulsford . . .517
V. Sevin . 179, 2156, 2190
V. Smith, Be Smith . 1405
V. Smith . . . 2154
V. Thompson . . 943
V. Todd . . 664, 671
V. Weaver ... 97
V. Wynn . . 1863, 2086
Greenaway v. Adams . .2155
Greene v. Poster . 1838, 1883, 1921
V. West Cheshire By. Co.
2141, [2211]
Greener v. E. Kahn & Co. . 30
Greenfield v. Edwards . 2035, 2083
V. Reay . . 96
Greenhalgh v. Brindley . .2189
V. Manch. Ry. 515, 549
Greenhill v. Church . . 398
■ V. N. British, &c. Ins.
Co. . . . 862, 865, 946
Greening v. Beckford . . 487
V. Bedford . . 1928
■ ■ V. Reeder . . 261
Greenlaw v. King ... 90
Greenlay v. Nevile, Fawcett v.
Neville . .
Greenlees, Re
Greenough v. Gaskell
V. Littler
- V. M'Clelland
• V. Shorrock
127
. 2343
89, 91, 94
1836, 1846,
[1978]
. 2085
. 883
1751, 1752
. 245
Greenville's Estate, Re
Greenwell v. Howell
V. Low Beecham Coal
Co 568,569
V. Porter . 704, 1079,
1149, 2154
PAGE
Greenwich Herbage Rents, Re 1261,
2050
Greenwood, Re
1206
([1903] 1 Ch.
749) . 1541,
, Greenwood v.
Greenwood .
-, Sutcliffe V.
GledhiU
Algeciras Ry.
1656
1536
479
755
Co.
— • V. Beaver, Re Foster
[1402]
■ V. Evans . . 1704
V. Francis . . 2086
■ — — ■ V. Greenwood (6 W.
R. 119) . 72, 73, 84
V. Greenwood (V.-C.
S., 16 Nov. 1857,
A. 743) [1589]
V. Greenwood (2 D.
J. & S. 28) . 1633
■ — • V. Horsey . 559, 562
?;. Humber . .117
V. Leather Shod
Wheel Co. . 2262
V. Penny . . 1378
V. Percy . 1818, 1820
V. RothweU . . 1875
V. Sutcliffe [1854], 1877
V. Taylor . . 1851
V. Turner 2184 [2223]
V. Wakeford . 1165
Greer, Re, Napper v. Fanshawe 422,
1092
V. Young . 1046, 1047, 1051
Greerside v. Benson . . 2075
Greetham v. Colton . 1480, 1481
Gregg, Re (9 Eq. 137) . 110, 273,
466, 1062, 1070
(10 W. R. 127) . 278
V. Arrott . . .1898
— V. Glover . . .348
V. Holland, Re HoUand . 905,
2286
.V. Silber . . .643
• V. Slater
■ V. Taylor
Grove v.
som .
Gregory, Re . . . [948]
V. Gregory . . 912
V. Mighell . . . 2157
V. Molesworth . . 935
V. Patchett . . 699
V. Serle, Re Serle . 2309
■y. Wilson . . . 2134
Gregson's Trusts, Re . . 2408
Gregson, Re (34 Ch. D. 209) . 1168
. 1876
270, 1514
San-
. 270
CXXXlV
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Gregson, Be ([1893] 3 Ch. 233) 1176,
1177, 1213, 1219
— — — — ■ — -, Christison v. Bolam
1319, 2046
— — — - and Armstrong, Be . 398
Greig V. Somerville 1379, 1592, 1693
V. Univ. of Edinburgh . 1308
1620
157
756,
1930
30
131
Greisley v. E. Chesterfield 1617,
Grenfell v. Commrs. of Inland
Revenue
V. Dean of Windsor
Grepe, Exp., Be Grepe .
V. Loam, Bulteel v. Grepe
Gresham v. Price . . 1134, 1453
Gresley's Settlement, Be, Wil-
loughby V. Drummond . 1508
Gresley v. Adderley . 765, 1898
V. Mousley . 72, 86, 91, 94,
164, 546, 1055, 1058, 2274
Greswolde- Williams v. Barneby
2196, 2220
Gretton v. Haward . . 1529
Greville's Settlement, Be . 301
Greville v. Brown . . . 1536
Grey (E.) v. Durham, Be E. of
Durham . . 2310
■ V. Grey, Be Marquis
of Bristol . . 1666
H. A., Be . 773, 1060, 1062
Be, Aoason v. Greenwood 869
u. Curtice . . 301,302
Grey Coat Sch. v. Westm. Impt.
Commrs. .... 340
Grey's Court Estate, Be . . 1780
Greyvensteyn v. Hattingh . 589
Grezier v. Ziemer . . [614]
Gribble v. Tucker . [1464], 1557
Grieb's Case . . 290, 292, 296
Grier v. Grier . . . 1653
Grierson v. Cheshire Lines Com-
mittee .... 2139
Griessemann v. Garr, Be Mackay 1111
Grifan, Exp., Be Adams . 252, 1050
— Bunyard . 1377
,Be . . . .987
, Grifan v. Griffin 1172,
1366, 1504, 1561, 1629
• V. Allen . . 833, 839
' V. Coleman . . 2147
V. Griffin . . 1116, 1122
Griffith, Exp., Be Wilcoxon . 2288
Be, Carr v. Griffith 1557,
1699
, Be, Jones v. Owen 1128,
1403, 1448
■ -, Jones & Co., Be 279, 1876,
1878
V. Blake . . .510
Griffith V. Griffith
V. Heaton
■ V. Hughes
V. Morgan
V. Owen
PAGE
768, 775
. 2182
870, 1110
. 1619
. 1711
V. Pound . 1858, 1860, 1861
V. Ricketts . . . 1490
• V. Thompson, Be Thomp-
son . . 1419, 1541
Griffiths Cycle Corp., Be . 33
Griffiths, Be . . [986], 1256
Griffiths V. Lewis . 1135
Griffiths' Policy, Be . . 873
Griffiths' Settlement, Be,
Griffiths V. Waghorne . 1427, 1508
Griffiths' Will, Be . . . 2389
Griffiths V. Cowper . . 416
V. Fleming . 874, 878
V. Griffiths . . 1042
— — V. Hatchard . . 345
~ V. Jones . . 334, 2150
— V. Lewis . . . 1135
V. Porter . . 1084, 1109
V. Pruen . . . 1539
V. Tower Publishing Co.
[657], 662
— V. Vezey . . 2200, 2219
Grigby v. Cox . . . 2274
Grigg V. Coates . . . 544
— — - V. Nat. Guardian Ass. Co. 1939
Griggs V. Gibson 865, 965, [977], 981
Grillon v. Guenin . . . 626
Grills V. Dillon ... 32
Grimmett's Trusts, Be . . 967
Grimmett, Be . . ' . 1157
Grimoldby, R. of, Exp. . 2379, 2380
Grimond v. Grimond . 1301, 1306
Grimsby v. Webster . . 489
Grimston v. Turner . . 747
■ — (L.) V. Weobly 1918, [2010]
Grimstone, Exp. . . 980, 1862
Grimwade v. Mutual Soc, Be
Mutual Soc. . . .244
Grim wood v. Bartels . . 1803
Grindey, Be . . . . 1111
Grissel v. Leathes, Be Bacon . 1573,
1574
Grissell's Case, Gardner v. L. C.
& D. Ry. Co. . . 1998, 2003
Grissell, Be, Exp. Jones . 856, 863
V. Bristowe . . 2296
Grogan v. L. & Manoh. Indus-
trial Co 2246
Groom, Be ... . 1183
, Be, Booty v. Groom 1449,
1450
V. Cheesewright . . 1051
Grose-Smith v. Bridger, Be
Smith .... 1753
Table of Cases.
cxxxv
PAGE
Grossmith, Be . . . 2333
Grosvenor (L.) v. Hampstoad,
&c. Ry. (1 D. & J. 446) [687],
2352, 2353
Grosvenor v. Green . . 2166
V. Sherratt . . 2273
V. The Sutton (Surrey)
Local Bd. . . . [578]
Grosvenor and West End Ry.
Terminus Hotel Co., Re . 785
Grosvenor Hotel Co. v. Hamilton 562
Grote V. Bing . . .738
Grove v. Comyn 979, [1791], 1805,
1818
V. Johnston .
V. Portal
V. Salisbury (E.)
V. Sansom
V. Snowden .
V. Young
Grover v. Hugell
Groves' Settled Estates,
Trusts, lie .
T V. Clarke
. V. Groves (Kay, xix.)
79,
Be
. 2084
. 2155
. 1667
260, 270
[931]
. 107
. 1056
. 1742
. 911
. 907
• [61],
82, 93
(12W. R. 45). 1591
V. Lane . . . 1358
V. Loomes . . . 2163
Grugeon i'. Gerrard . . 1837
Gruggen u . Cochrane . . 1370
Grundy, Kershaw & Co., Be . 269,
281, 282
■ ■ — - t). Buckeridge . .1190
Grylls, Be . . . 1512, 1513
V. Grylls . . . 2106
Guardian Bldg. Soc, Be . . 2061
Fire v. Guardian and
General
Guardner v.
Boucher
, 628
1902,
1909
[417]
1512
1606
1378
1999,
2004
331, 1056
Guibert, Be . . . .1189
Guidioi v. Kinton . . .1121
Guilden Sutton, B. of, Exp. 2395,
2399, 2403
Gudin V. Gudin
Gue, Be . . .
Guedalla, Be .
Guerrier, Be, Exp. Leslie
Guest V. Cowbridge Ry. Co.
■ V. Smythe
Guilford v. Lambeth
GuiKoyle v. Hutchinson
Guillaume, Be
Gullick V. Tremlett
GuUin V. GuUin
Gumbrecht v. Parry
Gumm V. Hallett .
. 805
. 106
. 1736
596, 602
. 894
. 84
. 394
PAGE
Gundry, Be, Mills v. Mills . 1630,
1643
V. Sainsbury . 243, 267
Gunn V. Bolckow, Vaughan &
Co 2302
V. Savill . . . 1234
Gunnell v. Whitear . 1155, 1160
Gunson v. Simpson . . 1216
Gunstone v. East Gloucester-
shire Ry. Co. . . [2137]
Gunter, J?e . . . [1735]
V. Gunter . . . 1476
Gurden, iJe .... 2386
■ V. Badcock . . 745
Gurly V. Gurly . . .915
Gurnell v. Gardner . .1989
Gurney's Settlement, Be . 1779
Gurney, Be, Clifford v. Gurney . 2001
— , Mason v. Mercer . 1114
V. Clare, Be Worrall . 1799
V. Gurney . . . 1539
V. Jackson . . . 1883
V. Seppings . .2012
Gustaf, The .... 1049
Guthrie v. Walrond 1359, 1553, 1555
Gutta Percha Co., Be . . 25
Gutta Percha Co., Be ([1909] 2
Ch. 10) ... . 2336
Guy V. Churchill . . 118, 1048
Guyot V. Thomson . . 2317
Guy ton and Rosenberg, Be . 1556
Gwatkin v. Bird . . .748
Gwawr y Gweithyr Soc, Be . 2065
Gwyer v. Peterson . . . 800
Gwynn v. Gwynn, Be Rains -
forth . . 1327, 1384
■ ■ V. Lethbridge 841, 842, 844
Gwyther v. AUen . . . 1450
Gyett V. Williams . . . 1536
Gyhon, Be, Allen v. Taylor 170, 1350
Gyles V. Hall . . .1872
V. Wilcox . . .667
Gynn v. Gilbard . 894, 950, 1014
H.
B.,Be
. H. V. H.
. 1070
. 845, [932]
H.'s Est., Be, H. v. H. . 725, 737
, Colebourne i'. Cole-
bourne . . . . 514
H.'s Settlement, Be, H. v. H. [1008],
1013
Haberdashers' Co., Exp. . 2383
— — •, Be L.
& B. Ry. Co. 2368, [2374], 2:174
Habergham v. Stansfeld . 1822, 1824
Habershon v. Blurton . .2130
CXXXVl
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Habershon v. Gill . . . 749
Hack V. London Provident Bldg.
Soo.
Haokett v. Baiss
Hacking v. Whalley
Hackney Charity, Be
■ Newspaper Co.
Haddock v. Haddock
Haddon v. Haddon
Haddow v. Morton
Haden, Be, CoUng v. Haden
401, 2059
[554]
. 1807, 1808
. 1282
Be . 1965
1797, [1798]
. 921
502
1632,
2310
Hadfield's Cask Co., iJe . . 1345
Hadleigh Castle Gold Mines, Re 705
Hadley, Be . . 886, 1366, 1678
• V. Beedon . . . 1940
■ V. Lond. &c. Bk. . 515
■ V. Macdougall . . 78
Haedioke and Lipski, Be 2166, 2167,
2200
Haganj;. Duff . . . 1305
Hagell V. Currie . . . 1443
Hagen, The . . . .14
Haggenmaoher's Patents, Be . 2325
Hagger v Payne . . . 1508
Haggin v. Comptoir D'Escompte
de Paris ... 12, 15
Haggitt V. Iniif . . .111
Haigh, Be (12 Beav. 307) . 268
— and L. N. W. and G. W.
By. Cos., Be . . 398
■ V. Grattan . . . 742
■ V . Haigh 98, 138, 178, 398
• V. Jagger . . . 552
■ ■ V. Ousey . . .263
Haines v. Guthrie . . .150
— V. Taylor . . .599
Hair, Be 259, 260, 262, 275, 276
Haire v. Lovitt . . . 339
Hake, Be, Pownall v. Pryor . 121,
1424
Hakes v. Hodgkin . . . 2214
Hakewill, JJe , . .996
Halbot V. Lens . . . 1332
Haldane v. Eckford 75, 76, [1516],
1518, 1519
Hale, Exp., Be London & Pro-
vincial Lighting Co. . 2264
■ ,Be . . . [866]
■ — , Lilley v. Foad 743, 750,
1384
■ V. Adams . 1079, 1081
■ V. Boustead
■ V. Hale (4 Beav. 369)
(3 Ch. D. 643)
V. Hurt
■ V. Saloon Omnibus Co.
■ V. Snelling
1084
117
76
1542
1576
498,
503
180
PAGE
Hale V. Thomas . . . 2005
Hale's Estate, Be, Hales v. Cox
[2019], 2021
ILalea, Exp., Be A So\t. . . 1060
V. Cox . . [2019], 2021
Haley v. Bannister . . 965
Halford v. Hardy . . 208, 522
— , Be . . . . 1631
Halifax and Huddersfield Union
Bkg. Co. V. Radcliffe . 1871
Banking Co., Be . [2439]
■ J. S. Bank v. Gledhill 1365,
[2282], 2285
Halkett v. Dudley (Earl of) 2149,
2180, 2187
Hall's Estate, Be . 913, 914, 2383
Hall, Exp., Be Townsend . 423
• , Be (17 Jur. 29 ; 9 Ha. xvi.)
153 1217
■ (9 Ch. D. 538) . .' 1031
■ (21 Q. B. D. 137) . 637,
648
(14 Beav. 115) 1262, 1263
(54 L. J. Ch. 527) . 1148
(58 L. T. 76) . . 1215
([1903] 2 Ch. 226) . 1430
([1907] 1 K. B. 875) . 2236
(Catherine), Be, Exp., Inge 1254
■ and Barker, Be
■ & Co., Be A. W.
Trigg
, Be, Branston v.
man
— — , Exp. Close
, Be Cooper
, Be Wood
, Hall V. HaU
■ V. Austin
■ V. Barrows
■ V. Brand
■ V. Bromley
■ V.
264
2035, 2039
. 434
Weight-
. 1510
1939, 1940
. 2288
. 511
. 1537
. 1359, 1424
621, 624, 685,
2098, 2118
. 395
1210, 1712, 2161
Burnell . . 2188, 2220
- V. Bushill . . 2139, 2190
- V. Byron . 570, 590, 591
• V. Colbeck, Be Colbeck . 50
- V. Dawson . 2227, 2229, 2230
- V. Ewin . . 532, 533
■ V. Fladgate, Be Page . 828
■ V. Pry, Re Heiron's Estate 437
■ V. Hale . . [1228], 1233
- V. Hall (12 Beav. 414 ; 20
Beav. 139; 3 Mac.
& G. 79) . 680, 752,
2095, 2111
([1911] 1 Ch. 487) 882
■ (48 L. J. P. D. 57) 139
(47 L. J. Ch. 680) 344,
423
Table of Cases.
cxxxvu
PAGE
HaU «. Hall (8 Ch. 430) . . 1637
([1891] P. 302) . 1050
([1891] 3 Oh. 387) . 1555
1123, 1124
1861, 1862, 1863,
1877, 1898
. 916
[2047], 2049
. 1573
. 2086
. 952
. 1030, 1045
. 64
— — V. Hallett
V. Heward
V. Hill .
V. Hurst
V. Hurt .
V. Hutchias
V. Jones
V. Laver
■ V. Liardet
V. Lichfield Brewery Co. . 560
V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. . 70
V. Maedonald . 1466, 1470
V. May . . . 1080
■ V. Norfolk (D.) . . 568
— V. Old Talargoch Co. . 2264
• V. Palmer 1592, [2291], 2291
■ V. Paulet . . .130
V. Pritchett . . .479
V. Snowden, Hubbard &
Co 30
Hall V. Truman, Hanbury & Co.
67, 68, 72, 73
V. Turner
. 1341
V. Warren
. 2139
V. Waterhouse
864, 887
Hall-Dare's Contract, Be
349, 1741
Hall-Dare v. Hall-Dare
1643, 1717,
2235
Hallas V. Robinson
. 1949
Hallett's Estate, Be, Knateh-
buU V. Hallett . . 1088, 1325
HaUett & Co., Be ([1894] 2 Q. B.
237) . . 1089, 1325
— , Be, Exp. Blane . . 1089
— — — — Cooks, Bid-
dulph & Co. . 1408, 1839
■ — , Hallett V. Hallett . 1509
■ — to Martin . . 1694, 1695
V. Purze . . . 1909
V. Hastings, Be Lady
854, 862
898, 996
. 2288
. 75
320, 1379
[986]
. 542
. 1680
287, 291, 2259,
2260
■;;. Holmes, Be Holmes 869
V. Lloyd . . . 1081
Hallyburton, Be . . 1520, 1521
Halse, Be ([1905] 1 Ch. 405) . 1561
V. Rumford . . 1308, 1579
HaUiday's Estates .
HaUiday, Exp.
V. Temple
Halliley v. Henderson
Halliwell v. Halliwell
V. Phillips
Hallowe's Trusts, Be
Hallows V. Pernie
Halsey v. Brotherhood
V. Grant
V. Windham
Halstead Charities, Be
Halton V. Poster
Haly V. Barry
Ham, Be
Hambling v. Wallani
Hamblyn v. Ley
Hambro v. Hambro
PAGE
. 636
. 2194
. 393
. 2401
. 1513
414, 474
. 1451
2
. 451
1573, 1575,
1862, 2049
. 97
. 944
. 29
. 136
Hambrook v. Smith
Hambrough's Estate, Be
Hamburgher v. Poetting
Earner's Devisees' Case .
Hamer v. Giles 480, 1049, 1051, 2114
V. Hamer . . .729
V. Sharp . . . 2153
V. Tilsley . . .854
Hamil v. White . . . 1646
Hamill v. Lilley . . .844
Hamilton's Windsor Ironworks
Co., Be . . . 1967, 1968
Hamilton, Be, Exp. Smith . 1324
— ,Be . . 968,2040
— — , Be, Cadogen v. Pitz-
roy . . . 1305
— ■ — V. Board . . . 510
■ — V. Buckmaster . 2167
— ■ V, Chaine . . 1941
Hamilton (D.) v. Graham . 574
V. Dallas (1 Ch. D.
257) .
. 1518,
1519
V.
Dallas (38
L. T.
213) .
, ,
1524
V.
Denny
,
1905
V.
Hamilton
. 860, 865
V.
Hector 92]
, [9921,
1000
V.
Houghton
1369
V.
James
,
1631
V.
Lane .
. 1061,
1064
V.
Marks .
485, 493, 495
V.
Merchants'
Mar.
Ins. Co.
, ,
403
V.
Nott .
73, 92
V.
Smith .
,
2094
V. Spottiswoode 1279, 1281
V. Thomas . 14, 1035
Preeman,
Be . [10]
— V. Tighe . . . 1696
V. Vaughan - Sherrin
Elect. Engineer-
ing Co. . . 945
— ■ V. Watson . . 2083
Young & Co., Be . 1940
Hamlet, Be, Stephen v. Cun-
ningham .... 1665
Hamley v. Pearson . . 1645
CXXXVIU
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Hamling v. Elliott, Re Coulton 376,
821
Hamlyn v. Betteley . 496, 1942
V. Ley . . . 449
■ & Co. V. Talisker Dis-
tillery
723
Hammer v. Might .
162, 372
Hammersley v. De Biel .
1626
Hammersmith By. Co
V.
Brand
2348
Hammett v. Rcid .
779
Hammond, Be
1512
and Waterton,
He .
389
■ ■ & Co. V. Malcolm,
Branker & Co. . 2337
V. Ashburton (L.) . [551]
V. Hocking . . 1947
V, Maber . . 452
V. Maundrell . .715
V. Schofleld . . 125
V. St. Panoras Vest. 698
Hamond v. Walker . . 1443
Hamp V. Robinson 612, 1359, 1459
Hamp-Adams v. Hall . 19, 173
Hampden v. E. of Buckingham-
shire . . . 1755
V. Hampden . . 2240
■ V. WaUis (26 Ch. D.
746) . 98, 208, 433,
434
• V. WaUis (27 Ch. D.
251) . . . 1083
V. Walsh . 493, 1378
Hampshire v. Bradley . .1136
V. Wiokens . . 2207
Land Co., Be . 2033
Hampson v. Fellows . . 1894
• V. Price's Pat. Candle
Co 703
Hampton v. Hodges . . 543
Hanbury, Be (52 L. J. Ch. 687) 1774
(W. N. (96) 241) 1038,
1040
■ V. Holgate
■ V. Hussey
■ V. Jenkins
■ V. Kirkland
■ V. Stiokney
Hanby v. Fisher
V. Roberts
Hance v. Truwhitt
. 1097
1801, 1816
152, 580
. 1084
[1917]
1603, 1604
1604, 1607
. 1530
Hancock, Be ([1906] 1 Ch. 16) [1518],
[1528], 1529
, Hancock v. Ber-
rey 1629, 1866,
1867, 1982
■ — , Watson V. Wat-
son . . 1542
V. A.-G. . . 1840, 1861
PAGE
Hancock v. Guerin . . 64
V. Hancock . . 1632
— V. Handcock 879, 1455, 1632
V. Heaton . . 2105
V. Smith 479, 1088, 1325
Hancock's Trusts, Be . . 1629
Hancox v. Abbey . . . 1474
V. Spittle . . . 1214
Hand v. Blow . . 743, 1984
Handford (Frances) & Co., Re,
Exp. Frances Hand-
ford & Co. . 866, 876
V. George Clarke, Ld. 1021
V. Handford . . 998
V. Storie . . . 1352
Handley v. Davis . . 1160, 1450
V. Farmer [2054], 2057
— V. Metcalfe . . 1430
Handman & Wilcox, Be . 1762, 2167
Hands v . Andrews, Be Smith . 420,
431, 433, 460
Hanfstaengl v. American To-
bacco Co. . 666
— ^ ■ Art Co. V. Hollo-
way . . 666
— V. Baines & Co. . 671
^ V. Empire Palace
Co. . . 671
V. Smith . . 671
Hankey, Re ([1899] 1 Ch. 641). 1369
, Re, Smith v. Hankey [1441]
V. Morley . .1155
-«. WUson . . [1917
Hankin v. Kilburn, Re Tootal 1554,
1580
V. Turner, Re Ivory 30, 31, 32
Hankinson v. Barningham . 42
■ V. Hayter, Be Wheeler 853
Hanley v. M'Dermott . . 1469
V. Pearson . [1642], 1644,
1645, 1646
Hanloke, Re . . . . 1712
Hanman v. Riley . 1860, 1861, 1860
Hanmer v. Chance . . . 643
— V. Clifton ... 46
Hanna v. Pollock . . . 688
Hannaford v. Hannaford . 1042
Hannay, Re . . . . 2330
V. Barham, Re Bar-
ham ... . . . 1128
Hanne v. Watts . . .347
Hannen v. Hillyer, Re Davis 1264,
1303
Hannington v. True, Re Smith 1478
Hanover (King of) v. Bank of
England . . [1179], 1186
Hansard v. Hardy . 1853, 1906, 1921
Hansby r'. Llewellyn, Re Over-
ton 120
Table of Gases.
cxxxix
PAGE
Hansell v. Hansell . . .1162
Hansen v. Maddox . . 820
Hansford, Re . . .1153
HansUp v. Kittson . . 2091
Hanson, Exp. . . .1321
— , Be (9 Ha. liv.) . 1246, 1258
(37 Ch. D. 112) 2330, 2334
V. Keating . . 909
V. Lake . . . 2190
V. Reeoe . . . 1051
V. Stubbs, Be Stubbs . 1364
V. Walker . . 777, 779
Harben v. Pbillips . . . 704
Harbergbam v. Stansfield 1822, 1824
Harbin v. Darby . . 1135, 1137
V. Masterman (12 Eq.
559) . . . 1251
V. Masterman {[1896] 1
Ch. 351) 839, 1061, 1574
V. Masterman ([1894] 2
. 1251, 1666
37, 64
Ch. 184)
Harbord v. Monk .
Harbottle v. Pooley
V. Roberts
Harbroe v. Combes
Harcourt v. White .
. 514
496, 497
. 981
546, 1389
. 665
1166, 1674
. 1325
Hardacre v. Armstrong
Hardaker v. Moorhouse
Hardcastle, Exp.
Hardiman, Be, Pragnell v. Bat-
ten . [1784], 1791, 1795, 1808
Harding's Estate, Be . . 1782
Harding, Exp. (14 W. E. 825) . 845
,Be . . . .278
, Rogers v. Harding 1677
V. Beokford . [2159]
V. Bussell ... 77
V. Grady . . . 1368
• V. Harding (4 My. &
C. 514) . . .349
■ V. Harding (17 Q. B
D. 442) . . 492
V. Harding (13 Eq.
493) . . 1477, 1488
V. Met. Ry. Co. 2139,
[2178], 2186
V. Sutton . . . 888
V. Tingey . 517, 521, 718,
1855
-•V.Williams . 113,155
Hardisty v. WeUs, Be Wells . 1529
. 1153
. 2165
. 86
. 602
1131, 2297
. 1983
. 1680
818, 1071
Hardley's Trusts, Be
Hardman v. Child .
V. Ellames
V. Holberton
Hardoon v. Belilios
Hards v. King
Hardstaff, Be
Hardwiok, Be
Hardwick, Be, Exp. Hubbard
V. Sutton
V. Wright
Hardwioke (E.), Exp.
V. Vernon
V. Wilmot,
Ros .
Hardwidge, Be
Hardy, Be
, Hardy v. Farmer
— , Wells V. Borwiok
V. A.-G., Be Mann
— ■ ■ V. Fetherstonhaugh
• V. Fothergill
PAGE
1939
1468
. 2087
. 2399, 2400
. 1330, 1342
Be De
. 1626, 1632
. 320, 822
. 2380, 2400
1410
1579
1303
365
1405
■D.Hull . 250, 1130, 1454
Hare and O'More, Be . . 2194
Hare w . L. & N. W. Ry. 696, 702,
707
V. Rose 1376, 1404, 1449,
1461
Hares v. Lea .... 807
Harford «. Lloyd . . . 1088
V. Furrier . . . 2183
Hargrave v. Hargrave (23 Beav.
484) . . .253
■ — — ■ V. Hargrave (9 Beav.
549) . . . 748
• ■ — ^ — - V. Hargrave (3 Mao.
& G. 348) . . 185
■ V. Hargrave (9 Beav.
153) . . .364
V. Hargrave (12 Beav.
408) . . .979
■ V. Kettlewell . . 232
Hargreave's Trusts, Be, Exp.
Mayor of Bradford . 2362, 2379
Hargreave v. Freeman . . 2334
Hargreaves, Be . . . 2334
Dicks V. Hare
1360, 1421
, Joseph, Be . 96
— — ■ • Midgley v. Tat-
ley . 312, 1421
■ ■ — — and Thompson, Be 348,
2155, [2198], 2200
— ■ ■ V. Barton . [1501
V. Rothwell . . 1034
— • V. Scott . . 292
V. Taylor, Be Allen 1301
— ^ ■ V. Wright . [1227]
Hargrove & Co., Exp. . . 2094
Harington v. Hoggart . . 1344
V. Sendall . .712
— V. Watts, Be Good 1300,
1303
Harker, Be, Goodbarne -o.
Fothergill . . 833
— V. Edwards . . 2296
Harkness and Allsopp, Be . 885
cxl
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Harland v. Garbutt . . 118
V. Mayor of Newcastle 399
Harle, Be . . 264, 278, 294
V. Jarman .
Harley v. Hunt
Harlock v. Ashberry
Harloe v. Harloe
Harman, Be, Lloyd v. Tardy
862, 865
. 251
30, 31, 1383,
1865, 1868
. 1449
312,
1489
■ and Uxbridge Ry. Co.,
Be
V. Richards
Harmer v. Harris .
V. Priestley
Harmood v. Oglander
Harms v. Parsons .
Harnett, Be, Leahy v. 0
V. Baker
2201
1348, 2284
. 1128
. 1877
1604, 1605
. 528
Grady 1376
2151, 2159, 2163,
2164
■ V. Maitland . . 544
■ V. Vyse . . . 241
■ V. Yielding . . 2138
Harper, Exp. (18 Eq. 539) . 2349
(23 W. R. 67) . 2347
, Be (10 Beav. 284) 264, 279
■ (20 Bq. 39)
■ V. ApMn
■ V. Bird
- V. Brown
• V. Davis
■ V. Hayes
Harpham v . Shaoklook
2349
, 543, 1892
. 1807
[1396]
. 37
. 1079
1064, 1880,
2030, 2045
Harrald, Be, Wilde v. Walford
252, 1050
Harrington, Be . . [2387]
(E. of) V. Derby
Corp. . . 609
V. Du Chatel . 2291
• ■ V. Harrington 842, 843,
1560, 1654
■ — — V. Bamage . . 315
V. Vict. Graving
Dock
Harriott, Be .
Harris's Settled Estates . 8!
Harris, Exp. (2 Ch. D. 423)
(2 V. & B. 210)
-, Be Gallard
1334
780
1741
742
2121
304
1386
Be (49 L. J. Ch. 327) .
— (9 Rep. Pat, Cas.
492) . . . 2330
— (8 Jur. N. S. 166) . 374
— ([1909] 2 Ch. 206) . 1530
— , Exp. London County
Council . . 2384
— , Pitzroy v. Harris . 1541
- — ; Harris v. Harris . 1368
PAGE
Harris, jBe, Powell and Goodale,
Be . . 302, 305
V. Aaron . . . 819
Harris v. Beauchamp Bros. . 759
• V. Boots' Cash Chemists 528,
2186
— V. De Pinna . . 560, 836
V. Elkins ... 54
V. Flower . . .578
V. Gamble , . 37, 145
V. Gandy . . .799
V. Harris (4 Ha. 184) . 86
— (10 W. R. 31) 800
(10 W. R. 826) 1695,
[1705], 1711
(35 W. R. 710) 717,
1368
(56 L. J. Ch.
754) . 747, 748
(29 Beav. 107) 1146,
1170
(W. N. (90)
128) . . 988
— — (11 W. R. 62) 914
. ■ (32 Beav. 333) 1711,
1712
(No. 2) . . 1596
. ([1890] W. N.
136) . . 100
V. Howe . . . 125
V. Hyem . . .941
■ V. Jenkins ... 36
■ V. Judge . . .805
V. Lewis . . . 378
V. Lightfoot . . . 933
. v. Mott . . .866
V. N. Devon. By Co. . 2154
■ V. Pepperell 1643, [2232]
2235, 2236, 2237, 2238
V. Petherick
V. Rothwell .
V. Sleep
V. Start
V. Tremenheere
V. Truman .
V. Warre
V. Watkins .
V. Webb
V. Weston
Harrison's Estate, Be
Harrison, Exp., Be Betts
241
. 634
740, 746
260, 270
. 2276
. 1091
. 37
917, 1368
• [190]
[2121]
. 2407
. 1894
■Jordan . 1983
Be (V.-C. W., 9 Ap.
1872) . . 1729
- (32 Ch. D. 395) . 1470
(10 Beav. 57) 279, 281
(28 Ch. D. 220) . 542
(33 Ch. D. 52) . 287,
290, 292, 295, 299, 824
Tahle of Cases.
cxli
Harrison, Re (28 Jan. 1862)
PAOE
1180,
1208
(22 L. J. Ch. 69) 1174,
1187
([1908] 1 Ch. 282) 1034
. Allen V. Cort . 1388
Exp. Jay . . 2286
Sheriff of
Essex . 422
, Harrison v. Har-
rison [1683], 1693
-, Harrison v. Hig-
son . . 1510
, Latimer v. Har-
rison . 743, 1467
, M'Gregor & Co. 2332,
2342
, Parry v. Spencer 1491
, Townson v. Har-
rison . 1573, 1620
, Turner v. Hel-
lard . 150, 1356
■ and Bottomley, Re 760,
1862, 2003, 2004
Ingram, Re, Exp.
Whinney . 2286
■ V. Abergavenny (Mar-
quis) . . 162,712
V. AUianoe Assur. Co. 1161
V. Anderston Foundry
Co. . . . 634
V. Barney, Re Barney 1621,
1696
■ V. Borwell . . 230
V. BoydeU . . 782
■ V. Brown . . 2155
■ V. Cornwall Minerals
Ry. Co. 354, 839, 1047,
1968
V. Duignan . . 743
V. Every . . [2229]
V. Good . . 534, 599
V. Guest . . . 2256
V. Gumey . . 721
V. Harrison (1 Russ.
& M. 71) . . 935
V. Harrison (5 Beav.
130) . . .935
V. Harrison (8 Ch.
342) . 1308,1476,1617
V. Harrison (2 H. &
M. 237) . . 1540
V. Harrison (13 P. D.
180) . . 1047, 1048
w Harrison ([1901] 2
Ch. 136) . . 1513
V. Harrison, Re Little 871
D.Hart . . . 1927
V. Jackson . . 1558
PAGE
Harrison v. Kennedy . . 883
V. Kidd . . .729
V. Kirk . . 1379, 1593
— V. Leutner 247, 380, 2250
V. Menoe, Re Menoo [2214]
V. Mexican Ry. . 706
■ V. Nettleship . .713
V. Randall . . 1079
— V. Richards . . 1503
V. Rumsey . . 124
V. Rutland (D.) . 580
V. St. Etienne Brewery
Co. . . . 755
■ V Seymour . . 2084
V. Smith . . . 1232
V. Southampton 10i7 1301
V. Southwark & Vaux-
hall Water Co. . 600,
601, 603
V. Tennant
V. Thexton
V. Wearing
— u. Woodroffe
Harrogate Estates, Re
Harrold v. Daly
V. Markham
V. Plenty .
Harrop's Estate, Re
— — — - Trusts, Re
. 2109
. 1105
. 295
. 2343
. 1963
. 424
. 607
. 1983
. 981
1758, 1773,
2363
Harrop, Re (24 Ch. D. 717) . 1165
■ V. Hirst . . [583]
V. Ossett Corp. . . 245
V. Wilson . . .915
Harrowby and Paine's Con-
tract, Re . . 349, 1353, 1861
Harry v. Davey . . 51, 164
Harryman v. Collins . . 1877
Harston v. Tenison, Re Cross 1109,
1111
Hart's Case .
Trade Mark, Re
Hart, Be, Exp. Caldicott
Fletcher
V. CoUey
V. Fernandez
V. Hart (1 Ha. 1)
■(18Ch. D. 670)
945
2334
1407
1840
620, 623, 2334
. 1555
157, 2230
737
760, 880, 920, 921, 214o!
2141, 2148
V. Herwig . . . 2142
«. Minshull . . .1911
• —V. Porthgain Harbour Co. 2188
V. Stone, Re Hubbuok 1108,
1555, [1616]
V. Swaine . . 2251, 2252
V. Tulk . . 378, [1525]
Hartas v. Ribbons . . . 2298
Harter v. Colman . . . 2015
cxlii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Hartford v. Power . . 859, 862
Hartington (R. of), Exp. 2379, 2380
Hartland v. Marrell . 299, 1368
Hartley's Trusts, Be . . 1541
Hartley, Goods of . . .1353
Hartley, Re . . 282, 1183, 1189
— , Hartley v. Hartley [1396]
■ , Nuttall V. Whit-
taker . . 172, 759
■ , Stedman v. Dun-
ster . . . 1540
■ ; Williams v. Jones 1112,
1866
, Williams v. Wil-
liams 1112, 1426, 1606
V. Barber
V. Blaokmore
V. Burton
V. Dilke .
V. Owen .
802
• [22]
1136, 1855
4
. 98
V. Pendarves 545, 980, 1490
V. Smith
Hartmont v. Poster
935
498, 819
Hartnall, Re 1176, 1212, 1213, 1214
. 1633
. 2035
1252, 1301
. 1350
. 1383
. 105
Hartopp V. Hartopp
V. Huskisson
Hartshorne v. Nicholson
Hartwell v. Chitters
Harty v. Davis
Harvey, Estate of .
Harvey's Estate, Re, Godfrey v.
Harben . .1607
Settled Estates, Re . 1742
Harvey, Exp. . . . 2086
■, Be Player . 2285
, Re . . . 112, 1061
((1907), P. 239) . 435
, Exp. Phillips . 2287
, Harvey v. Gillow 1559
■ V. Harvey 1718
V. Hobday
2046
, Peak V. Savory . 1542
Wright V. Woods 1449
2144
V. Barnard's Inn
V. Beckwith
V. Bradley
V. Cooke
V. Coxwell .
V. Croydon Union
V. Dougherty
V. Earnie .
[2071]
. 1121
. 1633
. 1461
. 125
. . 18
909, 1522
V. HaU . 433. 457, 517
V. Hart . . . 2104
V. Harvey (26 Ch. D.
644) . 436
(4 Rep. in Ch.
49) . 449
(1 Atk. 561) [918]
PAGE
Harvey v. Harvey (2 P. Wms.
21) , . . 965
— — — ■ V. Lovekin . 69, 97
■ ■ V. Morris . . .207
- V. Mount . . . 1062
V. Municipal Bldg. Soo. 2057,
2058
V. OUiver . . . 1131
V. Tebbutt . . 1877
V. Truro Rural Council 580
Harvie v. S. Dev. Ry. Co. 688, 2353
Harwood, Re (35 Ch. D. 470) 1901
(20 Ch. D. 536) [1203]
(55 L. T. 373) . 1189
V. G. N. Ry. Co. . 631
Haseldine, Re, Grange v. Sturdy 1510
Haselfoot's Estate, Re . . 2046
HaseHoot, Re . . . 1319
Hasker v. Wood . . . 240
Haslam and Hier-Evans, Re 1055,
1057, 2255
, &o. Co. V. GoodfeUow 648
V. Foundry Hall . 653
V. O'Connor . . 289
Haslett V. Hutchinson . . 2340
Haslewood v. Pope . . 1608
Hasluck, Exp. . . . 1946
V. Clark 421, 1405, 1406,
1407, 1410
. V. Pedley . 1557, 1699
Hassall, Be, Hassall v. Has-
sall [993]
Hassell v. Stanley . . 252, 1050
Hastie's Trusts, Be . . 1511
Hastie v. Hastie . 816, 836, 1090
Hasties and Crawford, Be . 305
Hastings, Be, Exp. Brown . 1077
(Corp. of) V. IvaU 29, 32,
71,72
(Lady), Be, HaUett v.
Hastings . 854, 862
(L.) V. Beavan [470], 473
V. Hans . . . 1514
V. Hurley . . 20
V. Letton . . 2086
V. Pearson . . 1932
Hatch V. Hatch . . 978, 2273
V. Searles . 320, 1377, 1380
Hatchard v. Mege . . .677
Hatohell v. Whitmore . . 1007
Hatcher, Exp., Be W. of Eng.
Bank . . . .858
Hatfield, iJe .... 2401
V. Minet . . 1669
Hatherley v. Dunning, Be Dun-
ning 1468
Hattatt, Be . . . .1188
Hatten v. Russell 344, 1754, 1756,
1774, 2156, 2170
Table of Cases.
cxliii
PAGE
Hattersley v. E. Shelburne . 702
Hatton V. Harris . . . 188
■ V. Hatton . . [1484]
V. Haywood 183, 759, 1862,
1999, 2004
. 1542, 1566, 1570
. 570
. 838
-, Re Heming-
. 1949
373, 1206
V. May
Hatyes v. Pease
Hauxwell, Exp.
way .
Havelock, Be
— — V. Havelock, Be Allan 965,
968
Havens, Be . . . [2457]
Havergal v. Harrison . . 1356
Hawarden v. Dunlop . . 1355
Hawes, Be, Exp. Sadler . . 842
Burchell v. Hawes 1868
V. Curtis, Be Curtis
V. Paveley
V. Peake
V. Prior
Hawke v. Brear
• V. Hawke
V. Holland
881
788
. 291
1548, [1552]
. 400
. 1676
. 733
Hawker's Settled Estates, Be . 981,
1134
Hawker v. HaUewell . 1360, 1378
■ V. Stourfleld Park Hotel 626
Hawkes, Be, Ackerman v. Lock-
hart 185, 1038, 1040,
1041
• V. Hubbaok
Hawkesley v. Bradshaw
V. Gowan
Hawkesworth. v. Chaffey
Hawkins, Exp.
— ,Be
■ — — ■ V. AUen .
— • V. Carr .
V. Gathercole
V. Hawkins
. 871
. 37
. 487
. 2144
. 482
[1740]
. 1299
. 89
745, 756,
783, 1930
1377, 1465,
1554
. 1797, 1802
. 2296
. 964
. 2036
2127, 2140,
2153, [2212]
. 1091
V. Hawksworth 999,
1000, 1001
Hawley v. Blake, Be Houghton 1149
■ ■ V. Read ... 65
V. Steele . . 602, 2459
Haworth, Be . . .310
Hawthorn (Mayor of) v. Kannu-
link . . .609
V. Herbert
• V. Maltby
^\ Watts
Hawks V. Fox
Hawksley v. Outram
Hawksworth, Be
PAOE
Hawthorn v. Sheddon . . 1426
Hawthorne, Be, Graham v.
Massey . 723, 1524, 1835, 2142
Hawtry v. Butlin . . 1950, 1951
Hay's Case . . . 2268, 2270
Hay V. Bo wen . . . 1452
■ V. Northcote . . 1522, 1586
V. Swedish & Norwegian
Ry. Co. . . . 1967
V. Wolmer, Be D. of Cleve-
land's Estate . . . 1622
Haycock's, Ltd. v. Mulholland 247
492, 1155
. 2046
. 1938
. 436
897, 2383
Policy, Be
Hayden v. Kirkpatrick
Haydon v. Brown .
— ■ ■ V. Haydon
Hayes, Be
, Turnbull v. Hayes . 1427
V. Boman . . 529, 2150
• V. Oatley
1426
. 2163
2252, 2255
. 1264
. 570
1254,
1255
[802]
488, 1046
. 290
[1924]
Haynes, Be, Exp. Nat. Merc.
Bank . . 1941
, Kemp V. Haynes 1535,
1754
■ V. Ball . . .467
Ha3rford v. Criddle
Haygarth v. Wearing
Hayles' Estate, Be
Hayles v. Pease
Hayman v. Rugby School
Haymen v. Cooper
Haymes v. Cooper .
Hajrne v. Cavell
V. Laurie & Co. .
• V. Barton
■ V. Cooper
■ V. Ford
■ V. Foster
2395, 2402
. 1049
. 594
865, 870
• V. Haynes (1 Dr. & Sm.
426) 981, 1490,
21.39
• (3 Jur. N. S.
504) 1377, 1922
(3 D. M. & G.
590) 1570, 1573,
1577, 1580
■ (14W.R.361)
1591
■ (V.-C.W.,22
Nov. 1860, A. 218) [2093]
V. King 561, 581, 2310,
2311
Hayson, Be, Booth v. Trail
Hayter, Be .
V. Beall
479
1135
435
771
Hay ward, Exp., Be Plant
, Be {[1897] 1 Ch. 905) 1524,
1525
cxliv
Table of Cases,
PAGE
Hayward, Re, Tweedie v. Hay-
ward . . 1468
■ & Co., Be (54 L. J.
Ch. 1003) 2329, 2342,
2343
■ — V. Cope . . . 2149
V. East London Water-
works Co. 513, 693, 704
V. Hayward 315, [675],
677
• V. Lely . 664, 665, 667
• V. Mutual Beserve
Association . 404
V. Pile . . . 1712
• V. Smith . . 1798
Haywood v. Brunswick Soc. 531,
532, 2206
V. Gregg . .1838
V. Richards . . 595
0. Silber . . 2207, 2208
V. Tidy . . .865
Hazeldine's Trusts, Re . 1381, 1865
Hazeldine, Re {16 Jur. 853) 1186,
1216
(V.-C. M., July
16, 1880) . 2386
Hazle's Settled Estates, Re . 1750
Hazleton v. Wright . . 191
Head's Trustees & Macdonald,
Re ... . 1368,2169
Head, Re ([1894] 2 Ch. 236) . 2125
Exp. Head ([1896] 1
Q. B. 638) . . 2121
V. Godlee . . . 1633
V. Gould . 1065, 1080, 1106
[2450]
511, 531, 757
. 2150
. 2046
. 633, 2317
. 37
. 2146,2153
. 1446,1530
. 511
. 1475
Heartley v. Nicholson . . 1629
Heath, Re ([1907] 2 Ch. 270) . 1586
V. Barlow . . .324
V. Chadwick . .1861
V. Crealock 1087, 1826, 1838,
1846, 2033, 2042, 2045
Headley (L.), Re
Heald v. Hay
V. Walls
Heams v. Bance
Heap V. Hartley
■ V. Harris
Heard v. Pilley
Hearle v. Greenhank
Hearn v. Tennant .
V. Wells
■ V. Deane
• V. Fisher
- V. Henley .
• V. Lake
• V. Lewis
■ V. Met. Ky. Co.
■ V. Nugent .
■ V. Pugh
87, 543, 592
. 328, 2110
. 1326
. 1010
891, 898, 908
[2221]
. 1579
. 1866
PAGE
Heath v. Wallington [442], 523, 607,
612
V. Widgeon, Re Heath . 1514
Heathoote, Re, ([1904] 1 Ch. 826) 1609
, Trench v. Heath-
cote 1147, [1663],
1666, 1677
— V. Hulme [2131], 2133
• — — V. Livesley . . 502
V. N. Staf. By. . 696
, 263
. 644
320, 822, 2161
2253
621, 2329, 2333,
2337
. 68
1382, 1865
. 30
. 2337
Heather, Re
Heathfield v. Braby
Heatley v. Newton
Heaton's T. M., Re
Heaton v. Goldney
Hebblethwaite v. Peever
Heckster v. Crosbey
Hedge's Patent, Re
Hedges v. Met. Ry.
Hedley v. Bates . . 694, 787
HefEer v. Martyn . . . 2152
Heighington v. Grant 250, 1118, 1124,
1134, 1135, 1340, 1453, 1454,
1904
Heil V. Lazenby ... 28
Heinrich v. Sutton 1030, 1031, 1051,
1128
, The . . . 1049
Heiron's Case, Re Met. Bank . 70
Estate, Be, HaU v. Fry 437
Heiron v. Hobson
Helby v. Matthews
Holder, Exp., Re Lewis
Helen R. Cooper, The
Hellard and Bewes, Re
— — — • V. Moody, Re Ridge
Hellawell v. Eastwood
Hellier, Re
Helhng v. Hayes .
Hellmann, Re
Helmore v. Smith .
1051
. 1933
. 1332
. 801
268, 305
1763,
1781
. 1952
. 1174
. 1497
. 1523
420, 423, 459,
745, 2108, 2130
• 944
Helps V, Clayton
Helsby, Re .
Helsham v. Barnett
Helyar, Re, Helyar v. Beckett
876
2278
978,
983
1158, 1159
Haux-
1330
1949
Heming, Re .
Hemings v. Pugh .
Hemingway, Re, Exp.
well
, James v. Daw-
son . . 1569
V. Braithwaite 879, 880
Hemming, Exp. . . . 279
Hemmings, Re . . . 1165
Table of Oases.
cxlv
PAGE
Hemmings v. Sceptre Life
Assoc 2246
Hemp V. Gowland . . . 1386
Hempstead v. Hempstead . 1372
Hemsworth Sch. & Hosp., Re . 1261
Henderson's Patent, Be . 2320, 2321
Henderson v. Atkins . .1113
V. Bank of Austra-
lasia . 703, 705
V. Dodds . 1403, 1404
■ V. Eason . 1204, 1214
• V. Henderson . 723
V. Hendersoii's
Trustees . .1110
V. Hudson . . 2163
V. Jorss . [615]
V. Kay . . . 2207
V. Laoon 2249, 2259,
2260, 2264
• V. Maxwell . 663, 669
■ V. Merthyr Tydfil
Council . 266, 1055
V. Rothschild . 1331
V. Runcorn Soap
Co. . 640, 645
V. Underwriting
Ass. . 76, 2215
& Co. V. WilUams . 494
Henderson-Roe v. Hitchins, Be
Smith . . . 970, 1430
Hendriks v. Montagu 46, 621, 628
Hendry, Be. Watson v, Blake-
ney . . 1296
V. Turner . . . 2109
Heneage v. Hunloke . . 1645
Hengler, Be, Frowde v. Hen-
gler .... 1421,1622
Henley, Be (75 L. T. 307) . 1370
■ , Exp. Dixon . 1323
Hennessy v, Rohmann & Co. . 616
■ V. Wright . 70, 85, 95
Hcnniker v. Chafy 2362, 2395, 2401
V. Wigg . . . 1326
Henning v. Burnet . . 578
Henry, Exp 2314
■ , Be ([1907] 1 Ch. 30) . 1620
Clay and Bock & Co.,
Be . . . 2232, 2344
Smith's Char., Be . 1288
Henry v. Armstrong . 1637, 2237
V. G. N. By. . . 700
V. Laurill . . . 155
V. Smith . . 1432, 1874
V. Strong, Be Coleman 1148
— V. Walden . . .504
V. Wyatt . . . 1007
Henshall v. Fereday . . 1131
Hensler, Be, Jones v. Hensler . 1559
Hensloe's Case . . . 1357
VOL, I.
Hensman v. Fryer .
Henson, Be .
Henthorn v. Fraser
Henty v. Schroder .
— V. Wrey
Henvell v. Whitaker
Hepburn, Be, Exp. Smith
V. Leather
V. Lordan
PAGE
. 1606
. 1480
. 2145
. 2220
1665, 1676
. 1368
. 1389
. 2141
. 599
. 2165
. 1669
Heppenstall v. Hose
Hepworth v. Hepworth
V. Heslop 343, 1365, 1368,
1369, 1372, 1468,
1470, 1852, 1879
V. Hill . . . 1477
V. Pickles . 532, 2201
H. M. War Sec. v. Chubb . 509
Herbage Rents, Greenwich, Be 1251,
2050
Herbert's Case . . . 1013
Will, Be (8 W. R.
272) . . . 1185, 1212
Herbert, Be (34 Ch. D. 504) . 262
V. Salisbury & Yeovil
Ry. Co.
V. Webster
Hercules, The
Hereford, &c. Ry. Co., Be
(Bp.) V. Adams
u. Griffin
2182
872, 1544
. 329
V. Ravenhill
Heriot v. L. C. & D. Ry. Co.
2402
1257
068
1491
2225
Heritage, Be, Exp. Docker 277, 282
■ V. Paine . . 2295, 2297
Herman v. Dimbar . .781
Hermann Loog v. Bean . 520, 676
V. Hodges 1841, 1980, 2137,
2140
Heme Bay, &c. Co., Be . . 1970
Heron-Maxwell v. Stopford-
Blair .... [809]
Herret v. Reynolds . . 136
Herriok v. Cooper . . . 1421
Herring, Be ([1908] 2 Ch. 493) . 1556
V. Bischoffsheim 37, 372
• V. Clark . . 1216, 1220
V. D. & C. St. Paul's . 547
V. Miles . . [2205]
Herron v. Rathmines Coms. . 694
Hersey v. Giblett . . . 2139
V. Young . . . 378
Hertford (M.) v. Lowther . 1446
Hertfordshire, Sheriff of, Exp.,
Be Mackenzie . . . 422
Hertslet v. Oatway, Be Oatway 1088,
1325
Hervey, Be, Short v. Parratt . 1090
V. Audland . . 1365
V. Smith . . 520, 549
k
cxlvi
TaUe of Cases.
PAGE
Hervey-Bathurst v. Stanley 1655,
1664
Heseltine v. Simmons . 1946, 1947
Hesketh, Exp., Be Southport &
Lytham Tram.
Heslop V. Metoalf .
Hester v. Hester
Hetherington, Be .
V. Durrant
V. Longrigg,
2422
. 1042
301, 303
. 1169
928, 934
Be
Barker's Estate . . . 1541
Hetley, Be, Hetley v. Hetley . 1305
Hetling and Merton, Be 1033, 2181,
2184
. 36
76, 83, 88
1135, 1453
. 1946
. 1428
856, 876
Heugh. V. Ckamberlain
V. Garrett .
V. Scard
Hewer, Be, Exp. Kahen
Hewes v. Hewes
Hewett, Be, Exp. Levene
Hewett V. Hallett 909
V. Barr ... 2
V. Murray . 741, 761
Hewison v. Francis . [1414]
V. Negus . . 880, 1628
He wit, Be, Lawson v. Duncan . 1524
V. Nanson .
Hewitson v. Fabre .
V. Skerwin
V. Todkunter
Hewitt, Exp. Hewitt
, Be .
V. Loosemore
• V. Morris .
• V. Nanson .
V. Wrigkt .
Hewlings v. Grakam
Hewson v. L. & S.
Co. .
Hext V. Gill .
Hexter v. Pearce .
Hey, Be
Heyl Dia v. Edmunds
Heyman v. Dubois
. 1847
. 18
306, 429
. 122
. 1409
. 1183
-, Mayor of Gates-
kead v. Hudspetk 1302
2035, 2036
. 1618
. 330
. 1491
. 322, 944
W. Ey.
. 2353
564, 568, 569, 570
. 2138, 2157
. 1197, 1210
. 633, 1316,
1898, 2318
[2018], 2021,
2075, 2089
. — . V. Elewker . .1932
Heymann v. European Central
By. Co 2250
Heynes v. Dixon, Be Dixon 881,
1113, 1433, 1868
Heys V. Astley . . . 2146
Heyskam v. Heyskam . . 965
Heywood, Be, Parkington v.
Heywood ([1897]
2 Ck. 593) . 1405, 1406
— V, Heywood . . 1666
Heywood v. Mallalieu
• — ■ V. Wait .
PAGE
2151, 2164,
2196
376, 511
Hiatt V. Hillman . . . 1983
Hibbert v. Hibbert (3 Mer. 681) 741,
2095
V. Rowland . [1485]
Hibblewkite v. MoMorine . 2243
Hibernian Bank v. Lauder . 1451
Hiokens v. Congreve . 1334, 2268
Hick V. Loekwood . 513, 737
Hiekey, Be . . . . 1092
196,
431
305
2301
1944
305
-, Hiekey v. Colmer
— - and Steward, Be
Hiekie & Co.'s Case
Hiokley v. Greenwood
and Steward, Be
Strangeways,
Be
Strangeways
Hickman v. Berens
V. Mackin
— — - — ■ — ■ V. Maisey
• V. Upsall
Hicks, Be (63 L. J. Ck. 568)
, Lindon v. Hemery
— V. Bound
V. Hastings .
V. Hacks
V. May, Be Metcalfe
0. Ross
V. Sallitt
Hickson v. Darlow
Hiddingk v. Denyssen
Hiern v. Mill .
Higgens v. Maber .
V. Samels .
1751
125
1895
, 580
, 1590
310,
1157
, 935
[1812]
. 1823
751, 774
. 1379
. 1570
. 2256
719, 1946
. 801
. 2035
[2173]
. 2151
Higginbotkam v. Hawkins . 546
• V. Holme . . 2286
, Be . . 1169, 1185
• V. Aynsley . 135
Higgins and Hitckman's Con-
tract, Be . 101, 2163
— , Be, Day v. Turnell . 1633
V. Betts
V. Pranks
V. Hill
V. Sargent
V. Scott
519, 558, 559
1882
2272
1343
171, 177
V. York Bldg. Co. . 1898
Higginsliaw Mill & Spinning
Co., Be ... . 1839
Higginson & Dean, Be . . 1585
Higgs' Mortgage, Be . . 435
V. Dorkis . . 987, 1805
V. Sckrader . . . 1051
V. Weaver, Be Weaver . 1410
Higkam, Be . . . . [281]
Table of Cases.
cxlvii
Higliett & Bird, Be
Highgate Archway
Jeakes
BBghitt V. Dampier
Highton V. Treherne
Hilbers v. Parkinson
Hildesheim, Be
Hildeshcimer v. Dunn
V. Faulkner
. 2167,2182
Co. V.
. 2139
. 1009
828, 832
. 1631
. 2129
. 672
. 664
Hildiok, Be, Hipkins v. Hipkins 1350
Hildyard, Be, Exp. Smith . 1981
V. South Sea Co. . 2242
Hiles V. Ager . . . 1126
■ V. Moore . 738, 750, 1054
Hill's Case, Victoria, &c. Society 2061
Patent . . . 2320
Hill, Exp., Be Bird . . 2288
Lane . . 1944
, (Lewis) Be Davies v.
Napper . . . 1254
, Be, Hill V. Hill . . 2134
■ -v. Pilcher . 1142, 1774
(33 Ch. D. 266) . 287,
1051
(L. R. 3 Q. B. 543) . 1071
(50 L. J. N. S. Ch. 551) 1619
(11 W. R. 930) . 1631
— ■ (15 Mar. 1886, A. 889)
[1776]
(W. N. (74) 228)
([1902] 1 Ch. 807)
■ & Co. V. HiU .
■ V. Aimitage .
■ V. Bexley (L.)
• V. Binney
■ V. Bonner
■ V. Boyle
■ V. Bridges, Be Bridges
- V. Buckley
• V. Campbell
■ V. Chapman
■ V. Cooper
■ V. Crook
■ V. Curtis
■ V. Edmonds
■ V. Evans
■ V. Fearis
■ V. Fulbrook
■ V. Gage, Be Gage
1189
1560,
1654
, 530
[2116]
. 123
. 1360
. 123
. 1080
1405,
1607
[2192], 2193
. 923
. 1510
1359, 1460
882, 883
. 653
2098, 2111
470, 1810
1544, 1677
■ V. Grant, Be Dickson . 970
■ V. Hart-Davis 37, 70, 74, 249,
512, 676, 677
■ V. Hibbit . . 152, 763
■ V. Hiokin 1316, 1320, 1790,
1809
■ V. HiU (55 L. T. 76) . 528
(32 L. J. Ch. 132) . 999
PAGE
Hill V. Hill ([1897] 1 Q. B. 483) 1560
V. King . . . 315, 2112
— — • V. Kirk wood . . .719
V. Kirwan . . .52
V. Lane .... 2247
V. Mathie, Be Whitfield . 1569
V. Maurice . . . 940
V. Mid. Ey. Co. 699, 2392, 2393
V. Peel . . 244, 290, 294
■ V. Pritohard . . .1673
■ V. Rimell . . .378
i). Rimill . . .511
V. Rowlands . . . 1837
V. Sehwarz, Be Parkin . 863,
887, 1606, 2153
• V. Sidebottom . .1836
V. South Staff. Ry. [1311], 1315,
1344
• ■ V. Spencer . . . 2291
■ V. Spurgeon, Be Love 1129,
1453
V. Thompson . . .631
■ ■ V. Walker . 1387, 1469, 1609
V. Wallasey Local Board 553,
698
V. Wilson . . .1366
— - — V, Wormsley, Be Wormsley 1477
Hillary, Be . . . .950
Hilleary v. Noyce, Be Noyce . 805
. 271, 297
. 1503
1448, 1596, 1623
. 503, 720
793, 797, 2161
. 1810
. 2141
527
[2121], 2125, 2126
. 1943
67,89
14
[1737]
Gibbsv. Hale-Hinton 1147
V. Granville 515, 516, 569
V. Hilton 1148, 1166, 1251,
1419, 1446, 1447
2156, 2168, 2208
. 1939
. 573
HiUiard v. Eiffe .
• V. FuKord
• V. Hanson
Hillman v. Mayhew
Hills V. Archer
V. Barclay
V. CroU .
V. M'Rae
V. Shepherd
V. Wates
Hillyard v. Smyth
Hilton, Be
■ ■ — ■ V. Tipper
■ V. Tucker
■ • V. Woods
Hinohcliffe, Be
Hincks v. Allen, Be
Hind V. Whitmore
Hinde v. Blake
• — ■ — — V. Morton
Hinder v. Streeten
Hindle v. Taylor
Hindmarsh, Be
Hinds V. Buenos-Ayres Grand
National Tram. Co. . . 700
Allen
76, 1022
. 1626
. 932
466, 1083
. 110
. 2190
. 358
. 1057
cxlviii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Hindson v. Ashby . . 588, 2310
V. Weatherill . 1056, 2275
Hindustan (Bank of), Be, Smith's
Case 1050
Hine v. Campion . . . 2248
V. Dodd . . . 2033
Hine-Hayoock v. Hamerton . [790]
Hinings v. Hinings . . 1445
Hinsley v. lokeringill, Be Icker-
ingill . . . 886,1427
Hintonv. GaUi . . [777], 779
Hiorns v. Holtom 1846, 1876, 1883,
1918
Hipgrave v. Case . . 837, 2158
BUpkins v. Amery . . . 2035
V. Hipkins, Be Hildioh 1350
Hippisley v. Knee Bros. . 1333, 2269
. 924
. 2156
Hipwell V. Hipwell
V. Knight .
Hirachand Punamchand v.
Temple
Hiram Maxim Lamp Co., Be
Hirsch v. Im Thurm
V. Jonas
1365
1319,
1321
392
625, 627, 2329
Hirschfield v. L. B. & S. C. Ry.
Co 2234
Hirst's Mortgage Trusts, Be . 1680
Hirst and Capes, Be . . 267
,Exp 1984
■ -, Be ... . 1106
■ • V. Denham . 620, 621, 626
V. Tolson . . 969, 1378
V. West Riding Union
Banking Co. , , . 1695
Hiscoe, Be ... . 1572
Hislop V. Wykeham . . 373
Hitch V. Leworthy . . 1486
u. Wells . . .935
Hitchcock V. Beardsley . .1591
V. Carew . . 151
V. Clendinen . . 909
V. Colier . . 529
V. Stretton . . 279
Hitchen v. Birks . . .747
Hitching v. Morrieson, Be Mor-
rieson ..... 1512
Hitchman v. Stewart 1345, [2068],
2074, 2077, 2080
. 1645
. 1016
443, 449,
481, 1408
. 743
. V. Gray . . . [417]
• V, Harvey . . . [718]
- V. Herrington . . 526
- V. Hoare . . 1252, 1258
• V. Newland . . 1906
Hoare's Trusts, Be
Hoare, Be .'
-, Exp. Nelson
— — — — -, Hoare v, Owen
PAGE
Hoare u. Niblett . . .856
V. Osborne . 1303, 1304, 1427
V. Owen, Be Hoare . 452
V. Wilson ... 87
& Co., Be . . . 2433
V. Moorshead . 24
Hobart v. Abbot . . .2011
V. Butler . . . 1033
Hobbs, Be, Hobbs v. Wade . 978
V. Hudson ... 97
V. Mid. Ry. Co. . . 707
V. Norton . . . 2031
V. Wayet 716, [1127], 1132,
1594
Hobday v. Peters 863, 1057, 1081,
1606
Hobern v. Fowler . . . 460
Hobhouse v. HoUcombe . . 768
Hoblyn v. Hoblyn . . 1634, 1638
Hobson's Trusts, Be 1803, [2381],
2383
Hobson, Be . . . 421, 437
— ■ ; Walker v. Appach 1622
V. Bass . [2068], 2077
«. Bell . . . 1927
— — V. Ferraby . . 1014
• — — ■ — V. Gorringe . . 1951
— t;. Loxley, iJe Kneeshaw 211
■ — V. Shearwood . . 1046
■ — — — - V. Sherwood (19 Beav.
575) . . .768
V. Sherwood (4 Beav.
184) . . . 1800
V. Trevor . . . 2150
■ V. Tulloch . . .535
Hoby V. Birch . . . 1321
V. Grosvenor Library Co. 628
Hoch V. Boor . . 391, 404
Hochkys, Be, Freke v. Calmady 1489,
1553
Hockaday, Be, Exp. Nelson 1941,
1946
Hockey v. Evans . . . 501
V. Western . . 1900
Hocking, Be, Hocking v. Bon-
more . . [957]
, Michell V. Loe 1544,
1591
Hockley v. Ansah . . . 821
V. Bantoch 1062, 1122, 1980
Hoddel V. Pugh ., . .2185
Hodder v. Wilhams . . 436
Hodge's Legacy . . . 1655
■ Settled Estates, Be . 1741
Hodge V. A.-G. . . . 1840
Hodgens, Be . . . .281
■ ■ ■ V. Hodgens . . 907
Hodges, Be . . 1155, 1157, 1540
— , Davey v. Ward . 966
Table of Cases.
cxlix
PAGE
Hodges, Re, Settlement . , 950
V. Blagrave . . 1703
V. Croydon Canal Co. . 1877
V. Hodges (20 Ch. D.
749 . . 872, 1607
V. Hodges ([1899] 2 Ir.
R. 480) . . 1497
V. Wheeler 1213, 1214
Hodgetts V. Fortescue . [1502]
Hodgkinson, Be, Hodgkinson
V. Hodgkinson 1129
V. Crowe . . 207
— — V. Kelly [2293], 2296
Hodgson's Soh., Re 1255, 1261, 1262
Hodgson, Re (11 Ch. D. 888) . 1183
(31 Ch. D. 177) . 52
, Beckett v. Rams-
dale 1376, [2121],
2125, 2126
— — — -, Darley v. Hodgson 1427
, Taylor V. Hodgson 2311
V. Beauchesne
V. BeU .
V. Benison
V. Bower
[1227,
1520
805
709
2205],
2218
824
[767]
2041
549
V. Clarke .
• V. Davidson
■ V. Dean .
V. Duce .
V. Halford 1541, 1544, 1656,
1677
■ V. Hodgson (M. R.
July 23, 1856) . 1214
V. Hodgson (23 Beav.
604) . . .438
V. Kent and Surrey
Bldg. Soc. . 1807
V. Powis (E.) . . 702
V. Ry. Passengers'
Ass. Co. . . 393
• — V. Shaw . . .344
V. Sinclair . . 2330
■ V. Williamson . 854, 1607
Hodgson-Roberts v. Hodgson-
Roberts and Whitaker . 924
Hodkinson v. Quinn . . 1481
Hodson, Exp.
, Re (9 Ha. 118)
and Howe, Re
— — — - V. Carter .
V. Coppard
■ V. Deans
• V. Drewry
• V. Heuland
■ V. Tea Co.
■ V. Watson
. 2210
1185, 1186
. 1983
. 2190
509, 522, 624,
532
719, 1848, 1857,
1900, 2255
. 125
. 2147
. 1969
. 776, 779
PAGE
Hoey V.Green . .1105,1140
Hoffe's Estate Act, Re . . 1645
Hoffman v. Boynton, Re Boyn-
ton. Ltd,
V. Duncan
Hoffmann v. Postill
740, [764]
[680], 752
67, 69, 75, 86,
88
. 2097
. 1560
. 619
514, 661
. 493
. 2400
Hogg V. Hogg
V. Jones
— ■ — ■ V. Kirby
V. Soott
Hoggart V. Cutts
Hogge, Exp. .
Hoghton, Re, Hoghton v. Fid-
dey . . . 939
— ■ — — V. Hoghton (15 Beav.
278) 152, 1455, 1633,
1638
— — — — V. Hoghton (15 Beav.
299) .... 2272, 2273
Holbrook, Re
Holden's Case
Holden, Exp.
, Re (7 May,
1878)
(20 Q. B. D. 43)
(1 H. & M. 445)
V. Hargreaves
V. Holden .
— ■ V. Kynaston
— ■ V. Silkstone Co
V. Waterlow
V. Weekes .
Holder, Re
Holdich V. Holdich
Holdsworth v. Goose
Hole V. Barlow
■ — — V. Bradbury
1215
234
2000
342
1132
2383
566
[1140]
. 1352
800, 1035
. 510, 514
539, 546, 547
[1995]
. 916
. 1673
. 600
[657], 662, 663.
665
. 541
V. Thomas
Holford, Re, HoKord v. Holford
[959], 970, 971
V. Acton Urban Dist.
Council . . 533
V. Phipps .
V. Yate
Holgate V. Haworth
V. Jennings
V. Shutt
. 1136
. 1914
1450, 1549
1516, 1620
1339, 1340, 1341,
2060, 2098, 2114,
2115, 2131
Holland, Exp. (9 Ch. 307) . 863
■ (1 Ph. 379) . 2464
, Re, Exp. Warren . 422
([1902] 2 Ch. 360) 1628,
2143, 2144, 2284
([1907] 2 Ch. 88) 2133
(16 Ch. D. 672) . 1220
, Gregg V. Holland 905,
2286
cl
Table of Cases.
Holland v. Bennett
V. Clark
V. Cork Ry. Co.
■ — — V. Pickson
■ : — V. Fox
V. Hodgson
V. Holland (4 Ch,
(13
406)
-V.Holland (V.-C.
Feb. 24, 1844)
- V. Holland (V.-C.
June 22, 1844)
449)
Eq.
E.
E.
PAOE
15
1428
1970
81
645
1951
1091
1803
1428
V. Hughes
— • V. King
V. Leslie
■ — V. Prior
V. Teed
— V. Worley
Hollick, Exp.
HoUiday and Godlee, Re
[1610,
1613]
1610
340
45
1459
2076
515, 519, 559
. 2363
281
and Mayor of Wake-
field, iJe . . 2351
V. HeppenstaU . [642], 643
V. Nat. Tel. Co. . 601
Hollier v. Burne . . 1708, 1712
V. Eyre . . . 2084
HoUingdrake v. Heaton . . 725
Hollingshead, Be, HoUingshead
V. Webster . . 1383, 1868
Hollingsworth v. Grasett . 1539
V. Shakesbaft 1121,
1122
HoIIington, Exp. . . . 1029
, , Be . . . 1060
— V. Dear . . 852
HoUingworth v. Willing, Be
Weir .... 2041
HoUinrake v. Truswell . 667, 669
HoUins V. Verney . . . 580
HoUis V. Allan . . 1621, 1700
— V. Bulpett . . . 1312
■ V. Burton . . 46, 1443
Hollis' Hospital and Hague, Be 1541,
1543, 2167
HoUiwell V. Seacombe . . 2252
HoIIoway Bros. v. Hill . . 535
— , Be ... 73
, Young V.
way
Hollo-
V. HoUoway
V. Millard
85
1630
2284
— V. York . 793, 797, 2154
Hollway v. Trelawny, Be Mas-
singberd's Sett. . . [1100]
HoUyford Copper Mining Co.,
Be ... . [194], 195
Holman's Settlement, Be , 2393
PAGE
Holman v. Loynes . 1055, 2256, 2274
Holme V. Brunskill . . 2084
V. Fieldsend . [1855]
V. Guy . . . 1277
V. Hammond . 1498, 2127
■ V. Stanley . . . 1371
V. Williams . . 940
Holmes' Estate, Be 1054, 1055, 2274
Holmes, Exp. (Mont. & Ch. 301) 2077
(V.-C. E., 16
March, 1849,
B. 644) . . 2366
; Be . . . .488
, Hallows V. Holmes 869
V. Holmes, Be Moon 1361,
1367
— V. Baddeley . 90, 93
■ V. Bell . . .748
V. Coghill . . . 1606
• V. E. C. Ry. . . 525
• V. Hervey . . . 797
• ■ V. Holmes . . . 1668
V. Howes . . . 2153
■ • V. Millage 479, 512, 759, 761
• ■ V. Newcastle Abattoir
Co. . . . 2430
r V. Eenney . . 2284, 2286
— V. Powell . . . 2161
— • V. Sayer-Milward . 56
• V. Shaw . . . 2161
■ V. The Queen . . 382
. V. Turner . . . 2015
■ V. Tutton . . 480, 1320
• • V. Twickenham Board of
Health . . 610
V. Upton . . .548
Holmesdale (V.) v. SackviUe-
West . [845, 1649, 1650], 1655
Holroyd v. Holroyd . [1545]
Holroyde, Re . . . 263
— — V. Garnett . . 432
Holste V. Robertson . . 2315
Holsworthy Urban Council v.
Holsworthy Rural CoTineU 125, 126
Holt, Be (11 Ch. D. 168) 433, [464],
466
(16 Ch. D. 115) . 997
■ , Exp. Daintrey . . 1455
• , Holt V. Holt 870, [1078],
1110
• & Co.'s Trade Mark, Be . 2331
■ V. Beagle . . . 1915
V. Collyer
V. Everall
. 534
. 873
V. Jesse
124, 125
V. Murray
1'. Rochdale (Corp.)
. 1363
. 608
V. RoUason 870, [1078], 1110
Holtby V. Hodgson 480, 850, 856
Table of Cases.
cli
PAGE
Holton V. Lloyd . . .1899
Holyland v. Lewin . . 1559
Holywell - cum - Needingworth,
R. of, Exp. . . 2379
; R. of, Exp. . . 2400
Home Ass. Co., Re . . 27
, Re . . .881, 2286
Homfray )-. Fothergill . 2090, 2095
Honduras Ry. v. Tucker . 50
Hone V. Boyle . . . 2038
Honeyman v. Marryatt . 2144, 2145
Honeywood v. Poster . .1718
— V. Honywood 542, 545,
1553, [1682], 1693, 1870
Hong Kong and China Gas Co.,
Re
Honiball v. Bloomer
Honour v. Equitable Life Assoc.
of U. S. A.
Hood's Trusts, Re .
Hood, Re ... .
V. Barrington (L.)
V. Clapham
V. Cooper
2440
653
165
. 1158
. 1938
1355, 2143
. 1623
V. Easton
■ V. Franklin .
— V. Hood
— V. N. E. By.
V. Oglander .
V. Phillips
■ V. Randell, Re Bandell .
• —V. Stallybrass
• V. Wilson
■ V. Yates
Hood and Moore's Stores, Ltd.
V. Jones ....
Hood-Barrs, Exp., Re Lumley
([1894] 3 Ch.
. 185
. 573
. 1633
. 1477
527, [690]
2150, 2162
. 1030
290
1335
1404
174
629
135) . 852, 870
, Re Lumley
([1896] 2 Ch.
690) . . 869
V. Cathcart ([1894]
2 Q. B. 559) 480, 856
V. Cathcart ([1894]
3 Ch. 376) . 852
V. Cathcart ([1895]
2 Ch. 411) 760, 2003,
2004
V. Cathcart ([1895]
1 Q. B. 873) . 852
V. Crossman ([1897]
A. C. 172, H. L.) 1032
V. Heriot ([1896] A.
C. 174, H.L.)
V. Heriot ([1897] A.
C. 177, H. L.) .
856,
870
852,
857
PAGE
Hood-Barrs v. Heriot ([1896] 1
Q. B. 610) . 1032
Hook, Re . . . .264
Hooke V. Johnson . . [2025]
V. Piper, Trueman's Est. 1031
. 684
[691], 695,
700
1857, 1901
. 2266
. 1537
. 910
884, 1633
— — , Exp. Banco de Por-
tugal . . 837
, Ashford v. Brooke 1478
, Baylis v. Watkins 1378
, Hooper v. Mans-
field
V. Balfour
V. Bourne
Hookham v. Pottage
Hoole V. G. W. Ry.
■ V. Smith
V. Speak
Hooley v. Hatton
Hooper's Trusts
Hooper, Re
V. Gumm
V. Herts
V. Hill
V. Hooper
V. Keay and Draper
V. Kerr
V. Rossiter
[1396]
, 398
. 707
. 90
, 2038
. 785
, 1123
. 2127
, 705
, 1621
V. Smart
1380, 1593, 1594,
2193
V. Smith, Re Smith
• • V. Strutton
Hooson, Exp.
Hooton V. Dolby .
Hoporaft v. Hopcraft
Hope, Re (7 Ch. 523)
— (7 Ch. 766)
(8 P. D. 144) .
, De Cetto v. Hope
1132, 1660
831
. 1233
. 431
68, 84
. 2194
. 306
307, 432, 1062,
1072
1050
815,
1768
72
523, [720], 721
1694
V. Brash
■u. Carnegie
V. Cloneurry (L.)
r. Croydon and Norwood
Tram. Co. . 760, [1955]
V. D'Hedouville . 1617, 1618
V. Hope (3 Beav. 317) . 107
(3 P. & M. 226) 925
— (4 D. M. & G.
345) . 963, 991
— ( 8 D. M. & G.
731) . . 1000
([1892] 2 Ch. 236) 866,
874
(W. N. (93) 20) . 151
V. Intern. Fin. Soo. . 702,
2430
i;. Liddell , . . 1040
clii
Table of Cases.
Hopgood V. Ernest
V. Parkin
PAGE
Hope V. ThreMall . . .105
■ ■ V. Walter . . 2138, 2142
, The . . . . 126
Hope-Johnstone's Trusts, Be . 1188
Hopewell v. Barnes . 473, 487
, Be Prince [468]
. 2036
126, 127, 1086,
1105
Hopkin V. Hopkin . . .110
Hopkins' Trusts, Be . . 1700
Hopkins, Be . . . . 1621
■ — -, Dowd V. Hawtin 748,
771, 1425, 1503
■ — ■ , Williams v. Hop-
Idns . . 1405
■ — V. Goivan . . . 1090
■ — — — V. Gudgeon . . 1944
■ — V. Hemsworth 1928, [2023]
. 1936
■ V. Hills .
■ V. Walker
V. Wore. &c. Can.
Hopkinson, Be
V. Burghley (L.)
. [766]
. 753
. 2333
[60], 76,
95, 673
. 2164
. 1451
■ V. Chamberlain
V. EUis .
V. Exeter (Marq. of) 712,
2109
V. Lusk . .1190
V. Eoe . . . 1459
V. Rolt . . 1992, 2043
V. St. James', &c.
. 246
. 2320
. [958]
. 1208
389, 1190
. 1468
. 368
[959]
Electric Co.
Hopkinson's Patent, Be
Hoppe V. CuUen
Hopper's Trusts, Be
Hopper, Be .
Hopton V. Dryden .
Hopwood V. Derby (E.) .
Hora, Be, W. H. (an Infant)
V. Hora
Horace, The .
Horan v. MaoMahon
Horde v. E. Suffolk
Hordern, Be .
V. Hordern
Hore V. Smith
Horlock, Be
CaUiam v.
■ V. Smith .
- V. Wiggins
. 246
. 1637
. 1257
. 2403
. 2096, 2133
. 716, 2402
. 1668
Smith . 1538
277, 744, 1903
. 1538, 1669
. 305
. 1480
Horn and Francis, Be
■ V. Horn
Hornbuckle, Be goods of . . 886
Hornby v. Cardwell 21, 242, 819
V. Hunter . . 1315, 1379
V. Matcham 2227, 2229, 2231
Horncastle ?). Charlesworth . 1801
PAGE
Home's Settled Estates, Be 976,
1782
Home, Be, Wilson v. Cox-Sin-
clair . . . 1133
([1905] 1 Ch. 76) . 1596
& Sons, Be . . 1047, 1048
and Hellard, Be . 1969, 2168
- V. Hough . . 65, 67
V. Hughes . . . 1943
V. Fountain . .475
V. Shepherd . 1038, 1469
Homer, Be . . . . 2384
, Eagleton v. Homer 1510
, Pooks V. Homer . 1344
, Pomfret v. Graham 1513
V. Oyler . . .247
Homiblow v. Shirley . 2160, 2194
Homsby v. Bird . , . 2146
V. Lee . . . 1627
Hornsey Dist. Council v. Smith 1993
Local Bd. V. Monarch
Bldg. Soc. . . . 1866, 1993
Horrell v. Witts . . .753
Horrocks v. Horrocks . . 1007
V. Ledsam . . 1884
V. Stubbs . . 139
Horsey Estate, Ld. v. Steiger 2307,
2308, 2309
Horsfall v. Garnett . .182
— V. Halifax Bkg. Co. . 1991
V. Hulbert . . 1007
Horsley v. Baddeley . [1415]
V. Chaloner . 1428, 1429
V. Cox . . 292, 475
V. Fawcett . . 1095
Horsnail, Be, Womersley v.
Horsnail . . . .1150
Horton, Be . . . .886
• V. Bosson (W. N. (99)
38) . . 822,1836
V. Bosson (8 L. T. 435) 25
0. Brocklehurst . . 1084
V. Colwyn Bay . . 698
V. Hall . . . 1574
V. Sayer . . .391
Horwood, iJe . . . 2383
V. Schmedes . . 1312
Hoskin's Trusts, Be 819, 886, 1129,
1159
Hoskin v. Sincock . . .1877
Hosking v. Smith . 2044. 2058, 2059
Hoskins, Be . . . . 1190
V. Campbell . . 799
, Gibbon v.
Campbell .... [796]
Hoste V. Pratt . . .964
Hotchkin's Settled Estate, Be 1095,
1779, 1780
Hotchkiss, Be . . . 889
Table of Cases.
cliii
PAGE
Hotohkys, Be, Preke v. Cal-
mady . . . 1489, 1553
Hotham, Re . . . 1145, 1774
Hotten V. Arthur . 661, 662, 667
• ■ V. Newsagents, &o. Co. [659]
Hough V. Edwards . 482, 1049
- V. Ryley . . . 1443
Houghton's Chapel, Re . . 1265
Estate, Re (30 Ch.
D. 102) . . 1778
Estates, Re (W. N.
(94)20) . . 1742
Patent . . 2320
Houghton, Re (30 Ch. D. 102) 1779
• Hawleyt!. Blake 1149
and Hallmark, Re
Mitchell & Co. . 2328
■ V. Franklin . . 1568
Houlditch V. M. Donegal 739, 779
Houldsworth v. City of Glasgow
Bank . ... 2263
HoumoUer's Trade Mark, Re [2339]
Hounsell v. Dunning . . 979
House Property, &c. Co. v. H. P.
Horse Nail Co. . . 51, 603
Househill Co. v. Neilson . . 634
Household, Re, Household v.
Household 981, 1134,
[1693], 1696
V. Fairburn . . 636
— Fire Ins. Co. v. Grant 2145
Houseman v. Houseman 132, 799,
800, 1452
Houston's Settlement, Re . 290
Houston V. Sligo (M.) . 138, 152
Hovenden v. Annesley . . 1386
V. Lloyd . . 624
How, Re ... . [485]
V. Earl Winterton . 243, 244,
1114, 1128, 1130, 1133
V. Gerrard . . .163
Howard's Settled Estates, Re . 1772
261
1210
Howard, Re (8 Beav. 424)
• (3 W. R. 605)
(Nov. 4, 1909,
3813)
A.
[1175]
. 1039
. 1819
. 82
- and DoUman's Case
- V. Barnwell-
- V. Beall
- V. Chaffers . 352, 1419
- V. Easton, Re Bosworth 1465
- V. Fanshawe . .117
- V. Gunn . . 95, 673
• V. Harris . 1483, 1862, 1863
• V. Howard, Re Howard 910
■ V. Jalland 980, [1792], 1803,
1804
V. Kay . . . 2464
V. Patent Ivory Co. . 1965
PAGE
Howard v. Press Printers, Ld. . 510
V. Rhodes . . 1165
- V. Robinson . 86, 1874
V. Sadler . . . 475
Howarth, Re (8 Ch. 415) 944, [961],
968
(W. N. (85) 48) . 2362
([1909] 2 Ch. 19) 1573
V. Howarth . 424, 434
V. Powell . [1338]
Howatson v. Webb . 2035, 2246
Howden v. Yorkshire Miners
Ass 712
Howe Machine Co., Re . .29
— Trustees, Exp., Re Lake 1092,
1104
V. Dartmouth 1108, 1614, 1616,
1618, 1620, 1621
. 135
V. Grey
V. Hall
V. Hewet
— V. Hunt
Howe (E.) V. Lichfield (E
— V. M'Keman
V. Smith
V. Winterton (Earl)
Howel V. Price
. 2146
. 2208
. 1896
) . 230
78, 84, 646
. 2188
243, 244
. 2066
266, 309
. 448
. 501
. 2150
1122, 2182
. 322
[930], 933
Co. . 479
1228, 2218
. 1365
. 298
[1528], 1529
1855
2274
Bd. . 818
Howett's Application, Re [2322]
Howgate & Osborne's Contract 864,
2244
Howell Thomas, Re
Howell V. Coningsby (L.)
V. Dawson .
V. George .
• V. Howell .
— ■ — — V. Keightley
— ■ ■ V. Lewis
V. Met. Dist. Ry.
— ■ V. Palmer .
V. Price
V. Tyler
HoweUs V. Jenkins 1378,
V. Wilson .
Howes V. Bishop .
V. Inland Rev.
Howgrave v. Courtier
Howitt V. Hall
■ V. E. Harrington
Howkins v. Bennett
V. Howkins
Howland v. Norris .
Howley v. Cook
Howse V. Chapman
Howson's Policy Trusts,
Howson V. Trant
Hoy V. Smithies
Hoyes v. Tate
Hoyle's Trust, Re
Hoyles, Re .
. 1665
. 662
. 1381
. 1883
. 506
. 2194
2278, 2279
. 1449
Re . 874
[1994]
. 2165
. 250
. 1730
. 723
cliv
Tahle of Cases.
PAGE
Hoyles, Be, Row v. Jagg 1296, 1306
Hoyle, Re, Hoyle v. Hoyle . 2078
Hubback, Be, International Hy-
dropathic Co. V. Hawes 1363, 1467,
1468, 2000
Hubback v. British North
Borneo Co. ... 250
Hubbard, Exp., Be Hardwick . 1939
, Be . . . 278
V. Alexander . . 1537
V. Hubbard . [1818]
V. Latham . 1456, 1461
Hubbuok, Be, Hart v. Stone 1108,
1555, [16161
■ ([1905])P. 129)
V. Bro^vn
■ — ■ V. Helms
Huber, Be
Huokle V. Wilson- .
Hucklesby v. Hook
Huddersfield Bkg. Co.
1510
623
719, 1969
. 1521
. 2059
. 2145
124,
Lister
125, 2235
■ Corp., Exp. . 2361
■ ■ and Ja-
comb, Be 397
■ of. Be . 2139
' V. Ravens-
thorpe District Council 602, 694,
704
Huddlestone v. Huddlestone . 914
V. Whelpdale 1704,
1711
Hudson's Case . . . 2295
— Trusts, Be . . 1540
Hudson, Be (V.-C. H., 20 Dec.
1876, A. 2168) [1197]
• ■ — — (32 Oh. D. 311) 2332,
2338
— ([1904] W. N. 32) . 264
Creed v. Henderson 2149
■ , Spencer v. Turner 1366
— V. Buck . . . 2155
V. Carmichael
• V. Cook
V. Cripps
V. Grenfell
— V. Mitchell
^v. Osgerby
— V. Revett .
V. Temple .
V. Tooth .
V. Walker .
Hue, Be
Huggins, Exp.
V. Robinson
322, 882
1477, 1488, 2194
534, 535
. 69
. 2159
. 246
1929, 2243
. 2156
. 192
. 511
. 1159
. 445
. 1615
. 36
Huggons V. Tweed .
Hugh Symington v. Caledonian
Ry. Co 569
Hughes' Patent . . , 2320
Hughes' Trusts, Be . . 1927
Hughes, Exp., Be, Agriculturist,
&c. Co. . . . 1870
. Be (6 Ves. 617) . . 1056
(W. N. (84) 53) . 1182
(W. N. (88) 167) . 1561
. (2 H. & M. 695) 1206,
1210
(L. R. 3 R & M. 140) 1354
■ ([1906] 2 Ch. 643) . 1717
— ([1911] 1 Ch. 342) . 2095
; Brandon v. Hughes 887,
923, 1607
, Exp. Hughes . 2286
and Ashley, Be . . 2201
■ V. Anderson, Be Butler's
Trusts . . .909
V. Biddulph . . 90
V. Coles
V. Cook
V. Eades
V. Empson
V. Fanagan
V. Hughes (1 Ves,
3 B.C.
387)
V. Jones
V. Justin
V. Kelly
V. Key
V. Little
V. Lumley
V. Met. Ry. Co,
V. Meyrick
V. Morris .
V. Percival
1112, 1382, 1432,
1571
. 1855
. 1349
. 1502
. 1756
161;
C. 87) 769
C C
964, 966
188, 352
. 169
. 1873
1095, 1136
829, 1942
. 2001
■ (Bro
. 2209
289, 294
2147
. 553
0. Permanent, &o. Society
2014, 2015, 2043
V. Pump House Hotel
Co. . 50, 492, 1929
V. Science . . . 1011
■ V. Seanor, Rogers ?'.
Powell, Morley v.
Pinney . . . 1376
V. Seanor . . . 2037
V. Twisden . . 1063
■ V. Williams 1898, 1899, 1907
Hughes-Hallett v. Indian Mam
moth Gold Mines
Hughill V. Masker .
— V. Wilkinson
Huguenin v. Baseley 1056,
Huish, Be, Bradshaw v. Huish
Charity, Be .
V. Sweet
Hulbert ?'. Cathcart
1132
1933
1866
2272,
2273
1538
1675, 2167
341
443
Table of Cases.
civ
Hulkes, Re, Powell v. Hulkes
■ V. Kay
PAGE
1119,
1122
473
Hull, Barnsley & West Riding
Junction By. Co., Re 756, 2203,
2412, [2415], 2422
Hull, &o. Ry. Co., Re . 1998, 2003
■ V. N. E. Ry. . 1344
■ and County Bank, Bur-
gess! Case
■ -V. Christian
■ V. Falconer
Hulm and Lewis, Re
Hulme V. Coles
V. Bowbotham
V. Tenant .
2263
. 1368
. 1379
. 1072
. 2085
. 2120
861, 866
. 927
. 2128
Hulse V. Tavernor .
Hulton V. Lister
Humberlron Works Co.,iJe296, 1345
V. Biohards, Re Bichards
2030, 2032, 2034, 2033
Humble v. Bowman . . 1511
V. Humble (12 Beav. 43) 341
(24 Beav. 335)
1388
V. Shore . 1419, 1424, 1541
Hume, Re . . . .1189
, Forbes v. Hume . 1298
V. Beale . . .521
V. Bentley . . 330, 2163
V. DruyfE . . .437
V. Lopes . . 1143, 1144
• V. Pocock . . . 2163
V. Bichardson . 1108, 1618
Humfrey v. Dale . . . 1324
Humfries, Re, Smith v. Millidge 1510
HummeU v. Hummell . 1357, 1677
Humphery v. Conybeare . 2144
Humphrey v. Oliyer . . 1676
V. Summer . 297, 834
Humphreys, Re . . . 373
, Humphreys v.
Levett . [961], 971
■ -.v. Edwards . . 792
• V. Green . 2146, 2147
V. Harrison . 343, 1892
V. Humphreys . 1359
— V. Jones . . 303
■ V. Morten . . 31
V. Boberts . . 509
Humphries v. Brogden . . 568
• V. Home . . 342
v. Humphries . 139
—— — - V. Taylor Drug Co. 646,
2330, 2338, [2340]
Humphry, Re . . . 1186
Humphrys, .Be, ^a;p. Chatteris 1336
V. Moore . . 1129
^— V. Polak , . 996
PAGE
Hungerford, Re (1 K. & J. 413), 2361
2400, 2401
— — — (3 K. & J. 455) 2362,
2401
Hunnings v. Williamson . 62, 67, 96
Hunt's Settled Estate, Re . 1774
Hunt, Exp., Re Cann . . 1941
, Re . . . 1071,2386
, Pollard V. Geake 1697, 1698
— ■ ([1902] 2 Cli. 318)
(Seager), Be .
V. Chambers, Re Martin
V. Fownes
V. Prensham
V. Pripp
V. Hiller
1369
1361
362,
823
V. City of Lond., &c. Co. 165
V. Elmes 79, 86, 1838, 2033, 2042
V. Pineburg . . . 1034
1882
422
1949
557
V. Hunt (V.-C. M., 17 Nov.
1876, A. 1773) [1009]
— — — (28 Ch. D. 606) 921,
1001, 2149
(4 D. F. & J. 221) 531,
920
■ (54 L. J. Ch. 289) 510,
511
— — (V.-C. W., 21 Dec.
1872) [1487, 1493,
1496]
(W. N. (86) 243) 851
■ ([1897] 2 Q. B. 547) 930
V. Jessel . . *■ . 1320
■ ■ V. Life Ass. of Scotland . 727
V. Lond. Real Property
Co. ... 829
V. Luck . [2028], 2037
• V. Maniere . . . 625
V. Matthews . . . 2240
■ ■ V. Parry, Re AKord 965, 968
V. Peacock . . 1507, 2464
-— V. Peake . . 567, 568
V. Priest . . 452, 744
- V. Wenham, Re Wenham 1387
■;;. White . . . 2168
• V. Worsfold ... 3
Hunt-Foulston v. Furber . 1542
Hunter & Hewlett's Contract,
Re ... 1746
, Re, A.-G. V. Hood . 1303
. 2272, 2273
. 1387
. 1331, 1339
. 1303,1304
2104, 2106, 2118
. 827
70, 1327, 1382,
1873
V. Atkins .
V. Baxter .
V. Belcher .
V. Bullock .
V. Dowling
V. Hunter .
V, Nockolds
clvi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Hunter v. Walters 2031, 2035, 2036,
2245, 2246
— • V. Wortley . . 284
• V. Young . . 1594, 1595
Huntingdon Ohar, Be . . 1266
(E.) V. Hunting-
don (C.) . . . 882, 1475
Huntington v. Inland Revenue
Commissioners . . 159, 1892
Huntley v. Clutterbuck . . 1215
• (Marchioness of) v. Gas-
kell . . . 852, 1519, 2042
Hurlbalt and Chaytor, Re 2151,
2196
Hurlbatt V. Barnett & Co. . 403
Hurley v. Hurley . . . 874
Hurry v. Hurry . . . 1807
Hursell v. Bird . . . 1460
Hurst, Be . . 1174, 1197, 1210
•, Addison v. Tapp . 933
■ V. Hurst (9 Ch. 762) 94, 97
(21 Ch. D. 289) 52,
474
■ ■ ■ -(29 L. B. Ir.
219) 981, 1134, 1696
(16 Beav. 372) 1846,
2033
(28 Ch. D. 159) 1605
(21 Ch. D. 278) 474
Husband v. Martin, Be Clark . 1305
Hussey v. Horne-Payne . 2145, 2146
— V. Payne . . . 838
• V. Williams . .1166
Hutcheson, Be . , . 1355
V. Eaton . 392, 398
— V. Smith . . 2112
Hutohings to Burt . . .869
V. Humphrey . 2220
Hutohins v. Hutchins . 1061, 1676
Hutchinson, Exp. . . . 289
■ , Be Ball . 2288
■ , Be (16 Q. B. D.
515) . . 474
■ ^(V.-C. S. 30
Ap. 1861) . [893]
(34W.R.637) 1041
(lDr.&S.27) 1156,
1160
, Hutchinson v.
Norwood [1037]
V. Freeman . . 1515
■ V. Glover . . 77
— • V. Hartmont . 431
— V. Kay . . 1951
— V. Norwood . , 935
■ V. Stephens . . 1206
■ V. Tatham . .1324
— V. Town, Be Cham-
bers . . 7
PAGE
Hutchinson v. Ward, Be Smith 174,
794
Hutley, Be . . . .792
Button, Be . . . . 1590
V. Anderson, Be Ba-
con's Settlement 1090,
1428, 1447, 1595, 1678
V. Beeton . . . 774
— V. Brown . , 1835, 1870
V. Mansell . . .341
V. Rossiter , . 1428
V. Scarborough CUflE
Hotel Co. . 706, 2431
V. Sealy . . .1846
V. West Cork Ry. Co. 702, 703
Huxham v. Llewellyn . . 2156
Huxley v. West London Ex-
tension Ry. Co. . . . 241
Huxtable, Exp. . . . 2285
, Be, Huxtable c.
Crawford .... 1305
Hyam v. Terry . . . 842
Hyatt, Be, Bowles v. Hyatt 1112,
1387
Hyde, Exp 2398
, Re . . 1254, 1257, 1302
andCo., iJe . . 2333,2342
Park Place Charity, Be . 1259
V. Beardsley . 248, 400
-V. Benbow
- V. Dallaway .
-V. GreenhiU .
- V. Hindly
- V. Hyde (13 P. D. 166)
- V. Hyde (M. B. July 17,
1710) .
- V. Neate
- V. Price
- V. Warden
1216
2162
443
1809
433,
444
708
. 1552
. 1344,1572
729, 741, 2166
Hyett V. Mekin 980, 1489, 1490,1491
Hylton V. Hylton . . .978
■ V. Morgan ... 99
Hyman v. Helm . . 132, 722
— V. Van dem Bergh . 560
Hynde v. Taylor . . [2010]
Hynes v. Redington . . 1106
Hyslop, Be, Hyslop v. Cham-
berlain . . . 1376
V. Morel . . . 2260
Hythe Corp. v. East [1998], 2158,
2217, 2219, 2220
I. C, Exp, .
. 1017
Ibberson v. Warth .
. 1444
Ibbetson, Exp.
. 1091
Table of Cases.
clvii
PAGE
Ibbitson, Be . . . . 1489
Ibbotson, Re . . [1998]
V. Elam . . 1621, 2134
Ickeringill, Be, Hinsley v.
IckeringiU . . . 886, 1427
Ida Simon, Be . . . 876
Ideal Bedding Co. v. Holland 475,
760, 762
Ihlee V. Henshaw . . . 624
Ilchester (E.), Exp. . . 163
Ilderton, Be . . . 260, 270
Ilf ord Park Estate v. Jacobs . 534
Ilfracombe Building Soc, Be 2055,
2064, 2065
IlUdge, Be, Davidson v. lUidge 1363,
1365, 1367, 1470
niingworthi;. Houldsworth 1963, 1968
Illman, Be ... . 2383
lUsley V. BandaU, Be Taylor . 1573
Ilminster School, Be . 1259, 1265
Imbert-Terry v. Carver . . 1836
Imhof V. Sutton . . .392
Imperial, &c., The v. Funder . 397
Imp. Bank v. London and St.
Katharine's Dock Co. . . 2076
Imp. Hydropathic Hotel Co. v.
Hampson . . . 696, 704
Imp. Land Co. of Marseilles v.
Masterman ... 72
Imp. Merc. Credit Assoc, Be . [471]
Imp. Merc. Credit Assoc, v. Cole-
man 1093, 1334, [2267], 2268, 2270
Imp. Merc. Credit Assoc, v.
Newry & Armagh Ry. Co. . 1970
Imp. Ottoman Bank v. Trus-
tees, &c. Corp. . . . 2264
Imp. Royal Azienda, &c. of
Trieste v. Eunder . . 1045
Impey v. Impey . . .149
Incandescent Gas Light Co. v.
New Incandescent Light Co. 636,
637, 2317
Ince Hall, &c. Co. v. Douglas
Forge Co 1321
Inchbald v. Robinson 698, 602, 604
Inchley v. Allsopp . . . 1352
Income Tax Commrs. v, Pem-
sel . 1252, 1300, 1301, 1308
Incorporated Law Soc, Exp.,
Be A Solicitor (65 L. T. 584) 487
Incorporated Law Soc, Exp.,
Be A Solicitor ([1894] 1 Q. B.
254) 1070
Incorporated Law Soc, Exp.,
Be A Solicitor ([1898] 1 Q. B;
831) 1070
Incorporated Law Soc, Exp,,
Be A Solicitor ([1903] 1 K. B.
857) . . . . 1069
Incorporated Law Soc, Exp.,
Be A Solicitor (63 L. J. Q. B.
397) 1070
Incorporated Law Soc, Exp.,
Be Louis
Incorporated Soc. v. Richards
Incumbent of Whitfield, Be
Ind, Coope & Co., Ltd., Be
V. Emmerson
Inderwick, Be
V. Snell
1072
1250,
1903
2379,
2400
1892,
1966
62,
88
2311
775
--V. Tatchell
V. Hamblin
V. Kidd
260, 261, 267
. 695, 1255
1513
Indian Kingston Gold Mines,
Re .
Mechanical Gold Ex-
32
tracting Co., Be .
Inge, Exp., Be Catherine Hall .
V. Kenny
Ingham, Be .
, Jones V. Ingham
V. Bickerdike
V. Rayncr, Be Fish
Ingilby v. Graham .
Ingle, Be (21 Beav. 275)
• -(llEq. 578) ,
V. M'Culchan
V. Neale
V. Partridge
2441
1254
1428
322
2031,
2043
954
1341
1685
265, 270,
279
. 1509
. 261
. [772]
1086, 1105, 1443,
1657
V. Richards . 1387, 1468, 1504
■ V. Vaughan Jenkins . 2046
Inglis V. Haigh . . .1326
— V. Robertson . 1931, 1934
Ingoldsby v. Riley - . . 1908
Ingram, Be . . . . 227
V. Little . . 65, 933
V. Papillon, Re Ashton 1667
— V. Soultau . . . 1541
V. Stiff . . .619
— ■ V. Thorp . . . 2249
Inland Rev. Commrs. v. Angus 157
V. Tod . 159
Inman v. Clare . . 2300, 2301
— — V. Gardiner . [2317]
V. Inman . . . 945
V. Rolls, Be Inman 970, 1446
- V. Wearing . . 1853, 1921
Innes, iJe . . . 1366,1504
&Co., i?e . . . 2269
— V. Mitchell . . 1579, 1622
V. Sayer, Sayer v, Innes . 1250
clviii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Inns of Court Hotel Co. . . 1966
Insole, Be . . 898, 909, 926
Instone v. Elmslie . . . 1835
International Hydropathic Co.
V. Hawes, Re Hubbaek 1363, 1467,
1468, 2000
International Pulp, &c. Co.,
Be 1965
International Soc. v. City of
Moscow Gas Co. . 827, 831, 832
International Tea Stores v.
Hobbs . . . .578
Inwood V. Twyne . . . 980
Irby, Be . . . .1155
• V. Irby 1369, 1454, 1608, 2046
Iredell v. Iredell . . . 1509
Ireland (Bank of) v. McCarthy 1480,
1536
V. Bade . . .771
V. Hart
V. Trembaith
1929, 2244
. 895
. 2015
. 753
• . 1965
Ireson v. Denn
Irish, Re, Irish v. Irish
ClubCo., iJe .
Land Com. v. Grant 1327, 1381,
1382
■ N. W. Ry. Co., Be . . 2411
Irnham v. Child . . . 2238
Ironmongers' Co. v. A.-G. 1253, 1257,
1258
— — V. Roberts . 1251
Irvin V. Ironmonger
V. Sanger
Irvine v. Sullivan .
V. Watson .
V. Young
Irving, Exp., Be Brett
V. Houston .
1475, 1568
. 307
1509, 1539
. 1324
. 1339
. 1990
1621, 1700
Irwell V. Eden . . 63, 415
Irwin V. Grey . . . 364
V. Irwin . [2226, 2239]
Isaac, Be, Cronbaoh v. Isaac . 1130
, Jacobs V. Isaac 30, 851
Isaacs, Sxp. . . 30, 31, 32, 33
, Be . . . . 1714
, Exp. Miles . . 2303
• V. Evans . . . 2147
V. Eiddemann . . 663
i'. Gompertz . . 226
V. Reginall, Be Isaacs . 490
V. Towell . . . 2166
V. Wall . . . 1711
• V. Weatherstone . . 206
Isaacson, Be . . . . 1946
V. Thompson . • . 514
■ V. Webster, Be Bunn 1543
Isberg V. Bowden . . . 1320
Isenberg v. E. I. Ho. Co. 515, 519,
557
FADE
Isham V. Wallace . . . 2230
Isherwood, Exp., Be Knight . 1894
Isle of Wight Ferry Co., Re 473,
1838
Isle of Wight Ry. .v. Tahourdin 695,
704
Islington Vestry v. Homsey
District Council . . .164
IsHngton V,estry v. Hornsey
Urban Council . 612, 694, 706
Issard v. Lambert . . 315, 1317
Itala Fabrica di AutomobiU, Be
[2327]
Ithell V. Beane . . . 1627
Iven V. Elwes . . . 1384
Ives, Be, Exp. Addington . 436
— and Barker v. Willans 391, 393,
398
Iveson V. Harris . 509, 521, 787
Ivimey v. Stocker . . . 583
Ivory, Be, Hankin v. Turner 30, 31,
32
Izard, Exp., Be Bushell . 740, 770
Chappie . . 1944
J., Re ([1909] 1 Ch. 574)
(a Solr.)
J. C. M. & J. M., Re
J. ?;. J. .
J. v.K.
J. v.S.
Jack, Re, Jack v. Jack
V. Kipping
Jackson's Will, Re .
Jackson, Exp., Re Bowes
. 1026
. 1061
. 1070
. 2280
. 759
. 683, 2108
[1249], 1677
. 1321
. 1631
. 1894
-, Re (40 Ch. D. 495) 278, 1095
(60 L. T. 93) 2330, 2336
(W. N. (94) 50) . 2402
(24 March, 1861) . 1198
■ ([1902] 1 Ch. 258) 1757
■ ([1907] 2 Ch. 354) 1590
, Jackson v. Talbot 973,
[977], 981, 1692
— — , Shiers v. Ash worth 1509
, Smith V. Sibthorpe 1476
- & Co., Re ([1899] 1 Ch.
348) . . . 2443
■ & Haden, Re 2157, 2165,
2193
■ and Oakshott, Be . 2165
■ and Woodburn, Be . 2201
• V. Barry Ry. Co. 395, 512
■ V. Braithwaite . .146
V. Brettall . [1909]
■ V. Brighton Aquarium
Co, . , . [456]
Table of Cases,
clix
Jackson v, De Kadiok
V. Dickinson
V. Dover .
V. Haigh .
■ V. Innes
■ V. Ivimey .
■ V. Jackson (1 Atk. 515)
■ (20 L. T.
PAGE
2188, 2220
1107, 2078,
2080
. 1665
• [34]
882, 915
. 136
964
(28
(1
354)
i\ Jackson
189) .
- V. Jackson
G. 184)
- V. Leaf
- V. Litchfield
- V. Lomas .
- V. Mawby .
V. Newcastle (D.)
. 2119,2134
L. T.
. 2133
Sm. &
. 2148,2157
. 799
. 170
. 1807
433, 465
515, 559
i>. Normanby Brick
Co. . [369], 518, 539
- V. N. E. Ry. 115, 116, 117,
118
■ V. Northampton Street
Tram. Co. . . 2309
■ V. Ogg . 1326, 1339, 1386
■ V. Parker . . 882, 915
• V. Parrott, Be Wise 966,
1149
• V. Pease . . 1605, 1606
■ V. Petrie . . .506
■ V. Price . . . 1936
■ V. Rowe . . . 2035
■ V. Slaney, Re Clinton . 188
■ V. Smith, Exp. Digby
[1045], 1047, 1050, 1051
• V. Tyas . . .227
V. Whitehead . . 2164
V. Wood . . .379
V. WooUey 1369, 1386,
1448, 1454
. 1426
. 449
2308, 2309
. 21
. 2086
785, 786, 788
Jacob, Ee
V. De Morgan
V. Down
Jacob Christiensen, The
Jacobs, Be
■ V. Brett
V. Credit Lyonnais . 723
■ V. Crusha . 378, 1022, 1023
V. Friedburg . . 783
V. G. W. Ry. Co. . 67
• V. Isaac, Be Isaac 30, 851
V. Morris . . .1323
V. ReveU . . 2195, 2196
Jaoobson v. Blaokhurst . . 493
V. Jacobson, Be Jacob-
son [913]
Jacoby v. Whitmoro . . 529
Jacquet v. Jacquet . . 1389
PAGE
Jaegers, &o. Co. v. Walker 2033,
2035, 2126
Jagger v. Jagger . . . 1666
Jago V. Jago .... 1084
Jakeman's Trusts, Re . 895, 896
Jamaica Ry. v. Colonial Bank 45,
172, 738
James's Case . . . 1321
James, Exp 2236
, Be (4 D. & S. 183) . 265
(5 Eq. 334) . . 952
, James v. Gregory
[1692], 1694
, James v. Jones 121, 1351
V. Soulby
2332
400
1032
(Frank) & Sons, Re
V. BickneU .
V. Boythorpe Coll. Co.,
Re Boythorpe Coll.
Co. ... 1968
V. Buena Ventura Ni-
trate Grounds Syn-
dicate, Ld. . 1465, 1992
('. Castle . . . 1538
V. Couchman [1642], 1645,
1646
V. Crow . . 138, 834
V. Dawson, Be Heming-
way . . . 1569
V. Dore
V. Dowries
V. Ellis
V. Frearson
V. Harding
V. Jackson
James (13 Eq. 421
. 452
. 511
[1925]
. 1098
. 1884
[234], 251, [285]
615,
624
(16 Eq. 153) 1852,
1893
James v. James (23 Q. B. D. 12)
(11 Beav. 397)
■ (21 W. R. 522)
• & Bendall
, Be Bowen
389
1452
1838
1039
887
V. Jones . . .185
V. Kerr . 1856, 2278, 2279
V. Lichfield . . . 2037
V. London and County
Banking Co., Morris,
Be
V. Lovel
V. North
V. Rumsey
V. Salter
V. Smith
V. The Queen
Jameson, Exp.
1379
. 697
. 506
1875, 2229
. 1381
. 2146
[381], 382, 383
[2460, 2462], 2463,
2464
V. Brick & Stone Co. 117
clx
Table of Cases.
Jameson v. Dublin
Co. .
• V, Stein .
PAGE
Distillers'
. 626, 627
. 1626
Jamieson v. Trevelyan . .918
Jaques, Re ([1903] 1 Ch. 267) . 1668
V. Millar (6 Ch. D. 153) 2144
■ (No. 2) (26
W. E. 368)
2208
322
1952
2032
Jaquet v. Jaquet
Jardine, Exp.
Jared v. Clements
Jarmain v. Chatterton 435, 456, 522,
824
Jarman's Trusts, Be , . 860
Jarm&n,' Exp. . . . 255
, Be . . 1448, 1455, 1580
-, Leavers v. Clayton 1303
Jarratt v. Aldam
Jarrett v. Hunter .
Jarrold v. Heywood
V. Houlston
Jarvis's Charity, Be
Jarvis, Be . . .
■ ■ — •, Ward V. Jarvis
■ V. Birm. Corp., Be Best
1638, 2274
. 2143
. 661
655, 661, 662
. 1263
. 1277
465
1301
V. Jarvis
1939
2096, 2112
. 2286
. 13
1382, 1865
Jauncey v. Knowles
Jay, Exp., Be Harrison
V. Budd
V. Johnstone .
V. Ladler 620, 622, 2329, 2334
■ V. Robinson 854, 856, 875, 878,
880
Jeafferson, Be . . 1304, 1512
Jeanes v. Hutohings . . 1888
Jearrad v. Traoey . . .111
Jebb V. Tugwell . . . 1616
Jee V. Audley . . 1644, 1591
Jeff Davis, The . . 482, 1049
JefEcock's Trusts, Be . . 1695
Jeffery, Be, Arnold v. Burt 971, [976]
■ , Burt V. Arnold . 971
. 660
2218, 2220
663, 665
743, 1855
. 2150
1594, 1629
734, 753
Be Tread-
. 860
. 1373
. 474
. 2389
. 264
. 2149
. 1299
. 1216
534, 541
V. Bowles .
■ V. Stewart .
Jefferys v. Boosey .
■ — — — —V. Dickson
• — V. Fairs
• V. Jefferys
■ V. Smith .
Jeffray v. Tredwell,
well .
Jeffreson v. Morton
Jeffreyes v. Reynolds
Jeffreys v. Connor .
V. Evans .
V. Jeffreys
Jeffries v. Alexander
Jeffryes v. Drysdale
V. Evans .
Jeffrys v. Vanteswarstwarth
Jeffs V Wood
Jegon V. Vivian
PAGE
951,
1001
. 1322
[567], 569, 573,
2183, 2207
Jelks V. Hayward . . . 503
Jelley, Son & Jones, Be . . 2333
Jemmett & Guest's Contract, Be 1750
Jenkin v. Row . . . 1837
Jenkins, Exp., Be Jenkins . 2299
, In the Goods of . . 934
, Be (3 N. R. 408 ; 10 Jur.
N. S. 332) . 232, 1158
V. Briant . . . 774
■ V. Bryant . . . 1572
V. Bushby 86, 87, 360, 361,
823
■ ■ V. Coomber . . 2081
■ V. Davies . . 179, 828
— , Be Davies . 243
— V. Hiles . . . 2168
— — V. Hope 249, 509, 523, 654
V. Jackson 250, 251, 600,
602, 605
V. Jones . 719, 1857, 2309
• V. Price (No. 1) . . 241
u. Ridgley . . 1922
V. Robertson (1 H. L.
Sc. 117) 139
— — (2 Drew.
351) . . . 2086
V. Vaughan . 2283, 2286
Jenkinson v. Brandley Mining
Co. . . . 1948
■ — ■ — - V. Harcourt . . 1479
■ V. Makin . [1471]
Jenks V. Ditton . [101, 439, 675]
V. Viscount Clifden 544, 1388
Jenkyns v. Usborne . . 1933
Jennens, Be, Willis v. Howe
(E.) 1385
Jenner v. Jenner . . 1634, 2273
V. Morris (11 W. R. 943) 253
(3 D. P. & J.
45) 884, 1322,
1378
■ (1 Ch. 603) 57, 1698
— (7 Jur. N. S.
375) . 1319,1322
— — (6 W. R. 29) . 1320
V. Turner . . . 1541
Jenner-Fust v. Needham [1912],
1912, 1914
Jennes, Be . [1441], 1466, 1469
Jenney v. Andrews . . 1606
V. Mackintosh . . 17
Jennings, Be, Jennings v. Jen-
nings . 124, 684, 2111
V. Brighton, &o. Bd. . 691
Table of Cases.
clxi
PAGE
2248, 2250
. 156
. 1376
2162, 2169
. 266
. 2015
420, 1091, 1499,
1991
. 1841
. 1424
1363, 2002
163, 164
. 677
. 1153
. 980
. 828
1991,
2224
— — V. South Wales
Minerals Co. . 2224
V. Jersey, Re Vale of
Neath Ey. Act . 2364
V. Neath Guardians . 569
V. Uxbridge Rural Sani-
Jenniiigs v. Broughton
V. Christopher
V. Elster .
• V. Hopton
■ V. Johnson
■ V. Jordan
V. Mather
V. Moore .
V. Paterson
V. Rigby .
Jenour .
Jenour v.
Jenowre v. Delmege
Jephson, Be .
Jermy v. Preston .
Jerome, Be .
Jersey (E.) v. Briton Ferry Co,
tary Auth
Jervis, Be
■ V. Berridge
V. Wolferstan 1131
Jcrvoise, Be .
■ V. Silk
Jesse V. Bennett
Jessel V. Chaplin
Jessett V. Tozor
Jessop, Be
■ ■ V. Blake
V. Watson
Jeston V. Key 1626, 1653
Jesus Coll. (Camb.), Exp,
■ V. Bloome
413
. 272
. 2146
1593, 1594
231, 488
. 965
. 1095
520, 556
1010, 1013
281, 282
. 926
. 1491
2140, 2155
2362, 2379,
[2382]
. 546
Jeudwine v. Agate . .1461
Jeune v. Baring, iJe Baring 1710, 1711
Jevers, Be Ooods of
Jewan v. Whitworth
Jewis V. Lawrence .
Jewitt, Be 460, [1037]
Jeyne v. Vivian
887
. 1933
. 1539
1040, 1066
. 552
. 1035
1121,2104
541, 1316
1085, 1087
. 1423
1633, 1634
Jinks V. Jinks
Job V. Job . . 189
V. Potton
Johson V. Palmer
Jocey V. James
Joddrell v. Joddrell
Jodrell V. Jodrell (7 Eq. 461) . 1699
■ (14 Beav. 397) 966
Joel V. MiUs . . 1360, 1542, 1568
John Bros. Abergarw Brewery
V. Holmes . . 533, 534
— Gibbon's Trusts, Be . 1169
VOL I.
John V. John
V. Jones
Johnos, Be
Johns V. Furneaux
V. James .
V. Ware
PAGE
. 738, 747
. 1079
. 2368
[2217]
. 85
. 1950
Johnson's Patent . . 2320,2321
, Be ([1908] 2
Ch. 487) . 2320
(No. 2), Be
([1909] 1 Ch.
114) . . 2320
Settlements, Be (8
Eq. 348) 2362, 2364, 2378, 2380
Johnson, Exp., Be Bulmer . 2077
■ ■ — ■ — • Chapman . 1941
(W. W.) & Son, Be [2439]
(S.) & Sons V. Brock . 1867
Johnson, Be . . 2286
& Co., Be ([1902] 2 Ch.
101) . 1964, [2444]
, Be, Golden v. Gillam 2284
, Manchester and
Liverpool Bkg. Co.
V. Beales 320, 822, 828
', Moore v. Johnson 1015,
1633
— , Shearman v. Robin-
son . . 1498, 1499
— , Sly V. Blake . 1432
— (2 Eq. 716) . 1560
— — — (20 Q. B. D. 68) . 315
— (26 W. R. 51) . 457
(W. N. (86) 72) . 1107
([1903] 1 Ch. 821) 1520
and Tustin, Be . 2166, 2201
— and Weatherall, Be 240,
258, 260
V. Adamson, Be Field-
wick . . 853, 887
V. Altrinoham . . 2059
V, Aston . . . 1442
V. Bayley . . . 72!)
V. Bourne . .1889
V. Burgess 449, 1425, 2001
— — V. Child . 1474, 1475, 1602
V. Chippendall . . 445
V. Clark . . .897
V. Clarke . . . 1918
■ V. Compton . . 1351
V. Credit Lyonnais Co. 1932,
1933
V. Curtis . , . 1341
V. Edge . . 636, 637
— V. Evans . . 1872, 2130
• — ■ — - — — V. Fesenmoyer . . 1855
V. Foulds . . .1604
V. Gallagher 861, 862, 863,
1367
I
clxii
Table of Cases,
PAGE
Johnson v. Hammeisley . . 1352
V. HeUeley . 685, 2098
V. Holdsworth . 1859, 2001
V. Jolmson . 925, 1514
V. Kennett . . 1480
V. Lander . [922], 926
■ V. Langley, lie Langley 1467
— V. Lindsay . . 1023
V. Lyttle's Iron Agency 693,
2309
V. Mounsey, Re Alison 1867
— V. Newnes . 664, 671
■ V. Newton . . 1086
— V. O'Neil . . .1141
V. Prendergast . .1122
■ V. Eex . 383, 1345, 1585
■ V. Robarts . . 2302
V. Shrewsbury, &c. Ry.
Co. . . . 2149
— V. Smiley . ... 2163
■ V. Wyatt . . .614
Johnston, Exp., Johnston v.
Watson, Be Watson 191
■ Re . . . 288
— — ■ ■ — — , Cockerell v. Essex
(E.) . 1560,1654
, Mills V. Johnston 1419
, Mills V. Johnston
([1911] W. N. 234) 1240,
1243
— — ■ — ■ — Eoreign Patents Co.,
Re . . . 1966
V. Boyes , . 2158, 2189
V. Brown . . 52
■ — V. EngUsh . .117
• V. Hill, Be Dawson 872,
936, 1544
— - V. Johnston . [34], 1637
■ V. O'Neil . . 970
■ — V. Orr-Ewing . . 621
V. Parsey . [2240]
V. Renton [2240], 2242
— V. Salvage Association 21
— V. Todd 362, 1451, 1452,
1514
Johnstone's Settlement, Re (14
Ch. D. 162) . . . 1558
Johnstone's Settlement, Be (17
L. R. Ir. 172) . . . 1767
Johnstone, Be . . . 952
— V. Baber 1422, 1801,
[1817]
11. Brown . . 356
■ K Browne . . 865
V. Cox 819, 820, 1876,
1929
■ — ■ — v. Crompton & Co. 643,
[550], 569
i>. Hall . . 534,535
Johnstone v. Han'owby (L.)
— — ■ — ■ — - V. Johnstone
— V. Marks
— — ■ — V. Milling
Joicey v. Dickenson
Jointless Rim, Be,
Reduced
Joint Stock Disc. Co,
Ld,
PAGE
1637
[772]
944
2220
673
Jolifie, Be (3 Jur.
(W. N.
V. Baker
V. Hector
JoUands V. Burdett
JoUifEe, Exp. (8 Beav. 173)
and
[2427, 2428]
Re . 1345
, V. Brown 123,
2080
N. S. 663) . 2403
(93)84) . 1213
. 345,2196,2247
1318, [1328]
. 870
[2462],
2464
, Re (9 Eq. 668) . . 2403
V. JoUiffe . . . 2177
JoUy, Re ([1900] 2 Ch. 616) . 1447
, Gathercolev. Norfolk 1381,
1867
— V. Arbuthnot 164, 769, 1894
■ • V. Kine . . 519, 558
• ■ V. Rees . . .883
Jones's Case, Reg. v. Barnardo 816
Estate, Re . . 292, 2403
Trusts, Re . . 2399, 2402
Wm, Re . . . 1631
Jones, Exp. .... 944
— ■ — , Re Artizans' Dwell-
ings Act . . 2401
— , Re Grissell . 856, 863
, Re London and
Northern Bank . 2146
■ Re Young . . 2128
Exp. Pardon's Vine-
gar Co. . . 839
36 Ch. D. 105) 269, 262
8 Beav. 479) . 278
2 Ch. D. 70) . 1221, 1881
26 Ch. D. 736) 1750, 1751
2 D. P. & J. 554) 1221,
1881
3 Drew. 679) . 1159
9 Eq. 63) . 307, 1072
13 Eq. 336) . . 263
26 Jan. 1883) . [978]
1 Jur. N. S. 817) . 320
1 Jur. N. S. 887) . 2400
4 Jur. N. S. 581) . 2398
53 L. T. 1) . . 2328
54 L. T. 648) . 263
59 L. T. 869) . 1209
M. R., 17 Peb. 1876)
[1059]
6 W. R. 614, 762) . 330
22 W. R. 837) . 1216
[1895] 2 Ch, 719) 265, 266
Re,
Table of Cases.
ilxiii
PAGE
Jones, tie ([1896] 1 Ch. 222) . 266
([1902] 1 Ch. 92) . 1605
([1902] 1 Ch. 738) . 1450
, Brillis V. Jones 187, 1758
, Calver v. Laxton 743,
1466, 1467, 1469
■ , Christmas v. Jones 1123,
1128, 1588
■ -, Button V. Brookfield 1605
, Eyre v. Cox . . 2
• , Parrington v. For-
rester 947, 1809, 2022
, Jones V. Searle . 1123
, Lloyd & Co. . . 1322
& Everett, Be . . 282
& Roberts, Be . . 1040
& Co., Be Griffith . 1876, 1878
■ V. Coventry 445, 479
V. Whitaker . 2085
V. Andrews . . 83, 831
1;. Badley . .1304,1305
V. Baily . . 1838, 2005
i'. Barnett . . 349, 1741
-v. Bennett, Be Bennett 1130,
2134
V. Blake, Be Blake 1148, 1418
V. Bone . . . 534
V. Chappell . . 545, 603
V. Chcnnell, Re Chennell 352,
819, 835, 1146
V. Clifford . . . 2163
V. Consolidated, &o. Co. 1935
V. Conway and Colwyn
Water Board . . 553
■!;. Creswicke .1913,1919
V. Dangerfield . .1377
-v. Daniel . . . 2144
-v. Davies • . . 882, 1848
r. Evans . 1375, 1468, 1469
V. Earrcll . . .498
-v. Eoxall . . .1124
• ■ V. Frost, Be Fiddoy . 1048
V. Gardiner . 341, 2158, 2181
V. Geddes . . .722
V. Gilham . . .498
-v. Gloster . . . [336]
-v. Great Central Ry. Co. 90,
93, 94, 95
V. Harris . . . 1882
V. Hawkins, Be Stocken [1416],
1418
V. Heavens . . 528, 530
• «;. Hensler, iJe Hensler . 1559
■ V. Hey . . .804
■ — iJ. Higgins . . . 1115
V. Ho wells . . .1347
1). Humphreys . 492,1929
V. Ingham, Be Ingham . 2043
— — — V. Inland Rev. Commrs. 158
PAGE
Jones V. Inaole . . . 827
V. James (1 Beav. 307) . 262
—— — (19 L. J. Q. B.
257) . . 786
(9 Ha. Ixxx.) . 1215
• V. Jenner . . . 436
V. Jones, Be Ingham . 2031
(1846, A. 1429) 1645
(3 Atk. 110) 52, 2241
(5 Har. 464) 1562,
1574. 1617
— (5 Ha. 440) [1704],
1711
■ — (4 K. & J. 361) 915
— (Kay, vi.) . 79
(12 Ves. 188) . 2139
■ (17 W. R. 1003) 935
— ■ (22 Q. B. D.
425) . . 97
([1901] 1 Ch.
464, n.) . 226, 488
^— V. Jukes . . .1369
• U.Julian . .1104,1107
U.Lewis . .1105,240:!
■ V. Llanrwst U. D. C. 552, 608,
609, 012
V. Lloyd . 083, 2107, 2108
V. Look . . . 1629
• V. Maoauley . . 171, 177
V. Mason, Be Muffet [1568],
1572, 1871
V. Meredith . . .1863
V. Merionethshire Bldg.
Soc. . . 531, 2149
V. Monte Video Gas Co. 72, 73
V. Morgan, Be Page . 1432
u. Morrell . . . 1121
— u. Mossop . . . 1319
V. Noy . . . 2108
V. Oglo . . . 1699
V. Owen, Be Griffith 1128,
1403, 14-18
V. Pacaya Rubber, &c.
Co 2204
— ■ — - V. Palmer, Be Nottage 1303,
1556
— ■■ — V. Pennefather, Be Giles 1467,
1470
■ ■ V. Pepperoorne 1332. 1986,
1992
V. Phipps . . .769
V. PowcU (9 Beav. 345) 952,
954
— ■ — (4 Beav. 96) . 1288
(1 Eq. Ab. 84) 1365
(6 Beav. 488) . 1459
V. Powles . . . 2030
V. Pritohard . . . 553
— — • V. Rhind . . 1883, 2031
clxiv
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Jones V. Rickards ... 84
V. Bimmer . . 2151, 2195
V. Robinson . . . 1821
V. St. John's Coll. . . 389
V. Scottish Accident In-
surance Co. . .12,15
V. Simes 116, 118, 520, 559
— V. Slee . . . .787
■ • V. Smith . 2014, 2035, 2089
, Re Smith [1394]
■ V. Stohwasser . . 2035
■ V. Stott . . 252, 839
V. Thompson . . 479
V. Tiffin . . .772
V. Tinney . . .1841
V. Totty . . . 1819
■ V. Tower Furnishing Co 1938
• V. Tripp . . . 1053
V. Victoria Dock Co. . 824
V. Watts ... 87
• V. Wilhams . [1224], 2035
-, Re Williams 1362,
1363, 1405, 1409, 1410
Jope V. Morshead . . 1801, 1802
Joplin Brewery Co., Be 1964, [2443]
V. Postlethwaite . . 393
Jopp V. Wood . . . 824
Jordan, Re ([1904] 1 Ch. 260) . 1388
■ , Exp. Harrison . 1983
, Kino V. Pioard 851, 871
V. Young . . .1867
Jorden v. Money . . 2247, 2248
Jordeson v. Sutton, &o. Co. [555],
568, 587, 603
Joseph, Be . . . . 1156
— ([1908] 2 Ch. 507) . 1537
■ V. Goode . 1456, 1461, 1515
• ■ V. Holroyd . . . 2295
■ — V. Lyons . . 1948, 1949
Josolyne v. Roberts . 787, 788
Joule, Re, Thompson v. Mont-
gomery . . . 2332, 2342
Jourdain v. Palmer . . 67
Joy, Be, Purday v. Johnson . 1253
■ ■ V. Birch . . . 2049
— i;. CampbeU . .1315,1604
■ V. Hadley . 98, 416, 434
Joyce, Re ... . 1181
. , Exp. Barclay . . 1950
■ V. Beall ... 63
■ V. Cottrell, Be Cottrell . 1379
. V. De Moleyns . 1372, 2042
Joynt V. McCrum ... 17
Judd & Poland's Contract, Be 1079
■ V. Green . . 32, [2011]
■ V. Pratt . . .1530
Judes' Musical Compositions, Re 665
Judkin's Trusts, Re . 970, 1446
Judkin, iJe .... 1514
PACE
Judkins V. Judkins 920, 921, 924,
925
Juggomohun Ghose v. Manlck-
chund .... 1343
Jukos, Be ([1902] 2 K. B. 58) . 2288
JuU V. Jacobs . . . 1539
Jump, Be ([1903] 1 Ch. 29) . 1674
— — , Gallaway v. Hope . 1150
■ V. Jump . 921, 922, 925
Jupp, Be, Jupp V. BuckweU 874, 906
V. Cooper . . 430, 437
Justice, Re . . . . 1060
V. Mersey Co. 836, 841, 843
K.
Kahen, Exp., Be Hewer
1946
Kain v. Farrer
95
Kaltenbach v. Lewis
1324
1933
Kane's Trusts, Re .
1759
Kane v. Cosgrave ,
1252
• V. Kane
1632
■ V. Reynolds .
1585
Kanitz v. Scarborough
32
Kannreuther v. Geisell
jrecht.
Be Kloebe .
1364
Karberg's Case 1346,
2247,
2249,
2250, 2260, 2264
Karne v. Pathe Frere . . 661
Kathleen Mavoumeen, &c., Be 31
Kaufmann v. Gerson 531, 723, 2150,
2292
Kavanagh, Be . . . 1147
Kay's Patent (1 Web. P. C. 572) 2320
— — (70 L. T. 7.
Kay, Be, Mosley v. Kay
V. Briggs
V. Cammell
56) . 2325
. nil
. 817
. 291
— ■ — V. Johnson
. 2154
— — ■ V. Oxley
Kaye & Hoyle's Contract
Kaye, Re
V. Croydon Trams.
. 578
,Re . 1150
. 952
Co. [694],
705
V. Cunningham
• V. Harvey
■ ■ V. Sutherland
. 451
. [326]
. 15
Kean, Re
. 1176
Keane, Re
. 456, 459
L)esbo-
. 1048,1051
. 2201
. 2292
rough
Kearley and Clayton, Re
V. Thomson
Kearns v, Cordwainers' Co. . 588
V. Leaf 703, 747, 751, 762,
862
Kearsley v. Clole . . . 2086
■ ■ V. Phillips 02, 77, 1S93, 1894
Table of Cases.
clxv
PAGE
1839, 2043, 2243
. 532
247
700
Keate v. Phillips
Keates v. Lyon
— — ■ — ■ V. Woodward
Keatinge v. Paringa Mines
Keatley, Exp., Be Dublin City
Market Co.
Keaton v. Lynch
Keay v. Boulton
Keays v. Gilmore
V. Lane
Kebel v. Philpot
Keck and Hart, Re
Keek's Settlement, Be
Keeble v. Bennett
Keech v. Hall
• V. Sandford
Keedwell v. Cooke
Keeler, Be
Keeling v. Smith, Be Smith
Keen and Keen, Be
Keenan v. Armstrong
V. Handley .
Keene v. Bisooe
Keep, Be , , ,
Keer v. Brown
Keighley, Maxted & Co., Be
2406
. 1360
. 1511
. 1626
863, 1147
. 364
. 1746
. 1779
. 248
1893, 1895
. 1711
. 1198
. 1180
979,
1540
. 1939
. 1048
2140, [2213]
. 1837
rant .
Keith, Prowse & Co.
Telephone Co.
■ V. Du-
2328
1717
397,
398
1324
■ V. Butcher .
V. Day
V. Ganoier
Kekewioh v. Langston
— — • V. Manning
• V. Marker
Nat.
527, [551],
2142
52, 1858
1826, 1922
. 1896
. 964
. 1628
. 541
Keleey, Be, Tyson v. Kelcey . 1949
Kelday, Be, Exp. Meston 1835, 1841
Kelk V. Archer . . . 1461
V. Pearson . . . 560
Kell V. Nokes . . . 2188
KeUand v. Fulford . . 2384
Kellaway v. Bury . . 39, 131
Kellers, Be . . . .999
Kellook, Be . . . 260, 268
V. Enthoven . . 2295
V. Home, &c. Co. . 76
Kell's Guardians, Be, Exp.
Smith .... 2380
Kelly's Settlement, Be, West v.
Turner .... 474
Kelly's Settlement, Be ([1910] 1
Ch. 78) ... . 1666
Kelly, Exp., Be City of Dublin
Ry. 2402, 2403,
2406
PAGE
Kelly, Exp., Be Smith, Fleming
&Co
-, Be ([1895] 1 Q. B. 180)
- V. Batchelor .
- V. Boyd .
-V. Byles
-V. Colhoun .
- V. Elliot, Be Elliot
- V. Gavin and Lloyds
-V. Heathman
2288
1071
633
. 886
627, 668, 834
72, 96
1541
662
2316
V. Hodge . [656], 668
V. Hutton 81, 670, 757, 2122
U.Morris . [654], 661, 668
V. Sootto . . . 2128
V. Selwyn . . . 1522
V. Wyman . . 69, 662
Kelly's Directories, Ld. v. Gavin
& Lloyds . . . .286
Kelsall V. Kelsall . 937, 939, 940
Kelsey, iJe ([1905] 2 Ch. 465)1447, 1671
V. Dodd . . .532
V. Kelsey . . 749, 1573
Kelson v. Ellis, Be Ellis's Trusts 312,
2234
V. Kelson . . , 375
Kemble v. Addison . . 1942
V. Kean . . , 527
Kemeys-Tynte, Be, Kemeys-
Tynte v. Kemeys-Tynte 1694, 1763
Kemmis v. Kemmis . . 968
Kemp's Settled Estates, Be . 1758
Kemp, Exp., Be Peruvian Guano
Co. . . . 700
, Be 24 Ch. D. 485) . 1165
(59 L. T. 209 ; W. N.
(88) 138) 972, 1180, 1211
V. Bird
. 535
V. Burn
. 1135
V. Colman .
. 172
V. Palk
. 2303
V. Goldberg .
. 42
V. Haynes, Be
Haynes 1535,
1754
V. Inland Rev.
Commrs. 159,
1208
(Kemys) v. Westbrook [1926],
1926, 1927
V. Lester
. 1894
V. Rose
. 1310, 1333
V. Sober
. 534, 535
V. a. E. Ry.
697, 698, 2148
V. Waddingham . . 1365
V. Wright .
. 2064, 2065
Kempson v. Ashbee 714, 978, 2271,
2272, 2273, 2274
Kempster, Be . . . 1605
Kendall v. Beckett . . 2186
V. Hamilton 51, 856, 2076
— V. Marshall . . 2303
clxvi
Table of Cases,
Kendall v. Marstors
Kendrick v. Roberts
Kenebel v. Sorafton
Kenlis p. Beqtive (E.)
Kennard v. ]?utvoye
V. Kennafd
PAGE
182, 1125
3
. 1864
. 1655
. 1858
[1671], 1676
. 1758
, 137).
- V. May
- V. Panaijaa, &c. Co.
Kennaway, lie
Kennedy, Exp., Re Willis 1894, 1895,
1937
■ V. Broun . . . 1341
— V. De Trafford 1316, 1857,
1900, 2256
— V. Dodson . . 84
■ V. George . 80, 290
V. Green, 79, 2036, 2245,
2246
— ■ — V. Lee . . . 2144
~ V. Lyell (9 App. Cas.
81) . . 70
— — (15 Q. B. D.
491) . . 2309
— — (23 Cli. D.
405) . . 90
(W. N. (82)
. 98
. 2148
2249,
2260
V. Sedgwick . . 1591
Kenney v. Browne . . 1054
V. Kenney . .762
Kennington v. Houghton . 1312
Kenny v. HoUings . . . [26]
Kenriok & Jefferson's Patent,
Re . . [2322]
V. Hudson . . 2240
V. Lawrence . . 668
■ V. Mounsteven . [1812]
■ V. Wood . . .869
Kensington, j;a;^. . .1980,1981
■ -(B.), Re ([1902] 1
Ch. 203) . . 1553
. (L.), Re, Bacon v.
Pord . . 1999, 2001
. Station Act, Re 1387,
2424
and Knightsbridge
Electric, &c. Co. v.
Lane Pox Elec-
trical Co. . 630, 637
■ V. Bouverie 1697, 1871,
1898
Kensit v. G. E. Ry. Co. . 587, 588
Kent Coal Concessions v. Duguid 72
Coast Ry. Co. v. L. C. D.
Ry. Co. . . . 1543
, County Council of, Exp. 824
County Gas Light Co., Re 1949
: Tramway Co,, Re . ,1335
PAGE
Kent Waterworks Co. v. Lam-
plough . . .700
- V, Burgess 362, 370, 1010,
1013
V. Freehold Land, &c. Co. 2263
V. Kent . . . [902]
, ([1902] P. 108) . 1427
■ ■ V, Pickering . . . 1468
V. Riley . . 2284, 2286
V. Ward . . . .307
Kenward, iJe ... 1410
Ken worthy v. Bate . . 1677
Kenyou's Estate, Re, Mann v.
Knapp .... 1658
Kenyon v. Eastwood . . 788
■ — V. Gregsou . . 931
t). Kenyon 800,931,934
. 1233
532 1029,
. 273
. 1407
. 753
. 2022
Ry.
2352, 2353
[2391]
V. Lee, Re Lee
Keppell V. Bailey .
Ker, iJe
, Exp. Bagshaw .
V. Dent, Re Yerbury
V. Ker .
Kerford v. Seacombe, &c.
Co. .
Kerkham, Re
Kerly, Son & Verden, Re 2, 11, 434,
522
• V. Blaine . . . 1812
V. Matheson, Re Delmar's
Estate . . . [1245]
Kernaghan v. WilMams . . 702
Kernot v. Potter . . . 527
Kerr's PoUey, Re . 1159, 1869, 1982
Kerr, Re (8 Eq. 331) . . 1343
(22 L. R. Ir. 642) . 996
or Mcllwraith, Re . . 996
V. Preston (Corp.) 694, 698, 798
Kerrick v. Saffery . . . 1837
Kerrison's Trusts, Re . . 964
Kerrison v. Stradbroke (E.) [1601],
1607
Kershaw's Trusts, Re . 865, 1670
Kershaw, Re (21 Ch. D. 613) . 1184
(6 Eq. 322) . 1662
, Dr£^ke v. Kershaw 1478
, Whitaker v. Ker-
shaw
V. Kershaw
Kessell v. Le Sueur
Kettlewell v. Barstow
V. Watson
Kevan v. Crawford
Kevern v. Williams
Kewney v. AttriU .
Key V. Cameron
• V. Key . ,
1694
. 2181
. 1340
77, 78, 83,
85, 86, 88
826, 1991,
2040, 2224
819, 838, 2284
. 1508
[471], 744, 760
. [484]
. 367
Table of Cases.
clxvii
Keys V. Keys
• ■ V. Williams .
Khedive, The
Kibble, Exp.
V. Pairthorne
PAGE
776, 779
. 1980
. 844
. 946
. 1867
Kibblewhito, Be, Bund v. Green
[1163]
Kidd and Gibbons' Contract, Re 343
■ , Be, Brooman v. Withall 1477,
1991
■ V. Cheyne . . . 1424
Kiddill V. FarneU . . .229
Kidman v. Kidman . . 970
KifE V. Roberts, Re Roberts . 1022
Kilbee v. Sneyd . . .782
Kilbey v. Haviland . 519, 634
Kilford V. Blayney [1474], 1476
Kilgour V. Gaddes . .561, 580
Kilham, Re, Kilham v. Kilham 1920
'Kimck, Exp. . . .859
Kilmorey (E.) v. A.-G. . . 1452
Kihier, Exp., Be Barker . . 2289
Kilshaw v. Jukes . . . 2128
Kilvert's Trusts, Be . 1254, 1302
Kilworth (V.) v. E. of Mount
CasheU . . . .191
Kimber v. Admans . . 534
• V. Barber . . 1334, 2268
V. Paravicini . . 448
Kimberley v. Dick 389, [1310], 1333
V. Jennings . . 527
Kimmings, Be . . . 457
Kinahan v. Bolton . . 626
• V. Kinahan . 16, 18
Kincaid, Be . . . 905, 910
Kinderfey v. Jervis 474, 1362, 1372
King's Coll., Cambridge, Exp. 2380,
2400
King's Coll., Cambridge, Be . 2363
King's CoU., Cambridge v.
Uxbridge Dist. Council . 553
King's Gram. Sch., Warwick, Be 1259
King, Exp.
Be Woodd .
- & Co. V. Gillard & Co.
-, Re (5 D. & S. 644)
(34 Beav. 574) .
• ([1904] 1 Ch. 363)
1407
2300
241
1181
1134
1366,
1678
— ■ ([1907] 1 Ch. 72) 1421, 1423,
1464
— , Exp. Eurber . 1869, 1870
— , Salisbury v. Ridley . 1513
— , Sewell V. King 1628, 1629,
1934, 1989, 1990
— & Co.'s T. M. 149, 378,
2325, 2343
, Brown & Co. v. Anglo-
American Brush Co, 634, 635
PAGE
King V. Bellord . . . 2152
- V. Bird .... 1896
V. Bryant . . . 1404
— — • V. Charing Cross Bank . 787
V. Chick, Re Talbot 1370, 1851
V. Corke ... 45
— — ■ V. Davenport . . 135
V. Diokeson . . . 533
V. Foxwell . . . 1519
— — • V. George, Re George . 1554
V. Hamlet . . . 2278
■ V. Hoare . . 51, 856
V. Hojigh . . . 1920
V. Hutton . . 1089, 2299
■ V. King . . 1136, 1380
■ V. King-Harman . . 1645
V. Kitchener . [1886], 1906
V. Lucas . . 860, 861
V. Malcolmson . .2133
• V. Malcott . . . 1465
V. Marshall . . . 1965
V. Midland By. Co. . 1848
- V. MuUins . . 1460, 1466
V. Bawling, Re Sunderland
Bldg. Soc. . . 2064
V. Rossett . . 1330, 1331
• V. Savery . . . 1053
■ V. Smith (2 Ha. 239) 543, 1850,
1892
— (6 Ha. 473) . 1880
(1 Coll. 555) . 1863
([1900] 2 Ch. 425) 1033,
2031, 2035, 2037, 2184,
2246
— — V. Victoria Ins. Co. . 2079
V. Whichelow . . 2127
V. Whitten, Re Whitten . 1542
- V. Wilson . . . 2194
■ V. Wycombe Ry. . . [687]
■ V. Zimmerman . . 2229
King of Hanover v. Bank of
England . . [1179], 1186
King of the Two Sicilies v. Will-
cox. 96
King-Harman v. Cayley . . 968
King-Sampson v. King-Samp-
son 1618
Kingdon & Wilson, Re . . 269
V. Kirk . . .172
• • V. Tagert, Re Badcock 1626,
1643
Kingsbury v. Walter . . 1509
Kingsford, Exp.
V. Merry
■ V. Poile .
2342
494
1920
1444
138
Kingsley, Re .
Kingston's (Duchess of) Case .
Kingston-on-Hull (Mayor of) v.
Harding , . 2082
clxviii
Tahle of Cases.
Kingston v. Cowbridge Ry,
Cotton Mills, Re
Re Mouat .
Kinloch v. Sec.
India .
V. The Queen
Kinnaird (L.) v. Christie
V. Field .
• V. Trollope
V. Webster
V. York .
Kinneir, Re .
Kinnoul (E.) v. Money
Kino V. Picard, Re Jordan
V. Rudkin
Kinsey, Re .
Kinsman v. Barker
V. Rouse
PAGE
761, 762
1094,
2270
V. Mouat,
. 2283
of State for
. 1331
. [382]
[339], 345
. 131, 145
1857, 1872,
1877, 1922
. 1324
. 1920
. 277
. 882
851, 871
. 659
. 1657
. 1339
. 1866
Kippen v. Darby . . . 1668
Kirby, Re ... . 1732
Kirby v. Harrogate School Bd. 533,
699, 2348
V. Marlborough (D.) . 2076
Kirchner & Co. v. Gruban 389, 528
Kirk, Re Kirk v. Kirk . 1476, 1542
■ — ■ , Nicholson v. Kirk . 1511
• V. Eddowes . . . 1667
■ V. The Queen . . .382
■ • U.Todd . . 116,605
Kirkby Ravensworth Hosp.,
Exp 1290
Kirke v. North, Re Wright . 179
Kirkland v. Peatfield 1381, 1865,
1866
Kirkleatham Local Bd., Re . 402
Kirkman v. Booth 1113, 1138, 1315,
1498
^f. Hormor . .511
Kirksmeaton (Rector of), Exp. 2360,
2390
Kirkstall Brewery Co., Re . 2432
Kirkwood's Estate, Re . . 2089
Kirkwood v. Gadd . . . 1936
0. Thompson . 1856, 1867
V. Webster . 291, 297
Kjrwan's Trusts, Re 1357, 1675, 1676
Kirwan v. Kennedy
. 1697
Kisch V. Central Ry. Co.
of
Venezuela . . . 2249,2257
Kissam v. Link
. 82
Kistler v. Tettmar -
433, 444
Kitoat V. Sharp
678, 679
Kitchen v. TurnbuU
. 391
Kitchin, Re, Exp. Punnett
. 1894
Vrt.i«/*
. 2081
■ • V. Kitchin .
. 920
PAGE
Kitchin v. Palmer . 2165, [2180]
Kitching v. Kitching . 2, 1422
Kitson, iJe .... 1409
Kitto V. Luke, Re Kitto . [1127]
Kitton, iBe . . 259,262,276
.«. Hewett . [2177], 2188
Kitts V. Moore [388], 396, 512, 513
Klaber & Steinberg's Patent,
Re
Klawansky
leum Co.
Klein, Re
Kloebe, Re
2325
Premier Petro-
. 242
. 1972
. 1363,1524
, Kannreuther v.
Geiselbreoht . . . 1364
Knapman, Re . . . 1090
, Knapman v.
Wreford .... 1588
Knapp, Re, Knapp v. VassaU . 1509
V. Burnaby . 1344, 1366
V. Harvey ... 85
V. Knapp . [1660], 1665
Knapping v. Tomhnson . . 897
Knatchbull's Settled Estates,
Re 1772
KnatchbuU v. Fearnhead . 1594
V. Fowle . . 104
V. Grueber . . 2195
V. HaUett, Re Hal-
lett's Estate . . 1088, 1325
Kneeshaw, -Be, Hobson ?;. Loxley 211
Knierim v. Schmauss . . [27]
Knight's Trust, Re (27 Beav.
45) 1159
■ ■ ( ) 1136
• — • Will, Re (26 Ch. D.
82) . . 819,1129,1169,1217
Knight, Re, Exp. Grolding, Davis
& Co. . 2303
■ ■ — — — ■ Isherwood . 1894
■ ■ — Middleton v.
Pollock
Voisey
1321,
1322
1894
967,
1157
320
1556
31,
[1045], 1049, 1319
and Tabernacle Building
Soo., Re 396, 401, 2060,
2347, 2349
- ([1898] 1 Ch. 257)
- (57 L. T. 238)
-, Knight V. Burgess
-, V. Gardner
V. Bowyer .
V. Bulkeley
V. Browne .
V, Clarke
V. Coales
V. Davis
1432, 2023
441, 531
. 2286
. 423
403, 404
. 1557
Tcible of Gases.
clxix
PAGE
Knight V. Gardner - 31, 600, 601
■ V. Hughes . . . 2075
V. Hunt . . . 2287
V. Knight (14 L. T. 161) 1207
(16 Beav. 358) 1444
(18 Eq. 487) 905,
906
— — — -, Re Board . 1536
■ V. Lee . . . 1378
-^ V. Majoribanks , . 1340
— ■ V. Mosely . . 542, 547
— V. Pooock . . . 1861
V. Purssell . . 250, 251
V. Roberts, Re Roberts 1081,
1503
V. Robinson . .1811
■ • V. Simmonds 532, 2142, 2155
— — — ■ (Doe d.) V. Nepean . 1590
Knight-Bruce v. Butterworth,
Re Tyssen .... 1677
Knight's Deep v. Inland Rev.
Commrs. . . . .160
Knill V. Dumergne . . 445
Knott, Exp. . . . 2044, 2046
— , Re, Bax v. Palmer 1136, 1595
V. Cottee 330, 331, 953, 1088,
[1097], 1118, 1124, 1135.
1371, 1454
— — - End Railway Co., Re . 756
Knowles' Settled Estates, Re 1188,
1746, 1758
Knowles, Re, Doodson v. Turner 433
, Nottage V. Buxton 1665
—^— -, Roose V. Chalk . 1540
V. Bolton . . .396
V. Chapman [1888], 1905
— V. Dibb 1858, [1892], 1910,
1974
V. L. & Y. Ry. Co. 571, 572
V. Rhydedefed Co. . 104
— ■ V. Roberts 36, 37, 38, 2215
V. Scott
Knox's Trusts, Re
Knox V. Gye .
V. Mackinnon
— V. Symmonds
V. Turner
V. Wells
. 1093
. 1212
1384, 1386, 2104
1104, 1105
. 397
1935, 2049
. 926
Knutsford, The . . .113
Koeber v. Sturgis . . 908, 910
Kolchmann v. Meurice 15, 474, 475
Kotchie v. Grolden Sovereigns . 502
Krehl v. Burrell [369], 559, 829, 835
V. Park 182, 243, 321, 353
Krell V. Henry . . . 2154
Kuhn&Co., iJe . . . 2330
Kurtz V. Spence . 46, 637, 837
Kutner v. Phillips . . .788
Kuyper, Re . . . .874
Kydd V. Watch Committee of
Liverpool . . . .817
Kynaston v. Mackindor . . 241
Kyne v. Mooro . . . 2291
Kyshe v. Alturas Gold Co. 691, 704
_ V. Holt ... 92
L.
L. alias H. v. H. . . . 845
L. Syndicate, Ld., Re . . 2446
La Banque Jacques Coutior v.
La Banque D'Epargne . 1324
Labouohere v. Dawson . [681], 684
— — - V. Tapper . . 1499
. V. Wharncliffe (E.) [711],
712
Lacey, Re . . . 896, 1056
■ ■ ([1907] 1 Ch. 330) 1361,
1383, 1867
— — & Son, Re . 277, 278, 302
V. HiU . . 916, 1325, 2121
— , Crowley's Claim 1332,
1335, 2078, 2299
— ■ — ■ — ■ — ■ — — , Scrimgeour's
Claim . . 13.32,2299
— — V. Ingle . . 2030, 2046
V. Waghorne . . 1855
Laohlan v. Reynolds" . . 348
Lackenburg v. Lackenburg [1787]
1644
Lackersteen v. Lackersteen
La Compagnie G6n6rale Trans-
atlantique v. Law & Co., La
Burgoyne ....
Laeon's Settlement, Re, Laoon
V. Laoon ....
Lacon, Re, Laoon v. Lacon
V. AUen
— — — V. Mertins ,
— . — ~ V. Tyrrell
Laoons v. Warmoll
12
1770
1668
. 1981,2033
. 1905
. 1915, 1922
170, 1112, 1115,
1387
. 1356
Laoroix, Re .
Lacy, Re, Royal Gen. Theatrical
Fund Assoc, v. Kydd 1112,
1300
, Willett V. Cazenove [1395]
— V. Burchnall . . .934
Ladd V. Puleston . . . 793
Ladies' Dress Assoc, v. Pulbrook
2430
Lady Forrest Gtold Mine, Ld.,
Re . . . 1335, 2265, 2268
Lady man v. Grave . .561
Ladywell Mining Co. v. Brooks 2268
Laffitte's Claim, Re 291, 292, 298
Lafone v. Falkland Isl. Co. 57, 75,
83, 93, 95
c'lxx
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas
Syndicate 1094, 1333, 1335, 2096,
2248, 2249, 2260, 2264, 2265,
2269
Laidlay v. Lord Advocate . 2135
Laing's Settlement, Be, Laing
V. Radcliffe . [1139], 1147
Laing v. Campbell . . 1322, 1325
V. Cowan . . ' . 1552
V. Harle . . . 1595
v. Reed . . . 2061
V. Walker . . . [200]
V. Zeden . . .498
Lainson v. Lainson . 1369, 1572
Laird v. Birkenhead Ry. Go. . 2141
• V. Briggs 46, 47, 580, 831, 837
Lake's Patent . . . 2320
Lake, Be ... . 1867
■ ([1903] 1 K. B. 151) . 1928
■ , Exp. Dyer . . 2288
■ Howe Trustees 1092,
1104
■ V. Bell, Be Bell . 1057, 1113
■ • V. Brutton . . . 2083
■ • V. Gibson . . . 1476
V. Metropolitan Music Hall
Co 458
V. Plaxton . . .592
■ ■ V. Tonkin . . .189
Lakeman v. Mountstephen . 2081
Lakin v. Lakin . . . 1590
Laly V. Potts . . . 1906
Lamare v. Dixon . 2138, 2146, 2157
Lamb, Be 269, 288, 832, 1071, 1187
— V. Attenborough . . 1932
■ V. Evans [656], 663, 665, 667,
668, 669, 674
V. Lamb . [1527], 1530
V. Munster ... 96
V. North Lpnd. Ry. [686],
694, 697
V. Nottingham Manu-
facturers' Co. . [641]
V. Sambas Rubber Co. . 2264
Lambarde v. Older . . 1319
Lambe v. Lambe . . [1009]
■ V. Orton . . 322, 1590
Lambert's Estate, Be, Stanton
V. Lambert 866, 874, 887, 888
Lambert, Be . . 150, 2031, 2339
, Exp. Safiery . 830
■ -, Middleton v. Moore 1447
■ • V. Addison . . 712
■ V. Buchanan . 1468, 1486
V. Buckmaster . . 1038
V. Fisher . . .365
V. Hutchinson . 486, 1419
V. Lambert [1612], 1618,
1620. 21.34
PAGE
Lambert v. Northern Buenos
.AyrosRy. . . 703
— V. Rendle . . 1498
V. Rogers . . 78
— V. Still, Be Webb 1054,
1341, 1902
V. Turner . . 929
Lambeth Char., Be
■ ; — (R. of), Exp. .
Lambourn v. MoLellan .
Lambrozzo v. Erancia
Lambton, Exp., Pile v. Pile
■ V. Cox
• V. Mellish
• V. Parkinson
Lamenaude's Patent, Be
Laming v. Gee
, Be Gee .
1247
2389
1952
764
1951,
2384
. 605
602, 605
. 129
. 634
. 1121
. 835
Lamondy v. Carter, Be Castle-
how 1147
Lamotte, Be . . .1183, 1220
Lamplough v. Balmer . . 623
Lampton v. MeUish . . [598]
Lamson Pneumatic Tube Co. v.
PhUhps . . .528
■ Store Service Co., Be,
Be Nat. Rev. Inv. Co. . 2435
Lancashire & Yorkshire Bank,
Ld. V. Tee . . [859]
& Yorkshire Ry.,iJe 310
& Yorkshire Ry. Co.,
Exp. . . . 2393
■ ■ & Yorkshire Ry. Co.,
Be . [2397], 2402
Ins. Co. V. Inland
Rev. Commrs. . 160
V. Lancashire . 1136
, Derbyshire, &c. Ry.
Acts, Be .
Lane. &c. Ry. v. Gidlow
V. L. & N. W. Ry.
Lancaster, Exp., Be Marsden
— • Banking Co., Be
1880
845
696
2289
2437,
2442
Char., Be . . 1265
V. Allsup . . 2118
u. Evors 89, 1370, 1475,
1503, 2088
Lance, Be, Sharp v. Rebbeok 1466,
1467
Lancefield v. Iggulden 1376, 1380,
1559, [1600], 1606
Lanchbury v. Bode . . 592
Land v. Land . . . 1498
Land Credit Co. of Ireland, Be 90,
1595
Land Credit Co. of Ireland, Be
Markwell . . . , 1352
Table of Cases,
clxxi
PAGE
Land Credit Co. of Ireland v.
Fermoy . . . 409, 416, 419
Land Improv. Co. v. Martin,
2Je Martin . . . 1180
LandeU v. Baker . . . 1810
Lander and Bagley's Contract,
Be ... . [2198]
Lander and Bagley, Be 2144, 2202, 2207
V. Tngersoll
V. Weston
1029
1106
Landergan v. Feast . . 179
Landfield, Be, Landfield v.
Landfield . . . .872
Landon, iJe. . , . . . 1156
Landor, Be 273
Landowners.' W. of England
Drainage Co. v. Ashford 154,
1906, 1968, 1972
Landroek v. Met. Dist. Ry. Co. 581
Lands Allotment Co., if e . 1114
Lane, Be . . . . Ill
— — ([1908] 2 Ch. 581) . 1427
•, Luard v. Lane 1557, 1558
: — , Exp. Gaze . . 1384
;— HiU . . 1944
579, 745, [768]
. 355, 356
. 823, 845
. 364
66, 76
. 883
. 2041
. 1886
. 520
. 1277
. 272
1541
1555
745
2284
V. Deljenham
V. Esdaile
V. Eve .
V. Gray , .
V. Ironmonger
V. Jackson , .
V. King
• V. Newdigate
V. Norman . .
V. Oliver , .
V. Rhoades, iJe Rhoades
• • V. Sewell
■ V. Sterne
Lane-Fox, Be
V. Kensington, &c.
Lighting Co. 631, 637, 2313, 2316
LaneuTiUe v. Anderson . .1521
Lang V. Gis^orne . . . 634
V. Grifath . . . [485]
• V. Griffiths , . . [1658]
- V. Whitecross Co. . . 649
Langdale's Settlement Trusts . 1147
Langdale, Be . . 1191, 1220
: — ■ (Lady) v. Briggs 165, 357,
1476, 1698
Langdon v. , Wilmot
Langen v. Tate
Langford, Be
V. Gowland
■ V. Pitt .
Langham's Contract, Be
Langhorn v, Langhom .
l.mghj,E3:p., iJeBishop433, 511,252
[1984]
108
1144
1253
2168
343
1206
PAGE
Langley, Be, Johnson v. Lang-
ley 1407
Langlois and Biden, Be . . 247
Langridgo «, Payne . . 1837
Langrish v. Watts . . . 1384
Langstaflfe v, Fonwiok . . 1905
Langston, Ey;p. . . • 1980
Langton v. Beeston . . 1229
V. Burton . [1473]
V. Higgs . . .1467
V. Horton . .1948
V. Langton 332, 1372, 1471,
1880, 1897
V. Waite .
Lanoy v. Dg, Athol
Lansdowne p. Lansdowno
Lantsbury v. Collier
Laprimaudaye v. Teissier
Larabrie v. Brown .
Lardin v. Binny
Larkin v. Lloyd
Larking, Exp.
, Be, Larking v.
mg . . .
Larkins v. Paxton
V. Phippa
1364
1930
965, 2020
. 543
. 1150
. 231
. 494
[1517]
405, 406
. 2268
Lark-
. 1558
, 1369, 1404
. 1432
850, 858
[2292]
Lamer v. Lamer
Larrett v. Bank of England
Lart, Be, Wilkinson v. Blades 122, 139
Lascelles v. Onslow . . 592
V. Swansea School
Board .... 2351
Lashley v. Hogg . . 1379, 1522
Laslett V. Oiffe . . . 1848
La Society Anonyme des Ver-
reries de I'Etoile, Be . 29, 2334
Lassence v. Tiemey . . 864
Lasseur v. Tyrconnel . . 1358
Latch V. Latch . 1359, 1423, 1450
La Terriere v. Bulmer . 1613, 1618
Latham r'. Chartered Bank of
India . . 2087,2304
V. Latham . . 872
Lathom v., Greenwich Ferry
Co. . . . 740, 1880, 1884
Lathropp's Charity, Be
Latimer, Exp.
V. Aylesbury, &c,
• V. Harrison, Be
, rison .
V. Neate .
Latouche v.. Dunsany (L.
La Touche v. Hutton
La Trinidad v. Browne
Latter v. Dashwood
Latymer's Charity, Be
Lauterdale Peerage Case
Launder, Be .
Lauretta, The .
1269, 2400
290, 297
Ry. 708
Har-
743, 1467
. 86
. 2041
. 2230
. 374
. 1903
. 1259
151, 1519
. 511
. 839
clxxii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Lauri v. Renad . . 665, 666
Laurie v. A.-G., Re Church Pat.
Trusts
Lautour v. A.-G. .
Lavell, Exp. .
Lavender's Policy, Be
Lavender v. Lavender
Laver v. Pielder
Lavery v. Pursell
Lavie v. Phillips
Law Guarantee
Hunter
Law Society, Exp.
worth ' .
Law V. Garrett
■ ■ V. Glenn
V. Hunter
■ V. Indisputable, &c. Co,
■ V. Law
1283, 1303
105, 106
. 2464
. 869
. 781
. 1626
2145, 2147, 2158
. 864
Society v.
. 232, 1213
, Re Ains-
. 1072
. 2113
. 743
1122, 1315
71
2133
• ([1905] 1 Ch. 140) . 2255
- V. Philby 172, 177, 178, 1835
- Union, &c. Co. I;. Hall .1663
Lawe V. Stoney
Lawes, Re
, Cole V. Cole
V. Bennett
V. Gibson
Lawford's Charity,
Skinner
Lawford v. Spioer
Lawless v. Mansfield
. 1807
1668, 1669
. [426]
. 1490, 1491
. 2178,2182
Re, Exp.
. 1262
522
' 1052,' 1054,
1055, 1338, 1339,
1341, 1902
Lawley, Re ([1902] 2 Ch. 799) 1675,
2153
([1911] 2 Ch. 530) . 1465
— V. Hooper . . . 2066
Lawrance, Be, Bowker v. Austin 1039
V. Norreys (L.) 39, 131,
2250
Lawrence's Patent . . 2320
Lawrence, Re . . . 1061
, Evennett v. Law-
rence . 831, 832
and Bullen, Re . 2434
V. Aflate 665, 668, 669
V. Bowie
V. Campbell
V, Edwards
V. Fletcher
V. Harrison
V. Horton
V, Lawrence
V. Maule
V. Registrar of
Registry
V. Richmond
Lawrie v. Lees
1135
89,90
446, 710
. 1040
. 1061
518, 559
916, 1699
. 2464
Land
. 1022
. 187
188, 985, 2162, 2166,
2167
PAOB
1524
2398
501
1524
782
108
Lawson's Trusts, Be ,
Lawson, Exp. . .
V. Carter . .
V. Duncan, Re Hewit
V. Ricketts
V. Vacuum Brake Co.
V. Wright 1346, [2067], 2074,
2077
Lawton's Estate, iJe . 1699,2361
Lawton v. Campion . 126, 1633
V. Elwes, Re Corsellis 65,
933, 934, 1137
V. Ford
Laxon & Co., Re ,
Lay, Re
Layard v. Maud
Laybourn v. Gridley
Layburn v. Crisp .
Layfield v. Layfleld
Layton, Steele & Co., Re
V. Mortimore
Lazarus, Re .
V. Andrade
— — ■ V. Mozley .
Lazenby v. Lazenby
V. White .
Lazonby v. Rawson
Lea, Be, Lea v. Cooke
V. Hinton
V. MiUar .
Leach v. Jay
V. Leach
V. Westall
Lead Companys
Fund
Leadbitter, Be
Leaden v. Lewin
Leader, The .
Leaf, Son & Co., Re
Leah, Re .
Leahy v. O'Grady, Re Harnett
1873, 2049
. 807
. 1513
. 2033
. 2311
. 367
1459, 1460
. 277
. 1020
. 1158
. 1948
. 78
. 615
615, 833
. 1428
1252, 1257
. 1935
. 627
• • [2]
. 964
326, [336], 1810
Workmen's
[2103]
. 281, 1950
. 1508
. 482
. 2330, 2332
. 1041
1376
Leak v. Driffield
V. MoDowall .
Leake's Trusts, Re
Leake v. Robinson
Lean v. Lean
Learoyd, Re .
V. Bracken
V.
853, 875
2133
1159
1542
1616
1083
159
Halifax Joint Stock
Banking Co. . 90
V. Whiteley, Re White-
ley . . . 1104
V. Whiteley 1104, 1106, 1106
Leas Brook Spinning Co., Re . 2436
Hotel, iJe . . 685,2111
Leask, Re, Richardson v. Leask 1358
Leatham & Sons v. Johnstone-
White . . 529
— ' V. Amer . . . 1948
Table of Cases.
clxxiii
PAGE
Leather v. Leather , . [891]
V. Simpson . . 2243
Cloth Co. V. Amer.
Leather Cloth Co. 623
— Cloth Co. V. Hirsohfeld 625
V. Lorsent . 528
Leathes v. Leathes . . 1698
Leavers v. Clayton, Re Jarman 1303
Leavesley, Be . . 472, 475
Le Bas v. Herbert, He Butler . 1605
Lebel w. Tucker . . . 1522
Le Blond v. Curtis . . .148
Le Brasseur and Oakley, Be . 262
Lechmere and Lloyd, Be . 1540
V. Brasier 340, 349, 1380,
1403, 1404, [1492], 2169
V. Carlisle . 1360, 1489
V. Clamp 416, 1232, 1234,
1920
V. Lechmere . . 1491
Charlton's Case 456, 459,
523
Leoonfield (L.) v, L. N. W. Ry.
Co,
Lecouturie v. Rey .
Ledbrook v. Passman
Ledgard v. Bull
Ledger v. Groome .
Ledward v. Hassells
Lee Conservancy
Button
Lee's Trusts, Be
Lee, Exp.
■ , Be (4 Ch. 43)
(21 W. R. 168)
■ (32 L. T. 298)
, Exp. Good
Neville
2348
[614], 627
. 2045
. 643
. 1905
. 1541
Board v.
297, 576, 579
1305
, Kenyon v. Lee
• and Hemingway, Be
■ • V. Abdy
V. Angas 74,
- V. Barne
- V. Binns, Be Binns
- V. Dangar
- V. Delane
- V. Dunsf ord .
- V. Egremont .
- V. Flood
- V. Haley
- V. Howlett
- V. Hutton
- V. Jones (17 C. B,
482)
■ V. Lee .
• V. Melendez .
■ V. Neuchatel Asphalte Co,
■ V. NuttaU . 812, 831, 1469
. 1039
. 262
. 1305
. 1146
. 1407
. 307
. 1233
240, 2407
. 1522
2241, 2242,
[2244], 2245
1453
1588
419
1452
1835
1587
346
615, 621, 623, 626
1455, 1927
. 1017
N. S.
. 2082
1626, [1648]
[504]
PAGE
Lee V. Page .... 2112
V. Pain .... 1537
V. Prieaux . . . 860
V. Roundwood, Be Round-
wood Colliery Co. 770, 1895,
1936, 1937, 2264
«;. Ryder . . .929
— V. Soames . . 2148, 2108
V. Sturrock . . . 1423
— V. Wilson, Be Tillott 1082, 2247
Leech v. Bolland . . . 104
V. Leech . . . 1665
■ • V. Sohweder 626, 559, 500,
2138
Leedham v. Chawner . .1132
■ — V. Patohett, Be Webb 1573
Leeds & Hanley Theatres of
Varieties, Be 1094, 1318,
1334, 2265
, Fearnside & Dean's Case 1499
■ Forge Co. v. Dcighton's
Patent Flue Co. . 292, 835
■ Bkg. Co., Be . 129, 419
Grammar School, Be . 2398
(D. of) V. Amherst (E.) 537,
545, 540
— — ■ Estate Bldg. Co. v. Shep-
herd . . . 701, 1093
V. Barnardiston . .1014
V. Lewis . . . 314
Leeke v. Bennett . . . 1559
Leeming, Be . . 751, 951, 1492
— V. Murray (L.) . . 120
Lees' Settlement Trusts, Be 1188,
1193
Lees, Be . . . 263, 281
— V. Coulton . 1806, 1808, 1820
V. Fisher . , . 1974
V. Jones . . . 753
— V. Lees (15 Eq. 151) 328, 1371
(I. R. 5 Eq. 549) . 1653
. 1508. 1511
. 500
. 9;!2
482, 1992, 2.302
. 1048
[1548]
. 1356
, 1643
1080, 1136
V. Patterson
Leese v. Knight
V. Martin
Leete v. Leete
Le Earrant v. Spencer
L'Fit V. L'Batt
Legg V. Goldwire .
V. MackrcU
— — • V. Mordan, Be Mordan
Legge, Be . . .
Leggott V. Met. Ry. Co. .
— V. Western
1140
[1726]
. 2182
. 475
Legh's Settled Estates, iJe 1134,
1096, 1772, 1778
Legrand v. Whitehead . . 352
Le Grange v. Mc Andrew . 136
Lc Gros V. CockreUo . . 1921
elxxiv
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Lehmann v.- McAithur 534, 2154,
2207, 2208
■ V. Walker . . 2187
Leicester Mortgage Co., Be . 2436
Leigh's Estate, Be 1695, 2362, 2380,
2400, 2404
Leigh, Be . . . 1014, 1146
■ — ■, RowclifEe v. Leigh . 403
-V. Brooks
- V. Burnett
-•V. Dickcson
-V. Jack
- V. Leigh
403
. 1839,2030
. 1316, 1809
581, 1381, 2310
974, 1015, 1146
• V. Rumney, Be Revill 104, 352
■ V. Taylor . . . 1560
V. Turner . . .322
V. Wrigley . . . 2062
Leighton v. Leighton . 1537, 1667
■ V. Price, Be Price . 1751
Leinster Estate, Be . . 1772
Leitch V. Abbott . 41, 62, 65, 88
V. Simpson . 2167, 2168, 2208
Leite, Be, Leite v. Ferreira . 1411
Leith's Estate, Be, Chambers v.
Davidson .... 780
Lcith, Exp 1072
■ Council V. Leith Harbour 696
Le Lievre v. Gould . 2248, 2253
Lemaitre v.' Davis . . . 568
Lemami's Trusts; Be . . 1185
Lemaim. v. Berger . . . [680]
Lemmon v. Webb . . . 552
Lempriere v. Lange . 945, 2253
Lenaghan v. Smith . . 1095
Lenders v. Anderson . 15, 16
Leney & Sons v. Callingham [732],
738, 746, 749
Lo Neve v. Le Neve . 2035, 2040
Long,iJe, Tarn v. Emmerson 881,
1403, 1405, 1406, 1469
■ V. Andrews . . . 531
• V. Hodges . . . 1591
Lennard v. Curzon . . 1426
■ V. Sussex (E.) . . 1714
Lenton v. Brudenell . . 1448
Leominster Canal Co. v. Shrews-
bury & Hereford Ry. Co. . 2154
Leon, Be • . . . . 1188
Leonard, Be, Theobald v. King 1108
, Field, iJe . . 1697
. ■ — Jacques, Be . 828, 832
■ and Ellis' T. M., Be 620,
627, 2330, 2332, 2333
. — V. Attwell . . 522
■ V. KeUett . . . 1851
. V. Sussex (E.) . . 1656
Leonino v. Leonino . .1477
Lepine, Be, Dowsett v. Calver 1430,
1431
Leppington •«. Freeman .
Lesingham's Trusts, Be .
Leslie's Hassop Estates, Be
Leslie, Exp., Be Guerrier
,Be .
, Leslie v. French
■ V. Baillie
■ V. Cave
■■V. Clifford
■V. Leslie
-v. Rothes
Lespinasse v. Bell .
Lester, Exp., Be Lynes
V. Archdall .
V. Poxcroft .
Le Sueur v. Le Sueur
Letchford, Be
Lethbridge v. Cronk
■ — - — ■ V. Lethbridge
2183
1513
1243,
1756
1378
1145
1481,
1990, 1991
. 1133
73, [678]
793, 2103
1869
1655
739
876
[1073]
2146
1522
986
55
[1690],
1691
. 1001
263, 269, 277
. 1568,2196
. 1170
. 1872
1376
Lethem v. Hall
Lett, Be
V. Randall
Letterstedt v. Broers
Letts V. Hutchins .
Leutcai v. Brudenell, Be Baker
Levasseur v. Mason & Barry . 761
Levene, Be, Exp. Hewett 856, 876
Lever, Be, Cordwell v. Lever 1148,
1621
~ V. Bedingfield . . 622
V. Goodwm [616], 622, 623
V. Koffler . . . 2139
• V. Land Sees. Co. 38, 81
Leveson, Be, Exp. Arrowsmith 1930
V. Beales, Be Applebee 1366,
1504
Levett, iJe . . . .1158
Levi V. The Anglo-Continental
Gold Reefs, &c. . 40
«. Heritage . . .135
V. Taylor ... 68
Levin v. Levin, Be Levy . 109
Levitt V. Hamblett . 2298, 2299
Levy, Be, Levin ii. Levin . 109
V. Aberoorres Slate Co. 1948,
1968
V. Lovell . . .481
V. Richardson . . 1323
V. SeweU, Be Moss . 1870, 1872
- V. Stogden . 1990, 2155, 2188
V. Walker . . 684, 2099
Lewellin v. Cobbold . . 1443
Lewer, Be ... . 1081
Lewers v. Shaftesbury (E.) . 2158
Lewes, Be (U Eq. 236) . . 1590
(1 Mao. & G. 23) 1221, 1881
TMe of Oases.
clxxV
PAGE
Lewes, Be ([1907} 2 Ch. 296) . 1616
■ (E.) V. Barnett 436, 460,
[713]
260, 270
. 910
. 1883
. 151
. 241
. 1383
. 125
. 1370
. 892
. 1540
. 1332
. 265
. 1093
. 1492
320,
Lewin, Be (16 Beav. 608)
(20 Beav. 378)
— V. Jones
— V. Lewin
V. Trimming
V. Wilson
Lewis's V. Lewis
Lewis, Exp., Be Clagett .
, Be . . .
([1904] 2 Ch. 656)
, Exp. Holder .
Munro
— , Lewis V. Lewis
-, Toxwell V. Lewis
, Lewis V. Williams
822, 827, 828
• V. Aberdare & Plymouth
Co. ... 1910
■«;. Allenby . . . 1305
■ V. Bond . . . 2207
■ V. Clowes . . . 1423
■ V. Darby, Be Nash . 121
■ V. Buncombe . 1873, 2049
■ V. TothergiU . 569, 2207
■ V. Fullarton [655], 661, 672
■ V. Goodbody
- V. Green
■ V. Hillman .
623
164
1153, 2279
• V. Liland Rev. Commrs. 158
■ V. James . 2183, 2184, 2206
• V. John . . . 1881
- V. Langdon . . . 684
• V. Lewis . 1449, 1470, 1477
■ V. Londesborough (E.)
■ V. Marsh
■ V. Matthews
- V. Morrison .
• V. Nangle
■ V. Nobbs
■ V. Pennington
■ V. Poole
- V. PoweU
76
665
859, 1539
1375
882
933
90
882
77, 1041
- V. Pritohard, Be Pugh 819,
820
■ V. Rees . . . 2290
■ V. Rossiter . . . 397
- V. Stephenson . . 2148
- V. Sutton, Be Sutton . 1298
- V. Thomas . . .362
- V. Trash . . .1128
- V. Weston - super
Local Board
• V. Zouche (L.)
■ Bowles' Case
Ley V. Cox
V, Ley
Mare
686, 697
. 744
540, 545
. 1801
. 739
Ley V. Wolston
Leyoester «.*Leycester
V,' Logan
PAGK
. 1813
. [986]
. 1375
Leyland and Taylor, Be . . 2196
V. Illingworth . . 2248
V. Stewart . • 665
Liardet v. Hammond Electric
Light, &(?. Co. ■ . . .36
Licensed Victuallers' Co. v.
Bingham . . . -070
Licensed Victuallers' Co., Be,
Exp. Audain . . . 700
Lichfield Union v. Greene . 2087
D. -Baker . . . 1623
Lickbarrowy. Mason . . 2302
Lickorish, Exp., Be Wallis 296, 1065,
1878
Liddell v. Liddell (64 L. J.
Ch. 674) . 1654
(31 W. R.
238) . . . 1737
-^ V. Norton ... 77
Liddiard, Be . . . .1189
Liebig, &c. Co. v. Hanbury 620, 627
Lietch and Kewney, Be . . 2406
Life Assoc, of Scotland v. Sid-
dal . . 906,908,909,1109
Life Interest, &c. Soc. v. Hand-
in-HandSoc. . . . 1900
Light V. Governor of Anticosti 108
Lightbody, Be 1168, [1179], 1188,
1215.
Lightbown v. McMjm, Be
McMyn . . 888, 1364, 2076
Lightfoot V. Heron . . 2162
Idles V. Terry • . . 1056, 2273
Lilford (Lord) v. Powys Keck . 1475
Lm V. Lill .... 1222
LiUey, iJe .... 1069
V. A.'G., Be Pyne . 1252, 1257
• V. Foad, Be Hale 743, 750,
1384
Lillie V. Legh . . . 2209
LiUington v. Pares, Be Pares . 1717
Lilliott V. Oompton . . 1548
LillwaU's Settlement Trusts, Be 872
Lillywhite v. Trimmer . . 610
Limbrey v. Gurr . . . 1304
Limehouse Bd. of Works, Exp.,
Re Vallanee . 150, 1358, 1521
Limerick Ry. Co., Be, Exp.
Smyth .... 1719
Limpus V. Arnold . . . 1447
Lincoln, &c. Chapel, Be . . 1264
V. Wright 1084, 1108, 1838,
2147
Lind V. Isle of Wight Ferry Co. 2139
Lindo, Be, Lindo v. Lindo [1458]
Lindon v. Hemery, Be Hicks . 935
clxxvi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Lindsay, &c. v. Hurd . 2249, 2252
V. Gibbon . . .914
V. Gladstone . [59], 81
V. TyrreU . . .932
■ ^ i;. Wieklow (E.) . 1697
LindseU v. Phillips, Be Powers 312,
1381, 1421
Lindus, Re ... . [259]
Linfoot V. Pookett . . . 1943
Linford v. Gudgeon . . 1351
Lingard, Be . . . . 1776
Lingen, Be . . [1713], 1714
Lingwood v. Stowmarket, &c.
Co [608]
Linley v. Taylor . . 916, 1366
Linoleum Co. v. Nairn . 627, 2333
Linotype Co.'s Trade Mark, Be 2331
Linsley, Be, Cattley v. West . 1090
Lintott's Case . . . 1344
Linwood v. Andrews . . 459
Lippard v. Ricketts 253, 299, 1869,
1982
Lippiat V. Holley . . . 942
Lipscombe v. Lipsoombe . 1477
Liquidation, &c. Co. v. Wil-
loughby .... 2045
Lisbon, &c. Co., Be . .112
Lisbon-Berlin Gold Kelds, Ld.
i;. Heddle .... 16
Lisburn's Settled Estate, Be . 1778
Lishman's Claim . . . 1321
Liskeard, &c. Ry. Co., Be 1970, 2412
List V. Tharp . . [548], 553
Lister's Hosp., Re . . 1262, 2363
Lister, Exp., Be Milford Docks
Co 2350
, Be ... . 1277
■ & Co., Be . . . 1379
— V. Bell . . .320
■ V. Hodgson . . . 2237
V. Leather . . 634, 653
V. Lister (Hy.) & Son . 1967
V. Stubbs . 1089, 1334, 2270
• V. Tidd . . 486, 488
V. Turner . . . 2290
V. Wood . . .788
Litchfield v. Jones . 70, 98, 432
Lithgow, Exp. . . .419
Little's Will, Be . . . 872
Little, Be . . . 872, 1216
, Harrison v. Harrison 871
. V. Kingswood Collieries
Co. ... 1061
V. Spreadbury . . 1030
Steeping, Rector of,
Exp 2359
Littledale v. Liverpool College 1381
Littlefair v. Coates . [1818]
Littler v. Rhyl, &c. Commi's. . 2353
PAGE
Littlewood, Be . . [1680]
V. Pattison [2388], 2389
Litton's Case . . . 2305
Litton V. Litton 145, 147, 179,
1572
Liverpool & Dublin Steam Co.,
Be . . . 193
& Manchester Bread
Co. V. Firth . . 63
• Adelphi Loan Assoc.
V. Eairhurst . . 857
, &c. Co. V. Hunter 722, 724
, &c. Ry. Co., Re . 2399
Bank v. Turner . 2142
Corp., Exp. . . 2380
• General Brokers' As-
sociation V. Com-
mercial Press
Bureaux . . 663
Household Assoc, v.
Smith . . .676
— Improvement Act, Re 2406
Livesey v. Harding 331, 332, 488,
1372, 1928
Livietta, The . . . 1049
Livingstone v. The Rawyards
Coal Co. . . [587], 573, 2183
Llanbadarnfawr School Board
V. Official Trustees' Char.
Funds .... 1276
Llandudno U. D. C. v. Woods . 582
Llanelly Ry. v. L. & N. W.
Ry 707
Llanover (Lady) v. Homfray [103],
107, 291
Llanover's (B.) WiU, Be . . 1749
Llewellin, Be (37 Ch. D. 317) 545,
1754
— — ([1891] 3 Ch. 145) 1038
, Llewellin v. Wil-
liams . 1769,1773
■ — ■ — ■ — ■ — ■ V, Brown, Be Broivn 475,
984, 1366
Llewellyn, Be (29 Beav. 171) 1108,
1616, 1617, 1618,
1619
([1911] ICh. 451) 1751
V. Badeley . . 87
Lloyd's Bank v. Bullock 1065, 1087,
1991, 2031, 2224
V. Luck . . 80
V. Med way Upper
Nav. Co. . 762
V. Pearson 1927, 1928,
2034
— ■ — ^ — • — ■ — ■ — ■ V. Princess Royal
Colliery Co. . 129, 314
— ■ — ■ — ■ Banking Co. v. Jones . 2031
■ ■ ■ Trade Mark, Be . [2340]
Table of Cases.
clxxvii
Lloyd's Trusts, Re (I. R. 2 Eq.
507) . 950
(57 L. J. Ch.
246) 1169
Lloyd & Sons, Be, Lloyd v.
Bottomley . . . 2342
and North London By.
Co., Re . . . 2403
— and Tooth, Re . . 397
(D.) & Co., Re, Lloyd v.
D. Lloyd & Co. . . 1840
(David) & Co., Re . 754
■ , Re Edwards v. Lloyd . 1774
, Lloyd V. Lloyd [1163]
([1903] 1 Ch. 385) 815,
1866, 1874, 2046
• V. Attwood [1312, 1338],
1980, 2036
■ V. Banks 488, 1926, 1928,2033
445, 531
V. Cheetham
I'. Clark
V. Cocker
■ V. Cross
V. Davies
V. Dimmaek
■ V, Eagle
. 2273
. 1670
. 1423
934, [1609]
115, 116, 2075
. 531
V. Grace Smith & Co. 1033,
2249
V. Guibert . . 723, 1521
V. Johnes . . 348, 1371
■ V. Jones . .361, 1904
■ V. Lloyd . . 1428, 1514
- V. L. C. & D. Ry. . . 526
■ V. Mason 768, 907, 1045, 1046
• V. Nowell
■ V. Passingham
■ V. Smith
■ V. Steel, Re Wilkinson
- V. Tardy, Re Harman
V. Wait (1 Ph. 70)
(1 Ph. 61)
2144
749
[913]
1697
312,
1489
. 1483
1862, 1875
■ V. Whittey . . . 1847
V. WilUams . . .907
Lloyd-PhiHips v. Davis, Re
Bo wen . . . .1543
" Lloyds " V. Harper [2071], 2081
Llynvi, &o. Coal Co. v. Brogden
[567], 573, 2183
Loane v. Casey . . . 1470
Loaring, Exp. . . . 2225
Loat V. Thorpe . . .2010
Loch V. Bagley . . . 1655
Lock V. Lomas . . 253, 1883
V. Queensland, &c. Co. . 701
■ ■ V. Pearce . . 312, 2307
V. Venables . . . 1557
V. Willis, Re Bradbrook . 1696
Locke and others. Re . . [715]
VOL. I.
Loche )'. Prosoott
V. White
Lockett V. Carey
V. Lockett
Lockey, Re .
^ V. Lockey
PAGE
. 1992
. 146, 367
. 1040
88, 1314, 2105
. 775
. 1386
Lockhart v. Hardy 362, 1837, 1922
V. Reilly . 1057, 1090, 1091
Looking V. Parker 1112, 1180, 1867,
2049
Lookwood, Exp. . . . 2379
V. Ewer . . 1926
V. L. & N. W. Ry. . 689
Loder's Trusts, Re . .871, 2022
Lodge Holes Coll. Co. v. Wed-
nesbury Corp. . . 573, 581
Lodge V. Prichard 1314, 1378, 2104,
2125
V. Pritchard . [1472]
Lodge's Patent, Re [2319], 2320
Lofthouse, Re . 964, 966, 1148
Loftus' Trade Mark, Re . 2336, 2337
Loftus V. Swift . . 1871, 1877
Logan V. Bank of Scotland . 12
-(No. 2) 18,
132, 722
V. Prin. of Coorg. . [776], 779
Login V. Prin. of Coorg. . 808, [809]
Lomax, Re . . . 2360, 2399
V. Bird . . . 1855
• V. Graves & Co. . . 2300
V. Hide . . . 1882
■ V. Ripley . . . 1305
Lombe's (Sir J.) Estate, Re . 2451
London Assurance v. Bailey [1831]
Lond. &c. Assoc, Re, Exp. Pul-
brook . . . .188
Lond. &c. Ass. Co., Re . . 315
V. Lond. &
West. Ass. Co. . . . 628
Lond. Ass. of Shipowners v.
Lond. & India Docks . 164, 695
Lond. Assurance v. Mansel . 2247
Lond. & Aylesbury Ry. Co., 7Je[24151
Lond. &c. Bank v. Strutton . 72 1
Lond. Bank of Mexico v. Hart 103
Lond. Banking Co. v. Pirmin,
jBeFirmin . . .432
Lond. & Birm. Ry. v. Grand
Junction Canal Co. . . 522
Lond. (Bp. of), Exp. (2 D. P.
& J. 14) 2366, 2398, 2399, 2400,
2402, 2404
Lond. & BlackwaU Ry. v. Cross 395,
512, 234'J
Lond. & BlackwaU Ry. v. Lime-
house Bd 512
L. B. & S. C. Ry., Re (18 Beav.
608) 1269, 1277, 2399, 2402, 2405
m
clxxviii
Table oj Cases,
PAGE
L. B. & S. C. Ry., Ri (M. B.
22 March, 1859, B. 1467) 2365, 2368
L. B. & S. C. Ry., Re, Exp.
Haberdashers' Co. 2368, [2374],
2374
L. B. & S. C. By. V. L. & S. W.
By. Co. . . . 690, 702
L. B. & S. C. By. V. Truman . 603
Lond. Chartered Bank, &c. v.
Lempriere . . 861, 863, 1606
Lond. .Chartered Bank of Aus-
tralia V. White . . 1992, 2302
L. C. & D. By., Exp. 2391, [2413],
2420
■ Arrangement Act,
Be . . . 696
V. Cable, &e. Co. 502
V. Imp. Merc.
Credit Assoc. . 833
" — V. S. E. By. 38, 298,
1343, 1345, 1346, 2077
■ Co. V. L. & S.
By. Co 392
London (Bishop of) v. A.-G., Re
Whiteley [1296]
V, Whiteley,
i?e Whiteley . . . 1255
Lond. & City Land Co., Be . 2434
London Clearing Bankers v.
Inland Be v. Commrs. . .158
Lond. (Corp.), Exp. 2362, 2366, 2405
-. Be Sion
CoUege . 2407
V. A.-G. . . 1269
■ — V. Cox 785, 786, 788,
817
■ V. Low . . 593
■ ■ V. Biggs . 578, 579
Lond. Cotton Mills Co., Re , 481
Lond. & County Bank, Exp. . 2288
Lond. & County Bk. v. Goddard 1170,
1180, 1182, 2045
Lond. & County Banking Co. v.
Dover . . . 328, 1848
Lond. & County Banking Co. v.
Lewis . 515, 717, 719, 1983
Lond. & County Banking Co. v.
Batcliffe . . . 2043,2153
Lond. & County Banking Co. v.
Terry, Re Sherry 1325, 2076,
2077, 2081
Lond. County Council, Exp., Re
Harris .... 2384
Lond. County Council, Re . 826
Lond. & County Plate Glass
Co., iJe .... 2435
Lond. & County Tram. Co., Re 2425
Lond. & County United B. Soc.
V. Angell .... 2058
PAGE
Lond. & Eastern Counties Loan
Co. V. Creasey . . . 1945
Lond. Drapery Stores, Re . 118
Lond. Electrobus Co., Be . 2446
Lond. &c. Finance Corp., Re . 1992
Lond. Financial Assoc, v. Kelk 701
Lond. Flour Co., Be . . 458
Lond. Founders' Ass. Lim. v.
Clarke .... 2295
Lond. Freehold, &c. Co. v. Suf-
field . . . 1332, 1991, 2032
Lond. General Omnibus Co. v.
Lavell . . . .625
Lond. & General Bk., Be 1094, 2270
Lond. & Globe Fire Corp. . 1332
Lond. & Globe Corp. v. Kaufman 106
Lond. &e. Hotels Co., Quarter-
maine's Case . . 1370, 1851
Lond. & India Dock Co. v. A.-G. 158
Lond. Joint Stock Bk. v. Lond.
Corp 481
Lond. Joint Stock Bk. v. Wight-
man, Be Candery . . 1040
Lond. & Lane. Fire Ins. Co. v.
British American Assoc. . 407
Lond. &, Lane. Paper Mills Co.,
Be 1951
Lond. Land Co. v. Harris 793, 2161
Lond. & Leeds Bank, Re 2248, 2260
Lond. (Mayor of), Exp. . . 2366
and Tubbs, Re 2181
V. Cox . . 784
■ V. Levy . 78
V. Lond. Joint
Stock Bk. 481
• V. Low . 594
• V. Southgate 2158
Lond. Metallurgical Co. . . 1031
Lond. Monetary Co. v. Brown 1838,
1920
Lond. & Midland Bank v.
MitoheU . . . 1867, 1983
Lond. & New York Invest-
ment Co., Re . . . 2431
L. & N. W. By. & G. W. By.
V. Billington 388,
389, 2350
■ Co. & Mason's
Orphanage, Re 1278
& Midland By.
Co., Exp., Re
Smith . 1773,2383
, Re . . 2394
• V. Ackroyd . 570
V. Evans . 572
■ V. Garnett & Co. 534
V. Hernley Park
Coal & Canal
Co. . . 570
Table of Cases.
clxxix
L.
PAGE
; N. W. Ry: v. Lane. &o. Ry. 549,
552, 575
^- — ^ V. Price 694, 701,
702
. u. Walker 398, 2349,
2350, 2351
Lond. & Northern Bk., Be, Exp.
Jones .... 2145
Lond. & Northern Bk., Be 72, 611
Lond. Pressed Hinge Co., Be . 753
Lond. Printing and PuWishing
Alliance v. Cox . . . 663
Lond. & Provincial Bank v.
Bogle . . . .859
Lond. & Provincial Fire Ins.
Co., Be .... 2434
Lond. & Provincial Lighting
Co., ^a;^. Hale . . . 2264
Lond. Prov. Bldg. Soe. v. Mor-
gan 2064
Lond. Ry. Co., Be, Exp. Cooper 2043
Lond. Scottish Ben. Soo. v.
Chorley . . . .297
Lond. & S. W. Canal Co., Be . 2269
Lond. & S. W. By., Exp. . 2401
. • V. Blaokmore 707,
1341, 2139
— V. Bridger . 2190
■ V. Facey . 725
■ V. Gomm 531,
707, 1543
Lond. Steam Dyeing Co. v.
Digby . . . 179,313
Lond. Steamboat Co., Ltd., Be 2436
Lond. St., Greenwich, &c. Act,
Be 2400
Lond. & Suburban Co v. Field 534
Lond. Syndicate v. Lord 1083, 1313
Lond. Tilbury & Southend Ry.
Co., JJe .... 2347
Lond. Tilbury & Southend Ry.
Co. V. Kirk & BandaU . 70
Lond. Trust Co. v. Mackenzie . 1093
Lond. United Breweries, Be . 1880
Lond. United Trams., Be . 2406
Lond. & Westminster Bank v.
Inland Revenue Gommrs. . 161
Lond. Wharfage, &c. Co., Be . 299
Lond. & Yorkshire Bank v.
Cooper .... 78
Lond. & Yorkshire Bank v.
Pritt . . . 524, 527
Londonderry (Ld.) v. Nether-
lands Steamboat Co. . . 2074
Loneson v. Copeland . .1136
Long, iJe (1 W. B. 226) . 2389, 2403
(12W. B. 460) . 2401
■ — {17 W. R. 218) . 1189
([1905] 2 Ir. R. 343) 876
PAGE
Long, Be, Lovegrove v. Long . 971
, Exp. Fuller . 1038, 1039
V. Bowring 2150, [2204], 2208
V. Collier . . ■ 2189
V. Crosslcy . . 49, 51
V. Gardner, Be Gardner
(41 W. R. 203) . . 1446
— — V. Gardner, Be Gardner
(W. N. (94) p. 159) . 828
■ u. Great Northern, &c.
Ry. Co.
V. Hughes
V. Long
V. Macclesfield (E.)
• V. Millar
— — 0. Ovenden
— — V. Rankin
— — V. Short
— — ■ V. Stone
■ V. Storie
Longbotham & Sons, Be
Longbottom v. Berry
■ V. Pearoe
V. Shaw
. 821
[1577]
. 1014
. 1703
. 2146
1446, 1447
. 1673
1559, 1606
. 122
. 1910
. 281
1950, 1952
894, 1015
635, 653
. 1096
Longbourne v. Fisher
Long Eaton Recreation Grounds
Co. t;. Midland Ry. 533,699,2347
Longendale Co., Be
Longinotto v. Morss
Longman v. East .
V. Murray
V. Winchester
1840
2190, 2209
. 406
. 658
. 667
Bath
Longmans v,
Tramways .
Longmore v. Elcum
Longton v. Wilsby
Longuet v. Hockley
r. Scawen
Electric
. 2038,2250
. 1411, 1492
. 1711
. 1160
. 2049,2066
Longworth's Estate . . 1699
Longworth, Be . . . 2361
Lonsdale, Be . 1177, [1200]
— V. Berchtoldt . 1553, 1560
(Earl of) V. Crawfurd 1673
(E.) V. Curwen 565, 572
— v. Lowther . 1754
Loomes v. Stotherd 1404, 1466, 1468,
1470
Loosmore v. Tiverton & N.
Devon Ry. Co. . . .2139
Lopdell V. Creagh . . . 140
Lopes V. Chavarri ... 17
Lord, Be (2 Eq. 605) . . 1317
and FuUerton, Be 1165, 2201
■ V. Colvin . 808, 842, 1518
■ — ■ — ■ V. Hayward, Be Smith . 1511
«. Lee . . . . 396
V. Lord . . . 1446
— V. Wightwick 1319, 1414, 1617,
1619, 1622
clxxx
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Lord V. Wormleighton . . 1041
Lord Advocate v. Drysdale . 1289
Lord Mayor of London, Exp. 302,
310
Lord Provost of Edinburgh v.
Lord Advocate 1256
■ Glasgow V.
Fairie 571
Lorimer v. Lorimer , . 1809
Loring v. Davis . . . 2296
Losoombe v. Russell . . 2104
■ V. Wintringham . 1300
Losh V. Hayton . . . 1224
Lough Neagh Ship Co., Re . 761
Loughton (R. of), Exp. . . 2402
Louis, Re, Exp. Inc. Law. Soc. 1072
■ V. Smellie . . . 674
Louisiana & Southern States,
&c., Co., iJe . . 2430,2433
Lound V. Grimwade 2149, 2272,
2292
Lovat (L.) V. D. Leeds . . 545
Love, Exp., Re Williams . 279
, Re, Exp. Watson . . 1940
, Hill V. Spurgeon 1129, 1453
V. Bell . 568, 569, 570
■ ■ V. Hills, JJe Miller & Miller,
Re French .... 37
Loveband, Re . . [2396]
Loveday, Re, Aylmer v. Winter-
botham . . 891
V. Chapman . . 1910
Lovegrove v. Long, Re Long . 971
Lovejoy v. Cole . . 248, 805
V. Mulkern . . 2058
Lovelace (Earl) v, Anson, Re
Anson . . . 1108, 1147
Loveland, Re ... 1511
Lovell & CoUard's Contract, Re 160
■ V. Beauchamp . 412, 2124
V. Edwards, Re Edwards 791
V. Hicks . . . 2252
V. Wallis . . . 2237
Loveman, Re, Watson v. Watson 1558
Loveridge v. Cooper . . 1928
Lovesy v. Smith 880, 1644, 1645,2273
Lovett, Re, Ambler v. Lindsay 1358,
1503
V. Lovett ([1898] 1 Ch.
82) . 2247,2311
• (Joh. 118) . 908
Low, Re, Bland v. Low 191, [1374]
■ V. Bouverie . 1082, 2034, 2247
V. Innes . . . 508
— ■ — V. Routledge . . 664, 665
■ V. Staines Reservoir Com-
mittee . . . 2353
■ V. Ward . . . 665
Lowden v. Blakey . . 90, 94
Lowe, Re, Danily v. Piatt
V. Blakemore .
V. Dixon . .
V. Pox . . .
■ V. Holme
■ V. Lowe
■ V. Moore
V. Morgen
Lowell V. Wallis
Lowestoft (Manor of), Re.
Reeve .
-, &c. Tram. Co,
Lowis V. Rumney
Lowman, Re .
Lowndes, Re .
V. Bettle
— V. CoUens
V. Norton
V. Thomas
Lowry's Will, Re
Lowry, Re
V. Fulton
PAGE
1510
481
2080
850
251
829
374
1859
104
Exp.
2363, 2385
Re . 2425
1387, 1469
. 1591
. 2284
547, 552
1343, 1344
542, 545, [1683],
1683
. [547]
. 2406
. 1181,1233
1085, 1358, 1359
Lows, Exp. . . . 138, 834
V. TeHord . . . 1893
Lowten v. Colchester (Corp.) . 444
Lowther v. Bentinck . 1662, 1670
— V. Caledonian Ry. Co. 2348
V. Heaver 46, 1325, 2141,
2157
— V. Lowther . . 2255
(E.) V. Westmoreland 1653
Lowthian v. Hasell 1369, 1373, 1391
Lowton V. Lowton . . . L717
Loxley v. Heath . 1626, 1643, 1644
Loyd V. Mansell' . . .939
Luard v. Lane, Re Lane . 1557, 1558
Lubbock V. British Bank of S.
Africa . 1621,1700
V. British Bank of S.
America . . . 700, 2106
Lucan (E. of). Re, Fitzhardinge
(L.) V. Cobden
Lucas, Re, Parish v.
V. Brandreth
■ V. Calcraft
V. Clark
V. Cooke
V. Cutts
V. Dennison
V. Hall
V. Harris
^ V. King
■ V. Lucas
V. Peacock
■ V. Scale
■ V. Siggers
• V. Williams
1629
Hudson . 1557
. 1489,1513
. 914
. [938]
663, 664, 668
[2098]
. 1867
. 2144
445, 737, 757, 761
. [961], 969
. 860
288, 290, 487,
1045, 1046
. 1851
. 799
. 668
Table of Cases.
clxxxi
Luooraft v. Hite . .
Luokeraft v. Pridham
Luokie, Be, Nixon v. Luckie
Lucknow V. Brown
Ludbrook v. Barrett
V. Ludbrook .
PAGE
2229
1451
[61]
964
1333
1869
1057
1541
774, 775
Luddy's Trustee v. Poard
Luddj^ Re, Peard v. Morton
Ludgater v. Channell
Ludington Cigarette Machine
Co. V. Baron Cigarette Ma-
chine Co 2325
Ludlow (C. of) V. Greenhouse . 1262
Ludmore, Re ... 418
Ludgan's (L.) Case, Metal Con-
stituents, Ld. . . . 2260
Luke, Re . . . .896
■ V. S. Kensington Hotel
Co. . . 49, 1859
■ ■ V. Tonkin, Re Symons . 1121
Luker v. Dennis . . . 634
Lulham, Re, Brinton v. Lul-
ham 1711
Lumb V. Beaumont . 99, 573
V. Teal . . 503, 835
Lumley, Re (W. N. (93) 13) . 424
, Exp. Cathcart 411, 430,
443
• ■ — , Exp. Hood Barrs
([1894] 3 Ch. 135) 852,
870
, Exp. Hood Barrs
([1896] 2 Ch. 690) 869
V. Brooks ... 40
■ ■ — ■ V. Desborough, Re
Keane . . 1048, 1051
V. Nicholson
V, Ravensoroft
V. Timms .
V. Wagner
Lumsden's Case
Lumsden v. Shipcote Land Co,
1335
527, 979,
2142, 2152
2147, 2161
. 527
. 946
268
Lund V. Blanshard , . 1095
■ V. Campbell . . 247, 400
Lundie, Re . . , [1994]
Lunham v. BlundeU . . 1086
Lunn V. Thornton . . . 1948
Lupton V. White . . . 1314
Luscombe v. Steer . . 72, 83, 600
Lush's Trusts, Re . . 862, 910
Lush, Re ... . 1222
Lusher v. Gibbs . . .600
Lushington v. Boldero . 536, 545
Lusty, Re ... . 1951
Lutkins v. Leigh . . 1475, 1606
Lutwyche v. Winford . . 348
Luxmore, Re, Grordon v. Woods 434
V. Clifton . . 1365
PAGE
Lyall V. Broadwood, Re Broad-
wood . . , 1607
V. Weldhen . . .799
Lybbe v. Hart . . 526, 534
Lyoett V. Staff. &c. Ry 708, [2221],
2224
Lydall v. Martinson . . [48]
Lyddon v. Ellison . . 1653, 1667
v. Moss . . 1055,1058
Lydney Iron Co. v. Bird (23 Ch.
D. 358) ... 28
and Wigpool Iron Co.
V. Bird (33 Ch. D. 85) 28, 1032,
1334, 2265, 2269
Lydney and Wigpool Iron Co.
V. Bird (31 Ch. D. 328) . 246
Lye, iJe .... 2403
Lyell V. Kennedy (20 Ch. D. 489,
491 ; 8 App. Ca. 217,
223) . 67, 73, 86, 87
- V. Kennedy (27 Ch. D. 16) 69,
72
V. Kennedy (27 Ch. D. 1) 69,
70, 86, 92, 99
V. Kennedy (27 Ch. D. 26) 70,
90,92
— — ■ V. Kennedy (9 App. Ca.
81) . . 70,90
■ V. Kennedy (14 App. Ca.
437) 152, 153, 1113, 1217, 1327
Lygon, Re . . . [1735]
Lyle V. EUwood . Ill, 153, 351
■ V. Yarborough (E.) . .2189
Lynch, Exp 944
■ to Chance . . .291
• — • V. Commrs. of Sewers . 697
V. Joyce . . .. 1371
■ V, KeUy . . . 1373
V. Maodonald . 145, 361
Lynch-Blosse, Re, Rickards v.
Lynch-Blosse . . 1610,1617
Lynde v. Anglo-Italian, &c. Co. 2259,
2260
V. Waithman . . 1837
Lyndon, Re . . . ■ 2336
Lyne, Re, Sands v. Lyne . 1430
- V. Willis . . .939
Lynes, Re, Exp. Lester . . 876
Lynn & Pakenham Ry., Re 2400,
2404
and Sexton, Re Bur-
roughes . . [2197], 2200
Lyon V. Fishmongers' Co. [586], 588
V. Home . . 2271, 2272
V. Johnson . . • 392
V. London & City Midland
Bank . . . 1952
- V. Morris . 496, 497, 1947
V. Tweddell . 85, 88, 2109
clxxxii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Lyons, Exp 2283
,Be . . . 1001,1003
V. Blenkin 991, 996, [1003]
V. E. I. Co. . . . 1306
V. Hoffnung . . 2303
, (M. of) V. Adv. Gen. of
Bengal . 1252, 1253, 1306
V. Tucker . . . 1943
V. WilHns . . .602
Lys V. Lys . . . 1804, 1805
Lysaght, Re, Lysaght v.
Lysaght . 1557,1699
V. Edwards 356, 1488, 2167
■ V. Westmacott . . 2012
Lyse V. Kingdon . . 1135, 1136
Lyster v. DoUand . . . 2004
Lyttleton v. Blackburn . .712
■ • V. Cross . . 1364, 1368
Lytton's Settled Estate, Be . 1145
Lytton V. Devey . . . 673
V. G. N. By. Co. . 2141, 2212
M.
M., Be {[1899] 1 Ch. 79) . 1219, 1220
(46 L. J. Ch. 24) . . 466
M. ■!;. C 1010
M. S. & L. By. Co. v. North
Central Waggon Co. . . 1938
Maass v. Bas Light & Coke Co. 68
Maas V. Pepper . . . 1938
Mabbett, Be, Pitman v. Hol-
borrow .... 1570
Mabe v. Connor . . .670
Maber v. Maber . . .1383
Maberley, Be, Maberley v. Ma-
berley , . . 1142, 1144, 1775
Maberly's Settled Estates, Be . 1758
Maberly v. Bobins . . . 1343
McAcland v. Shaw . . . 1607
MaoAlister v. Bishop of Boches-
ter ..... 65
M'AHster v. Walters . 113, 315
McAlpin V. McAlpin, Be Mao-
donald .... 1380
Macalpin v. Macdonald . . 1403
MacAlpine v. Calder . . 403
V. McAlpine, Be
Moore . . . 1171,1180
Macan v. Maoan . . . 922
M'Andrew v. Barkcr828, 829, 830, 831
■ V. Bassett . 626, 620
Mo Arthur v. Dudgeon . .1317
Macartney v. Graham . 1878, 2231
MoAskie v. M'Kay . . .1626
Maoaulay, Exp. . . . 2376
. V. Policy . . 1033
V. Shaokell . . 96
PAGE
MacauIifEe, Be . . . 1257
McBean v. Deane . . 757, 1930
Macbeath v. Haldimand . . 382
Maebryde v. Weekes . . 2156
McCallum, iJe . . 1385,2250
, MoCallum v. Mc-
Callum .... 42
M'Calmont v, Bankin . 1344, 2142
M'Carogher v. Whieldon . . 1668
M'Carthy v. Deoaix . . 2235
V. Gould . . 445
V. LlandafiE . . 1871
McCartney v. Londonderry, &c.
By. Co 587
McCausland v. O'Callaghan 1369,
1406
MoCheane v. Gyles . 19, 51, 122
McClatchie v. Haslam [2271], 2272
M'Clean v. Kennard . 2119, 2133
MoCleland v. Shaw . . 1605
McClellan, Be, McClellan v.
McClellan ....
Macclesfield Canal Act, Be
Corp. V. G. C. By.
■ — School, Be .
(E.) V. Fitton
V. Owen
819
2383
581
2366
. 1872
. 337
. 1752
. 1778
1385, 2164
. 671
. 465
M'Clintoch, Be
McClure's Trusts, Be
McClure and Garrett, Be
McCoch V. Crow
M' Combe v. Gray .
MoConneU, Be, Saunders v.
McConneJl . . . 834, 838
McConnell v. Wright . 2260, 2261
M'Cormack v. M'Cormack . 1644
M'Cormick v. Garnett . 906, 909
V. Grogan . . 1304
M'Corquodale v. Bell . 94, 95
McCullagh V. Littledale . . 882
M'Culloch, iJe . . .950
V. Gregory . 348, 2187
McCuHoch's, iJe . . .952
M'Curdy's Settled Estates, Be 1781
Macdonald, Be ,Exp. Grant . 2078
, Be, Dick v.
Eraser . . 1384
, McAlpin V.
McAlpin . 1380
V. Carnigton . . 40
— ■ — ■ V. Foster . 174, 1372
— ■ V. Irvine . . 1616
V. Macdonald 1306, 1520
— V. Mackenzie 890, 894
V. Richardson 1124, 2131,
2133
V. Tacquah Co. . 479
■ — - V. Whitfield . . 2080
Macdonnell v^ Harding . . 1086
Table of Cases.
clxxxiii
M'Donnell v, M'Mahon
V. Morrow
— V. Walshe
PAGE
1876
1555
1899
2080
1483
Maodonough, Re
M'Donough v. Shewbridge
Macdougal v. Knight 131, 677, 1063
Maedougall v. Gardiner . . 695
■ v. General Sewage,
&c. Co. . . 370
• • V. Jersey Imp. Hotel
Co 699
MacdowaU, Re . . . 780
Macduff, Re, Macduff v. Mac-
duff 1303
MoEntire v. Crossley Bros. . 1938
McEwan v. Crombie . 1128, 1130
MoFadzen v. Corp. of Liverpool 66,
96
Maefarlan v. Rolt . . 58, 73, 91
Macfarlane, Re . 967, 1155, 1157
• V. Hulton . . 671
■ • V. Lister 1038, 1046, 1047
M'Gachen v. Dew . 1081, 1095, 1109
McGarel, Re . . . . 302
M'Gettigan v. N. E. Ry. . 16
MeGowan, Exp., Re Ashton . 1033
, Re, McGowan v.
Murray . . 304
■ — ■ V. Middleton . . 130
McGrath, Re ([1892] 2 Ch. 496) 950,
955, 996, 999, 1000
Macgregor Laird, The . . 83
M'Gregor v. M'Gregor 880, 881, 919
■ V. Topham . . 368
MacGuare v. MiUigan . . 25
M'Guriy v. White . . .856
McGwire v. McGwire . . 1489
Maohado v. Eontes . . 677
MoHarg v. Universal Stock
Exchange . . . .821
MacheU v. Newman, Re Thomp-
son . . . 1512, [1532]
McHenry v. Davies . . 861
• V. Lewis . 132, 721, 722
Machin v. Bennett . . . [384]
Machu, Re . . . .1542
Mcllwraith, Re . . . 996
Macintosh & Thomes, Re .271
M'Intosh V. G. W. Ry. (3 Sm.
& G. 146) . [1310]
■ V. G. W. Ry. (4 D. &
S. 544) . . 73
■ — — • V. Romford Local Bd. 594
Mclntyre's Trusts, Re . . 863
Mclntyre v. McGavin . . 846
Mclver v. Burns . . .12
— • V. Tate Steamers Co. . 246
Mack V. Fetter . . .619
V. Postle 483, 486, 487, 488, 1928
PAGE
McKay's Case (2 Ch. D. 1) 1094,
2269
, Re Concessions
Trust {[1896] 2 Ch. 757) . 2243
McKay v. McKay . . . 1554
Maokay, Re Griessemann v.
Carr . . HU
, Mackay v. Gould 1112,
1388
, Exp. . . .189
V. Commercial Bank
of New Brunswick 2249
V. Dick . . . 2148
• V. Douglas 2283, 2284, 2286,
2287
— V. Tait . . . 2266
Mackellar v. Hornsey . . 38
McKenna v. Parkes . 2100, 2112
Mackenzie's Settlement, Re 1630,
1631, 1632, 1633
Trusts, Be 1142, 1144,
1775
Mackenzie, Exp. . . 801, 2289
— , Re . . . 396
— — {[1911] 1 Ch. 578) 1521
, Exp. Sheriff of
Hertfordshire 422
, Exp. Short . 263, 269
V. British Linen
Co. . . 2243
V. Childers 532, 534,
1543
V. Johnston . . 1330
— V. Mackenzie {5 De
G. & Sm. 338) 466,
1212, 1214
V. Mackenzie (3 Mac.
&G. 559) . 1512
V. Mackintosh . 1046
• V. Taylor 1448, 1452, 1623
McKenzie v. Coulson . . 2236
— • V. Hesketh [2192], 2208
McKeown, Re . . . 1351
• — ■ ■ V. Joint Stock In-
stitute .... 434
Mackett v. Baylis . . . [930]
V. Heme Bay Commrs. 458,
[678], 679
Mackie v. Darling . 1361, 1443, 1523
V. Herbertson . . 1627
Mackinlay, Re . . .1880
, Ward L\ Mackin-
lay 1372
McKinney, i^e . . . 204U
Maokinnon's Teas v. Maokinnon 1302
Mackintosh, Re, Exp. Mackin-
tosh . . 420
— ('. G. W. Ry. (1 Ha.
328) . . 107
clxxxiv
Table, of Cases.
PAGE
Mackintosh v. G. W. By. (4
Giff. 683 ; 36 N.
B. 336) . 322, 1343
■ V. G. W. By. (11
Jur. N. S. 705;
13 W. B. 1029) 841,
843
V. G. W. By. (1 D.
J. &S. 443; 6N.
. B. 336) . . 1317
■ V. Pogose 881, [1625],
2285, 2286
Maokretk v. Symmons [1985], 1991,
2225
■ V. Walmsley . . 2082
Maokusick v. Fleming . .2185
Maokworth v. Thomas . . 1572
Maolaren v. Stainton 378, 514, 1556,
1622
McLaughlin, Be . . .14
V. A.-G., Be Pardee 1301
1303
Maclean v. Dawson . . 1358
V. Jones ... 73
• V. Bamsay . [1005]
McLean v. Smith, Be Pearse 1448,
1451
Macleay, Be . . . . 1541
Macleod v. Annesley . . 1423
M'Leod V. Annesley [1097], 1104
■ — ■ • V. Buchanan . 486, 488
■ V. Drummond . 1479, 1480
■ V. Jones 517, [719], 1054,
1056, 1058, 1901
■ • V. Power . . 51, 52
■ ■ V. St. Aubyn . . 458
Macleur v. Macleur . . 807
M'Loughlin v. Dwyer . . 96
Maolure, Exp., Bng., &c. Ins.
Co., Be 1335
McMahon, Be Fuller v. Mc-
Mahon . . 1405
, McMahon v.
McMahon 1980, 1981
— V. Burchell 149, 1319, 1588
• V. M'Elroy . . 1590
• ■ 0. North Kent Iron-
works Go. . 753
■ — • V. Bawlings . . 1358
McManus v. Cooke 515, 520, 2141,
2147
■ — ■ — ■ V. Fortesoue . . 330
MacMillan & Co. v. Dent 669, 673
McMillan, Exp. . . . 2128
■ — V. Le Boi Mining Co. 705
Macmurdo, Be, Benfield v. Mac-
murdo .... 1990
MoMurdo, Be . 1379, 1405, 1593
, Exp., Be Sedgwick . 476
PAGE
McMurray v. Cadwell . . 601
M'Murray v. Mathew, Be Smith's
Estate 796, 799, 800,
1461
— V. Spicer 1208, 2156, 2159,
2167
MoMyn, Be, Lightbown v.
MoMyn . . 888, 1364, 2076
McNair v. Audenshaw Paint Co. 830
M'Namara v. Williams . . 2187
Macnee v. Gorst . . . 1933
• V. Persian Investment
Corp 531
M'Neille v. Acton . . . 1498
Macnichol, Be, Macniohol v.
Maonichol .... 1378
760, 761
. 1664
. 2298
18, 514
1618,
1632
V. Scottish Bights
of Way Soc. . 580
V. Watt 1056, 1057, 2255,
2270, 2274
Macniooll v. ParneU
Macoubry v. Jones
Maoourn v. Eskine
McPhail, Exp.
Macpherson v. Macpherson
McBae, Be, Forster v. Davis
■ ■ V. Holdsworth
MoBea, Be, Norden v. McBea
Macreight, Be, Paxton v. Mac-
reight ....
M'Veagh's Estate, Be
M'Veagh, Be .
McVicker's Contract, Be
McVicker, Be . . ■
Maddeford v. Austwick 1317,
779,
2125
660
1403,
1404
1519
1376
76
1508
2164
1428,
2255
959
Madden v. Baxter .
Maddever, Be, Three Towns
Banking Co. v. Maddever 2281,
2287
Maddison v. Alderson . 2146, 2147
• • V. Chapman . . 1449
Maddook, Be . 886, 1304, 1554
, Butt w. Wright . 291
Maddy, Be ([1901] 2 Ch. 820) 1630,
1631
■ V. Hale 1108, [1708], 1709,
1712, 2389
Madeley v. Booth . . 2151, 2195
V. Boss Sleeman & Co. 1969
Maddell v. Tomas . . . 1938
Maden v. Taylor . . . 1513
Madgett v. Madgett . [1608]
Madgwick, jee . . 310,2362
V. Wimble . 752, 1499
Madras Irrigation Co., Be . 825
Table of Cases.
clxxxv
PAGE
Madrid Bank v. Bayley . . 66
Magdalen Coll. Oxford, Be . 2400
V. A.-G. 1287
■ President and
Scholars, Re . 2364
Hosp. V. Knotts 1287, 1288
Magd. Land Char., Re . .1262
Maggi, Re, AVinehouse v. Wine-
house 1363, 1405, 1406, 2002
Magheramorne's (L.) Estate, Re 1122
Magnolia Metal Co., Re 2330, 2331,
2333, 2335
Magnus v. Nat. Bank of Scot-
land . . 127, 136
V. Queensland National
Bank
Magrath v. Morehead
Maguire, Re .
Mahon, Be
■ V. Dawson .
. 1086, 1863
. 1655
. 1253, 1257
. 289, 306
. 940
. 1257
Mahoney v. McGarthy . . 888
Mahony v. Widows' L. A. Fund 94
Maidstone & Ashford Ry. Co.,
Exp., Exp. Bala & Festiniog
Ry. Co. . . 310, 2362, 2391
Maidstone Palace of Varieties,
Re 745
Main, Re ... . 1590
Maingay v. Lewis . . . 2085
Mainland v. Upjohn 1856, 1902,
1905, 1906
Mainwaring's Settlement, Re . 1632
Main waring. Re . . . 1207
Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co. 703, 1335
Mais, Re . . .
Maitland v. Backhouse
■ V. Irving
1186
714, 978,
2273
. 978
Major Bros. v. Franklin . 620, 621
V. Major . 1404, 1448, 1451
Makepeace v. Rogers . 1330, 1331
Makings v. Makings . 1697, 1870
Makins v. Ibotson & Sons . 753
■ ■ V. Percy Ibotson & Sons 736,
746
. 1621
. 146
. 740
. 2190
. 1645
. 722
. 1029
. 365
883, 939
. 747
. 529
. 2081
. 294
Malam, Re
Malan v. Young
Malcolm v. O'Callaghan
Maldon v. Tyson .
Malet, Re
Mali Ivo, The
Malins v. Green way
• — V. Price
Mallaok v. Galton .
Mallalieu, Be
Mallan v. May
Mallet V. Bateman .
Mallett V, Hanley .
Mallett V. Rouse . . .1011
Mallin, 2?e . . . [1733]
Mailing Union v. Graham . 2084
Mallinson v. Mallinson . . 996
V. Siddle 1589, [1790]
Mallot V. Wilson . . . 2021
Malmesbury Ry. v. Budd . 395
— V. Malmesbury 1645,
2233, 2238
Malone v. Henslaw
— V. Malono
Mammoth, The
Man V. Bicketts
Manby, Re .
V. Bewicke
. 2155
. 370
291, 295
186, 845
. 1066
72, 149, 151,
1385
. 1388
. 495
. 884
. 2315
V. Manby .
V. Robinson
V. Scott
Manoeaux, Re
Manch. &c. Banking Co., Exp. 1984
Manch. Brewery Co. v. Coombs 533
2206
Manch. {Corp. of) v. Sudgen . 246
■ V. Williams . 677
Manch. (Dean of), &c. Exp. . 2399
Manch. (D. of). Re [949], 1700
Manch. Economic Bldg. Soc,
Re . . . 826, 831, 832
Manch. & Liverpool Banking Co.
V. Beales, Be Johnson 320, 822,
828
Manch. & Liverpool Banking Co.
V. Parkinson . 510, 759, 1922
Manch. & Milford Ry. Co.
(DevU's Bridge Branch) [2416]
Manch. & Milford Ry. Co., Re,
Exp. Cambrian Ry. Co. . 420
Manch. & Milford By. Co., Re [736],
755, 756, [1958]
Manch. (Mayor of) v. Lyons . 594
Manch., Middleton & District
Tram Co 2423
Manch. New CoU., iJe . 1262,1263
Manch. &o. Co. v. Slagg . . 66
Manch. &c. By. Co. v. Brooks . 1318
Manch. Real Ice, &c. Co., Re . 247
Manch. Royal Infirmary, Man-
chester, &c. V. A.-G. . 1143, 1291
Manch. School Case . 1245, 1259
Manch, S. & L. Ry., Re . . 2404
Manch. S. & L. Ry. v. Anderson 699
Manch. S. & L. Ry. v. Johnson 572
Manch. Ship Canal Co. v.
Manchester Racecourse Co.
([1901] 2 Ch. 37) 526, 527, 1543
Manch. Ship Canal Co. v.
Manchester Racecourse Co.
([1902] 2 Ch. 352) . . 2153
clxxxvi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Manch. Skip Canal Co. v.
Pearson .... 392
Manch. & Southport %., Be . 2406
Manch. Union Bank v. Beech . 2086
Manch., City of, The . . 819
Mandeno v. Mandeno . 328, 940
Mander v. Faleke . 433, 434, 532
V. Harris, Be March 853,
874, 875, 887i 906
Manders, Be, Manders v. Man-
ders 998
Mb,ndeville v. Mandeyille . 1359
Mandleberg v. Morley . . 653
Mangan v. Met. Electric Supply
Co. . . . 361, 362, 823
Mangles v. Dixon . . . 1927
Manisty v. Churchill, Be Chur-
chill . . 1362,2088
V. Kenealy
Manitoba, &c. Corp. o. Allen
Manlove v. Ball
Manly v. Hawkins .
Mann, Be, Hardy v, A.-G.
V. Brodie
V. Edinburgh Tram. Co.
- V. Knapp, Be Kenyon's
Estate
- V. Patent Tram Cable
Corp.
- V. Perry
[2]
378
1905
749
1302
580
694,
702
1558
■ V. Ricketts
V. Stennett
■ V. Stephens
Manners v. Charlesworth
■ V. Furze .
V. (L.) Johnson
715
. 434
150, [845]
. 776
. 521
1801, 1819
741, 750
. 534
V. Mew [2024], 2032, 2043
V. Pearson . . 1317
Mannesmann Tube Co., Be . 1972
Manning, Be . . 421, 1185, 1206
■ • V. Farquharson . 788
V. Markham . . 2010
■ V. Purcell 1356, [1548]
V. Spooner 1604, 1605, 1606
Manningford v. Toleman 1087, 1088,
2032
Mannox v. Greener . . 1535
Mansel, Be (W. N. (84) 209) . 1754
— — — ■ (W. N. (92) 32) . 1114
■ , Rhodes v. Jenkins 182,
813, 833, 1129, 1145, 1453
«. A.-G. ... 45
■ V. Clanricarde . . 105
. V. Norton . . .1697
Mansell v. British Linen Bank 510
V. Feeney . 72, 76, 83, 86
■ V. Valley Printing Co. 664
Mansen v. Baillie . . .1137
PAGE
Manser, Be, A.-G. V. Lucas 1303,
1305
V. Dix . . . 93
Mansergh v. Campbell . 1567, 1568
Mansfield v. Childerhouse . 2153
V. Mansfield, Be Cuno 874,
887
V. Ogle 183, 321, 473,
1345, 1363, 1572,
1889, 2000, 2049
• V. Union Wright . 2087
Manson v. Thacker . 345, 2196
Mant, Exp., Be Daintrey 1321, 1323,
1406
— V. Leith . . 1088, 1146
■ V. Smith . . . 263
Manton v. Roe . . .1352
■ V. Tabors . . 1555, 1558
Maple & Co. v. Junior Army
&c. Stores . . . .667
Maple & Co. (Paris) v. Inland
Rev. Commrs. . . . 161
Mapleson v. Masini . . 29
Maphn Sands, Be . 113, 404, 406
Mappin v. Savory . . . 2209
Mara v. Browne 870, 1064, 1066,
1087, 1110, 1114, 1115, 1146, 2124
Marbella Co. v. Allen . . 845
March, Be, Mander v. Harris 853,
874, 875, 887, 906
V. Bailey
V. March
V. RusseU
Marchant, Be
— ■ V. Marchant
■ V. Morton
365
. 924
1593, 1594
. 821
. 742
491, 2123
. 785
. 297
Marcus-Davis, Be .
Marcus v. G. S. N. Co.
Mare v. Lewis . 1062, 1064. 1331
Marg. Anspaoh v. Noel [2171], 2185
Margetson and Jones, Be 126, 1050
Margetts, Be . . 303, 1383, 1554
V. Perks . . 1084, 1095
Margrett, Exp., Be Soltykofi . 944
Marie Roze Gold Co., iJe . 1042
Marine Invest. Co. v. Haviside 157,
2230
1968, 1969
. 541
. 2182
Hospital
Board . . . .245
Markham, Be, Markham v.
Markham . . 824
V. Tibbits . [1533]
MarkwelFs Case, Wood v. Wood 1595
MarkwcU, Be, Land Credit Co.
of Ireland . . 1352
V. Markwell . . 1365
Mansions Co., Be
Marker v. Marker .
Markey v. Cooke .
V. Tolworth
Table of Gases.
clxxxvii
PAGE
Markwick v, Hardingham 1867, 1868,
1869
• — • — V. Pawson . . 516
Marland v. Williams, Be Good-
enough. .... 1622
Marlborough's (D.) Settlement,
Be (50 Ck D. 127 ; 32 Ch. D.
1) . . 1754, [1765], 1769
Marlborough {D.),iJe (13 Jur.
738) . 2359
■ ^ — ([1897] 1
Ch. 712) 1774
■ — ■ — -, Davis V.
White-
head . 1838
— — V. Majoribanks
[1765], 1769
V. Marlborough
(Duohess) 918
— ■ ■ V. St. John 537, 546
■ ■ V. Sartoris . 1756
V. Strong . 1342
Marler v. Tommas . . . 1081
Marman's Trusts, Be . . 1027
Marner's Trusts, Be . . 1160
Marony v. Taylor, Be Wickham 132
Marples v. Hartley . . 1943
Marrett, Be, Chalmers v. Wing-
field 1519
Marriage, Be . . . . 2394
■ , Neave & Co., Be,
North of England, &o. Corp.
V. Marriage, Neave & Co. . 770
Marriner v. Bp. of Bath and
Wells . . . .441
Marriott, Be . . . . 1187
■ — - V. Anchor Reversionary
Co. . . . 1899
■ V. Chamberlain . 84, 85, 89
■;;. East Grinstead Gas
& Water Co. . [548]
V. East Grinstead Ry.
Co. . . . 698
V. Kirkham . 1847, 1860
■ — V. Marriott . . 38
• ■ — V. Tarpley . . 547
Marris v. Ingram . . 432, 433
Marrow, Be . . . .373
Marsden's Trusts . . . 1674
Marsden, Be Bowden v. Lay-
land . 1112,1387
, Exp. Lancaster . 2289
■ ■ — ■ — , Withington v. Neu-
mann . . 300
■ ■ V. Kent . . 1503, 1616
V. Lane. & Yorks. Ry.
Co. . . . 828
V. Meadows . . 1938
v.-Moser . ■ . 635, 648
PAGE
Marseilles Ry. Co., Be Small-
page's Case . . . 723
Marsh and Earl Granville, Be 2151,
2164, 2201
,Be . . . .269
, Mason v. Thorne . 1426
V. A..G.
V. Goodall
V. Hunter
V. Jones
V. Joseph
— V. Keith
V. Lee
V. Marsh
V. Wells
Marsh's Purchase, Be
Marshall's Estates .
Marshall, Exp.
,Be
1253
. [454], 763
. 70
. 2180
226, 310, 1061,
1063, 1066
. 90
. 2043,2044
. 926
. 544
. 2163
. 898
. 824
. [868]
— ([1905] 2 Ch. 325) 1745
, Bower v. Marshall 320
and Salt's Contract, Be 534,
2154, [2198], 2200
V. Aizlewood
V. Berridge
1948,
V. BuU .
V. Colman
■I). Crowther
V. Crutwell
V. Glamorgan
Co. .
V. James .
V. M'Aravey
V. MarshaU (38 Ch. D.
330, C. A.)
(5P.D. 19) 919,
920
(V. C. B.,
356
2138,
2144
667, 668, 674
. 751,2095
. 1620, 1870
. 1629
Iron
. 1840,2140
. 482
. 1851
16
28 Jan. 1871) . 2105
— — ■ — V. Morrison . . 2266
V. Nat. Prov. Bank of
England . . 2039
■ ■ - V. Nunn . . [1885]
V. Ross . . . 623
V. Scarb. and Whitby
By. Co. . . 708
V. Shrewsbury 1483, 1853,
1921, 1982
V. Sladden . 1164, 1170
■ — ■ ■ V. South Staffordshire
Trams. Co. [736], 746.
753, 1846, [1954], 1971
V. Taylor . . . 2310
V. Watson . 674, 683
Marshall's Valve Co. v. Manning
&Co 696
Marsham, Be . . ■ ■ 230
clxxxviii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Marahfleld, Be, Marshfield v.
Hutchings . . 76, 82, 1874
Marsland, Be . . 909, 1520
V. Hole . . .830
Marson v. L. C. & D. Ry. 687, 688,
[2352], 2352, 2353, 2354
Martano «. Mann , . . 28,851
MartoUi v. Hollo way . .1560
Marten, Be ([1902] 1 Ch. 314) 886,
■ , Shaw V. Marten
' V. Roche, Eyton & Co.
Martin's Claim
Martin, Be (20 Ch. D. 365)
(41 Ch. D. 381) .
• (2 R. & M. 674, n.)
• (6 Beav. 337)
■ (W. N. (86) 183) .
(V.-C. S., May 24,
1861) .
■ (17 Jur. 30) .
■ ^(24W. R. Ill)
— • (W. N. (00) 129) .
■ , Hunt V. Chambers
, Land Improv,
V. Martin
■ and Varlow, Be
■ V. Bannister
- V. Beauchamp (E.
-V. Eoster
- V. Ereeman
1426
1446
1089
2095
146
302
456
1070
1181
2463
2368
1068
1238
362,
823
Co.
. 1186
. 2003
. 613
. 132
1013, 1014
[1294]
Be Taylor . 1304
, [942], 945, 1379
. 2298
. 328, 1371
. 2133
. 453
1129
- V. Gale
- V. Gibbon
- V. Hadlow
- V. Hobson .
- V. Kerridge
- V. Lamb, Be Bosworth
- V. L. C. & D, Ry. Co. . 2394
- V. Margham . 1252, 1257
- V. Martin & Co.
- V. Martin .
- V. Persse
-V. Porter .
- V. Price ([1894]
276)
- V. Pycroft
- V. Spicer
■V. Teacher
799
[961]. 969
. 1136
552, 573
Ch.
519, [554]
365, 2146
64, 534
67,96
■ V. Trimmer, Be David-
son . . 865,1531
■ V. Wadel . . .481
v. Willyams . . 2289
Pye, Be . . . 1216
Martindale, Be . . 458, 522
Martineau v. Briggs . . 1654
■ V. Rogers . . 1450
Martinez, Be . . . .190
PAQE
Martinius v. Helmuth . . 494
Martinson v. Clowes . . 1088
Martyn, Be ^ . . . 1176
, JJe Toutt's Will . 1174
V. Blake 1345, 1572, 1574,
2049
Martyr v. Lawrence . . 549
Marvin, Be . . . . 1467
Mar wick v, Ld. Thurlow . 1971
Mary Ann, The . . . 2022
Smith, Be . . 985, 1490
The . . . .97
Marylebone Impt. Act, Be . 2398
Maryon- Wilson's Estate ([19'11]
2 Ch. 58)
Maryon WOson's Settled
tates, Be .
Mary port Ry. Co., Be
Marzetti's Case
Mascal v. Mascal .
Mask, Be
Maskell and Goldfinch, Be
Maskelyne & Cooke v. Smith
British Typewriter,
1144
, 1747
, 2404
. 1092
. 1537
. 278
2167,
[2199]
2284,
2287
Be
Mason's Orphanage, Be .
Mason, Be (10 Ch. 273) .
([1891] 3 Ch. 467)
-, Exp. Bing
-, Mason v.
755
. 1279
. 1220
1145,
[1535]
. 2129
Cattley 94,
1453
— V. Mason . 1695
— — ■ — ■ — V. Robinson 1573
, Ogden V. Mason . 1554
V. Armitage . . 2140
V. Bogg . . . 1407
V. Brentini . 251, [286], 287
V. Goodrich . . 981
— V. Grigg ... 11
• — V. Hamilton . . 498
■ V. Harris . . 695, 705
V. Lovatt . . . 407
V. Mercer, Be Gurney . 1114
V. Sainsbury . . 2079
V. Stokes Bay Co. . 2139
V. Taylor, Be Taylor . 1038
V. Thorne, Be Marsh . 1426
V. Westoby . 749, 1897, 1905
Masonic Ins. Co, v. Sharpe . 1389
, Be
Sharpe . 1057, 1064, 1113, 1326
Maspons v. Mildred . . 1323
Massam v. Thorley, &c. Co. [617],
620, 624, 627
Massereene v. Inland Revenue
Commrs . . . .161
Table of Gases.
clxxxix
PACE
Massey & Giffen's Case, Re Nat.
Bank of Wales . . . 945
Massey, Be (8 Boav. 461) 278, 279,
281, 282, 1133
(34 Beav. 463) . 281
(9 Eq. 367) . . 1031
Lopes, Exp., Re South
Devon Ry. [2357], 2357
■ ■ and Carey, Re . . 294
■ V. Allen . . 26, 28, 151
V. Grahan . . . 1620
■ V. Heynes ... 17
V. Massey . . . 1121
V. Moss . . . 1453
V. Rowen . . 859, 860
Massie v. Drake . . .277
Massingberd's Sett., Re . 1106, 1146
, Holloway
V. Trelawny . . [1100]
Masson, Templier & Co. v. De
Fries . 290, 839, 861, 881
Master v. Hansard . . 515, 534
■ V. Saunders, Re Saun-
ders 1568
Masterman v. Prance . . 769
Masters' Clerks, Re . . 1062
Master's Settlement, Re, Master
V. Master .... 1674
Masters, Exp. . . , 838
■ and G. W. Ry. Co., Re 699,
2347
V. Barnes . , . 1459
V. Braban . . . 1864
V. Masters . . . 1604
Matehett v. Palmer . . 339
Mather v. Fraser . . 1950, 1951
Mathers v. Green . . . 652
Matheson v. Goodwyn, Re
Flower . 1616, 1622
V. Ludwig, iJeDoetsch 1524
Mathew v. Brise (14 Beav. 345) 978
Mathews, Re . . . 127, 130
V. Chichester . . 27
V. Jones . . . 1361
V. Keble . . 1666
V. Saurin . . . 2075
Mathias v. Wilts and Bucks
Canal Co 697
Mathieson v. Harrod . . 664
Mataon v. Dennis . . 1855, 2185
■ V. Swift . . .373
Matterson v. Elderfield . . 2058
Matthaei v. GaUtzin . . 723
Matthew, Re (2 W. R. 85) . 1216
V. Hanscomb . .2117
— ■ V. Jennens . [2117]
V. Northern Ass. Co. 492,
1155
Matthewman's Case . 862, 863
Matthews, iJe (12 Ir. C. L. R.
233) . 998, 999
(2 W. R. 85) . 1185
V. Antrobus . .130
— — V. Bagshaw . . 1459
V. Bath & Wells (Bp.) 1801
— — V. Bloxome . . 2083
V. Brise (6 Beav. 239) 1086,
1106
V. Gooday . . 1838
• V. G. N. Ry. . . 700
V. Matthews . 796, 800
— V. Maude . . 1621
V. Munster . .125
V. NichoUs [1099],- 1106
V. Palmer . . 800
• V. Ruggles-Brise . 1131
• V. Swallow . [2159]
■ V. Terrell . . 1085
V. Usher . . 1892
V. Wallwyn . 1902, 1982
V. Whittle . . 857
■ V. Wilson . . 2380
Matthewson v. Stockdale . 667
Matthias v. Matthias . . 253
Matthie v. Edwards . . 719
Matthison v. Clarke . 1138, 1906
Mattock V. Heath ... 92
Maturin v. Tredinnick . 2251, 2252
Maudslay, Sons & Field, Re 722,
725, 739, 779, 1524
V. Maudslay . . 924
Maugham, Re, Exp. Monk-
house 2206
Maughan v. Blake . . .1360
Maule V. Davis, Re Motion . 2283
Maullin v. Rogers . . .821
Maund v. Allies . 80, 1340, 1341
Maunder, Re . . . .398
V. Lloyd . . 2099, 2103
Maundrell v. Maundrell . . 2044
Maunsell, Exp. . . . 775
V. Mid. G. W. (Ire-
land) Ry. . 696, 702
V. White . . . 1626
Maure v. Harrison . . . 2076
Mauser v. Back . . . 2194
Maw V. Pearson 1086, 1095, 1130,
1331
- V. Topham . . .2194
Mawe V. Heaviside . . 893
Mawer's Case . . .506
Mawman v. Tegg . 661, 662, 668
Mawson v. Fletcher . 2165, 2194
Maxfield v. Burton 1087, 2030, 2036,
2037
Maxim-Nordenfelt Guns, &c.
Co. V. Nordenfelt . 74, 529
Maxim-Weston Co., Re . . 2434
cxc
Table of Cases.
PAOE
Maxted v. Paine (No. 1) . 2297, 2298
— (No. 2) 2295, 2296,
2297
Maxwell's Trusts, Be
MaxweU V. British, &c. Co,
V. Du Boison
V. Hogg .
V. Hyslop
■ v. Maxwell
■ ^ V. Somerton
V. Wightwick
May's Metals, Ld., Be .
May, Exp., Be Spackman
- Re
Crawford ;
V. Armstrong
V. Belleville
• V. Bennett
V. Biggenden
V. Dowse
V. G. W. Ry.
V. Harcourt
■ V. Hawkins
■ V. Lane .
■ V. May (33 Beav. 81)
. 1699
. 2075
. [727]
. 664
. 1477
1476, 1530
. 658
1883, 1884
. 2443
. 1039
. 2464
May 881, 1469
. 1135, 1160
. 578
. 1574
269, 299, 1342
310, 1156, 2362
. 707
. 396
. 97
. 492, 1929
157
(21 July, 1874) . 1462
V. Newton 104, 121, 150, 352,
1424, 1510
■;;. O'Neill . . .523
V. Piatt 2163, 2220, 2235, 2236
V. Selby . . 1095, 1351
V. Thomson . . 2140, 2144
Maybery v. Brooking . 162, 1411
V. Mansfield . . 419
Mayd v. Field 861, 1464, 1538, 1607,
1668
Mayer, Be ... . 748
V. Murray 189, 1121, 1122,
1886, 1899, 2104
V. Spenoe . . . 631
Mayes v. Mayes . . . 1376
Mayfair Property Co., Be, Bart-
lett V. Mayfair Property Co. 1965
MajrEair v. Johnston . . 553
Mayhew, Be, Bowles v. May-
hew . . 1404, 1451
■ Spencer v. Cut-
bush . . . 1427
. V. Criokett . 2085, 2086
• V. Maxwell . 658, 669
Mayn v. Mayn . . .1653
Maynard's Settled Estates, Be 543,
1694
[2455], 2459
. 542
. 163
. Ill
65, 933
. 1972
■ Trusts, Be
Maynard v. Gibson
V. Moseley
Mayne v. Butler
Mayor v. Collins
Meaby & Co,, Be .
PAGE
Meaoham v. Cooper . .1317
Meacock, Be, Meacock v. Mea-
cock ..... 1574
Mead, Be, Austin v. Mead . 1561
■ V. L. Orrery . . . 1892
Meade's Settled Estates, Be . 1746
Mcades, Be . . . 999, 1000
Meadoworoft, Be . . .1192
Meadows v. Meadows . . 2238
Meager v. Pellew . . 856, 870
Meakin v. Sykes . . .180
Mealor v. Talbot (E.) . . 491
Mearns v. Knapp . . 267, 1054
Mears v. Best . . 328, 1847
Co.
V. Western Canada, &c.
700
1666
28
1325
Meates v. Bishop, Be North
Mechiels v. Empire Palace
Medewe, Be .
Medland, Be, Eland v. Medland 297,
312, 834, 1104, 1421
Medley, Be . . . . 1001
Medlock, Be, Buffle v. Medlock 970,
1446
Modow, Be . . . .373
Medows, Be, Norie v. Bennett . 1712
Meech's Will, Be, City Livery
Co.
Meek v- Bayliss
V. Chamberlain
V. Devenish
V. Saw .
V. Ward
Meeus, Be
Megaw V. Diarmid
Meggott V. Meggott
Megrath v. Gray
Megret, Be .
Megson v. Hindle
Mehrtens v. Andrews
Meinertzhagen v. Davis
1303
. 1982
915, 1862
. 1492
[1416]
. Ill
. 2338
66,67
• [911]
. 2086
1357, 1621
. 1510
. 1623
. 1189
V. Walters 1447, 1538,
1667
Melbourne Banking Corp. v.
Brougham . . . 1902, 2311
Melbourne Brewery Co., Be . 1969
Meldola v. Portbury ' . . 1007
. 1130
. 1096
1118, 1123, 1365,
1839
. 1867, 1874
. 2107,2118
. 680
2382, 2385, 2401
. 1572
. 1477
. 1410
. 873
Meldrum v. Hayes
V. Scorer
Melland v. Gray
Mellersh v. 'Brovm
V. Keen
Mellin v. Lersner
Melling v. Bird
Mellish V. Mellish
V. Vallins
MeUison, Be .
Mellor's Policy, Be
Table of Cases.
cxci
V. Thompson
V. Woodward
Melly, Be
Melpomene, The
Melson v. Isle of
Brewery Co.
Meluish v. Milton .
PAaE
Mellor, Re, Exp. Butcher . 2126
V. Daintree . . . 1357
V. Denham . . . 818
V. Lees . . . 1856
V. Mellor, Re Paget 1677, 1678
V. Porter [937], 938, 940,
1234
V. Swire, Re Swire 185, 188,
796, 800
98, 146
. 766
. 983, 1492
. 801
Wight
. 746
. 716, 1366
Melville v. Mirror of Life Co. . 671
Melward, Exp. . . 2379, 2400
Mence, Re, Harrison v. Menoe [2214]
Mendes v. Guedalla . . 122
Menier v. Hooper's Tel. Co. 696, 705
Mennard v. Welford . .1186
Menzies v. Lightfoot . . 2044
Mercantile Bank of London v.
Evans . 492, 1929
Bank of Sydney v.
Taylor 2080, 2083, 2086
and Exchange Bank,
Re . . . . 2140
Lis., &c. Co. V. River
Plate, &o. Co. 721, 781
• Livestment Co. v.
Liternational Co.
of Mexico
Lighterage Co.
Mercer, Exp., Re Wise
and Moore, Re
■ ■ — - V. Denne
■ V. Graves .
V. Lawrence
— V, Liverpool, &c,
Co.
■ V. Vans Colina
V. Woodgate
Merceron, Re
Mercers' Co., Exp. .
Merchant Banking Co. v. Maud 183,
287, 291
Merchant Banking Co. v. Mer-
chants' Joint Stock Bank 624, 628
Merchant Banking Co. of Lon-
don V, Lond. and Hanseatic
Bank .... 1845
Merchant Banking Co. v. Phce-
nix Bessemer Co. . . 2303
Merchant Shipping Co. v. Ar-
mitage .... 1343
Merchant Taylor's Co., Re (30
Ch. D. 28) . . .301, 302, 305
1969
.,Re .
269
2283
1984
151
1049
414
. R.y.
. 2349
2390
. 1928
2034
, ,
580
,
2407
. 240,
2407
TAGB
Merchant Taylors' Co., Re (6
Oh. 612) .... 1291
Merchant Taylors' Co., Re (29
Ch. D. 209) . . 305, 2399
Merchant Taylors' Co., Re (10
Bcav. 485) . . . 2403
Merchant Taylors' Co. v. Trus-
cott 520
Merchant Trading Co. v. Ban-
ner .... 527. 2141
Merchants' Fire Office, Ld. v.
Armstrong . . . 1094
Mercier v. Cotton . . 62, 64
V. Pepperell . . 397
Meredith, Re (67 L. J. Ch. 409) 1567,
1699
— , Exp. Chicks . 448
, Meredith v. Facoy 2287
■ V. Bo wen . . 1346
^u. Treffry . 1655,1664
V. Walker, Re A\'alker 1038
Merest v. Murray . . .719
Merlin v. Blagravo . . 1452
MerrUl v. Morton . . . 1512
Merriman's Trusts, Re . 905, 910
Merriman, Exp., Re Stenson . 1377
— V. Bonney 1881, 1882, 1891
Merry v. Nickalls 840, 841, 843, 844,
[2294], 2297
V. Pownall 1129, 1131, 1132,
[1637], 1638
Merryweather v. Moore . . 674
Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board, Exp. . . . 494
Mersey Docks, &e. v. Cameron 1308
— V. Gibbs . 698
■ and Harbour
Board v. Inland Ecv.
Commrs. . . 158, 159
Ry. Co., Re (37 Ch. D.
610) . 755
([1895] 2
Ch. 287) . . .1966
Steamship Co. v. Shut-
tle«orth . . .179
— ■ — Steel & Iron Co. v. Nay-
lor . . 39, 1318, 1321, 1400
Mertens v. Haigh . 59, 77, 80
V. Walley, Re Sergeant 1513
Merton Coll., Exp. . . . 2404
Mervin, Re, Mervin v. Cross-
man ..... 1543
Messenger, Re . . . 1038
V. Andrews . . 1553
Messcr v. Boyle . . . 2005
Mestaer v. Gillespie . . 1841
Meston, Exp., Re Kelday 1835, 1841
Metal Constituents, Ld. Lugan's
(L.) Case .... 2260
cxcu
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Metcalf, Re ([1903] 1 Oh. 424) . 1579
Metcalfe, Re 269, 301, 303, 1157,
1159
■ —, Hicks ?;. May . 1379
V. Briggs . . [2099]
• V. Hutchinson . 1368, 1371
Meter Cabs, Ld., Re . 1031, 1046
Methane, Re (11 March, 1911, B.
887) .... [2447]
Met. Asylums v. Hill 601, 603, 820
Met. Bank, Re, Heiron's Case 70,
1113
— — ■ and Jones, Re . 2201
— V. Pooley . . 131
Met. Bd. of Works, Exp., Re
Pottier . 2386
. , Re . . 2394
V. L. & N. W.
Ry. 607, 610
V. McCarthy 588
V. New River
Co 357, 823
Met., &c. Soc. V. Brown . . 1895
Met. Coal Consumers' Associa-
tion, Grieb's Case 290, 292, 296
Met. Coal Consumers' Associa-
tion, Karberg's Case 1346, 2247,
2249, 2250, 2260, 2264
Met. Coal Consumers' Associa-
tion, Wainwright's Case . 1345
Met. Coal Consumers' Associa-
tion V. Scrimgeour . 701, 1336
Met. Dist. Ry. Co. & Cosh, Re 706
■ V. Sharpe 397,
2352
Met. Electric Co., Re, Exp.
Oftor . . . .113
Met. Electric Supply Co. v.
Ginder 527
Met. Ry. Co., Exp. . 2362, 2401
, Re, and Gonville &
Caius Coll., Camb.
[2396], 2400, 2404
V. Woodhouse . 2139
Met. Street Act, Re, Exp. Cham-
berlain
Mette's Estate, Re
Metzler v. Gounod
V. Wood
Meux V. Cobley
V. Jacobs
- V. Lloyd
2384
2388, 2389
. 458
. 662
545, 1779
1950, 1951
. 1070
Meux's Brewery Co. v. City of
London Electric Lighting Co.
612,
842
865
520
PAGE
Mexican Co. v. Maldonado . 514
Meyer v. Montriou . 1083, 1098, 1109
V. Simonsen . 1617, 1619
MeyerhofE v. Proehlich . 1327, 1384
Meyerstein, Re . . . 2331
Meyraott v. Meymott 289, 1316, 2113
Meyrick's Charity, Re . . 1276
Meyrick v. Lawes (M. R., 16
Feb. 1858) . . [975]
V. Lawes (23 Beav.
449) . . 1714
(34 Beav. 58) 1657
(9 Ch. 237) . 1655
— Fund, Re 1261, [1274], 1276,
1281
Michael, Re, Dessau v. Lewin 104,
352
V. Fripp
. V. Hart & Co.
Michel, Re .
V. Mutch
Miohell's Trusts
Miohell V. Loe, Re Hocking
Mews V. Mews
Mexborough (E.) v. Bower
_ V. PoUington [1641]
■ V. Whitwood 67, 97
. 981
1332, 2298
. 1267
. 124
831, 1631
1544,
1591
— ■ V. Mahngs [463, 1625], 1626
■ V. Michell (4 Beav. 549) 1665
— ([1891] P. 208) 870,
927
■ V. Wilson . . 138, 1573
MichoUs V. Corbett . . 2164
V. Samuel, Re Bed-
dington .... 1447
Micklethwait v. Micklethwait . 540
V. Winstanley . 1594
Mioklethwaite v. Fletcher 433, 457
V. Newlay Bridge
Co. . . . 588,2310,2311
Middledich v. Sharland . . 1341
Middlemas v. Stephens . . 1762
Middlesborough, &c. Bldg. Soc,
Re . . . 2057, 2064, 2065
Middlesex County Council, Exp.,
Re Wood Green, &c. Char. . 1269
Middlesex, Sheriff of, Exp.,
iJe Thomas . . .419
Middleton, Re, Thompson v.
Harris 1450, 1452, 1605
V. Bradley . . 653
V. Brown 2149, 2256, 2278
V. Cater . .1307
V. Chichester . . 431
~v. (L.) Eliot (15 Sim.
536) 1873, 1878, 1880,
[2227, 2228], 2229, 2230,
2231
v. Greenwood . 2157
V. Magnay 2188, 2190,
2205
V. Messenger . . 1507
Table of Cases.
CXClll
PAGE
Middleton v. Moore, Be Lam-
bert . . 1447
V. PoUock 118, 1088, 1319
1320, 1321, 1322
■ —^— ^, iJeEliott 1155
■ V. Poole . 1428, 1467
V. Reay . . 1164
Midgeley v. Crowther, Re Crow-
ther .... 1497,1617
Midgley v. Coppock . . 2182
V. Midgley 1063, 1087, 1387,
1609
—V. Smith . . . 2166
• V. Tatley, Be Har-
greaves . . . 312, 1421
Mid Kent Pruit Paotory, Be . 1322
Midland Bkg. Co. v. Chambers 2077
• Cos. BIdg. Soc, Be . 2063
G. W. Co. V. Johnson 2235
V. Ins. Co. Smith . 2079
Mid. Ry., Be . . . 2382
■ V. Cheokley . 543, 570
V. G. W. Ry. . [690], 707
V. Gribble . . 578
V. Hamichwood Brick
Co. . . . 571
V. L. & N. W. Ry. . 702
V. Miles . 571, 574, 579
V. Robinson . 568, 57 1
• — V. Wescombe (2 Ry.
Ca. 211) . . 1880
V. Westoomb (11 Sim.
57) . . . 2190
Mid. Ry. Co., Exp. . . 2393
■ V. Silvester, Be
Silvester . 2081
V. Wright . . 706
Mid. Waggon Co. v. Potteries
Rail. Co. . . . 420, 756
Midleton (L.) v. Ehot 1873, 1878,
1880
Midwinter v. Midwinter . . 925
Mighell V. Sultan of Johore . 13
Mignan v. Parry . . . 1644
Migotti V. ColviUe . . .465
Milan Tram Co., Be, Exp. Theys 1318,
1321, 1323
Milbank v. Francis . . 25
V. Milbank . 41, 74
V. Vane . [1716], 1719
Mildmay v. Methuen . . 1344
V. Mildmay, Be Evers-
ley . . . 1655
V. Quioke 1455, 1804, 1806,
1808, 1810
Mildred v. Austin . . 1858, 1862
w. Maspons . 1323,1932
Miles, Exp., Be Isaacs . . 2303
, Be . . . 281, 1144
VOL. I.
PAGE
Miles V. Davidson . . .1819
V. Durnford . . • 1480
V. G. W. Ry. Co. . . 2351
- V. Harford . 1542, 1653, 1655
V. Harrison . 1366, 1449, 1475
V. Jar vis . . • 1540
V. M'llwraith . .1324
■ V. New Zealand Alford
Estate Co. . 126, 1992
— — ■ V. Presland .
— ■ — ■ V. Rowland .
V. Tobin
MiKord Docks Co.,
Lister
Haven Ry.
Mowatt .
V. Milford .
. 473
. 1573
. 561
Be, Exp.
. 2350
Co. V.
. 1846
. 1338, 1339
Mill, iJe .... 1207
Millar & Lang v. Polak . . 664
— — , Be . . . .872
V. Craig [1337], 1341, 2113
— — — V. Harper . . 41, 65
V. Keane . . . [849]
Millard's Settled Estates, Be
([1893] 3 Ch. 116) . 1772, 1780
MiUard v. Burroughes . . 287
Miller's Patent, Be . 29, 2324
Miller & Aldworth, Ld. v. Sharp 2147,
2208
— — & Miller, Re, Be French,
Love V. Hills . . 37
— — - Re, Chapman v. Miller . 323
, Exp. Buxton . . 2053
V. Bland, Re Bland [1614],
1616
■ V. Clyde Bridge Steel Co. 635
V. CoUms . . 864, 896
— V. Cook . . 2278, 2279
V. Douglas . . 1428, 1503
V. Gulson . . .1653
— V. Hales ... 28
V. Harrison . . . 1633
V. Huddlestone . . 444
• V. James . . . 1357
• V. Johnston . . . 1879
V. Knight . . .940
V. Marriott . . . 1810
V. MiUer (L. R. 2 P. &
M. 54) . . 444
(13 Eq. 263) 1619,
1621, 1694
(8 Eq. 499) . 2104
. 405
. 341
. 346
1820, 1823
1013, 1014
543, 1907
. 334
V. Pilling
V. Pridden .
■ V. Smith
■ V. Warmington
Millet V. Rowse
Millett V. Davey
MiUican v, Vanderplank
n
CXCIV
Table of Cases.
Milligan v. Mitchell
Millington v. Fox .
■ — V. Harwood
■ ■ — V. Holland
- V. Loring
PAGE
711, 1351
620, 622, 623
. 247
. 2104
. 36
Milner, Be, Bray v. Milner . 1427
Millner, Be . . . . 1591
Mills' Estate, Be, Exp. Commrs.
of Works . . 240, 2407
— (Richard) & Co. (Brierly
Hill), Be . . . 1186
■ Trusts, Be (40 Ch. D. 14) 1182,
1206
([1895] 2 Ch.
564) 1092
Mills, Exp 2129
, Be, Exp. Official Receiver 2288
-, Mills V. Mills
■ V. Bayley
• V. Bowyers' Co.
V. Brown
■ -V. Buenos Ayres Co.
V. Charlesworth
V. Drewitt
V. Dunham
V. Parmer
■ V. rinlay
V. Powkes
V. Fox .
V. Griffiths
V. Haywood
V. Jennings
1427
. 389
. 397
. 1554
695, 696
. 1939
. 1574
. 529
1252, 1258, 1269
. 1040
. 1324
863, 2247, 2248
51
. 2155, 2156
1858, 1860, 1861,
2015
V. Johnston, Be Johnston 1419
V. Johnston, Be Johnston
([1911] W. N. 234) 1240,
1243
■ V. Mills, Be Gundry 1630, 1643
• V. Renney . . . 503
V. Trumper . . . 1698
V. United Counties Bank . 2186
iVIilltown (L.) V. Stewart . . 713
Milne, Exp., Be Batten . . 2244
, Be, Grant v. Heysham . 1511
Mihier's Settlement, Be . . 872
Mihier, Exp., Be Mihier . . 2287
, Be, Bray v. Milner . 1427
— V. Peters . . • [35]
Mihier's Safe Co. v.
Co. .
Mihies' Estate, Be
Mihies, Be
, Milnes v,
V. Busk
V. Gery
■ V. Slater
Mihoy V. Lord
Milson V. Carter
Milton, Be .
G. N. Ry.
. [577], 578
. 2364
. 2360
iSherwin . 1587
. 893
. 2148
. 1475,1605
. 1629
. 188
. 820
PAGE
Miltown (L.) V. Edgeworth . 1870
V. Prench . . . 1871
Milward, Be . . . .29
,Be . . . [1733]
V. Barry Urban Dis-
trict Council . 705
V. Thanet (E.) . . 2155
Minchin v. Nance . . . 2183
Minehead L. B. v. Luttrell . 610
Miner v. Baldwin . . . 1575
V. Gilmour . . . 587
Mineral, &o. Trade Protection
Society v. Booth . . 528
Minerals Separation v. Ore Con
centration Co.
Minet v. Hyde
V. Johnson
V. Morgan
■ V. VuUiamy
643
. 895, 1444
. 424
75, 84, 86, 91, 92,
93
. 1257
819
2435
Minister & Co. v. Apperley
Mining Share Inv. Co., Be
Minna Craig Steamship Co. v.
Chartered Mercantile Bk. of
India .... 1523
Minnehaha, The ... 74
Minor, Exp 334
, Be Pollett . . 1407
Minors v. Battison . . 1617, 1619
Minter, Be, Slater v. Callaway . 318
V. Kent, Sussex, &c.
Land Co 759
Minton v. Kirkwood 343, 1864, 2151,
2185
Minty v. Bourne, Be Davidson 1254.
1301, 1306
Mirabita, Exp. . . . 2081
Miram, Be ... . 479
Mirehouse v. Barnett . .361
V. Scaife . 1605, 1607
Mirrlees Charity, Be, Mitchell v.
A.-G 1258
Missing's Case, Sawyer v.
Goodwin .... 1066
Missouri Steamship Co., Be 531, 723,
1521, 2292
MitoaKe's Case, Be Diamond
PuelCo 1093
Mitohel V. Reynolds . . 529
Mitchell's Case . 945, 946, 1147
Claim . . . 1384
Mitchell, Be, Exp. Cunningham 1519
(23 Jan. 1866) . 372
(12 W. R. 39) . 315
(7 Ch. D. 36) . 2333
, Moore v. Moore . 1656
, Wavell V. MitcheU 1860,
1861
& Co., iJe . . [2340]
Table of Cases.
cxcv
PAGE
Mitchell & Co., Be Houghton
and Hallmark. 2328
and Izard, Re . . 389
V. A.-G., Be Mirrlees
Charity . . 1258
V. Armstrong . . 1770
V. Bain, Be Copland . 1450
V. Cantrill . . 561
D.Cobb . . . 1158
V. Condy . . . 836
V. Barley Colliery Co. 99, 819
V. Dors . . . 569
V. Draper . . 449, 451
V. Hayne . . 493, 495
V. Henry 515, 516, 620,
621, 622
V. Homfray . 1058, 2273
V. Manchester (D.) . 769
[416], 1332
. 382
940, 1232
. 436
Fried-
. 2112
[1006]
, 1369
. 1489
V. Mitchell
V. Reg.
V. Reynolds
V. Simpson
V. Weise, Exp.
heim
Mitchelson, Be
V. Piper
Mitchison v. Buckton
Mitford V. Reynolds (1 Ph. 185,
197) . 1257
(16
130) .
Mittens v. Foreman
Moate, Be
Moates' Trusts, Be
Mobbs, Exp. .
Mocatta v. Bell
Mockerjee v. Mockerjee
Moel Tryvan Ship Co. v. Kruger
&Co.
Meet V. Clybouw
V. Couston
V. Pickering
Moffatt V. Bates
w. cm
MofEet V. Smith
Moger V. Bush
Moggridge v. Thackwell
Mogridge v. Clapp
Sim.
. 1637
. 131
. 1156
375, 1157
. 270
1930
2255
• V. HaU
Mogul Steamship Co. v.
gregor
Mohan v. Broughton
Moir, Be, Warner v. Moir
Mold V. Wheateroft
Mole V. Mansfield .
• • V. Smith
Molesworth v. Robbins
2242
. 627
. 623
. 625
1465, 1553
[658], 661
. 1461
. 1795
1252, 1258,
1269
1754, 1756, 1762,
2207
. [103]
Mac-
514, 515
139, 1596
1541, 1656
511, 1893
. 1819
. 2161
. 1038
Molesworth v. Snead
Moline v. Tasmanian Ry.
MoUett V. Enequist (2)
MoUoy V. Hamilton
V. Irwin
V. Kilby
PAGE
. 147
. 71
. 516
. 738
1116, 1122
. 65
Mollwo, March & Co. v. Court
of Wards .... 2127
Molony, Be . . . . 2464
V. Brooks, Be Wells 717,
747, 748, 1368, 1468
■ — ■ V. Cruise . . . 757
V. Kennedy . . 888
V. Kernan . . . 2255
Molyneux's Estate, Be . 860, 871
Molyneux, Be (4 D. P. & J. 365) 1233,
1820
— Pimbeley v. Moly-
neux . 1460, 1461
• and White, Be 1480, 2167
V. Fletcher 865, 871,1670,
1671
V. Hawtrey - 1034, 2106,
2167
V. Richard . 2141, 2148
Monckton and Gilzean, Be 2165.
2181, [2200]
V. A.-G. . . .382
V. Gramophone Co. 663
V. Payne . .1382
Mondey v. Mondey . . 1851
Monet, Exp., Be Dudley . 1066
Money's Trusts . . 2388, 2389
Money Kyrle's Settlement, Be
[1688], 1698
-v. Money . . . 1014
Monins, Be . . . [2197]
Monk, Be, Wayman v. Monk . 1377
V. Bartram . . . 843
Monkhouse, Exp. . . . 2081
, Be Maughan 2206
V. Bedford Corp. 1913,
1914
Monkton v. Hands, Be Swain . 1296
Monmouthshire Steel, &c. Co.,
Be 2432
Monro v. Taylor . . . 2189
Monsell v. Armstrong . 1079, 1354
Monson's Settled Estates, Be . 174.5
Monson v. Tussaud . 512, (iTG
Montagu, Be, Faberv. Montagu 1208,
[1230, 1231]
V. Festing, Be
Wroughton . 1001
V. Forwood . . 1324
V. Inohiquin . 1560, 1654
Montague, Be, Derbishire v.
Montague 981, 1134,
1145, 1696
CXCVl
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Montague v. Davies, Benachi &
Co. . . . 419
— ■ — V. Flookton . . 628
V. Land Corp. of
England . . 172
■ • V. Moore . . 618
■ • V. Sandwich 1476, 1668,
1669
Montaignao v. Shitter . . 1324
Montefiore v. Behrens 474, 905 1654
V. Browne . . 2034
— ■ V. Guedalla (1 D. F.
& J. 93) . 1538, 1667
V. Guedalla ([1901]
1 Ch. 435) . 2286
■ — V. GuedaUa ([1903]
2 Ch. 26) 1082, 1166,
1928, 2034
V. Lloyd . . 2083
Monteith, Be . . [1731]
Montesquieu v. Sandys 1055, 1056,
2256, 2274, 2275
Montfort (L.) v. Cadogan (L.) . 1711
Montforts v. Marsden . . 528
Montgomerie v. Wallace James 846
Montgomery v. Calland 1877, 1903,
1904
V. Foy . . 50
& Co. ?;. Liebenthal 1 3
-. j;.DeBulmes 436
Monti V. Barnes . . . 1952
Montreal (Bank of) v. Stuart . 2274
■ (City of) V. Standard
Light & Power Co. . . 581
Montresor v. Montresor . . 1614
Montressor v. Montressor [1502]
Moneypenny v. Bristow . . 1588
V. Monypenny . 512
Moodie v. Bannister . . 1387
Moody, iJe, Woodrufife w. Moody 971,
[1440], 1445, 1446
• and Yates, Re . 2166, 2201
V. Corbett . . .707
V. Steggalls . . 549
Moom, Re ... . 1606
Moon, Re, Exp. Dawes . . 2310
■ , Holmes v. Holmes 1361,
1367
V. Boothamn . . [672]
Moons V. De Bemales . . 1122
Moor, Re . . . .1726
V. Anglo-Italian Bank . 722
V. Moor . . . 1013
Moorcroft, Re . . . [949]
Moordaff, Re, Burgoine v. Moor-
daff 362
Moore,Bxp 2255
, Re (1 Mao. & G. 103) . 487
— ^ (21 Ch. D. 778) . 1186
PAGE
Moore, Re (11 Ir. C. L. 1) . 952
■ ■ (54 L. J. N. S. Ch.
432) . . . 1622
([1906] 1 Ch. 789) . 1758
■ — , McAlpine v. MeAl-
pine . . 1171, 1180
, Moore v. Moore . 886
— — , Prior V. Moore . 1543
■ — , Trafford v. Mach-
onochie . . 920
, In the Goods of 717, 747,
748
and De la Torre's Case . 2095
and Robinson's Banking
Co., Rxp., Re Armi-
tagg . . . 1951
V. City and County Bank 797
— ^. Clench 966, 1281, 1289,
2152
V. Crofton . . . 2155
V. Culverhouse . . 2040
V. Davis . . . 2095
V. Dickinson . .129
V. Dixon 252, 1449, 1454,
1678
V. Frowd . . . 1137
V. Gamgee . . . 786
V. Gibbon, Re Gibbon . 916
V. Grey . . . 1983
V. Horsfield . . . 1919
V. Johnson, Re Johnson 1015,
1633
V. Kempston . . 1802
V. Knight . . 1066, 1114
V. Marrable . . . 2139
V. Moore (8 Dec. 1856,
B. 320) [354], 357
(12 P. D. 193) 920
■ (6 Ap. 1740) . 1011
— — (1 D. J. & S.
602) . . 1477
■ • (60 L. T. 627) 1696
— (43 L. J. Ch.
617) . . 1629
— , Re MitcheU . 1656
122, 871
1858, 1909
V. Norris
V. Morton
North West.
V.
Bank
V. Peachey .
V. Rose
V. Shelley
V. Simkin
V. Somerset, Re Donald
V. Ulcoat's Mining Co. .
V. Walter . . 860,
V. Watson .
V. Webster .
Moorehead v. Moorehead .
1929,
2037
824
465
1897
1514
1300
3
,1657
400
866
1821
Table of Gases.
cxcvii
PAGE
1983
1626
1519
[426]
1149
852
1186
1146,
1657
980, 1803
[1495]
Mordey, Carney & Co., Re . 2434
Mordue v. Palmer . 243, 396, 399
Mordy and Cowman, Be . . 2186
Moreau v. Polley . . . 487
Moreoook v. Dickens . . 2041
Moreoroft v. Evans . . 32
Morel Brothers v. Westmorland
(E.) . . 52, 883, 884, 1531
Moreland v. Richardson . 540, 1893
Moores v. Choat
Moorhouse v. Colvin
■ — - V. Lord
V. Moorhouse
Moorsom v. Tate, Re Stranger
Moran v. Place
Moravian Society, Re, The
Mordan, Be, Legg v. Mordan
Mordaunt v. Benwell
• ■ V. Smith
Morell V. Fisher
Mores v. Mores
Morewood v. Currey
Morgan's Case, Be Glamorgan-
shire Bank
Morgan, Exp.
, Be (24 Ch. D. 114)
1366
1424
1428
81
370
1750,
1752
297
2324
1568
- (35 Ch. D. 492) .
- (58 L. T. 713)
— , Morgan v. Morgan
— , Owen V. Morgan 37, 83,
84
— , PiUgrem v. PiU-
grem 420, 1499, 1991,
2030
-, Smith V. May 980, 1804
2383
Abergavenny - . 542
. 1366
. 1356
2172, [2175],
2175, 2220
. [440]
841, 843, 1333
. 1380
. 561
362, 639, 641
. 700
. 1676
. 1005
1052, 1054, 1341,
1902
Hill, Be Parker [2073],
2076
V. Jeffreys . . . 1856
V. Lewis . . . 1055
V. M'Adam . . 623
V. Malleson . . 1629
V. Alford
V. Annis
V. Briscoe
V. Davies
V. Elford
V. Elstob
V. Fear
V. Fuller
V. G. E. Ry,
V. Gronow .
V. Hatohell
V. Higgins
V.
PAGE
Morgan v. Milman . . . 1694
V. Minett 1065, 1066, [2274],
2274, 2275
V. Morgan (13 Beav.
441) . 352, 1121, 1623
V. Morgan (14 Beav.
72) [1615], 1616, 1618,
1621
V. Morgan (1 Atk. 489) 978
— — (2 Dick. 643) 1572
V. Powell . . .573
V. Richardson . . 1430
■ V. Rowlands . .1383
■ V. Russell & Sons . 2155
• V. Swansea Urban San.
Auth. . . .1182
V. Thomas . . 1558
V. Williams, Be Wil-
liams . . . 1499
V. Windover . . 635
Morgan's Brewery Co. v. Cross-
hill 121
Morice v. Bp. of Durham 1302,
1303
Morier, Exp. . . 1319, 1320, 1322
Morison v. Moat . . . 674
— V. Morison (7 D. M. &
G. 214 ; 2 Sm. & G.
664) . . .780
— V. Morison (4 My. & Cr.
216) . . 739, 939
V. Telfer . . .170
• V. Thompson . . 1333
Moritz V. Stephen . . . 474
Morland v. Isaac . . . 1935
Morhy, Exp. . . . 2126
, Be (25 W. R. 825) . 1508
— , (20 Eq. 17) . . 2425
— , Morley v. Haig . 1623
■ V. Saunders 1588,
1697, 1871
. 1877
208, [2216]
. 691
. 2165
. 1376
. 1321
[2271], 2272,
2273
. 253
. 1838, 1861
(2 Ha.
670) . 1424
— ■ ([1895] 1
Ch. 449) . . 1641
■ V. TunstaU . [1600], 1605
V. White, Be White 2120,
2125
v. White . . 1359,1603
■ V. Bridges .
• V. Clavering
- V. CUfEord .
- V. Cook
- V. Finney .
- V. Inglis
- V. Loughnan
- V. Mendham
- V. Morley .
- V. Rennoldson
CXCVIU
Table of Cases.
Mornington, Exp. ,
■ — ■ V. Keane
• V. Keene
V. Mornington
PAGE
. 1228
. 1476
80,98
. 91
Morocco Bound Syndicate v.
Harris . . .667
Co. w. Pry . . 2142
Morony v. O'Dea . . 1876, 1899
Morphett v. Jones . . . 2147
Morrall v. Morrall . . . 922
Morrell v. Cowan . . . 861
V. Gissing, Be Roper . 1513
V. Pearson . . .521
■ V. Wootten . . 78
Morres v. Hodges 1108, [1709], 1712
Morret v. Paske . . 2043, 2046
Morrice v. Aylmer . . . 1180
V. Bank of England . 1364
V. Swaby . . 76, 77
Morrieson, Re, Hitching v.
Morrieson . . . .1512
Morris's Estate, He . 2360, 2401
Morris, Exp 2404
, Be (5 Mar. 1890) . . [101]
(60 L. T. 96) . . 1215
(11 Peb. 1870) . 1189
(23 L. R. Ir. 333) . 1499
• (20 Nov. 1880, B.
3934) . . . 2386
■ • ([1908] 1 K. B. 473) 1042
■ Bucknill v. Morris 1108,
1147
, James v. London and
County Banking
Co. . . . 1379
— — , Morris v. Powler 378, 434
■ V. Morris 1466,
1468, 1469, 1470
■ , Wilson & Co. V. Co-
ventry Machinists'
Co. . . . 644
— V. Ashbee . . 661, 668
V. Debenham 341, 1079, 2167,
[2170, 2171], 2189
—. — V. Delobbel-PIipo . 1939
V. DiUingham . . 1572
V. Edwards 67, 68, 72, 73, 86
780
. 861
[2010]
518, 520
. 1489
. 1512
. 1877
. [182]
1090, 1109
■ V. Llanelly, &c. Co. . 315
V. Manesty . . . 475
■ V. Morris (3 D. & J. 323) 546
— ■ V. Elme
— ■ V. Preeman
V. Prime
V. Grant
— ■ V. Griffiths, Be Raw
— • V. Howes
— ■ V. Islip
— ■ V. Jones
— ■ V. Livie
PARE
541,
542
1466,
1468, 1469, 1470, 2119
419
V. Tottenham & Forest
582, 697, 699
Morris v. Morris (15 Sim. 505)
• (10 Ch. 68)
Gate Ry.
V. Wilson
V. Wright
Morrison, Exp.
, Be .
— ■ — V. Barrow
— ■ V. Glover
■ V. Morrison
■ V. Skerne
Co. .
Morrow v. Bush
Morse, Be
V. Martin
V. Merest
V. Peaehey
■ V. Tucker
Morshead, Exp.
■ ■;;. Prederick
V. Reynolds
2169
661, 663, 668
. 1050
. 953, 1145
. 370
. 2059
. 1132
Ironworks
. 742
. 1474
. 1645
[1671]
. 2148
. 75
. 1368
2458, 2459
. 348
. 1380
Mortgage Ins. Corp. v. Cana-
dian, &c. Co. . . 253, 1880
Mortgage Ins. Co. v. Commrs.
of Inland Revenue . .160
Mortimer, Be . . 287, 1513
V. Bell . . 330, 2152
V. Ireland . . 1080
V. Mortimer . 920, 1514
V. Shortall . 2235, 2238
V. West . . .933
V. Wilkin [1007], 1010
V. Wilson . . 522
Mortimore v. Cragg . . 418
• V. Mortimore (28 L.
J. Ch. 558) . 1146
V. Mortimore (4 App.
Cas.448; 7Ch.D.
332) . . 1508
u. Slater . . 1513
Mortlock V. BuUer 2153, 2168, 2193,
2194
V. Leathes . . 1442
. 894
. 1080
. 178
. 132
770, 1894
. 340
277, 1038
• [1*2]
. 399
92, 247, 646
. 1875
700
Morton's Estate, Be
Morton v. Hallett .
V. Miller
V. Palmer .
V. Woods. .
Moscrop V. Sandeman
Moseley, Be .
V. Baker .
— V. Simpson
V. Victoria Co.
Mosely, Be .
■ — ■ V, Koffyfontein Mines
Table of Cases,
cxcix
PAGE
Moser v. Marsden . 61, 634, 648
Moses, Be ([1902] 1 Ch. 100) . 1774
• ■ ([1908] 2 Ch. 235) . 1520
Mosley v. Baker . [2052], 2057
V. Kay, Re Kay . . 1111
Moss's Trusts, Be . . .1169
Moss, Exp., Be Ambrose Lake
Co 2269
— , Be ([1905] 2 K. B. 307) . 2086
(2 Eq. 345) . . 1042
■ (37 Ch. D. 513) 1169, 1189,
1215
-, Levy V. Sewell
V. Bainbrigge
1870, 1872
55, 1055,
[1338]
2139
361
1305
894
2107
1893, 1895
[1312, 1338]
. 1249
641, 644
[1486]
. 1872
V. Barton
— — ■ V. Bradburn
— — ■ V. Cooper
■ ■ V. Dunlop
— — ■ V. Elphick
V. Gallimore
V. Gregory
V. Leatham
V. Mealings
V. Sworder
Mosse V. Salt
Moston V. Booth . . . [339]
Mostyn v. Atherton . . 587
V. Pabrigas . . 723
(L.) V. Pitzsimmons . 390
■ V. Mostyn (5 Ch. 457) . 1033
([1893] 3 Ch.
376) 349, 1741, [1834]
V. West Mostyn Co. 92, 2234
Motion, Be, Maule v. Davis . 2283
Mott V. Shoolbred . . 518, 603
Mouatt, Be, Kingston Cotton
MiUs V. Mouatt
Mouflet V. Cole
■ ■ V. Washburn
Moul V. Greenings .
Mould V. Laudin
Moule V. Garrett
Moulton V. Edmonds
Mounsey v. Lonsdale (E.)
Mount V. Bowater
Morgan Gold Mine, Be.
Exp. West
Edgoumbe v. I
Commrs. .
Lyell Mining Co.
land Rev. Commrs.
Mountford, Exp.
Mountjoy's (Lord) Case
Mourilyan, Be
Mourmand v. Le Clair
Mousley v. Carr
Mouson V. Boehm .
Moutrie v. Mitchell
2283
. 530
. 786
666, 670
[2202]
. 2186
. 2187
. 379
[2005]
2245, 2264
B.
. 160
•>. In-
. 160
951, 1980
. 2310
307, 416
. 1946
. 1123
. 2333
. 1022
Mowatt V. Castle Steel and Iron
Works Co 1968
Mowbray v. Tilt . , .660
Mower's Trusts . . . 2021
Mowlem, Be . . . . 1422
Moxham, The M. . . . 677
V. Grant 1093, 1109, 1110,
1334, 1335
Moxon V. Berkley Bldg. Soe. . 2021
V. Bright . ■ . . 1331
V. Payne . . . 2273
V. Sheppard 126, 1048, 1050
2061
1086
695
[44], 45, 1342
. 295
663, 664
[1568],
Moye V. Sparrow
Moyle V. Moyle
Mozley v. Alston
V. Cowie
Muckalt V. Davis, Be Davis
Muddock V. Blackwood .
MufEet, Be, Jones v. Mason
1572, 1871
Muggeridge, Be, Muggeridge v.
Sharpe
V. Stanton .
1361
805
154
1147
364
Muir, Be ... .
V. City of Glasgow Bank
Mulcahy v. The Queen .
Mulcaster, Be, Dalston v. Nan-
son ..... 434
Mulckern v. Doerks . . 3
Mulkem v. Lord . . . 2059
Mullane v. Ahern . . . 760
Mullens v. Miller . . 2151, 2249
MuUer & Co. v. Inland Revenue
Commrs. . . 159
• V. TrafEord . . 533, 1543
, Be, Exp. Buxton . . 1984
Mulliner v. Mid. Ry. Co. . 706
MuUings V. Trinder . 2167, 2189
Mullins V. Howell . . .522
— • V. Hussey . . . 348
■ V. Smith . 1445, 1555, 1556
MulviUe V. Munster Bank . 2038
Mumford v. Collier . 1895, 1947
V. Cooke . . [1117]
— V. Stohwasser 1087, 2037,
2044
Munch, iJe .... 2336
— V. Cockerell 1081, 1095, 1109
Munday, Re, Exp. Allam . 1941
• V. Asprey . . 2143, 2144
— — — V. JoUiffe . . . 2146
— V. Norton . . 386, 403
Mundel, iJe .... 1206
Mundy's Settled Estftes, Be 1142,
1744, 1775
Mundy, Be, Exp. Stead . . 838
and Roper, Re . 1745, 1753
V. Howe (E.) . . 964
V. Mundy . . 913,914
b6
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Mundy v. Portland (Duke of) . 569
Municipal Bldg. Soc. v. Richards 2060
^ ■ V. Smith 1895,
,1896
Perm. &o. Soc. v. Kent 401,
2059, 2060
• Trust Corp., Be . 2435
Munns, Be . . . .278
V. Burn, Be Crosley 826, 827,
831, 1385
• V. Isle of Wight Ry. 708,
2221, 2224, 2225
— and Longden 277, 320, 822
Munro, Exp., Be Lewis . . 265
V. Inland Rev. Comm. . 160
• — — — V. Wivenhoe Ry. . 514, 515
Munster & Co. v. Appleby 399, 407
— and Leinster Bk. v.
France . . . 2085
V. Cammell Co. . . 704
V. Cox . . . 24
V. Lamb . . .677
Munt V. Shrewsbury, &c. Ry.
Muntz Metal Co., Be
Murgatroyd v. Old Silkstone,
&c. Co
Murietta v. South American Co.
Murphy's Trusts, Be
Murphy, Be .
■ & Co., Be .
— V. Deichler
V. Nolan .
V. O'Shea .
702
2432
2206
495
. 1156
. 972
. 2336
. 1357
290. 298
1333, 2255
Murray, Be (3 Dr. & War. 83) 1013,
1014
(W. N. (67) 190) . 1038
(W. N. (68) 195) . 1430
(57 L. T. 223) . 1325
, Dickson v. Murray 1088
, Woods V. Green-
well . . . 1350
■ V. Barlee . . 861, 862
V. Bogue . . 662, 672
. V. Clayton 62, 634, 635, 646,
[650], 652, 842
— V. E. L Co. . . 1387
— V. Elibank (E.) 905, 907, 908
■ V. Epsom Local Bd. . 36
V. Flavell v. Elavell 921,
1569, 2147
. 150
2235, 2237, 2238
2061, 2064
933
V. Milner
• V. Parker
■ V. Scott
• V. Sitwell .
■ ■ V. Stephenson
■ • V. Walter .
Murrow ?'. Wilson .
Musgravc, Be
11
77
268
2383
Musgrave and Hart's Case . 2295
V. Brooke . 1655, 1656
V. Horner . . 519
V. Sandeman . . 872
Musgrove v. Ford . . . 894
Musman v. Boret . . .129
Muspratt- Williams, Be . .1521
Mussett V. Dale . . [1832]
Musurus Bey v. Gadban 13, 19, 1386
Mutlow's Trusts, Be . . 2394
Mutlow V. Bigg . 1113, 1430, 1492
Mutrie v. Binney . . .132
Mutter V. Eastern and Midland
Ry. Co. . . 81
V. Hudson . . . 1420
Mutton V. Peat . . 1088, 1325
Mutual Aid Bldg. Soc, Be . 2061
Life Ass. Soc. v. Lang-
ley . 487, 488, 1082, 1910
— Loan Assoc, v. Ludlow 2087
Reserve Fund Life Assoc.
V. New York Ins. Co. 528
Society, Be 66, 72, 149
, Grimwade
V. Mutual Society . . 244
Mutzenbecher v. La Aseguradora
Espanola . . . .15
Mycock V. Beatson . 1990, 2096
Myers v. Catterson 520, [556], 562
V. Defries . . .242
- V. Myers . . . 2097
V. U. Guarantee Co. . 493
Myler v. Fitzpatrick . . 1087
Myles V. Burton . . 861, 880
Mytton V. Mytton . [1551], 1555
N.
Nadin v. Bassett . . . 108
Nagle's Trusts, Be . . . 1680
Nagle-GiUman v. Christopher . 146
Naish, Be . . . .972
Nalder's Brewery v. Harman . 533
Nalder v. Hawkins . . 934
Nanney v. Morgan . . 1929, 2037
V. WilUams 979, 1062, 2256
Nanny v. Edwards . . 1913
Nanson v. Gordon . . .2120
Nant-y-glo Blaina Co. v. Grave 2269,
2270
Nant-y-glo, . &c. Ironworks Co.
V. Grave .... 1093
Napier's Patent, Be . . 2320
Napier v. Effingham (L.) . 939
— • V. Napier . . . 910
Napper v. Fanshawe, Be Greer 422,
1092
Narracott v. Narraoott . . 926
Table of Cases.
cci
Nask's Settlement, Be
Nash, Re (16 Ch. D. 503)
(25 L. J. Ch. 20)
— ([1909] 2 Ch. 460)
-, Lewis V. Darby
PAGE
1629
1220
2401
1529,
1544
121
1655
. 2266
. 2384
. 418
1324, 1325, 1384
. 944
. 84
. 1302,1303
. 2360
. 479
2164, 2252
V. Allen
V. Calthorpe
■ ■ V. Coombs
■ r. Dickenson
V. Hodgson
V. Inman
• V. Layton
V. Morley
V. Nash
V. Pease
V. Wooderson
V. Worcester Impt. Comrs. 2215
Natal Investment Co. . . 1927
Nathan, Newman & Co., Be . 19
Nation, Be, Nation v. Hamilton 835
Nat. Arms Co., Be . . . 2432
National Ass. Operative Plast
V. Smithies ... 97
Nat. Bank, Exp. . . . 1319
, Be PhiUips . 1927
pf Australasia v.
United Hand-in-
Hand 1855, 1876, 1900,
1903
. of England, Exp.
JJe Newton . . 1407
of Wales, Be 268, 699,
1093, 1094
of Wales, Be, Massey
and Giffen's Case . 945
V. Kenny . . 767
Nat. Boiler Ins. Co., Re . . 2441
Nat. Bolivian, &o. Co. v. Wilson 2237
Nat. Bldg. Soc, Re . . 1144
Nat. Coffee Palace Co., Exp.
Panmure . . . 1332,2078
Nat. Exchange v. Drew . . 2249
Nat. Folding Box and Paper Co.
V. Nat. Folding Box Co. . 628
Nat. Funds Ass. Co., Be (24 W.
R. 774) .... 75
Nat. Funds Ass. Co., Re (10 Ch.
D. 118) . . . 701, 1093
Nat. Funds Ass. Co., Re (4 Ch.
D. 305, C. A.) 813, 829, 830, 833
Nat. Merc. Bk., Exp., Re Haynes 1941
V. Hampson . 1940
Nat. Perm. &c. Soc., Exp. Wil-
liamson .... 2061
Nat. Perm. B. B. Soc. v. Eaper 1912,
1915, 1919
Nat. Perm. Bldg. Soc, Be 1093,
1144
Nat. Prov. Bk.
PAGE
of England,
Exp., Re Sass 2077
V. Creswell, Be
Bawden 1536, 1559,
[1602]
V. Games 1870, 1881,
1984
V. Harle . 492, 192S
— V. Jackson 155, 2031,
2033, 2224
V. Marsh . 330
V. Marshall 527, 531
V. Thomas 854, 861,
862
Nat. Prov. &o. Co. v. Pruden-
tial Ass. Co. . . 559, 563
Nat. Rev. Inv. Co., Be, Lamson
Store Service Co., Be . . 2435
Nat. Soc. of Electricity v. Gibbs 838,
2318
■ • V. School Bd. of Lon-
don . . . . 1261, 1264
Nat. Starch Co., Be . . 2331
Nat. Tel. Co. v. Baker . 589, 603
V. Inland Rev. Com. 158
Nat. Trustees Co. of Australasia
V. General Finance, &c. Co. 1110,
1111
Nat. United Invest. Corp., Re . 482
Native Guano Co. v. Sewage
Manure Co. ... 627
Native Iron Co. . . . 1965
Natt, Re, Walker v. Gammage 1514
Navan & King's Ct. Ry. Co., Re 2394
Navulshaw v. Brownrigg 1331, 1932
Nawab Khan v. Rajah Oojood
hyaram Khan
Naylor & Spendla, Re
■ V. Blount, Re Blount
• ■ V. Goodall .
V. WethereU
V. Winch
Neal, Exp., Be Batey
•, Be, Weston v. Neal
V. Barrett
Neale v. Bailey
— ■ V. Bealing
V. Clarke
• V. Davis
V. Day
840
1755
121,
1351
. 2153
. 1391
. 2236
. 1406
. 132
. 1860
. 771
. 449
. 247
1081, 1165
[2282], 2284
V. Gordon Lennox . 125
V. Neale . . • 1633
Neate, i?e . . 279,281,282
V. Busby . . . [61]
V. Latimer ... 79
V. Marlborough (D.) 758,
1862, 1999, 2004
V. Pink . . .744
ecu
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Neath & Brecon Ry. Co., Be 2392,
2393, 2410
Neath Bldg. Soc. v. Luee 2061, 2062
Neath Canal Co. v. Ynisarwed
Co. . . . 520, 522, [549]
Neath (Vale of) Railway Act,
Jersey v. Jersey . . . 2364
Neaverson v. Peterborough Dis-
trict Council . . 591, 592
Neaves v. Spooner . . . 247
Neck, Re, Exp. Broad . . 2301
V. Taylor ... 29
Nedby v. Nedby (4 My. & C.
367) . . 1445
■ ■ (5 De G. &
Sm. 377) .... 2274
Ned's Point Battery, Be . 2458
Needham, Re Robinson v.
Needham . . 1536
• ■ V. Bremner . . 884
■ V. Needham (1 Ha.
633) . 208
(1 Ph.
640) . . .467
■ V. Oxley 639, 643, 651, 653
■ • V. Rivers Protection
Co 797
Needier v. Deeble . . . 1902
Neesom v. Clarkson 1898, 1903,
2034, [2232], 2238
Negus, Re ([1895] 1 Ch. 73) 302, 306
Neilan v. FarreU . . . 1421
Neild V. Boyd, Re Boyd . . 1427
Neill V. Devonshire (D.) . . 152
■ V. Mid. Ry. Co. . . 2236
Neilson v. Betts . 625, 632, 651
■ V. James . . 2296, 2299
■ V. Mossend Iron Co. . 2097
Nelson & Co., Re . . . [387]
V. Paber & Co: 1323,
1968
& Sons V. Nelson Line
(Liverpool) . . 74
, Exp., Be Hoare 443, 449,
481, 1408
■ • Hockaday . 1941,
1946
, Be . . . .264
V. Anglo-American &c.
Co. . 81, [685], 1965
■ -v. Barter . . . 494
V. Bealby . . . 2106
«. Booth .1120,1316,1903
V. Duncombe 1134, 1 378, 1455
• V. Empress Assroe. Corp. 21
■ V. Page . . . 1477
V. Robins, Be Robins . 1570
V. Seaman . . . 1166
V. Stocker . . 945, 1133
Nelson V. Walter, Re Walter's
Trusts
Nelthorpe v. Holgate
Nene Valley Commrs. v.
ley .
Nerot V. Bumand .
Nesbitt's Trusts, Be (25 L.
430)
(19 L,
509) .
Nesbitt V. Baldwin
V. Berridge
V. Lawder .
V. Meyer
312
Nesham v. Selby
Nether Stowey Vicarage, Be
Nethersole v. Soh. for Indigent
2193
Dunk- ,
. 2189
. 842
R.Ir.
. 1141
R.Ir.
1169, 1185
. 1313
99, 2279
1479, 2004
. 2139
. 2143
1145
Bhnd
Nettle's Char., Re
Nettlebridge Valley By.
Re . . .
Nettlefold's Trusts, Re
Nettlefolds v. Reynolds
Nettleship, Exp.
Neve V. PenneU
. 1307
. 1289
Act,
[2418]
. 1156
631, 643
. 1981
2015, [2023], 2030,
2040, 2041
Never Despair, The , . 801
Nevill's Case .... 2295
Nevill, iJe .... 1670
, Exp. White . . 1331
, Robinson v. NeviU [1473],
1478
Fine Arts, &c.
Co.
Neville, Exp., Re Lee
V. Andrews
• V. Matthewman
V. Snelling .
V. Wilkinson
Nevin, Re
V. Drysdaie .
Ins.
. 677
. 307
. 1573
206, 1083
. 946, 2278
. 2291
999, 1000, 1001
. 1667
New's Trustee v. Hunting . 2288
New, Re ... . 1145
V. Bonaker 1251, 1253, 1258,
1265
V. Burns . . .108
New Brit. &c. Co. v. Peed . 87
New Brunswick, &c. Co. v.
Conybeare . . 2248, 2249, 2263
New Brunswick, &c. Co. v.
Muggeridge . . . 2259
New Callao Co., Re 826, 827, 831,
834
New Chile Gold Mining Co., Re 2431
New Fenix Compagnie D'Assur-
ance v. General Accident Corp. 29
New Gold Coast Co., Re . . 459
New Hamburgh & Brazilian
Ry., Be . . . .493
Table of Cases.
cciu
PAGE
New Ixion Tyre and Cycle Co.
V. Spilsbury . . 2040, 2317
New Land Developnaent Assoc.
and Gray, Ee . . . 1949
New London & Brazilian Bank
V. Brockelbank . . .1147
New London, &c. Omnibus
Co., Be ... . 1963
New Moss Coll. Co. v. Manoh.
S. & L. Ry. Corp. . 671, 572
New Ormonde Cycle Co., Re . 2341
New Par Consols, Be . . 788
New Pranc6 and Garrard's
Trustee v. Hunting . . 1092
New Sharlston Coll. Co. v.
Westmorland (E. of) . . 570
New Sombrero Phosphate Co. v.
Erlanger 1334, [2259], 2264, 2265
New South Wales (Bank of) v.
O'Connor 78, 1872, 1874, 1875,
1877, 1878
New Westm. Brewery Co. v.
Hannah ... 51, 104
New Windsor (Mayor of) v.
Stovell . . . .578
New Windsor Corp. v. Taylor . 594
New York Trust Co. v. Keyser 967,
1158
New Zealand (Bank of) v.
Simpson . . . 2143,2146
New Zealand and Australian
Land Co. v. Watson . 1089, 1324
New Zealand, &c. Co., Be, Smith
V. Lubbock . . . 1449
New Zealand Mid. Ry., Smith
V. Lubbock . . 1449, 1971
New Zealand Trust Co., Be
([1893] 1 Ch. 403) [1177], 1180,
1213
NewaU v. ElHott . . .640
■ V. Tel. &c. Co. . 68, 73
V. Wilson . . . 631
Newbegin's Estate, Be . . 1157
Newbegin, Be, Eggleton v.
Newbegin . . 1026
■ V. Bell . . . 1516
Newberry, Be . . .1491
V. Benson . . 1314
■ ■ V. Mansfield, Be Rud-
dock .... 1086, 1135
Newbery, Be (1 Eq. 431) . 954
(1 Ch. 263) 993, 1000
Newbiggin-by-the-Sea Gas Co.
V. Armstrong . . 131, 1030
Newbigging v. Adam [2092], 2096
Newbold v. Beckett . . 1536
Newbould, Be . . . 304
V. Bailward . . 304
V. Smith . 151, 1383
Newbould «. Steade
Newburgh v. Bickerstaffe
Newbury v. Marten .
Newby v. Harrison
• V. Von Oppen
PAGE
793
978
940
510
12
Newcastle's Settled Estates, Be 1761,
1754
Newcastle (D.), Be . . 2004
V. Morris . 469
• V. Worksop U.
D. C. .
Bank v. Hymers
Newcome v. Flowers ■ .
Newcomen v. Coulson
Newell & Nevill's Contract, Be
V. Nat. Prov. Bank of
England
V. NeweU ,
Newen, Be .
, Newen v. Barnes
[1686],
594
1594
711
510
1762
1319
191
126
1166,
1698
1338
■ V. Wetten
Newfoundland (Govt, of) v.
Newfoundland Ry. Co. . 1322
Newhouse v. Smith . . 1432
Newington Local Board v. Cot-
tingham Local Board . . 626
Newington Local Board v. Eld-
ridge . [1037], 1039, 1040
Newitt, Exp., Be Gamid . 1939
Newland, Bush & Summers, Bi
([1904] W. N. 181) 312,
1121
V. Champion . 1603, 2133
V. Steer . . 93, 1376
Newlands v. Nat. Employers'
Accident Assoc. . . . 2249
Newlmg V. DobeU . . 528, 630
1938
702,
1093
265
277
Newlove v. Shrewsbury . .
Newman (George) & Co., Be
, Be (30 Beav. 196) .
(2 Ch. 707)
— (9 Ch. 681 ; M. B.
23 Jan. 1869)
1146,
[1735], 1737, 2380
V. Auling . 1567, 1672
V. Ayling . 1567, 1574
V. Harris . . . 514
' V. Hatch . . . 1449
V. Hook, Be Bartlett 334
V. L. & S. W. Ry. Co. 64
V. Newman (28 Ch. D.
674) 1082, 1087, 1934.
2045
V. Newman (M. R.
Nov. 8th, 1858, B.
438) . . [1532]
V. Payne . . . 1054
CClV
TcAle of Cases.
Newman v. Pinto .
— — V. Rogers
■ V. Selfe .
V. Wilson
V. Worley
PAGE
. 623
. 1256
933, 1847
909, 1478
. [365]
Nowmaroh, Be, Newmarch v.
Storr . . 1478
y. Harrison . . 1339
Newmark v. National Phono-
graph Co 670
Newmarket Colleries, Brick-
works and Pottery Co., Be . [499]
Newport Slipway Dry Dock Co.
V. Paynter .... 42
Newry v. Kilmorey . . 89
Newsome v. Flowers . . 1289
Newson v. Pender 515, 559, 562, 563
Newspaper Proprietary Syndi-
cate, Be . . . . 1972
Newstead w. Searles . . 1627"
Newton's Patents, Be . . 2320
■ Settled Estates, Be . 1778
Trusts, Be . 864, 896
Newton, Exp., Exp. Griffin, Be
Bunyard . . 1377
, Be, Exp. National Bk.
of England . 1407
(4 Eq. 171) . . 1512
([1896] 1 Ch. 740) . 999
V. Aldous . . . 1974
- V. Anglo - Austrian
Inv. Co.
-V. Bennet .
- V. Chapman, Be
pie
-V. Charlton
-V. Chorlton
- V. Curzon .
- V. Dimes .
- V. Egmont (E.)
- V. Met. By.
- V. Newton (4 Ch-
— (11 P.
11) .
■ ([1896]
36) .
- V. Rioketts (10 Beav.
527)
— (11 Beav.
1865
. 1367
Chap-
. 1137
. 378
. 2087
. 964
. 84
. 2089
. 1359
1088,
2042
D.
515. 927
P.
143)
67)
— V. RoHe, Be Frith
V. Sherry .
— V. Taylor .
Heath, Rector
Exp
Nias V. N. & E. Ry.
Niboyet v. Niboyet
Niohol V. Tliompson
927
717
. 261
. 1091
1351, 1596
. 400
of,
1145, 2380
89,92
. 1522
. 1343
Nicholas v. Lovett
V. Ridley
NichoU, Exp.
V. Penning
V. Jones
• V. Wheeler
NichoUs, Exp.
PAGE
[1163]
2076, 2078, 2087,
2089
. 2464
. 534
92, 865
67, 73
. 1060
Be Poole's Char.
V. Jones
V. Mitford
V. Morgan
V. NichoUs
811) ,
V. Parker
V. Stretton
V. Winn
Nichols, Be .
, Exp., Be White
V. Baker, Be Baker
1282
2152
592
855
(81 L. T.
312, 579, 2311
667, 1824
. 529
[1800]
. 1590
262, 1031
794
1410, 1470
. 289
. 589
. 1359
. 415
. 1803
264
284
1216
V. Haslam .
V. Marsland
V. Nichols .
V. Pedder .
V. Winn
Nicholson, Be (3 D. P. & J. 93)
(29 Beav. 665) .
(W. N. (84) 76) .
([1909] 2 Ch. Ill)
1616, 1618, 1619
— ■, Eade v. Nichol-
son . . 1108
, Exp. Quinn . 1038
— V. Carline . 906, 910
— V. Drury Bldg. Soc: 896,
898, 909, 1444
V. Field . . . 1168
V. Kirk, Be Kirk . 1511
V, Knapp . . 710
■ • V. Norton . . 1128
V, Pipe . . .832
V. Revell . . 2083
V. Smith . . 1693
— V. Squire . . 1013
■ V. Tutin . . 1133
Nickalls v. Merry . . 2296, 2297
Nickels, Be, Nickels v. Nickels 1430,
1431
. 2141
. 634
2248, 2249
. 2201
. 580
658, 667
. 921
. 528
. 532
. 669
V. Hancock
V. Ross
Nicol's Case .
Nicol & Von Joel, Be
V. Beaumont
V. Kearsley
V. Nicol
Niooll V. Beere
■ V. Fenning
Nicols V. Pitman
Tahle of Cases.
ccv
PAGE
Niemann v. Niemann 762, 2106,
2111
Niger Merchant Co. v. Capper . 696
Nightingale, iJe ([1909] 1 Ch.
385) . . 1513
- V. Goulburn . . 1301
V. Lawson [1706], 1711
V. Reynolds . . 1665
Nind V. Nineteenth Century B.
Soc 2307
Nisbet & Potts, Re . 532, 2166
& Co. V. Golf Agency . 661
Nitedals Taendstiokfabrik v.
Bruster . . . 1333,2269
Nitro-Phosphate, &o. Manure
Co., Be ... . 2440
Nives V. Nires . [2222], 2225
Nixon's Navigation Co., Re . 2432
Nixon, Re . . . .758
— ([1904] 1 Ch. 638) . 1464
v. Cameron, i?e Cameron 1368,
1491
V. Luckie, Re Luckie . [61]
V. Sheldon ... 30
• , Re Sheldon . 1618
• V. Smith, Re Timmis . 1114,
1432
Noad V. Backhouse . . 757
V. Murrow ... 45
Noake's Wm, iJe . . .907
Noakes v. Barlow . . . 2128
• ■ V. Inland Revenue
Commrs. . .160
■ • V. Noakes . . . 715
Nobbs, Re, Nobbs v. Law Rev.
Int. Soc. . . . 1483, 1855
Nobel's Explosive Co. v. Jones,
Scott & Co. . . . 632
Noble V. Brett . 1380, 1431, 1594
V. Edwards . . .793
• V. Meymott . . .1136
V. Phelps . . .885
V. Stow . 232, 342, 352
— • V. Willock . . 886, 887
Nock V. Nock . . . 2400
Noel V. Noel ... 73, 75
Nokes V. Warton . . .277
Norbum v. Norburn . . 414
Norbury, Re . . . . 954
(E.) V. Kitohin . . 587
Noroott V. Gordon . . . 1536
Norden v. McRae . . . 2125
■ V. MoRea, Re McBea . 1403
Nordon v. Defries ... 92
Norfolk's (D.) Parliamentary
Estates, Duke of Norfolk v.
LordHerries . . . 1780
Norfolk (Duke of) v. Arbuthnot 560
Norie v. Bennett, Re Medows . 1712
PAGE
Norman, Re (16 Q. B. D. 673) 264,
277 278
— (W. N. (00) 159) . ' 25
V. Baldry . . [1495]
V. Beaumont . . 1847
V. Johnson . . 1574
V. Mitehell . . 693
V. Morrell . . . 1604
■ V. Villars . . . 927
Normand's Patent . . . 2321
Normanton Iron and Steel Co.,
Re 832
Normanville ?;. Stanning . 517
Norrington, Re, Brindley v.
Partridge . . 1107, 1617, 1619
Norris, Re ... . 1590
305
1166
11
. 601
. 51
. 724
. 1304
. 1621
. 2158
1823, 1824
923
■ ([1902] 1 Ch. 741) .
Allen V. Norris 1165,
V. Bailey
V. Barnes
V. Beazley
V. Chambers
V. Frazer
V. Harrison
V. Jackson
V. Le Neve
V. Norris
V. Ormond, Re Ormond [1006]
V. Sadlier
Norrish v. Marshall
North, Re
, Meates v.
V. Guinan
V. Huber
V. Percival
V. Stewart
[1462]
. 1902,2036
[1003]
Bishop . 1666
. 1801
. 77
. 2144,2181
. 1049
— V. Wakefield . . 2086
North American Land, &o. Co.
V. Watkins . 1087, 1113, 1384
Co., Re,
2269
72
North Australian
Archer's Case
North Austrahan Co. v. Golds-
borough ....
North Australian Territory Co.,
Re
North Brazilian Sugar Factories,
Re
North British & Mercantile
Ins. Co. V. Liverpool, Lon-
don & Globe Ins. Co. .
North British, &o. Co.
Hallett
North British Ass. Co. v. Lloyd 2083
North British Ry. Co., Exp.,
Re Fergusson . . [2391]
North British Ry. Co. v. Bud-
hiU Coal, &c. Co. . . 569
North Central Waggon Co. v.
M. S. & L. Ry. Co. . . 1938
89
81
2079
1082
CCVl
Table of Cases.
PAGE
North Cheshire, &o. Co. m
Manch. Brewery Co. . . 628
N. E. Marine, &o. Co. v. Leeds
Forge Co. . . . 165, 2324
N. E. B. Co., Exp., lie Hioks . 1157
N. E. Ry. V. Crossland 564, 568, 571
V. EUiott . 564, 571
• V. Hastings . 591, 1256
• ■;;. Jackson . .291
■;;. Jonassohn . . [58]
N. Lend. Land Co. v. Jacques 2308,
2309
N. Lond. By. Co., Be . . 2390
• V. G. N. By. Co. 395,
512
North MetropoHtan Tramways
Co. V. London County Council 245
North of England, &c. Co., Be 704
North of E. Iron Steamship
Assoc, Be . . . . 2440
North of E. Oilcake Co. v. Arch-
angel Ins. Co. . . . 492
North of B. Trustee, &o. Corp.
V. Marriage, Neave & Co. . 770
North Shore By. v. Pion 587, 588
North Staff. By. v. TunstaU L.B. 606
North W. By. Co. v. Whinsay 2084
North Western Bubber Co. &
Hittenback & Co. . . 398
Northage, Be, ElUs v. Barfield 1621,
1700
Northam Bridge Co. v. The
Queen .... 383
Northampton Char., Be . . 1266
Northampton Coal, &c. Co. v.
Mid. Waggon Co. . . 27
Northampton (M. of) v. Pollock 1856,
1935
Northcote v. Doughty . . 946
Northern Assam Tea Co., Be . 1927
Northern Ass. Co. v. Harrison . 2050
Northern Counties, &c. Ins. Co.
V. Whipp . . 1089, 2032, 2250
Northern Counties of England
Eire Ins. Co., Be . . 1405
Northey v. Paxton . . 1927
Northumberland, &o. Co., Be . 1031
Noi-thumberland Avenue Hotel
Co., JJe . . . 2154,2158
Northumberland Avenue Hotel
Co., Be, Pox & Braithwaite's
Case .... 2148,2154
Northumberland (D.) v. A.-G. . 343
Northumberland (D.) v. Bow-
man .... 532
Northumberland (D.) v. I. B.
Commissioners . . . 161
Northumberland (D.) v, Percy 1574,
1930
PAGE
Northumberland (D.) & Tyne-
mouth Corp., iJe . . 2394
Northwick (L.), Exp. . 2365, 2399
Norton's Settlement, Be . 132, 722
Norton & , Be . . 1774
, Be, Norton v. Norton 18,
980, [1792], 1803
V. Compton, Be Comp-
ton 827, 829, 836, 1468,
1469, 1470
— V. Cooper . . 1030, 1877
— V. Counties B. B. Soc. 393.
402, 2060
■ V. Dash wood . . 1560
V. Eendwick . . 379
V. Gover . . .738
V. Gregory . . 408, 2001
V. Johnstone . . 1697
■ V. L. & N. W. By. 703, 707,
826, 833
V. Nichols . . . 517
V. Norton . . . 1490
V. Pritchard 418, 440, 445
V. Russell . . .2114
V. Steinkopf . . 943
V. TurviU . . 854, 1427
V. Yates . . 480, 1970
Norton Folgate, Be . . 1265
Norway v. Norway . .1136
■ V. Bowe . . .706
Norwich & Norfolk Bid. Soc, Be 1035
Norwich, &c Bid. Soc, Exp.
Smith .... 2057
Norwich Corp. v. Norwich Elec-
tric Tram. Co. . . . 392
Norwich Equitable Co., Bras-
nett's Case . . .822
Norwich Town Close Estate
Char., Be . . . 1278, 1300
Norwich Union Life Ass. Co.,
Be ... . [1161]
Nothard v. Pepper . . 153
V. Proctor . . 739
Notley V. Pahner . . . 2383
Noton V. Brookes . . . 652
Nott V. Biccard . . . 2156
Nottage, Be, Jones v. Palmer 1303,
1556
V. Buxton, Be Knowles 1665
V. Jackson . .671
V. Prince . . . 2273
Nottidge V. Dering . . 1666
Nottige V. Green . . . 1670
Nottingham, Exp., Be Tuff . 881
&o. Co. V. Butler 633,
2163, 2164, 2188
&c Bid. Soc. V.
Thurston .... 2058
Nottley V. Palmer . 915, 944, 968
Table of Cases.
ccvn
PAGE
Nouaille v. Plight . . . 2194
Nouvion V. Freeman . . 724
Novosielski v. Wakefield . 1914
Nowell, Rr . . . .473
■ ■ V. NoweU (13 Mar. 1877,
B. 1492) . [347], 349
V. NoweU (7 Eq. 538) . 2106
Noyce, Re, Hilleaiy v. Noyce . 805
Noyes v. Crawley . . . 2104
V. Paterson . . . 2285
V. Pollock . 1897, 1898, 1899
Nugee, Exp., Middleton v.
Pollock . . 1319, 1320, 1322
Nugent & Riley, Re
■ V. Nugent .
V. Vetzera .
953,
Nult V. Easton
Nulty V. Pagan
Nunburnholme (L.), Re
Nuneaton L. B. v. Gen. Sewage
Co. .
Nunn V. Barlow
V. Pabian
V. Hancock
• V. Tyson
. 2207
331, 1088
[994], 1001
. 2279
. 1460
. 1419
Nurse V. Durnford
Nutt V. Easton
611
1467, 1469
2146, 2206
. 2164
. 852
131, [1028], 1030
1848, 1857, 1900,
2256
NuttaU, Re . . . [2364]
and Lynbon and Barn-
staple Ry., Re . . 395
V. Hargreaves . 632, 2313
— ■ V. Manchester, Mayor of 39S
V. Vining . . . 621
V. Whittaker, Re Hart-
ley . . . . 172, 759
Nutter V. Holland . . . 1083
V. Messageries Maritimes 12
Nye V. Macdonald . . . 229
V. Maule . . 362,1514
O.
Oakbank Oil Co. v. Crum . 700
Oakeley, iSe . . . .990
V. PasheUer . 2085, 2126
Oakes v. Turquand . 2249, 2263
Oakey & Sons v. Dalton . . 624
Oakford v. European and Ame-
rican Steam Shipping Co. . 2126
OakweU CoUs., Re . . . 833
Oastler v. Henderson . . 829
Oatway, Re, Hertslet v. Oat-
way .... 1088, 1325
Obert V. Barrow, Re Douglas 1301,
1303
Oberrheinisohe Metallwerke v.
Cocks . . . .610
PAGE
Obee V. Bishop . 1112, 1388, 1432
O'Brien v. Lewis . . 264, 1053
V. Mahon . . .1899
V. Maitland . , 929
V. Osborne . .1348
V. Tyssen . 38, 138, 1296
Oocleston v. FuUalove . . 1511
Ocean Accident, &o. Corp. v.
IlfordGasCo. . . . 1897
Ocean Queen Steamship Co., Re 2435
Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.
V. Sutherberry 966, 1079, 1149,
1676, 2153
Oohs V. Ochs . . .391
Ookford V. Barelli . . .126
O'ConneU, Re {[1903] 2 Ch. 574) 1632
u. O'CaUaghan . .1122
O'Connor, Re . . . 1055
Oddfellows of Manchester, Re . 1171
Oddie V. Woodford . . 844
Oddy, Re . . . 208, 821
■ ([1911] 1 Ch. 532) . 1243
• K.Dickenson . [1546]
V. Seeker . . . 1331
V. Smith . . .653
OdeU, Exp., Re Walden . . 1939
Odessa Tramways Co. v. Mendel 2157
O'Donel v. Brown . . . 1572
O'Donohue, Re . . . 2058
O'Donovan v. Goggin . 479, 761
Offen V. Harman . . . 2187
Official Receiver v. Cooke . 1949
Official Receiver, Exp., Re
Beall .... 2034
Official Receiver, Exp., Re
Pord . . . .422
Official Receiver, Exp., Re
Goudie .... 738
Official Receiver, Exp., Re
Gould .... 1409
Official Receiver, Exp., Re
Mills 2288
Official Receiver, Exp., Re
Ryley . . . .420
Official Receiver, Exp., Re
Watson .... 1938
Offer, Exp., Re Met. Electric
Co. .... 113
Ofner, Re ([1909] 1 Ch. 60) . 1510
Offin V. Rochford Rural Council 164.
580
Ogden, Re, Taylor v. Sharp 1302,
1306
V. Battams . . 1339, 1837
V. Fossick . 527, 2141, 2148
■ • V. Mason, Re Mason . 1554
Ogilvie, Estate of. Re . . 287
, Re . . [1998], 2003
V. Currie . . . 2250
CCVlll
Table of Cases.
Ogilvie V. Jeaffreson
■ — V. Western
&c. Corp. .
Ogilvy V. Foljambe
Ogle and Pilling, Exp.
PAGE
1056, 2030,
2245, 2246
Australian,
. 2243
2143, 2145
1081, 1119,
1123
Re
. 1560
(L.),
V. Sherborne
Whorwood
O'Gorman, iJe . . . 1379
Ogston V. Aberdeen Trams. Co. 603
O'Halloran v. King, Re Bown . 869
O'Hara, Re . . . .998
• , Matthews & Co. v.
Elliott & Co. . . . 296
Ohlsen v. Terrero . . .112
O'Keefe v. Casey . . .952
Okeover, Re . . . . 1737
Okilf V. Whittaker . . 2236, 2237
Old, Re, Pengelley v. Herbert . 1427
Old Battersea Building Soo. v.
Inland Bev. Com. . 161, 2060
OH Mill Co. V. Dukinfield Local
Board . . . .367
Oldaker v. Lavender
Olde V. Olde .
Oldfield V. Cobbett
Oldham's Estate, Re
Oldham v. Hands
. 1341
. 2218
. 1460
. 2359
1055, 1058, 2274,
2275
V. Lords of the Treasury 382
V. Stringer
Oldin V. Samborn .
Oldrey v. Union Works
Olivant v. Wright .
Olive's Estate, Re 2401, 2402,
1983
978
1969
838
2403,
2404
1105
1446
Olive, Re, Olive v. Westerman
■ V. Westerman
Oliver's Claim, Re East London
Ry. Co. . . 2349, 2350
Settlement, Re . .1529
Oliver, Re . . . .263
([1908] 2 Ch. 74) . 1619
. & Scott's Arbitration, Re 397
V. Hinton 1034, 2031, 2032,
2037
V. Hunting . . 2144, 2146
. V. Lowther . 760, 761, 2000
. V. Oliver (10 W. R. 18) . 673
(11 Eq. 506) . 1555
(10 Ch. D. 765) 905,
907, 1653
• V. Richardson
• V. Robins
Ollendorff v. Black
Olley V. Eisher ' .
Olney (Char.), Re .
V, Bates
. 914
. 287, 298
. 665
[2204], 2234
. 1262
. 1559
PAGE
O'Loughlin v. Eitzgerald . 2045
Olympia, Ld., Re 703, 1334, 2265,
2269
O'Mahoney v. Burdett . . 1541
O'Malley v. Blease . . .921
O'Malleys, Re . 457, 999, 1000
Ommaney, Exp. . . . 1880
• ■ V. Stilwell . . 1590
Ommanney v. Butcher . . 1252
Omnium Inv. Co., Re . . 2436
O'Neal V. Mead . . . 1475
O'Neil V. City and County Fi-
nance Co. .... 1947
Onions v. Tooley, Re Southall . [453]
• V. Tyrer . . .163
Onslow's Trusts, Re . . 475
Onslow, Re, Plowden v. Gayford 879
& WhaUey's Case 458, 459
V. Commrs. of Inland
Revenue . 161, 828
0. Manch. S. & L. Ry.
Co 703
Onward Bid. Soc, Re . . 305
Onyon v. Washbourne . . 745
Ooddeen v. Oakley . . 516
Ooregum, &c. Co. ■;;. Roper . 700
Gtold Mining Co. of
India, Roper v. Wallroth,
WaUroth v. Roper' . . 801
Openshaw v. Da vies' . [1349]
Opera (Limited), Re . 1969, 2236
Oppenheim v. Henry . . 1356
V. Oppenheim . 925
V. Schweder, Re
Schweder . 1579
■ V. Sheffield . . 68
Oppenheimer, Re ([1907] 1 Ch.
399) . . 1699
■ V. Attenborough 1932
■ V. Davenport . 247
V. Erazer . . 1932
■;;. Hall . [2178]
Oppert V. Beaumont . . 843
Oram v. Brearey . . . 786
Orange v. Pickford . .156
Ord, Re (3 W. R. 386) . . 1208
, Dickinson v. Dickinson 1569
V. Johnston . . .2149
V. Noel .... 2153
Orde, Re (24 Ch. D. 271) 1168, 1185,
1189
O'Reilly v. Alderson . .1170
■ — V. Walsh . . .841
Orger v. Sparke . . . 1820
Orient Steamship Co. v. Ocean
Insce. Co 291
Oriental, &o. Tel. Co. v. DodweU 524
Oriental Bank Corp., Re . 334
Oriental Steam Co. v. Briggs . 2145
Tahle of Oases.
ccix
PAGE
Oriental StfeamsKip Co. v. Tylor 533
Oriental Tel. Co., Re . . 2441
Original Hartlepool Collieries
Co., Re . . . .798
Original Hartlepool Collieries
Co. V. Gibb ... 39
Original Hartlepool Collieries
Co. V. Moon ... 91
Orleans Motor Co., Ld., Re . 1322
Orme, Re, Evans v. Maxwell 1467,
1468
Ormerod, Re . . .1184, 1220
, Atkinson v. Orme-
rod . . [1044]
— V. Bleasdale . . 839
V. Tate . . . 1049
■ V. Todmorden Mill
Co. . 362, 403, 404, 588, 823
Ormerod Grierson & Co. v. St.
George's Ironworks . . 81
Ormiston, Exp. . . .721
Ormond, Re, Norris v. Ormond
[1006]
V. Townsend 385, [388],
733
Ormonde (Lady) v. Hutchinson
1055, 2274
Ormrod's Estate, Re . . 1697
— — Settled Estate, Re . 1780
Ormrod v. Wilkinson, Re Scow-
croft 1302
Ormsby, Re . . . .740
Ormston, Re, Goldring v. Lan-
caster . . . 248, 1449
Orpen's Estate, Re, Berwick v.
Orpen .... 1688
Orr V. Diaper ... 62
OrreU CoUiery Co., Re . . 136
— V. Busch . . .799
V. OrreU . . . 1530
Onett,Exp 1980
• V. Corser . . . 1087
Orr-Ewing v. Johnston . 622, 623,
2333
Orsmond, Re, Drury v. Orsmond 1369
2032, 2045
1778
906
1810
893
338)
Ortigosa v. Brown
Orwell Park Estate, Be
Osborn v. Morgan .
V. Osborn (6 Eq.
Osborne's Estate, Re
Mortgage, Re
Osborne & Bright, Re
, Exp.
— , Re .
(25 Beav. 353)
1210
1754
2058
1180
263
1080
• to Rowlett
■ V. Amalgamated Society
of Ry. Servants 706,
712, [712]
Osborne v. Bradley
V. Harvey
PAGE
532, 533, 2142,
2155
. 750
1694
V, Marlborough (D.)
— V. Osborne (18 W. R.
421) . . 340,2164
V. Usher . . .824
V. Williams . .1342
O'Shea, Re, Courage v. O'Shea [469],
472
V. O'Shea . 435, 458, 818
V. Wood . . 90, 92
Osmond v. Mutual Cycle, &c.
Co 297
Ossalinsky v. Manchester Corp. 2347
Oswald V. Landes
Other V. Iveson
Ottaway v. Hamilton
Otter V. Vaux (L.) .
Ottley V. Gilby
Otto V. Linford
V. Steel .
Ottos Kopje Mines, Re
Outram v. Maud
452
1378, 2083
. 884
. 2045
. 1425
. 843
. 634
. 2242
. 588
Outten's Settled Estates, Re [1738]
Outwin, Re . . . .850
Overend, Gurney & Co. v. Ori-
ental Pin. Corp. . . 2084, 2085
Overhill, 2Je .... 1591
Overington v. Ward . 748, 1358
Overton, Re, Hansby v. Llew-
ellyn . . .120
V. Banister . . 1133
V. Burn, Lowe & Sons 378
Overweg, Re . . . 1332, 2298
Ovey, Re ([1900] 2 Ch. 524) . 1145
, Broadbent v. Barrow
(29 Ch. D. 560) 1253,
1305, [1532]
— ■ — •, Broadbent v. Barrow
(20 Ch. D. 676) . 1554
, Broadbent v. Barrow
(31 Ch. D. 113 ; 35 Ch. D.
472) 1305
Owen's Patent, Re . 648, 2325
Owen, Re (13 Deo. 1855, B. 211) 229
(10 Ch. D. 166) . 1714
([1894] 3 Ch. 220) 1838,
1839, 1866
— , Exp. Peters . . 2326
— , Frisby V. Owen 1497, 1498
, Poe V. Shortt . . 1468
— — V. Cronk . . 743, 774
V. De Beauvoir . . 1381
V. Delamere . . . 1499
— V. Edwards, Be Edwards [417],
424
V. Gibbons . . . 1512
— — V. Henshaw . ^ . 1051
VOL. I.
cex
Table of Cases.
Owen V. Homan
V. L. & N. W. Ey. Co.
V. Morgan, Re Morgan
V. Pritchard .
■ V. Roberts
• V. Thomas
V. Wynn
Owens V. Dickinson
V. Emmens .
Owthwaite, Be,
Taylor
Oxenham v. Ellis
(Bp. of) V. Wise .
Charity, Re
V. Provand
PAGE
2083, 2085
2351
37
437
. 2061
. 2143
86 87
861, 1349, 1367,
1376
. 109, 161
Owthwaite v.
. 1144
1900, 1914
Oxford Benefit Bldg. Soc, Re 701,
2270
2241
1263
2144
Gill
and Cambridge, &o.
49
P.
Glamorgan
846
Gibbs . 510
1574
894
1181
2201
1455
1081, 1084
92, 95, 287
Paden v. Finlay, Re Brown . 1301
Padley v. Lincoln Water Co. . 95
Padstow Total Loss Assoc, Exp.
Bryant . . . .832
Padwick v. Scott . . 36, 1499
■ , Re Scott . 2080
V. Stanley . 1331, 2075
P. Caland, The, v.
Steamship Co.
Pacific Steam Co. v.
Pack V. Darby
Packer v. Packer
Packman, Re
and Moss, Re
Paddock v. Forrester
Paddon v. Bichardson
V. Winch .
V. Wittcomb
Pagani, Re .
Page, Re (5 Aug. 1870) .
(32 Beav. 485) .
([1893] 1 Ch. 304)
, Hall V. Pladgate
■—, Jones V. Morgan
V. Bennett
V. Clay .
■ V. Gilmore
• V. Home
V. International
Trust
1). Leapingwell
■ V. Midland Ry. Co.
V. Newman .
V, Norfolk
— — ■ v. Ratoliife .
2230
. 1218
[1294]
287, 289
. 1114
. 828
. 1432
. 2209
[1487]
. 147
. 1654
Agency
. 1966
. 1677
. 2168
. 1343
. 2145
685, 2111
Page V. Slade . .
■ V. Ward
— — V. Wisden
■ — ■ — • V. Young
Paget's Settled Estates, Re
PAGE
2110
90
664
1555
1750,
1753
Paget, Re, Mellor v. Mellor
([1898] 1 Ch. 290) 1677,
1678
V. Ede 723, 1824, 1834, 2142
V. Foley . . 1381, 1382
V. Grenfell . . .1608
V. Marshall 2220, [2233], 2235
• V. Paget . . .882
Paice V. Archbishop of Canter-
bury . . . 1252, 1257, 1308
Pain V. Coombs . . 2147, 2209
Paine's Trusts, Re (33 W. R.
564) 1188
Paine, Re (28 Ch. D. 725) 1169, 1189
, Exp. Read . . 2289
and The Wareh6usemen
and Clerks' Permanent
Benefit Bdg. Soc. [2026]
246,287,820
. 2343
. 1841
. 1056,2275
2140, [2209,
2293], 2295
. 1951
. 2184
. 804
. 2196
. 1495
1080, 1135
. 1258
. 85
. 1555
. 401
852, 855, 875
. 38
Co.,
. 1927
-V. Chisholm .
-V. Daniells .
- V. Edwards .
- V. Hall
- V. Hutchinson
Re
■ V. Matthews .
■ V. Meller
V. Slater
Painter v. Newby .
Paitson v. Paitson .
Palairet v. Carew .
Palatine Estate Char.,
Palermo, The
Palin V. Brooks
Palliser v. Dale
V. Gurney .
Palmer's Application, Re
Decoration, &c.
Re
Will, Re .
Palmer, Exp.
■ , Re (22 Ch. D. 88)
— (24 Ch. D. 504)
(45 Ch. D. 291)
([1907] 1 Ch. 486)
, Clarke v. Palmer
. 1680
. 2403
. 844
2332,
2333
267, 301
1082
2032
Ans-
Palmer
worth
Palmer
wick .
Skipper v. Skipper
1541
Hard-
and Hosken, Re
404
138,
148
395, 398
Table of Cases,
ccxi
PAGE
Co. . 13
. 1859
1321, 1406
1105, nil
. 1869
. 1670
334, 348
. 37
1837, 1922
346, 2196
1130, 1135, 1456
340, 488, 1675,
1928, 2153, 2164
. 530, 2123
1119, 1124, 2133,
2402
V. Palmer (Dee. 7, 1878,
Palmer v. Caledonian Ry,
■ • V. Carlisle .
V. Day and Sons
V. Emerson
V. Eyre
■ V. Flower .
V. Goren
V. Guadagni
V. Hendrie .
• V. Johnson
• V. Jones
V. Locke
V. Mallet
V. Mitchell
B. 2076)
([1892] 1
B. 319)
— — ■ — ■ V. Rich
V. Vaughan
V. Wakefield
■ V. Walesby
■ • V. Wright .
■ — — — V. Young .
Palmerston (L.) v. Turner
Pahnes, Me .
V. Danby
Q.
. 42
. 909
. 757
1106, 1134
935, 1029
. 77
. 1710
. 2181
. 150
. 1862
1968, 1970
Panama, &c. Co., He
V. India Rubber,
&c. Co. . 1333, [2268], 2270
Panes v. Attorney-Greneral, Re
Bond . 1514, [1581], 1585
Panhard v. Levassor . . 628
V. Panhard & Co. . 628
Panmure, Exp., Re National
Coffee Palace Co. . 1332,2078
Pannell, Exp. . . . 1984
, Re England . 1839
, Re, Exp. Bates . . 1406
■ V. City of London
Brewery Co. . . . 2309
Papa de Rossie, The . . 294
Pape V. Lister ... 89
PapiUon, 2?e . . . [1701]
Pappa V. Rose . . . 399
Paquin, Ld. v. Beauclerk 853, 875,
883
Paragon and Spero Mining Co.,
Be ... . 471,476
Paramore v. Greenslade . .2183
Parbola, iJe .... 1922
Parby, JJe . . . 1213,1218
Pardo V. Bingham . 1386, 1523, 1608
Pardee, Re ([1906] 2 Ch. 340) . 1432
— — , McLaughhu v. A.-G.1301,
1302, 1303
V. Pardoe . . .541
PAGE
Pardy's Mozambique fcJyn. v.
Alexander ... 75, 78
Pares, Re, Re Scott Chad . 1633
, Lillington v. Pares . 1717
V. Pares . . . 1675
Parfitt V. Jepson . . .2152
V. Lawless . . . 2273
Pariente v. Lubbock . 1324, 1330
Paris Skating Rink Co., Re . 118
V. Paris . . . 1700
Parish v. Hudson, Re Lucas . 1557
• V. Poole 292, 1980, 1989,
1990
Park, Re, Cole v. Park 240, 265, 285
Parke, Re (21 L. T. 218) 1189, 1190
V. Thaokray .
Parker's Case
Estate, Re
PoHcies, Re
— Trusts, Re
Ch. 707) .
. 1105
. 2210
. 2376
873, 874
([1894] 1
. 1168
WiU, Re (39 Ch. D.
303) .... 1158, 1159
Parker, Re (11 W. R. 937) . 1302
■ (32 Beav. 580) . 1216
— (21 Ch. D. 408) . 294
■ (13 Eq. 495) . . 2399
(29 Ch. D. 199) 288, 305
{[1910] 1 Ch. 581) 1560,
Exp. Charing Cross
Bank .
■ Sheppard
Turquand
1654
1941
1090,
2126
1943
1543
, Barker v. Barker
, Bentham v. Wilson 1511
, Cash V. Parker 118, 727,
747
, Dearing v. Brooks 717,
747, 748
, Morgan v. Hill [2073],
2076
— -, Parker v. Osborne . 1510
, Stephenson v. Par-
ker ... 1514
- and Beach, Re . . 2184
- to Gteorge . . . 277
- V. Blenkhorn . . 304
- V. Butcher . . . 2057
- V. Clarke . . • 2032
- V. Dee . . . 1364
- V. Dunn . . • 771
- V. First Avenue Hotel
Co. . 508, [554], 558
- V. Frith . . • 2156
- V. Gerard . . . 1801
- V. Hutchinson . . 1344
■V. Lechmere
909
Ccxu
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Parker v. London County Council 245
v. M'Kenna 106,1093,2267,
2268
V. Morrell . 149, 183, 365
V. Peet . . . 1317
— V. Pocock . . . 743
• V. Ringham . . 1364
■ V. Simpson . . .127
V. Sowerby . . . 916
— «;. Watkins . . 1881,1904
^ V. Wells . . 69, 84, 88
V. Whyte . . .535
1;. Winder, iJe Wilson . 1531
Parker-Jervis, Be, Salt v.
Locker . . . 1571,2221
Parkers, Be, Exp. Sheppard 1090,
2126
Parkes, Be ... . 1285
— ■ — , Simpson v. Parkes . 1423
■ — — - — V. Stevens . . . 635
Parkhurst v. Lowten . 96, 97
Parkin, Be, Hill v. Schwarz 863,
887, 1606, 2153
■ — — - — V. Cresswell, Be Cress-
well . . . 1660
■ V. Seddons . . 727, 747
V. Thorold . . 2156, 2170
Parkington v. Heywood, Be
Heywood . . . 1405, 1406
Parkinson v. Chambers . . 75
• «. Crawshay . .110
V. Hanbury 287, 1341,
1342, 1856, 1898
• V. Lucas . . 1869
- — — ■ — — V. Wainwright . 1971
Parmeter v. Parmeter . . 824
Parnell, Be . . . .953
■ V. Kingston 1095, 1425,
1572, 1628
~ V. Mort, Liddell & Co. . 653
— V. ParneD, Be Bayne [1471]
V. Price . . .1122
V. Walter ... 85
V. Wood . . 71, 82
Parr v. L. C. & D. By. . . 95
■ -v. Lovegrove [2159], 2168, 2169
■ V. Tompson . . . [48]
Parr's Bank v. Albert Mines
Syndicate . . . 2080
~ — Banking Co. v. Yates 1325,
1386, 1873
Parrot v. Treby . . .1135
Parrott, Be . . . .1165
, Parrott v. Parrott 1556
■ — , Walter v. Parrott 905,
1653, 1654, 1655
V. Palmer . . 646, 663
V. Shellard . . 399
■ ■ ■ V. Sweetland . . 2224
Parry's Will, Be .
Parry and Daggs, Be
and Hopkin, Be
-, Be
■ ■ — •, Scott V. Leak
PAGE
[1726]
1542
544
1155
1574
1443
392
■ V. Ashley
■ V. Liverpool Malt Co
■ V. Parry . [1545], 2005
■ V. Sptocer, Be Harrison 1491
Parson, Be, Parson v. Parson
Parsons' Case
Patent, Be
291
945
2320
1939
Parsons, Exp.
, Be, Stockley v. Parsons 877,
1419
V. Cotterill . . 528
1'. Gillespie . . 620
■ V. Groome . 486, 1444
V. Hayward . 2097, 2113
V. Hind . . . 1952
- V. Miller, Be Stokes
V. Parsons
V. Peters .
V. Porter .
Parteriehe v. Powlet
Partington's Estate, Be
Partington, Be
[1604],
1605
. 1512, 1569
. 966
[1327]
. 543
. 2379
. 1090
1 Ch.
1755, 1780
([1902]
711)
, Partington o.
Allen . .1105
V. Booth . 521, 522
V. Reynolds 372, 1120,
1316, 1420
, Be Shard
[1021]
V. Woodcock . 1896
Partridge v. Poster
V. Smith
V. Usborne
Pascoe V. Richards
V. Swann
. 2000
. 2236
. 2036
135, 179
1790, 1809
Pashlel- V. Vincent . . .436
Pasley v. Freeman . . . 2247
Pasmore, Be . . . . 268
V. Oswaldtwistle . 559
Pasquin v. Beauclerk 863, 875, 883
Pass V. Dundas . . . 1079
Passingham v. Sherborn . 1121, 1170
Patch V. Ward . 1875, 1914, 1922
— — «. Wild . . . 1903
Patching v. Barnett 332, 1450, 1573,
1605
V. Bull . . . 1373
Pat. File Co 1966
Pat. Invert Sugar Co., Be . 2430
Pat. Marine Inventions Co. v.
Chadburn . . . 360, 640
Table of Cases.
ccxiu
Pat. Typo Co. v. Lloyd
V. Walter
PAGE
645, 646
. 646
Pat. Ventilating Granary Co.,
Ee . . . . 2432,2435
Paterson's Trees, v. Paterson . 1302
Patcrson v. Gaslight & Coke Co. 770
■ V. Long . . . 2166
V, Paterson (3 N. R.
657) . . . 2402
V. Patcrson (2 Eq. 31) 1174,
1197, 1206, 1210
V. Scott . [1596], 1607
■ ■ V. St. Andrew (Pro-
vost of) ... . 838
Patey v. Flint . . . 1920
Patience, Me, Patience v. Main 1519
Patman v. Harland 532, 1034, 2166,
2207
Paton V. Brebner . . . 2168
V. Ormerod, Be Bagot . 1554
V. Rogers
Patrick, Re
Bills V. Tatham
V. Crick
V. Mibier .
V. Simpson
2180
1629
1927
[1505]
. 2156
. 1112
1990, 1991
. 1508
Patten v. Bond
■ V. Sparks, Re Ford
Patterson v. Gas Light & Coke
Co
Pattison's Estates, Re
Pattison v. Graham
• V. Stockwell
634
2401
1448
[7]
Pattisson v. Gilford . 534, 541
V. Talbot Crosbie [1151]
Paul V. Paul . . . 925, 1629
■ V. Roy .... 724
Paull, iJe . . . 263,269
Pavy's Co., Re . . . 2302
Pawlett, iJe . . . .1144
Pawley v. Colyer [1483], 1863, 1906,
2206
— • V. London & Provincial
Bank . 771, 1352, 1459
• V. Pawley . . .852
Pawsey v. Armstrong [2093], 2110,
2127, 2128
Pawson V. Brown 1586, [1636], 1637
1947
799
1519
2141
838
1039
Paxton, Re, Exp. Pope
V. Douglas .
V. Macreight, Re
reight .
V. Newton .
Payne, Exp., Re Cross
, Re Sinclair .
Mac-
-, Re, Randle v. Payne. 132, 851
V. An Infant . [1164]
- V. Banner . . . 2156
- V. Cork Co. , , . 704
Payne v. Esdaile
V. Evens
V. Fern
V. Cray
V- Hogg
V, Hornby
V. Little
I'. Low
• V. Mortimer
TAQE
. 1327
1113, 1135
. 1940
. 1542
. 788
. 2118
1130, 1428
. 965
. 1365
V. Rocher Colliery Co. 527,
569
V. Stamford, Re, E. of
Stamford 1165, 1188,
1758
. 1428
. 1933
774, 782, 1841
. 1350, 1360
. 620
261, 751, 760,
853, 856, 862
. 1947
. 1365
. 2320
. [772]
. 1668
. 860
V. Tanner
V. Wilson
Paynter v. Carew .
V. Houston
Payton v. Snelling .
Peace and Waller, Re
■ V. Brooks
■ V. Hains
Peach's Patent, Re
Peach V. Pigou
Peacock's Estate .
Trusts, Re
Peacock, Re (14 Eq. 236) 1537, 1669
(14 Ch. D. 212) [1175],
1199, 1213
V. Colling . 1135, 1168, 1419
V. Eastland . .1718
V. Evans . . . 2279
■ V. Frigout, Re Abbott 1542
V. Lewis, Re White-
head 1447, [1611], 1616,
1620
V. Monk . . .861
— V. Morgan . . 427
Peak V. Hilton . . [1548]
Peak Hill Goldfields, Exp., Re
A Debtor .... 1321
Peake's Settled Estate, Re
([1894] 3 Ch. 520) . 1188, 1743
Peake's Settled Estates, Re
([1893] 3 Ch. 430) . 1741
Peake v. Finchley Local Board
V. Highfield .
V. Ledger
1742
400
2241
. 1424
. 422
1256,
[2356]
([1909] 1 Ch. 819) . 1450
V. Bastable's Trustee . 2154
Pearco, Re, Exp. Crosthwaite
(24 Beav. 491)
- V. Crutohfield
- V. Foster
■V. Gardner .
- V. Lindsay .
- V. Morris ,
. 1425
92, 93
. 2144
. 291
1863, [2008]
CCXIV
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Pearoe v. Pearce (7 Sim. 138) . 346
(22 W. R. 69) 37
— (9 Ves. 548) . 935
— (22 Beav. 248) 1080,
1460
V. Powell . . [1546]
• V. Badcliffe,2JeRadcliffe 1453
■ V. Spickett . . .180
V. Watts . . . 2148
Peard v. Morton, Be Luddy . 1541
Peareth v. Marriott . 832, 1571
Pearks v. Moseley . . . 1542
Pearl v. Deacon . . 1863, 2087
Pearl Life Ass. Co. v. Batten-
shaw .... 2188
Pears v. Laing . . 1383, 1868
Pearse, iJe, McLean v. Smith 1448,
1451
([1909] 1 Oil. 304) . 1631
— — V. Green 1122, 1330, 1331,
1345
V. Hewitt
V. Pearse
Pearshall v. Wallar
Pearson's Case
Will, Be .
Pearson & Son v. Dublin Corp.
, Exp.
, Be (17 W. R. 365)
(21 W. R. 401)
(3 Cli. D. 807)
(5 Cli. D. 982)
(51 L. T. 692)
V. Amicable Soc.
V. Beet
V. Benson .
V. Cardon .
V. Pearson
V. Ripley .
V. Spencer
V. Sutton .
Pease v. Cheesbrough
V. Coates
- V. Courtney
. 1504
860, [1567]
. 1823
. 2269
. 1755
245
1251
1159
1145
2284
1220
1104
. 1628
[1096]
1054, 1058
495
684, 1446
. 400
. 579
. 1061
[1458], 1459
. 534
1767, 2155, 2157,
2168, 2208
. 749
2100, 2109, 2112
2030, 2044, 2059
. 1253
. 2037
1319, 1321, 1322
. 1040
V. Fletcher ,
V. Hewitt
V. Jackson
V. Pattinson ,
Peat V. Clayton
V. Jones
Peatfield v. Barlow
Peck and London School Board,
Be .... 2201
& Co. V. Hindes . . 648
V. Beechey . . . 1514
■ V. Peck . . [1527]
Peckham & East Dulwioh
Tram. Co., Be . . . 2423
PAGE
Peckham v. Taylor . . 1628
Pedder's Settlement, Be . . 1631
Redder v. Redder . . .154
, Be Taylor . 892
Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle 116, 559,
610
Peek V. Derry . . . 2261
— V. Gurney 2248, 2249, 2250,
2260, 2266
• V. Matthews . . . 534
■ V. Bay .... 64
V. Savory, Be Harvey . 1542
V. Trinsmaran, &c. Co. 735,
752, 753
Peel's Settled Estate, Be 303, 1699
Settlement, Be . . 1667
Peel V. London & N. Western
Ry. Co.
V. Peel .
Peerless, Be .
, The
Peers v. Ceeley
• V. Lambert
V. Needham
■ V. Sneyd
Pegg V. Wisden
Pegge V. Neath and District
291, 693
. 2139
. 1559
. 153
. 1882
. 2195
. 1819
340, 2189
. 339
Tramways Co.
Pegler v. White
Peile, Be
■ V. Stoddart
PeUlon V. Brooking
Peirson's Settlement, Be
Pelham (L.) v. Harley (L.)
754, 770, 1955,
1970
. 2185
. 269
. 72
871, 1130, 1523
1508
448
V. Hilder . . 1121
V. Newcastle (Ds.) 424,
444, 448, 451, 452
Pell V. De Winton . . . 1930
V. Northampton, &o. Ry.
Co 2223
Pellas V. Neptune Marine Ins.
Co. . . . 39, 1318, 1322
Pelley v. Bascombe . . 1906
PelHng V. Goddard . 1153, 1158
Pelly V. Basoomb . . .979
V. Wathen . . . 1038
PelsaU Coal & Iron Co., Re . 2434
Pelton V. Harrison ([1891] 2
Q. B. 422) 854, 855, 875, 878, 880
Pelton V. Harrison ([1892] 1
Q. B. 118)
Pember v. Eames .
Pemberton v. Barnes
V. Hughes
V. McGill
V. Topham
852
. 403
329, 1804
724, 1523
. 863
. 1352
Pembertone, Be ([1907] W. N.
118) . . 409,759,761
Table of Gases.
ccxv
PAOB
Pembrooko v. Friend . 1477, 1982
Pemsel & Wilson v. Tucker . 2167
Pendarves v. Munro . . 563
Pender, Re 260, 267, 270, 275, 289,
293
V. Pox
V. Lushington
V. Taddei .
Pendlebury v. Walker
Pendleton v. Mackray
V. Rooth
Penfold, Re .
■ V. Bouoli .
V. Mould .
Pengelley v. Herbert, Re
Penhall v. Elwin
Penley v. Anstrutlior
Penn v. Baltimore (L.)
. 2297
. 695
. 40
1935, 2078
. 950
1842, 1868
1370, 1851
. 1136
898, 1630
Old . 1426
. 1634
. 261
723, 739,
1824, 1835, 2142
V. Bibby . 639, 641, 842
V. Jack . . . 652
Pennefather v. Pennefather . 916
■ — V. Short . 190, 191
Pennell v. Deffell . . 1088, 1325
■ V. Dysart (E.) . . 1698
V. Franklin, Re White 1057,
1137
V. Roy . . .799
Penney v. Goodo . . .71
Pennington, Exp. . . 2379, 2380
•, Re, Exp. Cooper . 2284
V. Alvin . . 932
— — • V. Brinsop Coal Co. 610,
612
V. Buckley . . 1430
• — V. Dalbiac 331, 1799, 1803
V. Payne, Re Wilson 1481
. 1123
. 1461
1366, 1449, 2388,
2389
. 940, 1232
. 1358
. 1897
71. 181
Penny v. Aveson
■ V. Francis
V. Penny
0. Pretor
■ • V. Watts
Penrhyn v. Hughes
Penrice v. Williams
Penrose v. Manning, Re Brown 1510
Pensotti v. Pensotti . . 933
People's Caf 6 Co., iJe . . 2434
Pepe V. City & Suburban Bldg.
Soc 2057, 2065
Pepin V. Bruyere 1355, 1357, 1520,
1521
Pepper, iJe . . . 11,936
Peppercorne v. Clench . . 2298
Pepperell v. Hird ... 25
Peppitt, Re, Chester v. Phillips 121,
122, 1506, 1510
Percival v. Dunn . 38, 138, 1989
V. Wright . 1092, 1334, 2256
PAGE
Percy, &c. Iron Mining Co., Re 27
V. Percy . . . 1573
Perham v. Kempster . . 2032
Perkins, Re . . . .270
— ■ {[1907] 2 Ch. 596) 1573,
1620
-, Perkins v. Bagot
V. Bradley
V. Edo
V. Stafford
Perks' Estate, Re .
Perks V. Stothert .
Perkyns v. Baynton
Perls V. Saalfeld
Pern, Re
Perpetual Curate of
Re . . .
Perrett, Exp., Re Frape
1676
715, 2036
. 348, 2195
[1917], 1918
. 2361
[1044]
. 1403
. 529
. 1444
Bilston,
[2373]
266, 267,
279
Perriam, Re, Perriam v. Perriam 2195
Perrin, Re, Court v. Perrin 385, 407,
[1349], 1373
Perring v. Traill
Perrins v. Bellamy
Perry's Case .
• ■ — ■ Estate, Re
Perry, Re {22 W. R.
{23 W. R.
- V. Barker
- V. Barnett
- V. Dorset
- V. Eames
- V. HoU
- V. Keane
- V. Knott
• V. Meddoworoft
- V. Nat. Prov.
England .
• V. Oriental Hotels Co.
433)
335)
1307
1111
1094
2361
232
1157
1922
. 2296
. 506
383, 560, 561
. 1324,2035
. 1838
. 1095
. 1449, 1838
Bk. of
2086
739,
754
V. Phosphor Bronze Co. . 82
V. Shipway . 709, 710, 1255
V. Truefit . . 620, 623
• V. Walker . . . 1898
Perry Almshouses, Re . 1268, 1303
Perry-Davis v. Harbord . . 2332
Perry-Herrick v. Attwood [1312],
2031
Perth Gten. Station Committee
V. Ross .... 553
Peruvian Guano Co., Re, Exp.
Kemp . . . .700
Peruvian Guano Co. v. Book-
woldt .... 132, 722
Peruvian Guano Co. i). Drey-
fus ([1892] A. C. 166) . . 1345
Pesood V. Pesood . . . 395
V. Westminster Corp. . 688
Petar v. Lailey . . . 362
CCXVl
Table of Cases.
PAGE
2167, 2170, 2189
[115], 119
. 934
. 2326
426, [429]
1796, 1807
899, 1026
Peter v. Nioholls
V. Peter
V. Thomas Peter
Peters, Exp.', Be Owen
, Be ' .
V. Bacon
V. Grote
■ V. Lewis & E. Grinstead
%. Co. 1150, 1674, 2149
■ V. Tilly . . .132
Peterson v. Elwes . . . 345
V. Peterson . . 1596
Pethick V. Plymouth Corp. . 602
Petitioning Creditors, Exp., Be
A Debtor . . . . 1320
Peto V. Brighton, &c. Ry. 527, 2141,
2149
V. Peto .... 1634
Petre's Trusts, Be ([1910] 1 Ch.
290) .... 1560,1654
Petre, Exp. L. . . . 965
V. Buncombe . 1345, 2077
• V. Petre 918, 965, 1112, 1385,
1514
Pettit, .Be .... 1136
Pettitt V. Lodge . . . 1943
' & Valentine . .281
Petty V. Cooke . . . 2085
V. Daniel . 376, 379, 434
V. Petty . . . 1445
V. Taylor . 663, 664, 668
Petty t V. Janeson . . .2118
Peyton's Settlement, Be . 1146, 1657
Peyton, Be (10 W. B. 515) . 330
(2 D. & J. 290) 1176,
1212, 1213
(30 Beav. 252) . 1079
(2 Jur. N. S. 1013) 2401
■ V. Bond . . . 928
Pfleger, Be . . . 2388, 2389
Pharmaceutical Soo. v. London
Supply Assoc. . . . 1695
Phelan, Be . . . .1141
V. Tedcastle . . 2144
Phelps, Be (31 Ch. D. 351) 1185,
1218
(28 L. T. 350) . 1157
■ ■ Stokes & Co. V. Comber 2301
v. Prew ... 82
••V.White . . . 2196
Phene, Be ... . 1590
V. Gillam . . . 1131
Pheysey v. Pheysey . 827, 829
Philanthropic Soc. v. Hobson . 1429
Philbrick's Trusts . . .886
Philby V. Hazle . . 268, 1053
Philip Brooking (Rev.), Be . 1298
PhiUp, Be . . . .263
. V. Pennell , , 669, 676
Philips V. Beale
V. Beall
V. Jones
V. Pennef ather
PAGE
146
367
748
1109
PhiUipo V. Munnings . . 1430
Phillimore, iJe . . . 1622
Phillimore's Estate, Be . . 1744
Phillipart v. W. Whiteley, Ld. 2331,
2338
PhilHpott's Charity, Be
PhiUipps V. Philhpps
— - V. Smith .
. 1262
36, 37, 42
. 542
. 1082
Philhp's Trusts, Be
Phillips's Trade Mark, Be 2332, 2337
Phillips, Exp. ■ . . . 2406
(19 Q. B. D. 234) 828
'■ (19 Ves. 122) . 980
' -, Be Harvey . 2287
, Be (34 Ch. D. 67) 1015, 1016
— — ([1891] 2 Ch. 402) . 2344
■ (4 Ch. 629) . . 1881
(49 L. J. Ch. 198) . 1620
(6 Eq. 250) [2387], 2389
, Exp. Bath . . 2058
Nat. Bank . 1927
• and Gill, Be . 376, 377
— — V. Alderton . . 2147
— ■ V. Alhambra Palace Co. 2119,
2125
V. Andrews
V. Barnet
V. Beale
V. Cayles
V. Evans
V. Eyre
V. Foxall
V. G. W. Ry. Co.
V. Gutteridge
V. Holmer .
V. Homfray
[1795], 1807.
1808
927
1387
1426
1875
677
2082
527, 690
1573, 1847
. 91
116, 353, 399,
554, 546, 552, 572, 573,
1344, 2151
V. Howell . . . 2190
V. Hudson . . . 151
V. Ivel Cycle Co. 643, 654
V. James . . . 1652
V. Kearney . .172
V. Lady Llanover [103], 107
V. Low . . . 562
i;. Miller . . . 2037
V. MuUings . . 1637
V. Parry . . . 1605
V. Phillips (40 L.T. 815) 65
• (5 Q. B. D. 60) 839
• (4 D. F. & J.
208) . 2044
(9 Ha. 473) 1330
^— 3 Ha. 299) 1384
Table of Cases.
ccxvu
PAGE
Phillips w. Phillips (29 Ch. D.
673) . 1711
(1 M. & K.
649) [2132]
V. Poole, Re Swain 1303,
1304
V. Probyn . . 1637, 2292
■ V. Silvester [2174], 2180,
2182, 2183
V. Thomas . 600, 602
V. Treeby . . .575
Phillipson v. Emanuel . . 11
V. Gatty 1095, 1097, 1106,
1109
• ■ V. Gibbon 2162, 2167,
2169, 2189
■ V. Hayter . . 883
V. Kerry . 1638, 2237
Phillpotts, Be . . . 277
Philpott V. Lepain . . . 2001
V. St. George's Hosp. [1248],
' 1253, 1304, 1449
PhHps, Be ... . 1512
Phipps V. Jackson 527, 534, 2141,
2142
V. Lovegrove . . 1081
• V. Tod . .19, [792]
Phoenix Ass. Co. v. Spooner . 2184
Bessemer Steel Co., 2?e 1965
Life Co., Be . . 701
Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Hart-
mont 431, 435, 1335, 2265, 2269
Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Mal-
leson . . . .138
Photographic Artists' Co-op.
Co., Be . . . .31
Pioard v. Hine . 853, 861, 2152
Pick, Be ... . . 2403
Pickard, Be, Turner v. Nichol-
son .. . 1803
W.Anderson . . 1147
■ V. G. N. Ry. Co. . 572
V. Mitchell . . 1576
V. Prescott . . 634
V. Wheater, Be Robm-
son . '. . . 328, 1371
Pickering's Estate, Be . .155
Pickering, Be, Pickering v.
Pickering [56, 61], 83,
155
V. Bp. of Ely . . 2141
V. Cape Town Ry. 392, 395
■ — V. Hanson . . 517
V. IKracombe Ry. 475, 530
V. Pickering . 1616, 2235
■ V. Stephenson . . 702
V. Vowles . . 1711
Pickersgill v. Rodger . . 1529
Piokford V, Brown . . ■ 1449
TAOB
Pickford v. Hunter . . 799
Pickles V. Sutcliffo . . . 2144
Picton V. Cullen . . .757
Pidding v. Howe . . . 623
Piddock V. Brown . . . 1839
Piddook V. Burt . . 431, 2105
Pidgeley v. Rawling . . 545
Pierce v. Williams . ' . . 2075
Piercy, Be ([1907] 1 Ch. 289) . 1700
, Whit wham v. Piercy 1305,
1522
V. Finney . . . 2104
V. Young 146, 363, 389, 392
Pierson v. Grundell . [1918]
V. Knutsford Est. Co. 1048,
1049
Pieschel v. Paris . . 1252, 1258
Pieters v. Thompson . . 722
Pietroni v. Transatlantic Co. .1314
Piffard v. Beeby . . 67, 934
Pigg V. Clarke . . .1511
Piggott V. Anglo-Am. Tel. Co. . 646
V. Jefiferson
u. Piggott
V. Toogood
Pigot's Case
Pigott, Be
& G. W. By. Co,
V. Cubley
V. Pigott (2 N. R,
1432
. 1622
. 104
. 2243,2245
. 487
Re 2139,
2180, 2394
. 1926
14) . 340
(4 Eq. 549) 882, 915
(24 Feb. 1873,
B. 1225)
115)
V. Williams
(W. N,
Pike, Re ([1902] W. N. 42)
, Burke v. Burke
V. Cave .
V. Dickinson .
V. Fitzgibbon
• V. Hamlyn, Re Rowe
V. Hoare
V. Keene
V. Nicholas
11. Stevens
Pilcher v. Arden
V. Hinds
■ V. Rawlins
• V. Rigby
Pile V. Pile, Exp. Lambton
Pilkington v. Baker
■ V. Gwynne
V, Pilkington
[1642],
1645
(93)
. 1622
. 1318
. 714
. 1459
. 510, 851
. 106
853, 855, [859],
861, 869
1553
1824
98, 427
658, 661, 662, 663
. 1033
. 1051
3
. 2031, 2037, 2042
. 1053
1951,
2384
729, 740
. 1905
[1917]
, l.TOO
(No. 2)
CCXVIU
Table of Cases.
Pillan V. Thompson
Piller V. Roberts
Pilley V. Baylis
V. Davis
V. Robinson .
PAGE
. 107
146, 147
. 361
. 361
. 61
Pillgrem v. PiQgrem, Be Mor-
gan . . 420,1499,1991,2030
Pilling, iJe .... 1190
■ V. Joint Stock Institute 297
• V. PUHng . . . [729]
Pirn V. Harris . . .2112
Pimbley v. Molyneux, Be
Molyneux . . . 1460, 1461
Pimm V. Insall . . 333, 1362
Pince V. Seattle 265, 1053, 1106,
1130, 1135, 1314
Pincbard v. PeUows . 1851, 1879
Pincbin v. L. & Bl. Ry. . 517, 2354
Pinokard, Be . . .1356
Pinder, Be . . . .288
V. Smith . . . 1232
Pmo, Be . . . 93, 293
Pinede's Sett., Be . . . 886
Pinet & Cie. v. Maison Pinet 626,
[618, 682]
Pinfold v: ShiDingford . . 1619
Pinhorn v. Souster . . 1894
Pini V. Roncoroni . 393, 2111, 2113
Pink, Inre . . . 984, 1366
Pinkerton v. Baston . 1047, 1048
Pinkett V. Wright . . 1088, 1092
Pinkney & Sons' Steamship Co.,
Ld. and Reduced, Be . 2431, 2434
Pirniey v. Hunt . . 1356, 1802
Pinnook v. Bailey
Pinto V. Badman
Piper V. Bateman
• • V. Coke
. 487
. 624
. 232
[1923]
■ u. Piper (W. N. (76) 202) 430
(1 J. & H. 91) . 1477
Pirie v. Goodall . . 627, 2329
Pisani v. A.-G. for Gibraltar . 2256
Pit V. Cbolmondeley . .1340
Pitoairn, Be, Brandreth v. Colvin 1616
Pitman's Patent . . . 2320
Pitman v. Holborrow, Be Mab-
bett . . . 1570
V. Pitman, Be Bird . 1489
Pitt V. Bonner . 774, 1090, 2079
v. Dacres (L.) . . 1382
V. Davis . . . 2161
V. Jones . [1795], 1805
V. Snowden . . . 769
v. White 333, 1784, [1797], 1806
Pitt Pitts V. George & Go. . 666
Pitt Rivers, Be, Scott v. Pitt
Rivers .... 1305
Pitts V. La Fontaine . .1136
Fix, Be .... 1429
PAGE
Pixton V. Tong . . . 1080
Planet Bldg. Co., Be, Be Emerson 471
Plant, Be, Exp. Hayward
V. Bourne
V. Kendrick
771
. 2143
. 78
. 940
. 17
. 2434
459, 522
. 1219
1519
Plasket V. Beeby .
Plaskitt V. Eddis .
Plaskynaston Tube Co., Be
Plating Co. v. Parquharson
Piatt, Be . . .
V. A.-G. of N. S. Wales
V. Mendel . 177, 1826, 1910
- V. Walter . . 670, 799
Player's Trade Mark, Be 2330, 2337,
2338
Player, Be, Exp. Harvey . 2285
V. Eoxhall . . . 1470
Playfair v. Cooper . 1571, 1573, 1871
Playf ord v. Playf ord
Playters v. Abbott
Pledge V. Buss
— V. Carr
V. White
. 1863
. 1711,1712
. 2083,2087
[2014], 2015
[2014], 2015
— & Sons V. Pomfret 37, 42
Plenderleith, Be . 475, 984, 1366
Plestow V. Johnson . . 741
Plews V. Baker . . .392
V. Samuel . . . 2182
Plimmer v. Wellington (M.) . 1990
Plimpton V. Maloolmson 515, [630],
631, 634, [639]
V. Spiller 614, 631, 634
Plomer v. Macdonough . . 460
Plomley v. Penton . . . 1864
Plowden v. Gayford, Be Onslow 879
Plowright V. Lambert [2255], 2255,
2266, [2276]
Plumbe V. Neild '. . 1621, 1700
Plumbly V. Ferryman . 513, 676
V. The TivoU, Ld. [1043]
Plumby, Be, Exp. Grant 2299, 2300
Plumer v. Gregory 1066, 1096, 1359,
2123
V. Marchant
Plumley v. Horrell
V. Plumley
Plummer, Be (1 Ph. 66)
— — ([1900] 2
, 1468, 1470
. 2155
[2130]
. 1407
Q. B.
790) 2286
Plumpton V. Burkenshaw . 774
Plunket V. Penson . 1367, 1373, 2004
Plunkett V. Lewis . . . 799
Plyer, iJe .... 1207
Plymouth Mutual Co-op. Society
V. Traders' Pub. Assn. . 68
Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. J. Parr
& Co 653
Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Puncture
Proof, &c. Co. . . . 661
Table of Cases.
ccxix
Pooklington v. Holford .
Pocook and Prankerd, Re
V. Kennedy
PAGE
[1649]
. 1745
[1789]
. 1468
Poe V. Shortt, Re Owen .
Poinons, Re, Sutton v. Martin . 850
Pointon v. Pointon . . 1419
Polak V. Everett . . 2083, 2084
Poland V. CoaU
Pole V. Leask
V. Pole .
Polini V. Gray
. 494
. 1324
2359
32, 151, 840, 841,
843, 844, 1421
Sturla I'. Frecoia 151
Pollard's Sett., Re .
PoUard, Re (20 Q. B. D. 656) .
(V.-O. M., 18 June,
1878)
([1902] W. N. 49)
- ([1903] 2 K. B. 41)
872
273
1732
238,
250
444
V. Clayton
V. Gare
V. Geake, Re Hunt
V. MoU
V. Photographic Co.
527, 2156
. 562
1697,
1698
. [661]
[661],
671, 674
. 1407
1054
1751
82
PoUett, Re, Exp. Minor
PoUey's Trustee v. Whetham .
Pollock, Re ([1906] 1 Ch. 146) .
■ 0. Garle
V. Lands Improvement
Co. . . . 2030
V. Lester . . .600
V. PoUock . . 1557, 1699
V. Rabbits . 344, 831, 2186
Pomerania, The . . .129
Pomeroy and Tanner, Re . 263
• ■ V. Summerhay, Re
Trott's Estate . . . 1370
Pomery v. Willway, Re Wall . 1301
Pomfret v. Graham, Re Homer 1513
Pongerard, Re
Ponsardin v. Peto .
Ponsford v. Hartley
V. Swaine
PonsoUe v. Wibber
Ponsonby v. Hartley
V. Ponsonby
Pontitex v. Famham
V. Foord .
. 972
. 625
. 1351
. 95
. 2299
. 73
924, 925
. 265
. 21
. 853
. 1032
. 459
Pontypool Union v. Buck
Pool V. Pool .
V, Sacheverel .
Poole's Char., Re, Exp. NiohoUs 1282
Patent, Re . . . 2320
■ Settlement, Re . 1741, 1755
Poole & Clarke's Contract, Re . 2186
— , Re (L. R. 4 C. P. 350) . 1070
Poole, Re (V.-C. M., 17 Nov.
1876) . . . [948]
, Poole V. Poolo . 792
• , Thompson v. Bennett 887,
1367
V. Adams . . . 2184
- — — V. Downes . . . 732
V. Foxwell . . . 1376
V. Nat. Bk. of Chma . 2433
17. Pass .1128,1132,1136
1'. Poole . .1368,1385
V. Wood . . .741
Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham 29, 32,
117, 247, 435, 819, 835, 1876,
1878
Pooley, Re ■ . . 1057, 1137, 1539
V. Bosanquet
V. Driver
V. Harradine
Poor's Land Char.,
[2027], 2042
. 2127,2129
. 2085
Bethnal
. 1282
. 1304
Green, Re .
Poor V. Mial .
Pope's Contract, Re ([1911] 2
Ch. 442) . . . 1754
Trusts, Re . . 890, 898
Pope, Exp., Re Paxton . . 1947
, Re (17 Q. B. D. 743) 758, 759,
760, 2004
([1908] 2 K. B. 169) . 2285
, Sharp V. Marshall . 1620
(}. Biggs . . . 1896
V. Curll . . 672, 673
V. Garland . . . 2166
V. G. E. Ry. Co. . . 2183
Popham V. Exham . . 1056
Popjoy V. Rich . . . 294
Poplar & Blaokwall School, Re 1155,
1276
Pople, Re, Exp. Baker . . 1714
Popple and Barratt, Re . . 2201
V. Sylvester . 1345, 1870
Poppleton and Jones, Re . 1949
Popplewell, Exp., Re Storey 1941, 1943
Porcher v. Wilson . . .1475
Porrett, Re . . . .262
V. White . . 1083, 1313
Portadown, &c. Ry. Co., Exp. 2377
Portal and Lamb, Re . 1554, 1556
Portalis v. Tetley . . . 1933
Portalington (L.) v. Soulby 713, 721
Porte V. Williams . . . 1366
Porter, Re 2 Jur. N. S. 349 ; 4
W. R. 417) . 153, 1186
(3 Eq. Rep. 719) . 1208
(4 W. R. 443) . 1217
, Porter v. De Quette-
ville . . . 1678
V. Baddeley 1610, 1616, 1617,
1618
ccxx
Table of Cases.
Porter v. Corbet
V. Fry
V. Lopes
■ V. Moore
PAGE
. [731]
. 1540
. 748, 1804
. 1082,2245
0. Porter (9 July, 1859,
B. 2587) . [778]
(37 Ch. D. 420) 1807
(21 Jan, 1871,
B. 303) [1648]
■ — (10 Feb. 1877,
B. 435) . . . . 1648
Portishead & Co. v. Bristol, &c.
Co 400
Portland (D.) v. Hill . . 543
■ District Council and
Tilley, iJe . . . .821
Portlock V. Gardner . . 1419
Portman v. Home Hosp. Assoc. 635
V. MOl . . 2162, 2196
Portsea Island Bldg. Soc, Re . 2065
V. Bar-
clay . [1960], 1967, 2061, 2063
Portsmouth (L.) v. Effingham
(L.) 918
Portuguese Consolidated Mines,
Be, Exp. Badman . . 1324
Portus V. Street . . . 1549
Post V. Marsh . . 2148, 2149
Postage Stamp Automatic Co.,
Re 2269
Postlethwaite, Re, Postlethwaite
V. Rickman 91, 93,
94, 2255
■ — — V. Lewthwaite . 1712
V. Mounsey . 1428
■ V. Tavers . . 1920
Potheoary v. Pothecary . 1430, 1450
Pott's Estate, Be . . . 1807
Pott V. Brassey, Re Alhiutt . 1632
Potter, Re (7 Eq. 484) 909, 1014,
1016
(W. N. (89) 69) . 1758
■ -, Potter V. Potter . 1574
■ V. Baker . . [1492]
V. Chambers . . 247
V. Duffield . . . 2143
V. Edwards . . 1856, 1906
V. Jackson . . . 2114
V. Peters . . . 2145
■ V. Rankin . . .287
V. Saunders . .2161
Potteries, &c. Ry. Co., Be 2409, 2410
V. Minor 2410
, Shrewsbury and N.
Wales Ry. Co., Be [2416], 2422
Pottier, Be, Exp. Met. Bd. of
Works .... 2386
Potts, Be, Exp. Taylor . . 761
—^ V. Button , , . 1061
PAGE
Potts V. Leighton . . . 740
V. Smith . . . 1579
— V. Surr . . 1634, 2273
■ ■ V. Warwick, &c. Canal Co. 753
Pouey V. Hordcrn . . 1357, 1677
Poulett (E.) V. Hill 1835, 1836, 1837
— V. Hood . .2186
Poulter V. Shaokel, Be Briant 905,
906, 907, 1587
Pound (Henry), Son & Hutching,
Be . . . 736, 754, 1840
Pountain, Re ... 737
Pountney v. Clayton
Poupard v. EardeU
Povah V. Walker
Powdress v. Jones .
Powell's Trade Mark, Re
Trusts, Re
. 570
104, 105
. 207
. 915
2329, 2332
. 1572
Powell & Thomas v.
Jones & Co.
Evans
1098, 1333,
2270
■, Re (4 K. & J. 338) 1208,1217
(10 Ha. 134) . . 1572
, Crossland v. Holh-
day . . . 1509
■ DufEryn Co. v. Taff Vale
Ry. Co. . . . 2142
- V. Aiken . . 573, 1907
- V. Birmingham Vinegar
Brewery Co. [617], 2342
- V. Broadhurst
- V. Burney .
- V. Cobb
• V. Elliott
■ V. Head
- V. Helmsley
1855
. [35]
. 146, 367
[2193], 2194
. 665
. 533
- V. Hulkes, Re Hulkes
-V. Jewsbury
- V. Lewis
- V. London and
vincial Bank
- V. Marshall .
- V. Martyr .
- V. Matthews
- V. Merrett .
- V. Nevitt
- V. Oakley .
-U.Powell (10 Ch,
243)
■ V. Riley
■ ?', Robins
1119,
1122
. 819
940, 1232
Pro-
2037, 2038,
2045
349, 2189
. 2181
. 1208
894, 1585
. 315
909, 1016
130;
19 Eq. 422) [346],
348, 349, 1808
(L. R. 3 P. &
M. 55) . 920
([1900] 1 Ch.
1062, 1637, 2272,
2273
. 1475
1368
Tahte of Cases.
cexxi
PAOE
2151, 2207
. 2157
. 1877
. 1419
361, 362
. 719
towell V. Smith
■ V. Thomas .
■ V. Trotter .
— V. Wallworth
V. Williams
— ■ V. Wright .
Power's Policies, Re 1481, 1905, 1990
Power, Re. {W. N. (76) 205) 2400,
2404
(W. N. (01) 158) . 886
and Carton, Re . .1915
• V. Banks . . . 1108
— ■ V. Ha3me . . . 1542
V. Power . . 1057, 1113
■ — V. Quealy . . . 1511
Powers, Re, Lindsell v. Phillips 312,
1381, 1421
V. Bathurst . . 680
V. White . . . [48]
Powersoourt v. Powerscourt 1252,
1301
Powis V. Corbit . . .1605
Powles V. Hargreaves . . 2301
Pownall V. Pryor, Re Hake 121, 1424
Powys V. Blagrave . ' . 543
Poynder's Settled Estates, Re,
Dickson-Poynder v. Cook
Poynder, Re, Poynder v. Cook
V. G. N. Ry.
1741
[950]
697
1573
1841
Poyser, Re ([1910] 2 Ch. 444)
Praed v. Hull
PragneU v. Batten, Re Hardi-
man . [1784], 1791, 1795, 1808
Prance v. Sympson . . 1326
PrangneU v. Prangnell . . 808
Prater, Re, Designe v. Beare . 1555
Pratt, Re . . . [1231]
, Pratt V. Pratt . 1555
V. Archer . . . 517
V. Bull. . . 2000,2041
V. Inman 420, 443, 453, 1406
. 870, 926
. 1128
. 80, 1040
. 1038
. 379
1938
1914, 1915, 2256
1562,
• V. Jenner
V. Keith
V. Pratt
■ V. Vizard
V. Walker
Preeoe v. Gilling
Prees v. Coke
Prendergast v. Lushington
Prentice v. London
• V. Phillips
V. Prentice
Prescot Masonic Hall Co., Re
Prescott V. Phipps, Re Alcook
V. Tyler .
Prosland v. Bingham
Press and Inskip, Re
1574
401
80
1425
193
18.37,
1872
1840
561
281
Prestney v. Corp. of Colchester 55,
80, 1251, 1303
Preston v. Etherington . . 432
V. Lamont . . 37
- t;. Luck 515, 2143, 2148, 2151
?;. Meux . . .186
V. Neale . 1935, 2044, 2049
V. Tunbridge Wells
Opera House 452, 1897
. — V. Waters, Re Waters 1430,
1431
V. Wilson . . . 1863
■ — ■ V. Yarmouth (Corp.) . 756
• Bkg. Co. V. AUsup 125, 188,
816
Corp. V. Eulwood . 45
Prestwioh v. Poley . . 125
Pretoria Pietersburg Ry., Re 27, 29
Prettyjohn v. Pyke . [1888]
Price's Patent Candle Co., Re 2330,
2331, 2336
Pat. Co. V. Bauwen's
Pat. Co.
Price, Exp.
Re Roberts
, Re (6 Eq. 460)
■ (W. N. (83) 202)
• (W. N. (94) 169)
([1905] 2 Ch. 55)
, Exp. Sear
, In the Ooods of .
, Leighton v. Price
, Price V. Price .
, Stafford v. Stafford
. 651
. 1837
. 2283
1181, 1187
. 1212
1188, 1213
. 1555
481
1751
1501
886,
887
Tomlin v. Latter 1357, 1677
Williams v. Jenkins 1130,
1451, 1454, 1608
V. Barker
V. Blakemoi;e
V. Carver
V. Clinton
V. Couch
V. Denbigh, &c. Ry,
V. Green
V. Hutchinson
V. Jenkins
V. John
V. Kirkham .
V. Ley .
V. Manning
V. Mayo
V. MoBeth
. 2086
. 1090, 1095
940, 941, 1982
. 246
. 126, 1050
Co. . 2140
. 529
[455], 459
. 1627
. 2050
. 2085
. 2151, 22,37
. 103
[1593], 1594, 1595
. 1878
V. Peppercorne . . 2122
V. Price (15 L. J. Ch. 13) 2231
(48 L. J. Ch. 215) 74,
98, 467
— (35 Ch. D. 297) 1367,
2041
CCXXll
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Price V, Price (15 Sim. 484) . 1372
(UBeav. 598) . 1629
V. Rickards . . .135
■ v. Salusbury 842, 844, 2147,
2148
Prichard v. Richardson, Be
Sham's Trusts . 1277
■ V. Wilson . . 719
Pride, Re, Shackell v. Colnutt . 2046
V. Bubb . . 864, 887
V. rooks . . 1106, 1135
Prideaux v. Lonsdale . 1634, 1637
Priest V. Parrot . . . 2291
• V. Uppleby, Re Salmon 826,
1104, 1105, 1106
Priestly and Davidson, Re . 2200
V. Lamb . . . 1013
Priestman v. Thomas
V. Tindall
Primrose, Re
Prince, Re, Godwin v. Prince
, Hopewell v. Barnes
— ■ V. Cooper
V. Hine
■ V. Howard .
■ ■ V. Nicholson
Princess Clementine, The
P. of W. V. Liverpool
P. of W. Co. V. Palmer
Pring, Re
Pringle & Co., Re .
V. Gloag
. 139
. 1091
1080, 1217
1449,
1451
[468]
328
185
1364
12
75
123
1218
147
271, 1050
V. Sec. of State for India 240
Printers', &c. Trade Protection
Society, Re . 1630, [2103]
Printing, &c. Co. v. Ducker . 107
V. Sampson . 2140
Prioleau v. U. S. . . 66, 67
Prior V. Bagster . 739, 740, 753
V. Horniblow . . 1432
V. Moore, Re Moore . 1543
Prisoilla, The ... 2022
Prison Charities, Re (16 Eq.
129) . . . 1248, 1258, 1260
Prisoners' Charity, Exp. Christ's
Hospital .... 1260
Prisoners (Gifts for) Char., Re . 1278
Pritohard, Exp., Re Dodd . 1406
■ V. Norris . . 319
V. Roberts 935, 1048, 1051
Pritchett v. English and Colonial
Syndicate 408, 480, 483, 1363,
2000
Pritt V. Clay .... 1341
Proby V. Landor . . . 1676
Procter v. Atkinson, Re Atkin-
[1400]
V. SmUes
90
Proctor V. Bayley .
V. Bennis .
V. Cooper .
V. Webster
PAGE
519, 622, 632
. 635
. 2041
. 677
Professional, &c. Soc, Re . 2061
Prole V. Soady . 909, 926, 1626
Propert v. Parker . . . 2207
■ V. Rowlands . [1463]
Prosser v. Bank of England . 154
V. Mossop . . . 1419
V. Rice . . 2035, 2044
Protector Endowment Co. v.
Whitlam . . . .435
Prothero v. Phelps . .2158
Proud V. Bates . . 250, 574
Proudfoot V. Hume . 1083, 1443
Prout V. Cock . . . 1863
Provident Building Society v.
Greenhill 1872, 1905, 2052, 2057
Provincial Bank of Ireland v.
O'Reilly .... 1343
Prowse V. Abingdon . . 1367
V. Spurgin . . 1432, 1596
Prudential Ass. Co. v. Edmonds 1590
Prudential Co. v. Knott . . 676
V. Thomas . 491
Prudential Insur. Co. v. Inland
Rev. Commrs. . . .161
Pryce, Re ([1911] 2 Ch. 286) 887,
888, 1357
-, Re
■ V. Bury
• V. Pryce
Pryer v. Gribble
Prynne, Re .
Prynnes, Re .
Pryor's Settlement, Re
Pryor v. City Offices Co.
V. Petre
. 1091
1864, 1974, 1982
. 357
377, 2141, 2214
. 850
. 510
. 2403
. 789
. 2310
V. Pryor . 1675, 1804, 1805
Pryse's Estate, Re . . .1680
Pryse v Cambrian Ry. Co. . 2184
Prjrtheroh, Re, Prytheroh v.
WiUiams 737, 749, 1663, 1897,
1905
PubUc Works Commrs. v. Hill 531
Puekering's Charities, Re . 1264
Puckett & Smith, Re . . 2196
Pugh, Be . . 277, 278, 1147
, Lewis V. Pritohard 819.
V. Golden Valley Ry. Co.
820
582,
697
1866
V. Heath
Pulbrook, Exp., Re London, &c.
Assoc. . .188
— — — — ■ V. Richmond Mining
Co 475, 704
PuUbrook's Case . . . 1039
Tahle of Gases.
ccxxui
PAGE
PuUen V. Smith ... 89
■ V. Snelus ... 37
PuUing V. G. E. Ry. Co. . . 1405
■ ■;;. L. C. & D. Ry. Co. 2352,
2353, 2354
Pullman, Exp., Ee West Riding
Building Soc.
Pubnan v. Meadows
Pulsford V. Richards
Pulteney v. Darlington
V. Warren
2057
. 1467
2247, 2249
. 1491
914, 2256
Pumfrey, Ee, Worcester, &c. Co.
V. Blick . . . 1131, 1132
Punch V. Boyd . . . 676
Punchard v. Tomkins . . 475
Punnett, Exp., Ee Kitchin . 1894
Punt V. Symons 695, 704, 1993,
2057
Purcell V. Blennerhasset . 1370, 1388
Purday v. Jolmson, Ee Joy
Purdew v. Jackson
Pure Spirit Co. v. Fowler
Purkiss V. Holland
Purnell v. G. W. Ry.
1253
895
30
496
827
Purser v. Darby
1080, 1218, 2152,
2190
Purvis V. Abraham
Pusey V. Pusey
Putman, Exp.
PuttreU, Ee .
Pyatt, Ee, Exp. Rogers
Pybus, Ee
V. Gibb
V. Smith
Pye, Exp.
■ V. British Automobile Syn-
dicate
V. Butterfield
(Martin), Ee .
Pyke, Exp. .
Pyle, Ee, Pyle v. Pyle
• • Works, Be . 1321
Pym V. Bowreman
V. Lockyer
V. Pym .
Pyman & Co. v. Burt
Pyncent v. Pyncent
Pyne, Ee
. Lilley v. A.-G,
Pynsent's Trusts, Ee
Pyrke v. Waddingham
Q.
. 1216
. 2140
. 2289
. 1153
. 1698
264, 278
. 2084
. 1120
1537, 1667
531
97
1216
1070
1490
, 1322, 1965
. 1862
. 1667
■ [7341
. 299
. 918
. 262
1252, 1257
. 1236
. 2167
Quarman v. Williams . . 486
Quarrell v. Beckford 182, 353, 779,
1898, 1904, 1906
Quarrier v. Colston . 714, 1378
PAGE
Quartormaine's Case, Be Lon-
don, &c. Hotels Co. . 1370, 1848
Quartz Hill Co. v. BeaU . 512, 676
&o. Co., Be, Exp.
Young . . . .106
Quayle v. Davidson . . 1509
Queade's Trusts, Be . 879, 1627
Quebrada, &o. Co., Be . . 2431
Queen's BuUding Soc, Ee . 2063
Exp., Be
Threlfall . . . .1894
Queen's Coll. Oxon. v. Darby . 592
Hotel, Cardiff, Ld., iJe 1876
Proctor w. Fry . .153
School, Chester, Ee . 1259
Queen Camel, Vicar of, Be 2365,
2.379
• tJ. Lee ... 1952
of Spain v. Parr . 1333, 1336
Queensbury Leases, Ee . .1871
Queensland Land, &c. Co., Ee,
Davis V. Martin . [1956], 1970
Queensland Mercantile Co., Be 480
Mercantile and
Agency Co., Ee . . . 195
Queensland Mercantile Co., Be,
Exp. Australasian Inv. Co. . 2034
Queensland Mercantile Co., Be,
Exp. Union Bank of Aus-
traha .... 843
Quicke v. Chapman . . 562
Quilter v. Heatley . . 65, 75
V. Mapleson . .816
Quin V. Ratcliff ... 87
Qumcfey v. Sharpe . . 1326, 1384
Quinion v. Home . . .2165
Quinn, Exp., Ee Nicholson . 1038
V. Leatham . . . 601
Quinton v. Frith . . . 978
Quirk, Ee, Quirk v. Quirk . 933
R.
R., Be . 518, 1183, [1205],
— ■ and P. Advance Co. v. Clears
— and P. Advance Co. v. Mit-
chell, Be Giles
312, 313,
1421, 1836,
— V. Birmingham
— V. Chadwick
— V. Clark
— V. Collins .
— ■ V. Harborne
— V. Income Tax Commrs.
— v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co.
— V. Norris .
— ■ V. Roberts
1219
1947
822,
2037
1017
2245
1017
2245
1590
1308
2412
2075
999
CCxxiV
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Rabbeth v. Donaldson, Be Abdy 828,
922, 1565
V. Squire . . . 1535
Rabbitts v. Woodward . 418, 445
Raby v. Ridehalgh 1084, 1108, 1109
Race, Be . . 994, 996, 1000
Raokham v. Raokham . [1843]
■ V. Siddall 1080, 1098,
1109, 1460
Raekstraw, Be . . .1190
RadolifEe, Be (22 Beav. 201) . 1884
(7 Ch. D. 733) . 748
, European Ass.
Soo. V. Radoliffe 1368
■ , Pearoe v. Rad-
cliffe . . 1453
-, Radoliffe v. Bewes 872,
1676
• V. Buckley
V. Ecoles .
-v. Radoliffe
■ V. Rushworth
• ■ V. Salmon
Radde v. Norman .
Radford v. Willis .
Radmore v. Niner .
Radnor's (E.) WiU, Be
Rae V. Joyce
■ V. Meek
Raffety v. King
Raggett, Be, Exp. Williams
V. Findlater
1511
1232
Raiker v. Pike
Raikes, Be .
- V. Raikes, Be Tunno
. 2127
. 1910
. 626
. 2167,2189
. 1492
[1764], 1768
. 2278
. 1104,1105
. 1863
, 2015
, 627
[2098]
. 230
, 1579
2398
2082
Railstone, Be
Railton v. Matthews
Railway and Electric Appliances
Co., Be . . . 2318
Cos. Act, Be . [1958]
Publishing Co., Be,
Exp. Sundays . . 2237
■ — Sleepers Supply Co.,
2, 208, 2430
Comms,
Be
Railways,
O'Bourke .
Rainbow v. Juggins
Raincook v. Simpson
of
V.
290, 298
. 2087
. 769
Rainford v. James Keith & Co.
1928,
2037
Gwynn v.
1327, 1384
1381, 1385
898, 1444
. 1866
. 1839
Raleigh v. Gosohon . . 383
Ralph, Be, Ralph v. Taylor 2332,
2333, 2342
Rainforth, Be,
Gwynn
Rains v. Buxton
Rainsdon, Be
Rakestraw v. Bowyer
V. Brewer
Ralph V. Carriok
V. Hortou
PAOE
1511
329
[2460], 2463
Ram, Exp. .
Ramage v. Womaok . . 1983
Rameshur v. Koonj . . 588
Ramon v. Ramon . . . 972
Ramsay v. Gilchrist . . 1300
■ — V. Margrett . . 1938
V. Shelmerdine . . 1490
V. Simpson (1899, 1
I. R. 69) . 1132, 1880
V. Simpson (1899, 1
I. R. 194) . . . .740
Ramsbotham v. Senior . 91, 1002
Ramsbottom, Be . . 1370, 1851
V. Freeman . 511
V. Morrell
V. Willis
Ramsden v. Dyson
V. Langley
■ V. Smith .
Ramsey v. Craddas
Ramshire v. Bolton
Ramskill v. Edwards
Ramwell's Case, Be Exchange
Banking Co.
Ranee, Be .
Rancliffe v. Parkins
— V. Parkyns
Rand v. Cartwright
Randall, Be .
V. British & American
Shoe Co.
V. Lithgow
V. Morgan
V. Russell .
Randegger v. Holmes
Randell,.iJe(56L. T. 8) .
, Hood V. Randell .
, Randell v. Dixon
. 1374
. 1863
. 2157
. 1882
. 1632
. 592
2247, 2248
. 2261
2288
277
2021
1626
1863
1212
628
482
1628
1711
389
833
290
1252,
1543
V. Thompson . . 389
Randfield v. Randfield . . 745
Randle v. Gould . . .921
V. Payne, Be Payne 132, 851
Ranelagh's (L.) Will, Be 1108, 1711,
1712
2156
2075
687
Ranelagh (L.) v. Melton .
Ranelaugh v. Hayes
Rangeley v. Mid. Ry.
Ranger v. G. W. Ry. (4 D. & J.
74)
71
Ranken v. AUaro
Rankin v. Huskisson
V. Lay
Ranking, Be .
Ransom v. Boyd
Ransome v. Burgess
106, 2128, [2300],
2301
. 520
. 2139
. 1513
432, 466
. 964
Table of Casei.
Ccxxv
PAGE
Rausomes V. Graham . . 2333
Ransomes, Sims & Jefferies, Ee [2438]
Ranson v. Patton . . 118, 825
■ ■ V. Piatt
Rantzen v. Rothschild .
Raper v. Fortesoue
Raphael, lie .
^([1899] 1 Ch. 853)
, Exp. Salomon
494
523
563
1187
293
1023
1124
526,
2149, 2177
Rapid Road Transit Co., Be 1039,
1040, 1041, 1042
603
480,
744
972
V. Boehm .
V. Thames Val.
Ry.
Rapier v. London Tram. Co.
■ V. Wright, Cowan's Est.
Raplett, Re .
Rasbotham v. Shropshire Union
&c. Co.
Rasch & Co. V. WaKert
Rashdall v. Ford .
Rassam v. Budge .
Ratchff, Re .
V. Ratcliff .
RatcUfie lu Barnard
— V. Mendelssohn
70
. 19
. 2248
. 37
1148, 1238
. 153
2037, 2042
. 2300
Rathmine Drainage Act, Re . 1773
Rattenberry, Re . . . 1538
Rauhn v. Fischer . . . 724
Ravald v. Russell . . . 1863
Raven, Re . . . . 266
V. Nicholson, Re Elliott 1302
Ravenscroft v. Frisby . , 1432
V. Jones . . 1668
Ravenshaw v. Barker, Be Bar-
ker 1111
Raw, Re, Morris v. Griffiths . 1489
Rawbone's Trusts, Re . . 1092
Rawley v. Rawley . . .1319
Rawhngs, Exp., Re Davis . 1938
■ V. Lambert
V. Pearson
Rawhns' Trusts, Re
Rawlins v. MoMahon
V. Wickham
512, 748, 1358
. [932], 934
. 1511
. 122
[2092], 2096,
2248, 2249
Rawhnson v. Miller 1804, 1806, 1807,
1808
■ V. Moss . 733,
V. RawHnson .
Raworth v. Marriott
Rawson, Re .
■ V. Samuel .
1042, 2099
. 1555
1056, 2275
[1017]
1318, 1322
1080, 1106
92
Rawsthrone v. Rowley
Rawstone v. Corp. of Preston
Ray's Settled Estates, Re 1752, 1755
Ray, Exp 860
— , Re (47 L. T. 500) . . 1220
VOL. I.
I'AGE
Ray, Re ([1896] 1 Ch. 468, C. A.) 899
V. Hazeldine . . .561
V. Walker . . . 707
Raybould, Re . 1497, 1499, 1991
Rayley v. Best . . . 1824
Rayment v. Rayment 1413, [1505],
Raymond's (L.) Case
Raymond v. Tapson
Rayner's Settled Estates, Re . 1742
— -Trustees and Green-
1549
1013
106
way. Re
Rayner, Exp.
, Re .
([1904] 1 Ch.
V. Koehler
V. Preston
V. Stone
Rea V. Pinckney
Read, Exp., Re Paine
, Re
-, Turner v. Read
. 2153
. 2352
1147, 1150
176) . 1556
. 1358
. 2184
. 2141
. 439
. 2289
302, 303
. 1512
. 1378
2120, 2121
. 70
• V. Anderson
V. Bailey
V. Barton
V. Blunt . . . 1574
11. Duppa . . . 1049
V. Eley . . .160
V. Friendly Society of Op-
erative Stonemasons 601
■ V. Joannon . . . 1948
- V. Price . . 1386, 1867
• V. Wotton ... 3
Readdy v. Prendergast . 2274, 2279
Reade's Trusts, Re, Salthouse v.
Reade
Reade v. Conquest
V. Lacy
V. Lowndes .
V. Sparkes .
V. Woodroflfe
. 306
663, 668
658, 668
. 2085
1080, 1136
. 89
. 2288
Reader, Exp.
Reading v. Hamilton (5 L. T.
628) 2360,
2399
V. Hamilton (W. N.
(72) 91) . [1736]
V. Lond. School Board 494
Real and Personal Advance Co.
V. McCarthy 41, 251, 313, 314, 824
Real and Personal Advance Co.
V. Mitchell, Re Giles 312, 313, 822,
1421, 1836, 2037
Reay, Re (1 Jur. N. S. 222) 154,
[2366], 2366
Rebbeok, Re, Rebbeck v. Reb-
beck 1480
Record and Writ Clerks, Re . 110
Rector of Bredicot, Exp. , 2359
CCXXVl
Table of Gases.
PAGE
Rector of Gamston, Exp. . 1145
Kirksmeaton, Exp. . 2360
Little Steeping, Exp. 2359
Newton Heath, Exp. 1145
of Shipton . . 2379
■ SnailweU, Exp. [2379]
Reddaway v. Banham . . 620
• V. Bentham Hemp
Spinning Co. . . . 623
Reddin v. Met. Bd. of Works . 2354
Reddish, Exp. . . .837
Rede v. Oakes 720, 1079, 2153, 2188
Redfem v. Redfem . . 65
Redgate, Ee . . . .1678
Redgrave v. Hurd . 2247, 2248, 2252
Redhead v. Welton . .1363
V. Westwood . . 1938
RedhUl Gas Co. v. Reigate
R. D. C 581
Radish, Be, Armfield-Merrow v.
Bennett ....
Redman v. Rymer .
Redmayne v. ITorster
V. Vaughan
Redondo v. Chaytor
Reece, Re
■ V. Strousberg
V. Trye
Reed, Re
V. Cooper
V. Don Pedro, &o. Co,
V. Winn, Re Winn .
B.ees,Re . . 270,281,282
, Edward Davies' Set-
tled Estates . [1760]
, Rees V. George . . 1447
V. Rees . 306, 1588
1301
. 1990
1859, [1975],
2122
. 363
28,29
. 297
. 1895
. 89
. 1511
[1854]
, 2162
. 881
■ V. Berrington
■ V. De Bernardy
2086, 2087
2256, 2273,
2278
[1349]
. 1412
. 544
• [35]
. 352
■ — — V. Drake
■ V. Drane
V. Engelback .
V. Fisk ....
V. George, Re Rees .
V. Metropolitan Board of
Works . . . 1904
• V. Richmond . . 126, [177]
• V. Williams 266, 441, 444, 449,
1106
Reese River Mining Co., Re,
Smith's Case . . . 2248
Reese River Mining Co. v.
Atwell [2281], 2283, 2286, 2287
Reese River Mining Co, v.
Smith .... 2248
Reeve, Exp., Re Manor of Lowes-
toft . '. 2363, 2385
Reeve, Re
V. A.-G.
V. Berridge
V. Goodwin
V. Hodson
V. Lisle
V. Reeve
V. Whitmore
Reeves, Re .
V. Barlow ,
V. Brymer .
V. Butcher ,
V. Cattell .
V. Gibson ,
V. Hodson .
V. Neville .
Reg. V. Abbott
V. Bank of England
PAGE
1450, 1455, 1515
1252, 1257, 1840
. 2166
. 1443
. 364
. 1856
. 1424
. 1949
828, 899
1939, 1948, 1949
. 966
. 1386
. 635
240, 247
. 107
781, 1185
. 2458
. 2463
V. Barnardo . 817, 818, 999
V. Barnardo, Jones's Case 815
V. Boyes ... 96
— V. BuUivant ... 90
■ V. Burgess . . . 466
■ V. Carruthers . . . [678]
V. Charity Commrs. . 1264
V. Clarke . . 996, 1000
V. Collins . . .818
V. Comptroller-General . 2314
V. Cox ... 90, 91
— — V. Essex Co. Ct. Judge . 1870
■ V. Fletcher . . .818
V. Garland . . . 1210
V. Gray .... 458
V. G. N. Ry. . . . 588
• V. Greenwich Co. Ct. . 788
V. Gyngall . . .998
V. Howes . . . 996
• — — V. Inclosure Commrs. . 592
V. Incorporated Law So-
ciety {[1895] 2 Q. B.
456) . . . 1070
V. Incorporated Law So-
ciety (No. 2), ([1896]
1 Q. B. 327) . . 1070
■ V. Jones . .241, 439
V. Jordan . 435, 459, 824
V. Judge of Brompton Co.
Ct 1072
■ V. Judge of Halifax Co. Ct. 514,
633
V. Land Registry . 1993, 2040
■ V. Lee
■ V. Lincolnshire
Co. Ct.
1952
761,
788
1291
L. & N. W. Ry. Co.
([1894] 2 Q. B. 512) . 2350
L. & N. W. Ry. Co.
(3 E. & B. 443) . . 2349
— — • V, Liverpool, Corp. of
Table of Cases.
ccxxvu
Reg. V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co.
([1899] 1 Q. B. 921:
[1900] A. C. 109)
V. Lond. Justices
■ V. Lumley
V. Manley Smith
2349
789
1590
2349, 2350,
2352
-, Be West-
field
— V. Nash
— V. N. London Ry. Co
— V. Payne and Cooper
— V. Pemberton
— V. Poulter
— V. Pratt
2350
952, 996
. 2352
458, 679
. 818
. 2348
306, 580
V. Registrar of Deeds for
Middlesex . . 2039
V. Sheifield (M.) . . 1291
V. Sheward . . . 2350
V. Shropshire Co. Ct. . 788
V. Steel . . . .818
V. Tewkesbury . . 1289
V. Tolson . . , 1590
V. TrafEord . . . 2059
■ ■ V. Twiss . . .786
V. WalsaU . . .817
V. Weaver . . .153
V. Whitchurch . . 818
V. Williams . . .998
■ V. Wilson . . 1255, 1261
■ V. Wycombe Ry. Co. . 697
V. Young . . .818
Regent's Canal Co. v. Ware 2139,
2181
Regent's Canallron Works . 1968
Rehden v. Wesley . . 1079, 1086
Rehoboth Chapel, Re . 1290, 2376
Reid, Exp., Re Belfast Improve-
ments Act . . 1773, 2363, 2383
Reid & Co., Exp., Re GiUespie 1321,
1406
V. Bickerstafi
. 533,2142
■ • V. Burrowes .
. 258
V. Burrows
. 432, 1040
• V. Explosives Co.
. 742, 1898
• V. Hoare
. 1664
V. Langlois
. 77, 90, 94
■ ■ V. London & Staff. Ins. Co. 2264
V. Middleton .
. 768
■ V. Reid .
. 877, 910
■ ■ V. Shergold
. 2153
V. Steam
. 494
V. Territt
. 1362
Reigate Char., Re .
. 1272
Reilly, Exp. .
. 1018
V. Booth
. 579,2311
/14 l_^ ^M 1 ll^V
. 1464
V. i^^euiy
Rein v. Stein
. 16
Reiner v. M. Salisbury
63, 382
Reinhardt v. Mentasti
V. Spalding
PAGE
600, 601
627, 2332
. 2065
. 1847
. 1319
. 39
268, 288
[2160]
ReUance Bldg. Soc, Re
Relph V. Horton .
Remington v. Stevens
Remmington v. Scoles
Remnant, Re
■ — V. Holt .
V. Hood . 1130, 1455, 1665
Renals v. CowHshaw . 532, 533
Renard v. Levinstein 631, 633, 639,
641, 644, 646
Rendall v. Blair . . 711, 1277
V. Crystal Pal. Co. . 692
V. Gardner . [1549]
RendeU, Re, Wood v. Rendell . 1360
V. Grundy - . 415, 431
Rendle v. J. Edgecombe, Ren-
dle & Co 626
Bennie v. Young . . .2157
Renshaw v. Queen Anne's Man-
sions .
■ V. Renshaw
392
172
40
1913
Renton, Gibbs & Co. v. Neville
Benvoize v. Cooper
Rep. of BoUvia v. Nat. Bolivian
Nav. Co 357
Rep. of Costa Rica v. Erlanger 28.
66,67
Rep. of Costa Rica v. Strousberg
(16 Ch. D. 8) . . 415, 478
Rep. of Costa Rica v. Strousberg
(21 Mar. 1879, Reg. Min. fo.
261) 833
Rep. of Costa RicT, v. Strousberg
(11 Ch. D. 323) . . 64, Go
Rep. of Liberia v. Imp. Bank [57], 72
— ■ V. Boye . . 72
Rep. of Peru v. Dreyfus (38 Ch.
D. 348) .... 1330
Rep. of Peru v. Dreyfus (55 L. T.
802) 20
Rep. of Peru v. Peruvian Guano
Co. . . . 38, 39, 1330
Rep. of Peru v. Weguelm 67, 81, 843
Renter's Tel. Co. v. Byron . 674
Revel V. Watkinson . . 1870
Revelstoke (Ld.) v. Inland Rev.
Commrs. .... 160
Reversionary Interest Society,
Limited, Re . . . 2440
Reversionary Interest Society,
Re (No. 2) . . . . 2442
RevUl, Re, Leigh v. Rumney 104, 352
Rew, Re, Rew v. Wippoll . 1427
Rex V. Bettesworth . . 885
V. Calvert . . . 466
■ • V. Davies . . . 459
V. Daye ... 74
CCXXVUl
Table of Cases,
Rex V. Ihilham Guardians
V. Godstone R. D. C.
D. Greenhill .
■ v. Inodme Tax Commrs.
Exp. University Coll.
N.W.
V. Isley .
■ V. Keeling
V. Mountford
V. Murray
V. Neil .
■ V. Parke
V. Pike .
V. Pinokney
V. Selfe .
V. Varlo
V. Westminster
Bailiff)
V. White
V. WMtehome
Rey V. Lecouturie
Reynal, Exp.
Reynard v. Arnold
V. Spence
FAOE
1025
94
(H;
. 1301
. 996
. 789
. 2347
. 850
. 600
458, 679
. 1126
999, 1003
. 513
. 1255
ligh
. 2351
600, 1126
. 805
[614], 627
. 1950
. 2184
. 916
Reynault, Re . . . 1187
Reynell v. Sprye 73, 93, 516, 2036,
2247, 2249, 2252
Reynold v. Lowe . . [2009]
Reynolds, Re (10 W. R. 709) . 466
(3 Ch. D. 61) 1444,
1719, 2383
■ (20 Ch. D. 294) . 96
(19 L. T. 311) . 751
— V. Ashby . . 1952
V. Blake . . .348
V. Bowley . . 2120
V. BuUook 2099, 2106, 2111
V. Coleman . 16, 20
— — V. Ellis, Re Bankes 869,
923
V. Godlec
^~ ■ — V. James
— ■ — ■ V. Kortwright
■ ■ — ■ V. Mason
— • V. Wheeler
• V, Wright
Reynoldson v. Perkins
Rhoades, Re .
■ , Exp. Rhoades
-, Lane v. Rhoades
78, 1491
. 767
. 1521
. [977]
. 2080
. 1585
. 1842
. 1368
. 1467
1541
265
310
1590
Rhodes, Re (8 Beav. 224)
— ■ (31 Ch. D. 499) .
— ■, Eraser v. Renton .
-, Rhodes v. Rhodes 1378,
1590
— ■ 0. Airedale Drainage
Commrs. 396,399,2348,
2349
— . V. Barret . . ,799
PAGE
Rhodes v. Bate . 1036, 2272, 2273
V. Buokland . 718, 1863
V. Dawson . . 29, 30
V. Forwood . . 1335
V. Ibbetson . . 2165
V. Jenkins, Re Mansel 182,
813, 833, 1129, 1453
— V. Moules 1066, [1103], 1145,
2124
■ V. Rhodes (1 Ch. 483) . 822
(Joh. 653) . 2113
(V.-C. S., 30
May, 1868) . [1494]
■ V. SUgdeil, Re Wads-
worth . . 1048, 1049
V. Swithinbank . 126, 943
V. Wish, Re Seaman . 1385
Rhondda and Swansea Ry. Co.
V. Talbot . . [550], 2212
Rhym'ney Ry. Co. v. Brecon and
Merthyr Ry. Co. . . 2220
Rhymney Ry. Co. v. Rhymney
Iron Co. . . 1319, 1344, 1370
Rhys V. Dare Valley Ry. Co. 2180,
2394
Ricardo v. Cooper .
Rice, Re . . .
■ 1). Gordon
■ V. Howard
■ V. Noakes & Co.
■O. Rice .
Rich i). Cockell
V. Gale .
V. Whitfield .
Richard & G. W. Ry., Re
V. Talbot .
[1077]
154, 1217
[2121]
. 106
. 1856
1991, 2030
. 1530
. 2155
. 1489
571, 1343
. 405
Richards, Exp. . . 1221, 1881
, Re (8 Bq. 119) 1155, 1446
(5 D. & S. 636) . 1215
(45 Ch. D. 589) . 1928
([1901] 2 Ch. 399) 1468
([1910] 2 Ch. 74) 1513
— , Humber v. Richards
2030, 2032, 2034, 2033
■ , Shenstone v.Brock 1629
& Co., Re . . 422
■ — ■, Tweedy & Co. v.
Hough . . 108
— V. Baker . . . 1560
V. Butcher (62 L. T.
867) 625,2335
([1891] 2
Ch. 522)
- V. Cooper
- V. Curlewis
-V. Davies
- V. Delbridge
- V. De Winton
■ V. Gellatly
2332
. 1909
. 104
2095, 2104
. 1629
. 2384
. 95
Table of Gases.
ccxxix
PAGE
Richards v. Goddard . .105
V. Griffiths . . 1416
• V. HoweU . . 132
V. James . . . 1950
V. Jenkins . . 495
— ■ — ■ ■ V. Kidderminster
Overseers 770, 1947,
1948, 1966
V. Kitchen . . 434
V. N. L. Ry. . . 2150
— V. Richards ( Joh. 255) 574,
975
— — —(John. 754) 1415
(V.-C. B.,
31st July, 1876) . 986
V. Robinson . [1232]
V. Starck . . 2299
■ — V. Swansea Improve-
ment, &c. Co. [2352],
2352, 2353, 2354
v. Watkins . 73,78
V. Will, Re . . 1252
Richardson,, Re, Morgan v.
Richardson . . . 1430
Richardson, iJe ([1904] 2 Ch.
777) 1753
Richardson, Re, Richardson v.
Richardson (14 Ch. D. 611) . 1404
Richardson, Re, Richardson v.
Richardson ([1900] 2 Ch. 778) 1697
Richardson, Re, Shillito v. Hob-
son . . . . 1926, 1982
Richardson vl Bk. of England 843,
1083
V. Dubois . 883, 884
— — V. Elmit . . 479
V. Eyton 2141, 2214
V. Feary . 1805, 1810
V. Graham . .561
■ — V. Harris . . 1941
V. Hastings . . [60]
V. Horton . 1361, 1378
V. Jenkins . . 1091
— V. Leask, Re Leask 1358
V. Le Maitre, County
Theatres &
Hotels . . 391
■ — V. Merrifield . . 1014
V. Methley School
Board . [693], 705
V. Miller . . 933
^j;. Moore . 1108,1712
■ — V. Richardson (3 Eq.
686) . 1628, 1629
V. Richardson ([1895]
P. 276) . 293, 1023
V. Richardson ([1900]
2 Ch. 778) . 1767
. V. Smith , 2148, 2157
PAGE
Richardson v. Stormont . . 2300
V. Young 1383, 1867,
1868
'- V. Younge . . 1386
Rioherson, Re, Scales v. Heyhoe 50,
120, 1424, 1491
Richmond v. N. L. Ry. 687, 694,
697, 2139
■ ■ V. Tayleur . . 939
— V. White 743, 1466, 1467,
1468
Richter v. Laxton . . .481
Rickard v. Barrett . . 1607
Rickards v. Gledstanes . . 1081
V. Lynch - Blosse, Re
Lynch-Blosse
Ricket V. Met. Ry.
Rickett V. Rickett, Re Sharp
V. Sharp, Re Sharp
1610
698
1114
1147
Ricketts, Re . . . .394
and Avent, Re . . 830
V. Lewis . . 1479, 1482
V. Ricketts 476, 870, 1110
Rickman, Re, Stokes v. Rick-
man .... 1427, 1632
Ridd V. Thorne 744, 760, 1047, 1048
Riddell v. Errington . .1741
Rider v. Jones . . . 1875
V. Kidder . 416, 2284, 2292
V. Wager . . . 1475
Ridge, Re. Hellard v. Moody 1763,
1781
. 367
. 652
. 2126
. 1020
. 1882
. 1593
2143, 2145
. 46
1468, 1544
V. Ridge
Ridges V. Mulliner .
Ridgway v. Clare .
V. Edwards
V. Kynnersley
— V. Newstead
• V. Wharton
Riding v. Hawkins
Ridley, Re
-, Buokton V. Hay
V. Ridley
Ridlington, Re
Ridout V. Plymouth (E.)
Ridsdale v. King, Re Brooke
Rigall V. Foster
Rigby V. Bennett .
V. Connol
V. G. W. Ry.
. 872
. 106
. 1173
. 741
[1505]
. 710
. 568
. 712
527, 690
. 1476
. 37
. 1656
Rigden v. VaUior
Rigg V. Hughes, Re Smith
Riggs-MUler v. Wheatley
Riley's, Ld., Re ([1903] 2 Ch.
590) 2287
Riley and Streatfield, Re 341, 2181
V. Croydon . . . 1863
V. Mayor, &c. of HaUfax 519
Rimington v. Hartley 979, 1806
ccxxx
Table of Cases.
Rimmer v. Kiiowles
Rimmer v. Webster
Rio Grande, &o. Co., Be
Ripley v. Moysey .
■ V. Paper Bottle Co
V. Sawyer .
■ V. Waterworth
PAGE
1335
2032
819
1449
2264
, 1802
, 1491
, 610
[1889]
. 154
Ripon (E.) V. Hobart
Rippon V. Titherington
Riseley v. Shepherd
Rishton v. Grissell 69, 1317, 1331,
1344, 1345, 2113, 2141,
[2213], 2214
■ V. Whatmore . . 2146
Rising, Be ... . 2336
Ritson, Be, Ritson v. Ritson 1477,
1982, [2117], 2119
River Plate Fresh Meat Co., Be 2434
-Ribble Joint Committee
Be
Waidanis, Be Wai-
. 1080,1182
V. HalUwell
Rivero v. Norris
Rivers' (L.) Estate,
Rivers v.
danis
Rives V. Rives
Rivett-Carnao's Will, Be
Riviere, Be
Eivington v. Garden
Rivis V. Watson
Roach V. Garvan
■ V. Trood
611
615
1697
1180, 1212
1768, 1769
2328, 2342
. 246
. 1801
458, 954
1530, 1531, 1675
Robarts, Exp., Be Gillespie 1377,
1405
■ ,Be .... 1729
■ .V. Buee . . 253, 1050
V. French . . .136
V. Jeffreys . . 1042
Robb V. Connor . . 291, 292
• V. Green . . . 674
Robbing, Be . . . 1568, 1569
V. Whyte . . . 1897
Robert Campbell & Sons, Be,
Limited and Reduced . [2430]
Roberts' Case, Be Carriage Co-
operative Supply Assoc. 1321,
2269
Roberts' Trusts, Be . . 908
Roberts, Exp., Be Brown, Bay-
ley and Dixon . 1839
, Be (9 Mar. 1844, B.
593) . . . [275]
(43 Ch. D. 52) 295, 1065,
1878
• (7 Jur. N. S. 818)
■ ([1902] 2 Ch. 834)
— ([1903] 2 Ch. 200)
([1905] 1 Ch. 704)
(76 L. T. 479)
1165
1605
1513
125,
2236
1111
PAGE
Roberts, Be, Exp. Price . . 2283
, Evans v. Roberts 1938
, Goodohap v. Roberts
1344, 1345, 1870
; Kiff V. Roberts . 1022
; Knight V. Roberts 1081,
1503
, Tarleton v. Bruton 1559
V. Albert Bridge Co.
V. Berry . .
V. Booth .
V. Charing
Ry. Co.
V. Clarke .
V. CoUett .
Cross,
V. Cooper
V. Croft
V. Crowe
V. Death .
V. Eberhardt
V. Evans .
V. Foulkes
V. Gwyrf ai
CouncU
V. Holland
V. Hughes
V. Jones .
V. Kuffin .
V. Morgan
V. Oppenheim
V. Price
V. Richards
V. Roberts (12 Jur. N. S.
971) . 1629
(13Q.B.D.
794, C. A.) 1942, 1944,
1949
V. Walker - 1308, 1451, 1491
V. Watkins . . 869
Robertson, Be (42 Ch. D. 553) 263,
280, 281
■ (19 Q. B. D. 1) 305
V. Armstrong . 1086, 1503
2156
171, 177
&c.
. 698
. 600
. 894
. 905, 907
1981, 2033, 2043
. 2295
. 481
. 752, 753
50, 52
. 2207
District
245, [583], 587
. 51
. 1883
. 479
. 1340
. 1141
73, 76, 155
. 1846
. 588
■ V. Broadbent
■ V. Hartopp
■ V. Kemble
- V. Lookie
- V. Norris
- V. Quiddington
- V. Purdey
- V. Scott
- V. Shewell
- V. Skelton
■ V. Wrexham, &c. Ry.
Co.
Robey & Co. v. OUier
Co.
Robins' Estate, Be
V. Snaefell Mining
1552, 1554
. 592
. 123
. 2107
1317, 1857
2096, 2133
. 129
1083, 1107
. 77
334, 349
2411
2301
16
894
Table of Cases.
ccxxxi
PAGE
Robins, Re (7 W. R. 705) . 897
(V.-C. H., 14 July,
1878) . . 1735, 1739
, Nelson v. Robins . 1570
■ V. Edwards . . 2210
— V. Goldingham . . 1041
W.Mills . . .261
Robinson's Settlement, Re 1694,
2384
Robinson & Co. v. Heuer 529, 530,
2150
•, Exp. . . . 1408
— — -, Re York Glass
Co. . . 2430
, Re (L. R. 3 Ex. 4) 264,
278
■ — (10 B. & S. 75) . 432
(27 Ch. D. 160) 925,
1048
(16 W. R. 1106) . 968
([1911] 1 Ch. 502) 1596
([1910] 2 Ch. 571) 1936
— -, Clarkson v. Robin-
son . . 1936, 2279
■ — — , Piekard v. Whea-
ter . . 328, 1371
— — , Robinson v. Ro-
binson . . 907
, Wright V. Tug-
weU . . . 1304
and Lords, Re . 1354
V. Alexander . . 1326
V. Anderson . 1033, 2095
V. Ashton . . 2105
— ■ V. Barnes . . [338]
• V. BurneU's Vienna
Bakery . . 1910
V. Byron (L.) 520, 521,
523, 587
V. Caldwell . . 145
• V. Cooper . . 907
— ■ — • V. Gumming . . 1572
V. Davies . . 108
— — V. Davison . . 2044
■ • V. Dhuleep Singh 590, 591
V. Drakes . . 839
— — • V. Drummond . . 2119
V. EUiott . . 1404
— ■ V. GaUand 340, 444, [2176],
2176, 2217
V. Gandy, Re Gamett 1631,
2236
V. Gee . . . 882
V. Geisel ... 51
V. Gifiard . . 1717
V. Hadley . . 738
^ — V. Harkin 1057, 1086,
1090, 1095, [1102],
1113, 1114, 2081
Robinson v. Harrison
— ■ — V. Huer .
V. Jenkins
■ — ■ V. Kilvert
V. Kitchen
■ — ■ — V. Lowater
V. Milne .
— — ■ — ■ — • V. Montgomeryshire
Brewery Co.
PAGE
. 373
529, 530, 2150
494, 495
600, 601
. 97
1482
569
1970,
2039
V. Needham, Re Need-
ham . . 1536
V. Nesbitt . . 475
V. Nevill, Re Nevill [1473],
1478
V. Ommaney
V. Pet .
V. Pickering
V. Preston
V. Robinson (24 W. R.
675)
1675, 2158
. 1137
854, 862
. 1476
404
(1 D. M.
& G. 247) 1106
(12Beav.
494) . 1489,1490
— ■ — ■ — ■ — • V. Shaw, Re Shaw . 1511
— V. Trevor . 2044, 2059
— V. Tucker . . 497
V. Wheelwright . 871
, King & Co. V. Lynes 878
■ ■ Printing Co. v. Chic . 743
Robison v. Killey . . 968, 1132
Robson, Re . . . .305
, Emley v. Davidson 1299,
1302
, Robson V.
ton
Hamil-
. 1555
. 818
679, 695
. 89
. 1970
V. Biggar
■0. Dodds
V. Plight
V. Smith
V. Tidy, Re Smith 1632, 2311
V. Worswick, Re Wors-
92
1447, 1540, 1669
wick .
Roby, Re
Roch V. Callen 1136, 1427, 1429, 1453
Roche V. Roche . . . 1653
Rochefoucauld v. Boustead 403,
1112, 1113, 1146, 1385,
1838, 2146, 2249
Rochester (B.) v. Le Fanu . 1699
(Corp.) V. Lee 364, 365,
370, 587
V. Owlett . 587
Rochford v. Hackman
V. Packman
Rochfort V. Battersby
Rock V. Callen
V, Cook
1535, 1542
. 1568
. 281
. 1.571
, 745
ccxxxu
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Rook V. Lazarus . . . 668
Portland Cement Co. v.
Wilson . 519,2144,2155,2158
Bocke, Exp 481
,v. Hftft . . 1122, 1123
Rockett V. Chippendale . . 240
Roddam V. Morley 1381, 1383, 1868
Rodes, Be . . . 1712, 1762
Rodger v. Comptoir d'Esoompte
de Paris . 183, 2303
■ — V. Harrison
Rodgers v. Nowill
V. Rodgers
Rodick V. Gandell .
Rodney, Re Baron
V. Rodney
Roe d. Berkeley (E.)
(Abp. of) .
— V. Birch, lie Birch
— V. Davis .
— V. Hammond
— V. Hitchins, Be Smith [1164], 1430
2040
. 370
. 622
77, 1041
. 974
. 1372
York
. 2238
1109, 1112,
1385, 1387
. 45
. 418
— V. Siddens
Roebuck v. Chadebet
Roffey V. Bent
• V. Miller
Roger's Trade Mark, Be .
Rogers, Exp., Be Pyatt .
• Rogers
-, Be
([1911] 1 K. B. 641)
Exp. Challinor
• (Alice), Be .
■ V. Acaster .
• V. ChaUis
• V. Drury
■ V. Harding, Be Harding
• V. Hooper .
• V. Home
■ V. Hosegood 532, 533, 534
■ V. Humphreys 1893, 1895,
1896
■ V. Jones 122, [1528], 1529
1952, 2311
1799, 1803
. 474
118, 850
. 2328
. 1698
. 2299
1092
419,
503
1941,
1942
895
895
2140
528
1677
1460
125
V. Lambert
V. Maddooks
V. Maule
V. Powell
V. Rice
V. Rogers
V. Soutten
V. Taylor
V. Waterhouse
V. Whiteley
Rogerson, Be, Bird v. Lee
Rokeby (L.) v. Elliott
Rolfe, Exp., Be Spindler
494, 495
530
1348, 1373, 1840
. 1376
. 2308
. 306
1429, 1446
. 568
. 2167
. 482
. 1304
673, 1344
. 1941
Rolfe, Be
■ ([1894] W. N. 77)
PAGE
182
352
2046
. 2126
. 774
1312, 1318
1477, 1478
527, 530
1082, 2035, 2040
■ ■ V. Chester
■ V. Flower
■ V. Gregory
• ■ V. Maclaren
V. Perry
V. RoUe
Rolland v. Hart
RoUason, Be Holt, Be, Holt v.
Holt 870, [1078], 1110
, RoUason v. RoUa-
420
1263
1999
636
356, 634
698
son .
Rolle's Char., Be .
RoUeston v. Morton
Rollins V. Hincks .
Rolls V. Isaacs
V. London School Board
V. Miller
V. Pearce
V. Vestry of St. George's
Rolph, Exp., Be Spindler
Rolt, Be . . .
— — V. Somerville .
Remain, Be .
Bomaine v. Onslow
Rome, -Be (54 L. T. 301)
• — ■ V. Young
Romer and Haslam, Be
Romford Canal Co., Be
Romney's Estate, Be
Rook V. Worth
Rooke V. Dawson .
V. Kensington (L.) 1643, 2235
V. Nisbet . . . 2112
Rooper v. Harrison [2022], 2030
Roose, Be, Evans v. Williamson 1556
1540
828
535
1561
581
1941
382
. 545
. 303
[1533], 1537,
1538, 1668
. 2284
. 2215
. 1032
. 1968
. 2401
. 980
. 1276
V. Chalk, Be Knowles
Rooth V. M. S. & L. Ry.
Roots V. Wilhamson 1929, 2037, 2038
Roper's Trusts, Be . . 966
Roper, Be, Exp. Bolland . 1941
, Morrell v. Gissing . 1513
■ , Roper V. Doncaster 853,
854, 855, 861, 862,
875, 887, 1606
, Taylor v. Bland 353, 1450,
1454
V. Roper . 1536, 1542, 1580
V. Ryland, Be Ryland . 1298
V. WaUroth . . .801
Roper-Curzon v. Roper-Curzon
[1662], 1670
Rorke, ^a;^ 2403
Roscarrick v. Barton . . 1842
Rose, Be ([1904] 2 Ch. 340) . 1676
V. Cornish . . .1631
V. Cunynghame . . 2143
Table of Cases.
ccxxxm
Rose V. Evans
• V. Garden Lodge Co.
V. Hart
V. Hyman
?i Loftus
V. Page
V. Rolls
V. Rose (8 P. D. 98)
(7 P. D. 225)
V. Sharrod
V. Spioer
PAGE
. 2432
. 797
. 1319
. 2309
. 622
. 1909
893, 900
881, 919,
920, 921
. 921
. 1132
. 2309
1990, 2188
. 1699
. 42
■ V. Watson
Roseingrave v. Burke
Roselle v. Buchanan
Rosenbaum v. Belson 379, 2146, 2153
Rosenberg v. Cook . 2163, 2188
-. V. Lindo . . 1002
-. V. Northumberland
Bldg. Soc. .
Rosevear China Clay Co..
Re Cock
Rosher, Ee, Rosher v. Rosher
V. Crannis .
V. WiUiams
2057
Rosing, Be
RoskeU, lie .
V. Whitworth
Exp.,
. 2303
1641
. 2114
. 1628
. 2339
. 1188
362, 601, 640
Ross's Charity, Re . . . 1268
Ross Improv. Com. v. Usborne 1915
, Re . . . . 132, 800
■ , Ashton V. Ross 1570, 1579
V. Army and Navy Hotel
Co 1948
V. Buxton 126, 510, 1048, 1049,
1050
V. Charity Commrs., Re St.
, Dunstan-in-the-East . 1261
11, Estates Investment Co.
[2257], 2260
V. Gibbs ... 94
V. Gutteridge . . 1335, 2250
r. Ross (12 Beav. 89) 1083,
1107, 1443
(25 L. R. Ir.
(29 L. R. Ir.
(M. R., 5
1806, B. 593)
V. Shearer
V. Tatham
V. White
V. Woodford .
Rossiter, Be, Rossiter v.
siter
■ V. Miller .
362) 1407
318) 1372
May,
. 1579
. 715
. 1595
[2101], 2114
. 108
Ros-
. 1478
2143, 2144
. 227
. 1146
Rossmore (L.), Be .
Roth, Be
Rotheram Alum and Chemical
Co., Be , , 1031
PAGE
Rotheram, Be . . . 2333
Rothes (Countess of) v. Kirk-
caldy Waterworks . . 526
Rothschild v. Inland Revenue
Commrs. . . . .159
Rothwell V. Rothwell . . 1442
Roughton V. Gibson . . 1805
Round V. Bell . . .1873
■ V. Turner . . .1772
Roundwood ColHery Co., Be,
Lee V. Roundwood 770, 1895,
1936, 1937, 2264
Rourke v. Robinson . . 1877
V. White Moss Coll. Co. 31
Rous V. Jackson . . 886, 1544
Rouse and Meier, Be . . 389
, Be, Rouse v. Trible . 352
V. Bradford Banking
Co. . . 2085,2126
V. Jones . . . 1371
Rousillon V. BousUlon 529, 531,
723, 1521, 1525, 2150
Routledge, Re, Boutledge v.
Saul .... 1166, 1185
Row V. Jagg, Re Hoyles . 1296, 1306
V. Row . . 1308, 1451, 1605
Rowbotham v. Dunnett . . 1304
• V. Wilson . . 568
RowclifEe v. Leigh, Re Leigh . 403
Rowe, Be . . 1377, 1429, 2383
— , Pike V. Hamlyn . 1553
V. Chichester . . 1710
V. Gray . . . 1804
V. School Board for Lon-
don ... 2155
U.Wood . . 1899,2105
Rowell, Exp., Be Whitting . 158
V. Inland Revenue
Commrs. . .160
V. Rowell . . .922
V. Satchell . 533, 2142
Re . 2128
. 889
. 916
514, 2330
1136, 1560
1086, 1095
122, 752
126, 1048,
1050, 2108
Rowles V. Mayhew, Be Mayhew 1404,
1451
Rowley v. Adams (16 Beav. 312) 232,
342
(14 Beav. 130)
[1197], 1207, 1215
1222
, (4 My. & C.
534) . . 1081
Rowland and Crankshaw,
V. Cookham
V. Cuthbertson
V. Mitchell
• V. Morgan
V. Witherden .
Rowlands v. Evans
V. Wilhams
CCXXXIV
Tahle of Gases.
PAGE
Rowley v. Adams (7 Beav. 395,
415) . 1315,1428
(7 Beav. 548) 1422
— (2 H. L. C.
725, 772) . 1498
(12 Beav. 476) 2181
— (9 Beav. 348) 842,
844
V. Burgess . . . 1444
V. Eyton . . .886
V. Ginnever 1124, 1134, 1809
V. Ridley . . . 448
V. Rowley . . 919, 1675
V. Unwin . . . 1115
Rowlls, Re, Rowlls v. Bebb 1108,
1123, 1616, 1617, 1620, 1622
Rownson, Be, Pield v. White . 1469
Rowsell V. Morris . . . 1358
Rowson V. Harrison . . 1477
Roxburghe v. Cox 1322, 1927, 1929,
1992
■ Press, Re, Spiers and
Sevan's Case . . . 2443
Roy, iJe .... 1060
V. Gibbon . . 1442, 1503
Royal Bank of Scotland v. Com-
mercial Bank of Scotland . 2301
Royal Bristol Bldg. Soc. v.
Bomash . . 2155, 2158, 2183
Royal Exchange Ass. Co., Be . 310
Royal Exchange Ass. Co. v.
Sjoforsakrings, &o. . . 723
Royal Exchange Ass. Co. v.
Vega . . . .723
Royal General Theatrical Fund
Assoc. V. Kydd, Be Lacy 1113,
1300
Royal Liver Friendly Soc. . 803
Royal Soc. to Thompson [1275], 1280
Royal Victoria Theatre Syndi-
cate 2095
Royds V. Royds . . . 1104
Royle, Exp 741
, Be, Fryer v. Royle 121, 1351
V. Bushby . . . 419
V. Hayes, Re Boyle 312, 1421
Royston School, Re . . 1259
Ruabon Brick, &c. Co. v. G. W.
Ry. Co. . . [564], 571
Steamship Co. v. London
Assurance .... 2079
Ruben v. Great Fingal Con-
soUdated .... 2250
Rubery v. Grant ... 36
Rudd V. Lascelles . . 2163, 2194
V. Rowe . . . 132
Ruddington Land, Re . .1186
Ruddock, Be, Newberry v.
Mansfield . . . 1086, 1135
PAGE
Rudge V. Winnall . . . 1016
Ruff V. Sivers, Be Cane . . 354
Ruffle V. Medlock, Be Medlock 970,
1446
Ruffles V. Alston . . .922
Rufford V. Bishop . . . 1872
Rugby Cement Co. v. Rugby
and Newbold Cement Co. . 628
Rugby Portland, &o. Co. v.
L. & K. W. Ry. .
Rugby School, Be .
Rule V. Jewell
Rumble v. Heygate
Rumbold v. Forteath
— V. L. C. C.
570, 2348
. 1259
. 2104
. 2148
. 87
. 832
2144, 2148
Rummens v. Robins
Rumney, Be ([1897] 2 Ch. 351) 1080
V. Smith . . . 2058
V. Walter . . 85
. 1421
. 125
, 179, 1314
. 288
Rundell's Patent, iJe . . 2325
Rusoombe v. Hare . . . 882
Rush, Re (9 Eq. 147) 306, 426, 432
(19 W. R. 417 ; 22 L.
T. N. S. 116 ; 10 Eq. 442) 446,
449
Rump V. Greenhill
Rumsey v. King
V. Reade ,
V. Rumsey
Rushbrook v. Lawrence
Rushbrooke v. Farley
Rushmer v. Polsue
Russel V. Buchanan
V. Russel
Russell's Patent .
Russell, Exp. . .
, Re Butterworth ,
•, Re (30 Ch. D. 114) ,
(83 L. T. 202)
(12 Jur. N. S. 224)
(1 Sim. N. S. 409)
. 1848
. 3,45
599, 602
. 262
1980, 1981
. 2315
1215
2283
266
998
1181
1212,
1216
, Re, Russell v. Shool-
bred . . 2076,2186
Road Purch. Moneys . 2041
V. Cambefort . 12, 15
V. E. Ang. Ry. . 742, 745
V. Harford . . .579
V. Harris . . 392, 403
■ V. Inland Rev. Commrs. 161
■ V. Jackson 91, 93, 1304, 1305
■ V. Kellett . . . 1253
■ V. L. C. & D. Ry. . 516
■ V. Meyrick, Re Bolton
Estates . . 918
- V. Plaice . . . 1479
■ V. Russell (14 Ch. D.
471) . 391, 2106, 2114
- V. St. Aubyn . 1537, 1668
Tahle of Cases.
ccxxxv
PAGE
Russell V. Sharpo . . . 928
V. Wakefield W. W. Co. 695
V. Watts . 533, 560, 562
Russian Ironworks Co., Ee
Whitehouse's Case . . 2264
Russian Spratt's Patent, Lim. 1966
Rust&Co., J?e . . . 2343
■ V. Victoria Graving Dock
Co 589, 600
Rustomjee v. The Queen 383, 1331
Ruston V. Tobin . 361, 362, 823
Rutherford, Be, Rutherford v.
Brown . 1383, 1389
V. Wilkinson 778, 780
Ruthin, &c. RaO. Act, Se . 2422
Rutland's (D. of) Settlement,
Se (31 W. R. 947) . 1773, 2383
Rutland's (D. of) Settled Estates,
. 1762
. 341
. 1899
. 1927
. 341
46, 179
. 1480
. 1591
287, 298
Re ([1900] 2 Ch. 206)
Rutley V. Gill
Rutter V. Daniel
V. Everett .
V. Marriott .
V. Tregent .
Ryan & Cavanagh, Re
, Re
V. Dolan
V. Mutual Westminster
Chambers Assoc. 527, 2141, 2157
Ryde, Re . . . .1355
Ryder, Re . . . 983, 2403
V. Ryder . . .996
V. WombweU
944
1298
746
1544
Ryland, Re, Roper v. Ryland
Rylands, Exp.
Ryle V. Ryle, Re Berwick
Ryley, Re, Exp. Official Receiver
420
Rymer, Be, Rymer v. Stanfield 1252,
1304, [1531]
V. De Rosaz . . 293
V. Harpley, Re Bourne 1540
• V. Mclh-oy . . [2310]
Ryves v. Ryves . . . 1605
V. Wellington (D.) . 382
S. v.L 466
— v.W. . . [460, 461, 462]
S. S. B., Re ([1906] 1 Ch. 712) 1752,
1762
S.'s Sett., Re ... 872
S. W. Loan Co. v. Robertson . 475
Sabin v. Heape . . . 1480
SabUcich v. Russell . . 493
Saccharin Corp. o. Anglo-Con-
tinental Chemical Works 632, 652
Saccharin Corp. v. Chemicals
and Drugs Co. . . . 651
Saccharin Corp. v. Chemischo
Fabrik, &o. . . .12
Saccharin Corp. v. Quincey . 031
V. Reitmoycr . 032
V. Wild . 36, 631
Sachs V. Spcilman . . 41, 64, 65
Sackville v. Smyth . . 1478
Sackville-West v. Holmesdale 1652,
1653, 1693
Sadd, i?e .... 1031
- V. Griffin . . . 269
V. Thompson . 943, 945
Sadler's Trusts, Re . . 2458
Sadler, Exp., Re Hawes . . 842
V. Lee ... 2108
V. Rickards . . .1571
V. Worley 1838, 1926, 1961,
1971
Saflfery, Exp., Be Lambert . 830
Vautin 1092, 2288
V. Mayer . . . 2104
Saffron Walden Bldg. Soc. v.
Rayner . . 1033, 1081, 2033
Saffron Walden Charity, Be [1250]
St. Alban's (Bp. of) v. Battersby 534
(D.) V. Skipwith 542, 546
, Wood Street, Re 1269,
1284, [2381], 2402
V. Beauclerk . . 1537
St. Alphage, Re . . . 1255
•, London Wall . 1283
(Parson, &c. of). Re 2383
St. Aubyn, Exp. . . . 1714
V. Humphreys . 1632
V. St. Aubyn . . 1693
■ V. Smart 1066, 2122, 2133
St. Bartholomew's Hosp., Exp. 2405
, Re . 2402
St. Botolph, Re . . . 1283
, Aldgate, Re . 1146
without Bishopsgate 1301
St. Bride's Estate, Re . . 1276
St. Cuthbert, &e. Co., Re . 1840
St. Dunstan's Schools, Be . 2407
St. Dunstan-in-the-East, Re,
Ross V. Charity Commrs. . 1261
St. Edmund, King and Martyr,
Re 1283
St. George's Bldg. Soc, Re . 2063
St. George v. St. George . . 89
St. Germans (B.) v. Crystal
Palace Co. . . . 2224, 2225
St. Giles, Re . . . .1277
, Bloomsbury, Be . 1262
Vol. Corps., Be . . 2363
St. Gobain, &o. Co. v. Hoyer-
mann's Agency . . .12
CCXXXVl
Table of Cases.
St. Helen's Chemical Co. v. St.
Helen's Corp. . 612
Smelting Co. v. Tip-
ping . . . 599, 612
St. Hilda's College, Cheltenham,
Be 2440
St. James & Pall Mall, &c. Co.,
Be 698
St. John's Coll.,Camb., Exp. [2455]
■ — ; Oxf., Exp. 227,
2360
■ — ■ — V. Carter 429,
522
V. Effingham . 1512
Hosp., Be . . 1714
• Street Wesleyan
Chapel, Chester, Be . . 1280
St. John Evang., Be . . 1283
(L.) V. Boughton 1385, 1868
V. St. John . .2291
St. Katharine's Hosp., Exp. 2365,
2403, 2407
St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, Par-
ish School .... 1261
St. Luke's Vestry, Be . . 2398
St. Margaret's Hosp., Be [1219]
St. Martin's, Birmingham (E.),
Exp 2404
St. Mary's Coll., Exp. . . 2364
, Leicester, Be . 2401
St. Mary, Wigton (Vicar of),
Exp 2360
St. Marylebone Vestry v. Sheriff
of London .... 502
St. Nazaire Co., Be 164, 188, 374,
816
St. Nicholas Aeons, Be . 1255, 1283
St. Paul's (Precentor of), Re . 2390
Schools, Einsbury, Be 1269,
2400, 2401
St. Sepulchre's (Vicar of), Exp.
(4 D. J. & S. 232) . . 2407
St. Stephen, Coleman Street, Be 1283
St. Thomas Eloating Dock Co.,
Be 2431
St. Thomas's Hosp., Exp. . 2363
, Be . 1269, 2380
V. Charing
Cross Ry. . [687], 2352, 2354
St. Thomas's Hosp. v. Richard-
son 2075, 2121
V. Stratton 1308
Sainsbury v. Jones . . 2188
Salaman, Be . . . 263, 1033
([1908] 1 Ch. 2) . 1509
• V. Glover . . . 658
• V. Warner . 827, 828
Salamon v. Hole . . . 177
Saldanha (Duchess of), Be , 103
FAOS
Sale V. Kitson . . . 1860
V. Lambert 2143, [2180], 2187
V. Sale .... [930]
Sales, Be, Sales v. S. . . 1148
Salford Corp. v. Lever 66, 92, 1334
Sahsbury (L.) v. Nugent . 42
(M.), iJe (2 Ch. D. 29) 952
— — (45 L. J. Ch.
250)
V. Gladstone
V. Keymer
2202
643
1105
2168
1513
V. Hatcher
V. Kidley, Be King
• V. Met. Ry. 514, 691, 701
— V. Petty . . . 1440
V. Wilkinson . . 1342
Salkeld v. Johnston . . 244
Salles V. Savignon . . .1013
Salmon, Be ([1903] 2 L. J. K. B.
125) . . . 1826
■ ([1903] 1 K. B. 147) 2014
■ , Priest V. Uppleby 826,
1104, 1106, 1106
V. Anderson 232, 1430, 1444
V. Cutts . . . 1068
Salmond, Be . . . .271
Salom V. Weston . . . 1573
Salomon, Exp., Be Raphael . 1023
Salomons v. Knight . 513, 676
V. Laing .
702
1080
971
Saloway v. Strawbridge .
Salsbury v. Buckle, Be Averill
Salt (Sir Titus, Bart.), Sons &
Co.'s Application . . 2331
Salt, Be ([1896] 1 Ch. 117) . 1762
, Brothwood v. Keelmg 1605
■ • V. Cooper . 737, 738, 760
V. Locker, Be Parker-
Jervis . . . 1571
V. Northampton (M.) 1856,
1935
Salter, Exp 1419
V. Adey . . . 1339
V. Edgar . . . 1922
V. Met. Dist. Ry. [687], 2353
V. Salter . . .747
Saltern v. Melhuish . . 2240
Salthouse v. Reade, Be Reade's
Trust . . . .306
Salting, Exp., Be Stratton . 2022
Saltmarsh v. Barrett 1119, 1122,
1124, 1539
Salton V. New Beeston Cycle
Co 1031
Salusbury v. Denton 1252, 1257,
1511
Salvesen (Chr.) & Co. v. Rederi
Aktiebolaget Nordstjernan . 1332
Sajvin, /Je , , , . 1426
Table of Cases.
ccxxxvii
Salvin V. North
Goal Co.
• ■ V. Weston
PAGE
Brancepeth
599, 601, 604,
612
Salway v. Salway .
Salybia, The .
Samble v. Wilson .
Samboume v. Sambourne
Sammons v. Bailey
Sampson, JRe
■ — -, Sampson v.
Sams V. Cronin
Samson, Be
son
- and Wall, Re
- V. Pattison
■ V. Seaton Ry.
[1493]
. 773
. 130
. 1983
. 915
68,69
. 1176
Samp-
. 1166
1014, 1016
. 1837
. 478
. 1015
1364, 1369, [1441],
1466, 1469
Samuel Allen & Sons, Be . 1951
■ ■ V. Jarrah Timber, &o.
Corp. . . . 1856
V. Jones . 1135, 1171, 1907
V. Newbolt . . 2279
• V. Samuel 51, 352, 1359,
1542
Samuel] v. Howarth . 2083, 2085
Sandbach and Edmondson, Re 2164
Charity v. N. Staffs.
By. Co. . . 2351
■ School, Be, A.-G. v.
Crewe . . . .1302
Sandeman v. Mackenzie . . 1664
. V. Bushton 543, 1893,
2050
Sander and Walford, Be . 2185, 2201
V. Heathfield . . 1468
V. Manley . . 603
Sanders' Sett., Be . . . 302
Sanders, Re (V.-C. W. 3rd Aug.,
1853) . . 1197
■ ■ ■ (70 L. T. 755) 375, 2362
V. Bromley, Re Sanders 1621
V. Davis . . 1950, 1951
— V. Hamilton . . 89
• j;. Homer . . 1180,1211
U.Miller . . . 1308
V. Peek ... 50
• V. Rodway . 531, 920
— V. Sanders 835, 1385, 1868
■ V. Clark Grosvenor Man-
sions Co 600
Sanderson v. Aston . . 2084
■ V. Berwick (Mayor of) 600
' V. Chadwick . . 2190
V. Coekermouth Ry.
Co. . . 2141,2148
V. Stoddart 1364, 1403,
1448
V. Walker . . 372
FAGE
. 748
. 748
. 603
. 934
. 1360
. 1906
1112, 1866
. 1430
Sandwich (E.) v. G. N. Ry. Co. 587
Sandford v. Ballard
' -(2)
V. Clarke
V. Sandford
Sandilands v. Innes
Sandon v. Hooper .
Sands to Thompson, Re
V. Lyne, Be Lyne
Sandys, Exp., Re Ry. Pub. Co. 2237
V. Blodwell . . 1326
Saner v. Bilton . . 251, [285]
Sanger v. Sanger . . . 487
Sangster v. Cochrane . 2044, 2059
Sanguinetti v. Stuckey's Bk. 1839,
2286
Sanitary Burial Association, Be 1031
Sanitas Co. v. Condy
Trade Mark, Be
Sankey, Be .
• Brook Co., Be
V. Alexander
Sansom V. Sansoih .
Sanson v. Rumsey .
Santley v. Wilde
Santos V. Prietas .
Saragossa & Med. Ry.
CoUingham
Sarah Knight's Will, Be
Sarel, Be
Sargant v. Read
Sargent, Exp.
Sargood, Be .
Sarpy v. Holland .
Sarum (Bp. of). Re
Sass, Re, Exp. Nat. Prov. Bk.
627, 2336
. 2330
. 276, [284]
. 1965
, 91, 2036
. 445
. 2240
[1833]
. 84
Co. V.
. 127, 1510
819, 1129,
1169, 1217
. 869, 1632
377, 513, 516, 738,
739, 2111
. 2210,2244
. 1481
. 666
1190
of England
Sauer v. Bilton
Saul V. Bolton
V. Met. Ry.
V. Pattinson
2077
. 234
[2159, 2177]
. 686
966, 1149, 1676,
1846
SauU V. Browne 69, 73, 798, 2119
Saumarez, Re . . . 1216
Saunders' Estate, Be . . 2407
Saunders, Be, Exp. Saunders 445, 761
, Master v. Saun-
ders . .1568
-, Saunders v. Gore 1570
V. Boyd, Be Fitzgerald 1664
■ — V. Brading Harbour
. 2141
. 2044
1879, 1936
. 85
V. MoConnell, Be Mc-
ConneU . 834, 838
Co.
• V. Dehew
■ V. Dunman
■ V. Jones .
ccxxxvm
Table of Gases.
PAGE
Saunders v. Merryweather 1895, 1896
V. Newbold , [2277]
V. Pawley . . 145
• V. Richards . . 522
■ • V. Saunders (3 Jur. N.
S. 727) . .1128
■ • V. Shaf£o . .1674
V. Smith . . .669
V. Sun Life Assurance
Co. . . 628, [683]
V. Vautier 1251, 1419, 1570
• V. White . . . 1946
■ V. Wiel . . 67, 97
Saunders-Davies, Re, Saunders-
Davies v. Saunders-Davies 1559,
1606
Saunders-Davies v. BaOJie . 830
Saunderton Glebe Lands, Be . 2359
Savage, Re . 52, 373, 1028, 1029
V. Bentley . 208, 410, 423
V. Carroll . . .939
V. Poster . . 865, 2031
V. James . . . 1039
V. Lane . . . 1428
V. Norton . , [2292]
. V. Snell . . .356
Savery v. Enfield Local Board 302
V. King . 1053, 2256, 2273
Re
Savile v. Bruce
• — V. Couper
• V. Kilner
V. Savile
262, 299
. 1726
. 1169
. 601
. 348
. 1543
1628, 1648
. 541
Mal-
• [868]
1370, 1851
. 2186
. 297
90, 1595
SavHl Bros. v. Bethell
Savill V. Savill
Saville's Case
Saville, Re, Watkins v.
colm ....
Savin, Re . . .
Sawyer and Baring, Re
, Exp.
■ V. Birchmore
. ■ V. Goddard, Re Dartnall 1082
. V. Goodwin 1066, 1107, 2123
, Missing's
Case . . . 1066
. ■ V. Mills . . . 1452
• V. Sawyer . 863, 1090 ,1108
Sax, Re, Barned v. Sax . . 1541
Saxby's Patent . . . 2320
Saxby v. Easterbrook . 651, 676
■ . V. Fulton . . 714, 1378
. V. Gloucester Wagon Co. 403,
635
V. Hennett . . . 2315
V. Thomas . . . 1479
Saxlehner v. ApoUinaris Co. 620, 623
Saxon V. Blake . . • 2153
Saxton V. Bartley . . . 1805
Saxton V. Saxton .
Say V. Creed .
Sayer's Trusts, Re .
Sayer v. Bennet
V. Sayer
-, Innes v. Sayer
V. Wagstaff
Sayers, Re
V. CoUyer
V. Corrie
V. Whitfield
PAGE
1556
1419
1544
2108
1293
1250
279
. 1159
518, 532, 2142,
2155, 2157
799
780
1669
1461
1317
1511
1604
50,
Sayre v. Hughes
Scaffold V. Hampton
Scale V. Eothergill .
V. Rawlins
Scales V. Collins
V. Heyhow, Re Richerson
120, 1424, 1491
Soanlan, Re . . . 954, 999
Scarborough & Whitby By. Co.,
Re . . 755
V. Borman . . 871
Scard, Re . . . 427, [464]
Soarisbrick v. Nevinson, Re
Chetwynd's Settlement 1174, 1188
Scarf V. Jardine . . 1531, 2126
Scarlett v. Fletcher . . [465]
V. Hanson . 420, 501
Scarsdale (L.) v. Curzon . 1560, 1654
Schauer v. Field
Schiele v. Brakell .
Schjott V. Sohjott .
Schlesinger v. Bedford
■ V. Turner
Schmarr, Re .
Schmitten v. Faulkes
Schnadhorst, Re
Schneider v. Batt .
■ V. Lizardi
Sohofield, Exp.
■ , Re Firth
■ Fort
-, Be
- V. Heap .
- V. Hincks
- V. Reilly .
- V. Schofield
■ — V. Solomon
Soholefield, Be ([1905]
408)
V. Heafield
V. Ingham
V. Lockwood
1903, 1904, 1906
. ■ V. Redfern . . 1619
V. Templer . . 2245
Soholey v. Peck . . 1047, 1049
666
. [673], 674
. 851
. 668
. 668
. 2399
514, 517, 1062
. 1541
138, 147, 178
. 517
. 818
1408
. 2129
. 1183
. 1668
. 534
. [598]
[2226], 2226,
2229, 2239
. 2042
2 Ch.
. 1357,1426
. 940
. 1903
882, 1048,
Table of Cases.
ccxxxix
Soholfield V. Midgeley
V. Spooner
Sehomberg v. Humfrey
School Board for London,
Schoole V. Sail
Schotsmans v. Lane.
Ry. Co.
Schove V. Sohminoko
Schreiber v. Dinkel
■ V. Heymann
Schroder v. Schroder
Schroeder v. Central Bk. of Lond.
• V. Clough
■ V. Hanrott
• V. Myers
V. Schroeder
Schuler v. Bohlman, Be
man .
Schulze, Exp., Re Clarke
Schultze V. Schultze
Schute V. Reed
Schwabacher, Re ,
Schwahlaerber, Re .
Schweder's Estates, Re, Oppen-
heim v. Schweder . , 1579
Schweitzer v. Mayhew . . 1837
Schweizer v. Atkins . . 626
Schweppes v. Gibbons . .841
Sclater v. Cottam . 1065, 1138, 1878
Scneider v. Norris . . . 2145
Scobie V. Collins . . .1894
Sooones v. Morrell . , . 2189
Score V. Ford . . . 1083
Scotney v. Lomer . . 1122, 1677
Scott's Patent, Re . . . 2325
Scott & Herton v. Godfrey . 2298
, Re ([1903] 1 Ch. 1) 1537, 1668,
1669
— , Pad«'ick V. Scott . 2080
, Scott V. Hanbury 1015,
1630
PAGE
[1414]
. 1632
. 1373
, Exp. 1719
. 1875
York.
2303, 2304
662, 671
. 2284
88,89
. 1433
491
. 299
. 493
. 367
. 358
Bohl-
[1442]
. 881
. 874
. 1338
. 1461
. 1061
& Alvarez
II. Beecher
■ ■ V. Bentley
V. Brownrigg
V. Coulson
V. Cumberland
V. Hastings (L.)
V. Homer
V. Izon
■ — — V. Jackman
V. Jones
— — ■ V. Leak, Re Parry
V. Liverpool Corp. (1 D. &
J. 369) . . .105
■ . V. Matthew Brown & Co. 2307,
2309
V. Mercantile, &c. Ins. Co. 392
330, 816, 1121,
2163, 2167
761, 1083
. 1361
. 1303
2150, 2235
1451, 1605
474, 761
314, 315
. 1498
. 345
. 1388
. 1574
Scott V. Miller
V. Morley
■ V. Moxon
— — • V. Nesbitt
V. Oakeley
• V. Pape
PAGE
. 97, 1057
431, 751, 855, 856,
876
. 522
. 780
. 2419
. 660, 563
V. Pitt Rivers, Re Pitt
Rivers . . . 1305
V. Rayment . . 2095, 2141
V. Rowland . 684, 2096, 2108
V. Royal Wax, &c. Co. . 12
V. Scholey . . . 2004
V. Scott (11 W. R. 766) 2152,
2174, 2190
— • (89 L. T. 582) . 2098
V. Smith . . .780
V. Snyder Projectile Co. . 2269
V. Spashett . . 906, 910
. 661
. 1653
1383, 1386
. 1479
[1787]
1633
1352
194
702
V. Stanford .
• V. Steward
V. Synge
V. Tyler
■ V. Watson
Scott-Chad, Re, Re Pares
Scottish Eq. Life Ass. Soc. v.
Beatty
Farmers' Co., Re
N. E. Ry. V. Stewart .
Petroleum Co., Re, An-
derson's Case .
Petroleum Co., Re, Wal-
lace's Case . . 2263
Union Co. v. Steele . 293
Widows' Fund v. Craig
[2048], 2049, 2050
ScougaU V. Campbell . . 258
Scowby, Re, Scowby v. Scowby 126,
188, [238], 248, 816
Sooworoft, Re, Ormrod v. Wil-
kinson .... 1302
2260
Scrimgeour's Claim
Script Phonography Co. v.
Scrivener v. Pask .
V. Smith .
Scrutton V. PattUlo
V. Spenceman
Scully V. Dundonald (L.)
1332, 2299
Gregg 135
. 1310
. 1160
. 1590
. 1010
127, 377,
22U
Sculthorpo V. Tipper [1099], 1106,
1107, 1147, 1502, 1617
Seabrook, Re, Gray v. Baddeley 1426
Sea Insurance Co. v. Carr 794, 817
Seager, Re, Seeley v. Briggs . 944.
Seager Hunt, Re
Seagram v. Knight
— V. Tuck
Seagravo i'. Pope .
1361
. 645, 546
741, 775, 782,
1362, 1388
. 2052
ccxl
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Seagrave v. Seagrave . . 918
Seagrove v. Parks . . .18
Seal & Edgelow v. Kingston . 98
, Be {[1903] 1 Ch. 87) . 435
V. Kemsley . . . 1877
Seale Hayne v. JodreU . . 1511
Seaman, Re, Rhodes v. Wish . 1385
V. Woods . . .1542
Sear, Exp., Be Price . . 481
V. House Property Co. . 534
Searanoke, Be . . . 1621
Searle, Be (M. R., Deo. 4, 1872) [285]
([1900] 2 Ch. 829) 1619,
[1761]
V. Choat . . .744
V. Colt . . . 1571
V. Cooke [1822], 1823,2048, 2050
■ V. Lane . . . 1363
V. Matthews . . 498
Seaton v. Burnand . 2082, 2151
■ V. Heath . . 2082, 2151
■ • V. Mapp . . 2156, 2165
■ V. Seaton 862, 896, 946, 1016
V. T^vyford . . 1837
Seaward v. Bennington . . 97
V. Patterson [430], 509,
522, 602
Sebright's Settled Estates, Be 1753,
1754, 1768
Sebright v. Thornton . . 1764
Second E. Dulwich, &c. B. Soc,
Be 1107
Sec. of State, &o. for India v.
Kelson . . . 491, 498
Sec. of State for War v. Chubb 509
V. Deane . 278
Securities & Property Invest-
ment Corp. V. Brighton Al-
hambra. Limited . 746, 755
Securities Ins. Co., Be . . 824
Seddon v. Bank of Bolton . 561
■ ■ V. N. E. Salt Co. 2220, 2252
Sedgwick, Be, Exp. McMurdo . 476
■ • V. WaKord, &c. Ry.
Co 2223
Seear v. Lawson . . 116, 117
. 1936
. 944
. 1530
. 949
. 872
372
621, 626
. 578
. 1134
. 579
. 2014
Seed, Be . . .
Seeley v. Briggs, Be Seager
Sefton (Earl of). Be
(L.), Be
Segrave's Trusts, Be
Seidler, Exp.
Seixo V. Provezende
Selby V. C. P. Gas Co. .
■ V. Jackson .
V. Nettlef old
V. Pomf ret .
Seldon V. Wilde ([1911] 1 K. B.
701) . 408,432,460,1060,1066
PAGE
Selig V. Lion . . . .117
Seligman v.- Prince . . 1966
Sellar v. Bright . . 472, 831
V. Griffin 1330, [1337], 1339,
1342
ScUon V. Watts [1549, 1552], 1555,
1587, [1603], 1604, 1606
SeUors v. Matlock Bath Local
Board . . . 520, 602
Sells V. Sells . . . 1643, 2235
Selot's Trusts, Be . . . 723
Selous V. Croydon Local Board 442,
443, 511
Selwyn v. Garfit . . 1857, 1901
Semet & Solway's Patent, Re . 2321
Semple v. Holland
Senhouse v. Earl .
V. Mawson
Senior v. Hereford .
■ V. Pawson .
1655
918, 1921
. 794
[1787], 1802
515, 557
. 623
. 1877
511, 521
. 1634
. 578
WaUey
Sen-Sen Co. v. Britten
Sentance v. Porter .
Seraglio, The
Sercombe v. Saunders
Serff V. Acton Local Board
Sergeant, Be, Mertens v
1513
Sergenson v. Beloe, Be Wat-
mough ... 18, 193
Sergeson v. •Sealey . . . 980
Serle, Be, Gregory v. Serle . 2309
V. Fardell . . .402
V. St. Eloy . . .939
Seroka v. Kattenburg 857, 875, 885
Serrao v. Noel . . . 520
Seton V. Slade . . 2146, 2168
V. Smith . . [1526]
Seton-Smith, Be . . . 1555
Sevenoaks, &c. Ry. v, L. C. & D.
Ry. . . . 702, 708, 1543
Severn and Wye and Severn
Bridge Ry. Co., Re 1094, 1382,
2104
Sewart's Estate, Be . 2360, 2399
Sewers, Commrs. of v. GeUatly 591
V. Glasse . 590
SeweU, Be ... . 1072
, White V. SeweU . 1092
V. Bishopp . . . 1665
V. King, Be King 1628, 1629,
1934, 1989, 1990
V. Moxsy . . .1360
Seymour v. Bennett . 1801, 1817
— V. Bridge . . 2296
V. Pickett . . 1324
V. Vernon . . 1656
Seyton, Be, Seyton v. Sattor-
thwaite .... 873
Shaokel v, Marlborough (D.) . 1983
Table of Cases.
ccxli
PAQE
ShaokeU v. Colnutt, Re Pride . 2046
Shackleton v. Sutelifie . . 2195
Shadbolt V. .Woodfall . 1430, 1465
Shaftesbury v. Arrowsmith . 87
(E.) V. Marlborough
[735], 1560, 1704
Shafto, Re ... . 1168
■ V. Bolokow, Vaughan &
Co. . 39, 526, 670
V. Jojmson . . . 569
Shaftoe's Char., Re . . 1262
Shakespear, Re, Deakin v.
Lakin . . 852, 855, 875
Shakespeare Walk School, Re 1269,
2403
Shalcross v. J'inden . . 1368
Shale V. Hodson . . . [734]
Shanks, Re, Exp. Swmbanks . 1032
Shannon v. Bradstreet . . 1694
Shapland, Re . . 244, 453
Shard, Re, Partington v. Rey-
nolds . . . [1021]
Shardlow v. Cotterell . 2143, 2145
Sharland v. Mildon . . 1460
Sharp, Stewart & Co., Re [2430],
2432, 2436
, Re, Bentall v. Sharp 790,
793 799
([1906] 1 Ch. 793) . 1571
([1908] 2 Ch. 190) . 1508
, Rickett V. Biokett . 1114
, Ricketts v. Sharp . 1147
V. Carter . . 424, 768
• V. Jackson . . 1092, 2288
V. Lush . . 320, 1459
u. M'Henry . . . 1941
V. MarshaU, Re Pope . 1620
V. MiUigan . . . 2156
V. Rebbeck, Re Lance 1466,
1467
• V. Richards . . . 2015
V. Wright . . 290, 774
Sharpe, Re (5 Dowl, 717) . 1057
(15 Sim. 470) . 1158
, Masonic Ass. Co. v.
Sharpe 1057, 1064, 1113,
1114, 1326
V. Crispm . . 1518, 1523
V. Poy . . 862, 2036
V. San Paulo Ry. 389, 392,
1096
■ V. Scarborough (E.) . 1367
■ V. Sharpe . . .924
Sharpington v. Fulham Guar-
dians
Sharpies v. Adams .
V. Sharpies
Sharshaw v. Gibbs .
Shattock V. Shattock
VOL. I.
245
. 2030
1448, 1452
374, 1697
. 863
Shaw, Exp. (Jac. 270) .
■ ■ (2 Q. B. D. 463)
(4 Y. & C. 506)
, Re (49 L. J. Ch. 213)
PAGE
77
2210
2380
894
(M. R., 15 Dec. 1860) [1726]
— , Bridger v. Shaw . 1448
— , Robinson v. Shaw . 1511
— Tuckett V. Shaw . 1451
and Corp. of Birmingham,
2180, 2348, 2394
. 1481
. 1856
. 1105,1111
1082, 1980, 2153
. 1523
Re
V. Borrer
V. Bunny
V, Gates
V. Poster
V. Gould
V. Hertfordshire
Council .
V. Holland
V. Hudson
V. Jersey (E.)
V. Johnson .
V. MoMahon .
County
. 245
. 1093,2269
. 473, 487
. 552
. 1873
. 1508
V. Marten, Re Marten . 1446
V. Neale 183, 253, 1046, 2000.
2001, 2043
V. Port PhiHp Gold Co. . 2250
V. Rhodes
V. Royoe, Ld.
V. Shaw
V. Smith
■ V. Standish .
V. Thaokray .
V. Thompson
V. Wright
Sheaf V. Cave
Sheard v. Venables
• V. Webb
Shearman v. British
&c. Co.
773
. 1969
. 459
. 65,71,99
. 2290
. 2152
. 710, 1289
445, 449, 453
. 913
. 2163
. 517
Mutual,
. 1936
Robinson, Re
Johnson
Sheddon v. Goodrich
Shee V. French
Sheehan v. G. E. Ry.
Sheen, Exp. .
Sheffield Trustees, Exp.
— , Exp.
— — , Re Austin
. 1498, 1499
. 1530
. 1367
52, 633, 650
. 2127
. 2399
. 2315
. 1950
(Corp. of), Exp. 2366, 2383,
2399
, &c. Building Soo. v.
Harrison . . 1952
Banking Co. v. Clay-
ton, Re Walker . 2076
Corp. V. Sheffield
Electric Lighting.
&c. Co. . 2140, [2210]
(Mayor, &c. of) v.
Barclay . 2242, 2248
ccxlii
Table of Gases.
PAGE
Sheffield Waterworks v. Bing-
ham . . .693
and S. Yorks B. B.
Soo. V. Aizlewood 701,
1092, 1104, 2067
(L.) V. London Joint
Stock Bank 1323, 2036,
2038
V. Barclay . . 2043
V. Buckingham (D.) 939, 941
V. Eden . . . 1039
0. London Joint Stock
Bank 1323, 2035, 2038
V. Prince, Re Sims . 2286
Sheil, Exp 2129
Sheldon, Be, Nixon v. Sheldon 1618
V. Weldman . . 1326
SheKer v. City of London Elec-
tric Lighting Co. 519, 559, [598],
612, 842
Shellard, Exp. . . .156
Shelley v. SheUey [1550], 1560, 1650,
1654
V. Westbrooke
Shelly V. Pelham .
Shelmardine v. Harrop
V. Johnson
Shelmerdine, Re
Shelton, Re .
V. Watson .
. 991
. 769
. 1878
. 2227
. 1186
. 894
. 1649
Shelvin v. M'Grane . . 1047
Shenstone & Co. v. Hilton . 1934
Shenton v. Brock, Re Richards 1629
Shepard v. Jones . 1899, 1901, 1906
Shephard, Re . . . 1168
■ , Atkins V. Shep-
hard 115, 118, 747,
759, 761
V. Corp. of Norwich . 2350
■ V. Elhot . . . 1903
. 1189
. 2262
. 2156
[1010, lOllj
. 883
. 2107
V. Buckingham (D.) . 939
V. Churchill 1214, 1230,
1233, 1820
V. Corp. of Norwich . 2139
Shepheard, Re
V. Bray -
V. Walker
V. Wilson
Shepherd, Exp.
V. Allen .
- V. Croft
- V. Doolan
- V. Gillespie
- V. Harris
- V. Harrison
- V. Keatley
■ V. Morris
- V. Mouls .
■ V. Towgood
2195
. 2167
2293, 2296
1085, 1086
. 2302
. 2163
1315, 1331
. 1106
. 1120
PAGE
Sheppard, Exp., Re Parkers 1090,
2126
,Re . . . 1215
, De Brimont v.
Harvey 1033, 1085,
1086
V. Duke .
V. Gilmore
. 1432
145, 360, 361,
610, 533
V. Murphy . . 2297
V. Sheppard . . 260
V. Wilson . . 1665
Shepperd v. Pulbrook . . 1938
Sherard, Re . . . 1220, 1820
Sherborne Sch. Case . . 1259
Sherbrook v. Tufnell . . 827
Sheriff v. Spark . . . 1919
Sheringham U. D. C. v. Holsey 580
Sherman v. Sherman . . 1339
Sherrington v. Dean, &c. of St.
Pauls', Re Barker . . 1303
Sherry, Re, London & County
Bank v. Terry 1325, 2076, 2077,
2081
Sherwell v. Combined, &c. Synd. 833
Sherwin v. Selkirk . . . 1404
• V. Shakspear 341, 2169,
2181, 2182, 2189
Sherwood, Re
V. Beveridge
V. Rivers
V. Smith
. 1137
. 348
. 1579
. 966
. 1445
. 1387
518, 659
. 1086
SheweU v. Shewell .
Shewen v. Vanderhorst
Shiel V. Godfrey
Shields v. Bk. of Ireland
Shiers v. Ashworth, Re Jack-
son ; . . . . 1609
Shilito V. Hobson, Re Richard-
son . . . . 1926, 1982
Shilleto V. CoUett . . 894, 996
Shilson Coode & Co., Re . . 263
, Exp., Re Cock . . 2009
Shimell v. Tucker . . . 514
Ship V. Croskill . . . 2260
Shipbrook (L.) v. Hinehin-
brook (L.) .... 1013
Shipman v. Thompson . . 1319
Shippey v. Grey . . 482, 1049
Shipton (R. of), Exp. . 2379, 2400
Shipway v. Ball . . 894, 908
V. Broadwood . . 1333
Ship-ivright v. Clements . 188, 624
Shirley, Re . . . [2376]
V. Ferrers . . 107, [995]
Shirreff v. Hastings . . 1364
Shoe Machinery v. Cutlan 139, 664
Shoosmith v. Byerley . . 576
Shoolbred v. Roberts . . 493
Table of Cases,
ccxliii
PAGE
Shoppee v. Nathan . . 419
Shore v. Shore (4 Drew. 219,
501) 1622, 1623,
1697, 1871
(2 Ph. 378) . 1837
r;. Wilson . . . 711
Short, Exp., Re Mackenzie 263, 269
V. Mereier ... 97
V. Parratt, Re Hervey . 1090
Shorter v. Tod-Heatley . 248, 1062
Shortley v. Selby . . 1380, 1403
Shortridge, Re . 1168, 1191, 1220
Shotts Iron Co. v. Inglis 595, 599,
600
Showell V. Bouron . . . 179
V. Winkup . . 51
Shrapnel v. Laing . . 242, 251
Shrewsbury, &c. Ry. v. L. & N.
W. Ry. 701, 702, 708,
2149, 2154
Soh., Re 1259, 1263,
1264
(B.) V. Trappes 293, 843,
844
— — ■ V. Wirral Rys.
Committee 2350,
2351
— V. N. Staffs Ry. Co. 2359
V. Shrewsbury &
Birmingham Ry. . . 515
Shroder & Co. v. Myers & Co. . 146
Shropshire Union, &c. Co. v.
Reg. 1065, 1087, 1088, 2035, 2037
Shubrook v. Tufnell . . 828
Shuckburgh's Settlement, Re . 1541
Shuff V. Holdaway . . 769
Shumm v. DtKon . . . 296
Shum's Trusts, Re, Prichard v.
Richardson . . . 1277
Shurmer v. Hodge . . . 373
Shurmur v. Sedgwick . 880, 1628
Shutt V. Shutt . . .1809
Shuttleworth's Estate Act, Re 2407
Shuttleworth v. Bristo . . 1504
V. Clews 2200, [2219]
V. Howarth [1440],
1449, 1515. 1619,
1620
V, Lowther
V. Murray
Sibeth, Exp.
Re Sibeth
. 1877
. 1664
. 1091
. 864
. 2065
. 2095
[5051, 506
. 298
[629], 635, 651,
2312
Siddons v. Short, &o. Co. . 568
Sibun V. Pearce
Sichel V. Mosenthal
Sichell V. Raphael .
Sickles V. Morris
Siddell V. Vickers
PAOE
Sidebotham v. Barrington . 2169
Sidebottom, Re . . . 1298
, Beeley v. Wa-
terhouse . . 1298
V. Adkins . . 96
— • V. Fielden . 643, 646
Sidgreaves v. Brewer, Re Fleet-
wood . . . 1539,1554
Sidingham, Re . . . 951
Sidney, Re, Benyon v. Amphlett 1403
V. Ranger 330, 331, 1056
— • V. Sidney ^3 P Wms.
269) . . 918
(17 Eq. 65) . 1558
— — (W. N. (67)
248) . . . 2000
■ V. Wilmer . . . 2402
Siegenberg v. Met. Dis. Ry. Co. 2353
Siegert v. Pindlater . . 626
Siemen v. Karo . . . 643
Sievier v. Spearman . 134, 135
Sifikin V. Davis . . 1847, 1884
Silber Light Co. v. Silber . 695
■ V. Stein
. 122
. [275]
. 1918
. 2076
1367, 1373, 1378
. 1598, 1607
Silberberg, Re
Silcook V. Roynon
Silk V. Eyre .
V. Prime
V. Pryme
Silkstone and Haigh Moor Coal
Co. V. Edey 287, 1123, 2254, 2269
SiUick V. Booth . . . 1590
Silva, JJe .... 1157
Silva's Trusts, Re . . 956, 967
Silver Valley Mines, Re . . 825
SOvester, Re, Midland Ry. Co,
V. Silvester .
V. Bradley
Simcoe v. Pethiok .
Simes, Re, Simes v. Newbery .
V. Eyre
2081
1685
592
420
1459
■ V. Simes, Re Allen 312, 1166
Simm V. Anglo-American Tele-
graph Co. ....
Simmins v. Shirley
Simmonds, Exp., Re Carnao
• u. G. E Ry.
2242
1899
2236
185, 1035,
1041
Simmons' Contract, Re . . 302
Simmons, Re ... 1071
V. Blandy . . 1915
V. Gutteridge . . 1492
V. Kinnaird (L.) . 445
V. " Liberal Opinion,"
Ld. . . . 1030
V. London Joint Stock
Bank . 2035,2038
V. Norton . . 541
■ V. Rose, Re Ward , 1061
ccxliv
Table of Cases,
Simmons v. Simmons
■ ■ V. Storer .
Simon V. Barber
Simonin v. Mallao .
Simons v. Cridland
■ V. MUman .
PAGE
. 1424
. 290
. 1254
1522, 1586
. 713
1358, 1359
Simper v. Foley . . . 558
Simpson & Isaac's Patents . 2315
Simpson, Re . . . . 2126
([1904] 1 Ch. 1) . 1632
, Be Whitchurch 1758,
1773
V. Bathurst . 1453, 1673
V. Beard, Be Beard . 1556
V. Bell . . 432, 463
V. Brown . . . 1670
V. Chapman . 2119, 2132
Charing Cross Bank 1941
V. Denison
■u. Denny .
V. Earles .
V. Fogo
V. Godmanchester
Corp.
V. HoUiday
692, 694, 696,
702
1807
1025
724
. 588
370, 638,
639, 641
V. Howden (L.) 713, 2291
V. Lamb . . . 1057
V. Molson's Bank . 2033
V. Morley . 1362, 2001, 2005
X). Parkes, Re Parkes . 1423
Co.
V. Ritchie
V. Spraggett
V. Terry .
V. Thompson
V. Westm. Pal. Hotel
1810
603
1200
2220
2079
701
Simpson's Claim, Re Cunning-
ham & Co. . . . 1967
Sims, Be, Sheffield v. Prince . 2286
• V. Landray . . . 2146
■ V. Ridge . . . 1419
V. Thomas . . . 2284
V. TroUope . . . 1943
Sinson v. Ingham . . . 2127
Simultaneous Colour Printing
Syndicate v. Foweraker . 1969
Sinclair, Be ([1903] W. N. 113) 1554
■ , Exp. Chaplin . 2286
■ ■ Payne . 1039
■ , Alien V. Sinclair 1570,
1579
V. G. E. Ry.
V. Jackson
V. James .
V. Wilson .
Sing V. Leslie
291, 400
1873, 1874
. 1807
. 1092
. 1664
PAGE
Singer, &c. Co. v. Loog 249, 361, 620,
621, 622, 627, 813
— V. Wilson 149, 620,
621, 622, 623, 627, 645,
646, 2333
V. Audsley . . . 377
Singleton's Estate, Be . . 2404
Singleton, Exp., Re Tritton . 1929
V. Hopkins [1818], 1818,
1820
V. Selwyn . . 1131
V. Tomlinson . 1452, 1453
Sinnett v. Herbert . 1295, 1296, 1305
Sinnott V. Walsh . . . 1511
Sion Coll., Re, Exp. Corp. of
London . . . 2407
Hospital, Re . . . 1271
Sirdar Rubber Co. v. WaUington 632,
633,
Sir Titus Salt, Bart., Sons &
Co.'s Application, Re . . 2331
Sismey v. Eley . . . 2291
Sittingbourne & Sheerness Ry.
Co. V. Lawson . . . 1060
Sitwell, Exp., Be Drury-Lowe's
Sett. . . .230
V. Bernard . . 1445, 1619
V. Londesborough (E.) . 1762
Sixth West Kent Mutual B. Soo.
V. Hills . . 2056, 2057, 2065
Sixth West Kent Mutual B. Soc.
V. Shove . . [2055], 2064
Skarf V. Soulby . . 2281, 2284
Skeats, Re, Sheats v. Evans . 1166
. 1277
. 2289
. 416
. 2143
. 1381
. 1756
. 1384
. 1850
. 293
. 2084
Skeete's Charity, Re
Skegg, Re, Exp. Skegg
V. Simpson .
Skelton v. Cole
Skene v. Cook
Skerrett's Estate, Be
Skett V. Lindsay
Skey V. Bennett
Skidmore, Be
Skillett V. Fletcher
Skinner, Exp., Be Lawford's
Charity . . 1262
• , Be (L. R. 3 P. C. 451) 1001
■ (W. N. (96) 68) [1679],
1680
• , Cooper V. Skinner . 1135
V. City of Lond. Marine
Ins. Corp. . . 2295
V. Northallerton C. C.
Judge
V. Orde
V. Perry
V. Shew
V. Todd
V. Todd
. 807
. 1001
. 636
. 636
861, 1607
861, 1607
Table of Cases.
ccxlv
PAGE
Skinners' Co. v. Knight . . 2307
Skip V. Harwood . . . 2130
Skipper v. Skipper, Be Palmer 138,
148
Skipwith V. Stanley
Skipworth v. Saylo
Skitter, Re
Skottowe V. Young
Skrymsher v. Northeote
Skynner v. Peliohet
Skyring v. Greenwood
Slack V. Midland Ry. Co.
■ V. Parker
Sladden, Re .
Slade, Re, Slade v. Hulme
■ V. Barlow
. 2230
. 163
. 1180
. 1520
1461, 1514
1213, 1214
. 1319
244, 605
1066, 2126
. 277
14, 444
. 1802
. 1088
, 1909, 1926
. 92
. 1558
319, [1516]
Lim.,
• [19*1
. 1539
. 860
■ V. Chaine
V. Rigg . 1861
V. Tucker
■ V. Walpole
Sladen v. Whitting
Slaney Woollen Mils Co,
Re .
• V. Watney .
Slanning v. Style .
Slater's Trusts, Re . 1874, 2278, 2279
Slater, Re ([1906] 2 Ch. 480) 1554,
1558
• V. Callaway, Re Minter . 318
V. Pinder . . .481
V. Slater . 226, 310, 1063
V. Sunderland (M.) 105, [2450]
V. Sunderland (M.) . 1051
Slaugham (Manor of). Re [2450]
Slazenger v. Spalding . . 623
Sleeoh v. Thorington . . 1445
Sleeman v. Wilson . . 978, 1113
Sleigh V. Lawson . . 1120, 1314
Slevin, Be, Slevin v. Hepburn . 1253
Slewinge's Charity, Re . . 1262
Slim V. Croucher 1082, [2246], 2247,
2248, 2249
SKngsby v. Boulton . . 502
V. Bradford TroUey Co. 667
Slipper V. Tottenham, &c. Ry.
Co. . . . 2167, 2185, 2390
Sloane i'. Britain Steamship
Co 76, 1022
Sloman v. Bank of England . 2242
■ V. New Zealand Govt. 13, 14
Sloper, i^e .... 1216
— V. OKver, Re Batchelor 895,
906, 1587, 1593
Sly V. Blake, Re Johnson . 1432
Small V. Attwood . . . 1088
V. Nat. Prov. Bank of
England . . 1940, 1951
V. Torley . . .2164
V. Wing . . . 1470
PAGE
Smalley v. Hardinge . . 2208
Smalpage's Case, Be Marseilles
Ry. Co.
Smalpage v. Tonge
Smart v. Flood
,v. Taylor, Be Taylor
V. Tranter .
723
. 2,14
742, 775
. 970
874, 888
. 2015
. 1026
. 1588
. 968
Smeathman v. Bray
Smeaton's Will, Be
Smee v. Baines
Smeed, Be, Archer v. PraU
Smelting Co. of Australia v.
I. R. Commrs. . . .159
Smethurst v. Hastings 1104, 1105,
1109, 1146
V. Longworth . 940
Smijth Bowyer, Be . . [948]
Smiles v. Blackburn, Be Black-
burn .... 1427
SmUter, J?e .... 1510
Smirthwaite's Trusts, Be 1186, 1216
Smith's (Henry) Char., Be . 1288
Smith's Case, Be Bank of Hin-
dustan .... 1050
Smith's Case, Be Reese River
Mining Co. . . 2248, 2263
Smith's Case, Be South Durham
Iron Co 1965
Smith's Estate, Be (9 Eq. 178) 2360,
2399
■ — ■ — , M'Murray
V. Mathew 796, 799, 800, 1461
Smith's Estate, Be, Clifford v.
Washington . . . 884
Smith's Estate, Be (40 L. T. 389) 863
— (27 L. R. Jr.
121) 1664
Smith's Settled Estates, Be
([1891] 3 Ch. 65) 1747,
[1766], 1769, 1773
Settled Estates, Be
. 1755
. 1627
. 1627
. 896
[1006]
. 481
. 1324
. 1388
. 1981
([1901] 1 Ch. 689)
— ■ Trusts, Be
Will, Be .
Smith (AUoe EUza), Be
, Exp. .
— ■ — -, Be Brown
■ Hamilton
■ — - Hepburn
— ■ — ■ Hildyard
Kell's Guar-
dians . . 2380
— ■ — ■ ■ — ■ Norwich, &o.
Bldg. Soc. . . 2057
-, Be (9 Beav. 182 ; 4 Beav.
309) . . .262
— (9 Beav. 342) . 268, 1552
(4 Beav. 309) . . 1042
. (19 Beav. 329) . [272]
ccxlvi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Smith, 2Je (11 Beav. 468) . 276
(4 Ch. D. 70) . . 1181
(2 Ex. D. 47) . 433, 845
(4 Jur. N. S. 1193) . 865
(31 L. J. P .& M. 181) 1590
— (9 W. R. 396) . 1042
(14 W. R. 949) . 2364
(16 W. R. 1130) . 1357
([1902] 2 Ch. 667) . 1620
(Mary), Re (10 Ch. 79) 985,
1490
(W.), Re ([1907] W. N.
188) . . .900
■ , Re, Exp. Dixon . . 1331
L. & N. W. Ry.
Co. & Midland
Ry. Co. 1773, 2383
■ = — , and Service and Nel-
son 388, 389, 392, 394
■ , Arnold v. Smith 1498,
1617
■ , Bain v. Bain . . 28
• ■, Bilke V. Roper 886, 887
, Brant v. Parsons [1787]
, BuU V. Smith . 1628, 1696
• , Chapman v. Wood . 869
, Clements v. Ward 887, 1296
, Day V. Bonaini . 342
, Duke of Rutland's
Settlement, Re 1773,
2383
, Green v. Smith 1405, 1406
• , Grose-Smith v, Brid-
ger . . . 1753
- — — — — ; Hands v. Andrews 420,
431, 433, 460
■ — ■, Hannington v. True 1478
■ , Henderson - Roe v.
Hitohins . . 970
• ■, Hooper v. Smith . 831
• ; Hutchinson v. Ward 174,
794
, Jones V. Smith [1394],
, Keeling v. Smith 979, 1540
• — ■ — , Lord V. Hayward . 1511
— , McMurray v. Mathew 796,
799, 800, 1461
, Pinsent & Co. . 304
, Rigg V. Hughes . 37
, Robson V. Tidy 1632, 2311
, Roe V. Hitohins [1164],
1430
— , Smith V. Lewis 1108, 1147
— , Smith V. Smith . 1606
, Smith V. Thompson 1104
— , WOhams v. Prere . 71
& Co., Re . . . 1323
- & Co. V. British Mar.
Mutual Ins. Assoc. . 391
PAGE
Smith & Edwards . . . [273]
E. E. (32 W. R. 408) 278, 281
, Fleming & Co., Re, Exp.
Kelly . . . 2288
, Ooods of . . . 386
(William), Re . . 2399
V. Adams . . . 915
V. Anglo-American Oil
Co. . . . [367]
— - — - V. Archibald . . 551
• V. Armitage . 352, 1121, 1419
V. Armstrong . . 322
V. Atkin, Re Atkin's
Trusts 875, 1021, 1022, 1023
17. Baker . . , 1863
V. Bank of Scotland . 2082
V. Bameby . . . 1512
V. Barnes . • . 78, 1875
y Bate . . . 954
V. Baxter 515, 560, 561, 563
V. Beaufort (D.) . . 86
V. Bence, Re Benoe . 1542
V. Betty . 298, 1319, 1324
V. Bioknell . 1878, 2229, 2231
V. Boucher
1181, 1215, 1225,
1232
V. Brentnall
. 2146
V. Brown (48 L. J. Ch.
694)
. 551
V. Brownlow
. 590
V. Buchan
. 177,2161
V. Buller 287, 292, 293, 295,
298, 653
V. Butler
. 2169,2220
V. Carter
[1495]
V. Chadwiok
297, 2247, 2248,
2260, 2261
V. Chambers
. 1120
V. Chatto
. [655], 662
V. CherriU
. 2285
V. Chichester
. 1886,2043
V. Church
[1661]
V. Clarke
. 2153
V. Claxton
. 1490
V. Conder
. 1671
V. Cook
. 969
V. Cooke
. 1630
V. CoweU
737, 738, 760
V. Crabtree
. 1537,1668
V. Cremer
. 1448
V. Critchfield
. 500
V. Cropper
. 644
V. Dale
1033, 1128, 1129,
1130, 1131, 1453
V. Daniell
90, 93
V. Darby
. 569
V. Darlow
418, 497, 501
V. Davies
. 828, 1836
V. Day
271, 510, 518, 559
Table of Cases.
ccxlvii
FAGS
Smith V. Dixon . . . 512
V. Draeger, Be Broad . 1427
■ V. Dresser . . .1130
V. Druce, Re Bright . [791]
V. Effingham (E.) . 290, 291,
292, 744
V. Evans
. 1991
V. Everett . 1503
, 2096, 2098
V. Eyles
1363, 1364
V. Fletcher .
. 589
V. French
. 1115
«. Gill .
. 312
V. Gold Coast, &c.
Co. . 2145
V. Gooch
. 1002
V. G. E. Ry. Co.
[1957]
V. G. W. Ry.
571, 2348
V. Green
[1891]
V. Grjndley .
. 833
V. Grummitt, Re Gedney 1321
V. Gue, Re Gue
. 1512
V. Guy
1460, 1461
V. Hakewell .
• [712]
V. Hammond (6 Sim. 10) 28,
235, 495
V. Hancock .
. 528
V. Hankey .
[1441]
V. Harding .
. 1491
V. Hargrove
. 363
V. Harwood .
. 372
V. Hawthorne
. 2081
V. Henley . 157
, 2230, 2231
V. Hibbard .
. 1181
V. Hill
1867, 1874
V. Hodson .
. 1319
V. Hurst 1999,
2000, 2004,
2005, 2283
V. IHffe [1640],
1643, 1644,
1646
V. Jackson .
. 986
V. Jeyes
. 752
V. Johnson
. 667
V. Kay
2272, 2273
V. Keal
. 1032
V. Keene
. [463]
V. Kenrick
. 589
V. Kerr
. 1300
V. King
. 946
V. Lakeman
457, 459
V. Lancaster
1748, 1750,
[1768]
V. Land and Hous
e Pro-
party Corp.
2248, 2252
V. Langford .
. 1498
V. Lay
. 75
V. Lemaitre
. 1234
V. Leveaux
. 1337
V. Lewis
[193], 1007
V. Liverpool, Lond
Dnand
Globe Li
s. Co.
. 395
PAGE
Smith V. Lloyd . . . 1866
V. L. & S. W. Ry. . 651
V. Lubbock, Re New Zea-
land, &c. Co. . 1449, 1971
— V. Lucas . . 862, 865
V. Lyster . . .781
V. Manchester (D.) . 703
— V. Massie ... 83
V. Matthews . . 905
V. May, Re Morgan 980,
1804, 2383
V. Mid. Ry. . . 599, 601
V. MilUdge, Re Humfries 1510
V. Mogford . . . 1633
V. Moreton . . . 1475
- V. Morgan . 1363, 1364, 2002
- V. Nelson . . .348
—— (92 L. T. 313) 2111
V. N. Staff. Ry. Co. . 361
■ — ■ V. Northleaoh Rural Dis-
trict Council . 129, 245
V. Olding . . . 1910
V. Paringa Mines . . 703
V. Parks . . . 1322
V. Parkside Mining Co. . 397
V. Patrick . . . 1081
— V. Pearman . . . 1915
■ V. Peters . 2140, 2148, 2177
V. Pilgrim . . 104, 2288
V. Pilkington 1904, 2053, 2057
V. Pococke . . 1064, 1331
■ V. Poole . . . 1387
• — — — V. Reed ... 63
■ — — — V. Richardson . . 36
V. Robinson (1 Sm. & G.
140) . . . 1847
- V. Robinson (13 Ch. D.
148) [2159]; 2164, 2168
— V. Sibthorpe, Re Jackson 1475
— V. Smith (20 Eq. 500) 518,
520, [556]
— — (L. R. 3 Ex. 282) 707
(2 Y. & C. 353) 748
(10 Ha. App.
Ixxi.) . . 779
— — (16 Mar. 1857,
B. 973) . [325]
(1 Dr. & S. 384) 1430,
1464, 1465, 1594
(5 Ch. 342) . 1542
— (4 Aug. 1860, B.
1881) . [1710]
([1891] 3 Ch.
550) . . 1872
(3 Drew. 72) . 1207
— (Ir. Rep. 10 Eq.
273) . . nil
— (3 Atk. 307) . 1013
(12 P. D. 102) . 925
ccxlviii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Smith V. Smith (21 Beav. 385) 884
(3 Giff. 121) 906, 910,
1668
■ — : — ([1899] 1 Oh.
365) . 1475,1536,
1606
, Re Smith's
PoHcy Trust
, Be Benton
Somes
V. Spenoe, Be Wheatley
1190
869
1676
870,
1529
171, [238]
V. Stanley .
V. Stuart, Be Stuart 1121, 1421
V. Thackerah . . 568
V. Toloher . . . 2194
V. Veal . . . 419
V. Wallace . . .2166
V. Watts, Be Watts 315,
1376, 1852, 1877
. 2146
V. Webster
V. Weguelin .
■;;. Went
■ V. White
V. Whitema,n
v. Whitlock .
V. Wilkinson
■ V. Wills
■ V. Winter
V. Wright
Smith-Barry v. Da.wson
Smither v. Zletterquist
Smithprs v. .Green .
■ V. Smithers
. 723
. 64
. 1378
. 1943
. 880
1118, 1315
. 296
[1043], 1046
. 229
. 522
. 1222
[904], 907
[1978]
Smithett v. Hesketh 1862, 1910, 2006
Smithies v. National Assoc, of
Operative Plasterers . 37, 601
Smithwick v. Smithwiok . 896
Smokeless Powder Co., Be 2332,
2337, 2338
Smurthwaite v. Hannay . . 3
Smyth's Settlement, Be . 1215, 1216
Smyth, Exp 2383
, Be Limerick Ry.
Co. ... 1719
, Be (16 Ch. D. 286) . 75
(55 L. T. 37) . 1183
V. Carter . . 539. 544
V. Griffin . . . 2291
V. Johnston . 1538, 1668
Smythe v. Smythe . . . 645
Smythies, Be . . . 1558
Snagg V. Prizell . . . 1876
Snailwell (Rector of), Exp. [2379],
Snaith, Be, Snaith v. Snaith
Sneary v. Abdy
Snoath v. Valley Gold, Lim.
Snell, Be (5 Ch. D. 815) .
2380
. 1446
. 418
. 1969
293, 298
SneU, Be (6 Ch. D. 105)
V. Finch
Snelling v. Pulling .
■ V. Thomas
PAGE
1038, 1875
. 1895
135, 819
. 2146
1345, 1870
. 929
411, 443
. 1569
. 2106
. 1511
. 587
2078
Sneyd, Be, Exp. Tewings
Snook V. Watts
Snow V. Bolton
V. Boycott
• V. Milford
V. Teed
V. Whitehead
Snowdon, Be, Exp. Snowdon .
SnuggB V. Seyd and Kelly's
Credit Index Co. . 509, 523
Soady v. TurnbuU . . . 884
Soames v. Edge . . . 2157
Soan V. Morley, Be Dagnall . 876
Soar V. Ashwell . . 1087, 1113
Sober v. Kemp . [2013], 2016
Sobey v. Sobey 504, 505, 506, 1312
Soblomsten, The . . . 1049
Soc. for Prop, of G. v. A.-G. . 1257
Soc. for Teachers of Deaf &
Whittle's Contract . . 1280
Sooiete Anojiyme, &c. Panhard
V. Panhard & Go. . . 628
Sooiete Anonyme, &c. v. Tilgh-
mann's Patent Sand Blast Co. 676,
2317
Soci^te Generale de Commerce
V. Farina .... 415
Societe Generale de Paris v.
Dreyfus ... 14, 16
Sooiete Generale de Paris v.
Tramways Union Co. 716, 1929,
2033, 2038
Sooiete Generale de Paris v.
Walker 1928, 1929, 2037, 2243
Sooiete, &c.,de Glaoes v. Tilgh-
mann's Sand Blast Co. 633, 637
Soden v. Soden . . . [962]
Softlaw V. Welch 853, 855, 856, 875
Solicitor, A, Be (33 W. R. 131) 416
: ^- ([1895] 2 Ch.
66) 306, 432, 1062
• ~. (1,4 Ch. D. 152) 434
— r— (25 Q. B. D. 17) 1070
— ■ — (63 L. T. 350) . 1071
([1902] 1 K. B.
128) . . 1072
, Exp. Hales . 1060
Solicitor, A, Be, Exp. Inoorp.
Law Soc. (65 L. T. 584) . 487
Solicitor, A, Be, Exp. Incorp.
Law Soc. ([1894] 1 Q. B. 254) 1070
Solicitor, A, Be, Exp. Inoorp.
Law Soc. ([1898] 1 Q. B. 331) 1070
Sohcitor, A, Be, Exp. Inoorp.
Law Soc. ([1903] 1 K. B. 857) 1069
Table of Cases,
ccxlix
Solicitor, A, Be, Exp. Incorp.
Law Soc. (63 L. J. Q. B. 397) 1070
Solicitor of the Treasury v.
White . . . .107
Solicitors and General Society
V. Lamb .... 1935
Solignao v. Durden . . 510
SoUey V. Glower . . 1350, 1470
V. Wood . . . 1711
SoUory V. Leaver .
Solomon and Meagher, Re
V. Attenborough
• V. Mulliner
r— V. Solomon
. 749
. 1983
. 1479
. 247
. 1477
1142, 1774
. 602
944
Soltau's Trusts, Re
Soltau V. De Held .
Soltykofi, Re, Exp. Margrett
Solway Steamship Co., Be 2428, 2434
, The . . . .153
Somerset and Walker's Patent,
Re . . . 2315
, Be . . . 1186
, Somerset v. Poulett
(E.) [1102], 1105, 1107,
1110, 1115, 1383
■ (D.), Be, Thyime v.
St. Maur 851, 933
— V. Cookson . 2140
— u. Cox , . . . 1081
SomerviUe & Turner's Contract,
Be . 1183, 1209, 1353, 1860
Somerville, Exp., Be S. E. Ry. 2383,
2406
Somes, Be, Smith v. Somes . 1676
— , Stewart v. Stewart 2120
V. Martin . . . 374
Soothil U. Dist. Council v.
Wakefield Rural Dist. Council 2160
Soper?;. Arnold . 345,2188,2220
Sopwith V. Maughan . * . 916
Sorresby v. HoUins . . 1305
Soto, The . . . 287, 289
Sottoinayor v. De Barros 1522, 1586
Souch'f. Cowley, Re Cowley . 1554
— — • V. E. L. Ry. . . 689
Soulby, Re, Soulby v. Soulby [1151]
Soutar's Policy Trusts, Re . 874
South, Exp 1989
,Be . . 183,2003,2004
African Breweries Co. v.
King . . . .723
African Republic v. Com-
pagnie, Pc. du Nord 13, 37,
40,66
African Territories v.
Wallington . 2140,2210
American and Mexican
Co., Be, Exp. Bank of
England . . .139
PAGE
South Devon Ry. Co., Exp. Mas-
sey Lopes . [2357], 2357
— — - Durham Iron Co., Smith's
Case .... 1965
Eastern Ry. Co. v.
Associated Portland Ce-
ment . . . .698
East Ry. Co., Be, Exp.
Somerville . . 2383,2408
-Eastern Ry. & Wiffin's
Contract, Be . . 706
— • Essex Estuary Co., Be . 1039
— Hetton Coal Co. v.
Haswell, &c. Co. . . 38
Molton (Mayor of) v.
A.-G. . 1269, 1291, 1292
Staffordshire Trams. Co.
V. Ebbsmith . . 82
Wales Ry. Co., Exp. . 2393
■ ■ -, Re . 1218, 2406
V. Wythes . 2141
Western of Venezuela,
&c. Co., Be . . 773
Western District Bank v.
Turner . . .1848
V. Bloxam [2017], 2021, 2076
Southall & Barclay, Re . . 2335
— ■, Re, Onions v. Tooley [453]
V. British Mutual, &c.
Soc. . . .704
Development Synd. v.
Dimsdon ... 45, 172
Southampton (L.), Re,. Allen v.
Southampton . . 2031,2036
Southampton, &o. Co. v. Hollis
510
Southampton's Estate, Be . 1902
Southampton (Sheriff of), Exp.,
iJe Crook .... 419
Southampton Steamboat Co. v.
Rawlins .... 138
Southby's Patent . . . 2320
Southcomb v. Bishop of Exeter 2155,
2188
Southern Counties Deposit Bk.
■0. Rider . . 703
— V. Harriman . . 2144
Southport & Lytham Tram. Act,
Be 2422
Southport Banking Co. v.
Thompson .... 1951
Southwark, &o. Co. v. Quick . 94
— , &c. Water Co. v.
Hampton Dist. Council . 818
Southwark, &c. Water Co. v.
Wandsworth District Bd. of
Works . . . .604
Southwold Ry. Co., Be . . 2420
South worth v. Taylor . .511
ccl
Table of Cases.
Sovereign Life Assurance Co. v.
Dodd
Sowdon V. Marriott
Sowerby v. Clayton
• ■ — - V. Fryer .
Sowry, JRe
V. Sowry
Spackman, Be, Exp. Foley
■ -May
V. G. W. Ry. Co.
V. Holbrook .
■ V. Timbrell
1406
. 1465
1614, 1620
. 546
. 2382
[893], 2383
2286
1039
2353
1470
1362
Spaight V. Cowne . 2035, 2245, 2246
Spalding v. Ruding 1927, 2046, 2303
■ V. Thompson . . 1319
■ Rural Council v. Gar-
ner . . ... [47]
Spanish General Agency v.
Spanish Corp. . . 510, 517
Sparagnapane v. Coombs . [660]
Sparkes v. Evans . . . 2219
Spark's Trusts, Be, Spark v.
Massey .... 922
Sparks, Be . . . 1221, 1881
Sparling v. Brereton . . 1072
■ V. Clarson . . 559
Sparrow, Be (5 Ch. 662) . . 1220
■ ■ (20 Ch. D. 320) . 1718
— • ([1892] 1 Ch. 412)
[1737]
V. Farmer . 2057, 2058
V. Fiend . . . 1801
V. Hill . . . 251
•;;. Oxford Ry. Co. . 2354
Spartali v. Constantidini 1572, 2129
Spearman's Settled Estates, Be 1745
Spearman v. Bailey . . [972]
Spedding v. Fitzpatriok 36, 41, 42.
552
Speed V. Sorton . . [1336]
Speer v. Crawter . . . 1823
Speer's Trusts, Be . . 1695, 2379
Speers v. Thimbleby . . 2145
Speight, Be, Exp. Brooks . 838
• V. Gaunt . . 1084, 10b5
Speller v. Bristol Steam Navi-
gation Co. . . . .
Spence, Be .
■ V. Coleman
■ V. Hangford
Spence's Patent
Spenceley v. Schulenburgh
Spencer-Cooper, Be
Spencer's Settled Estates, Be .
Spencer, Be (18 W. R. 240)
- (54 L. T. 659)
-, Spencer v. Hart
21
950
479
742
2315
90
1356
1745
1059,
1063
2332
1084.
1095
PAGE
Spencer, Be, Thomas v. Spencer 869
V. Ancoats Vale Rubber
Co. . . 829, 836
— ■ V. Brighouse, Be Wil-
liams . . . 1422
W.Clarke . . 1934,2033
— V. Cutbush, Be Mayhew 1427
— V. Jack . . . 639
V. L. & B. Ry. . . 581
V. Met. Board of Works 698,
2393
V. Pearson . . 2044
V. Scurr . . 538, 542
V. Slater . . . 2284
17. Topham . . 2256
V. Turner, Be Hudson 1366
. 1;. Watts . . .129
SpendlufEe's Charity, Be . . 1268
Spensley, Be, Spensley v. Harri-
son . . . . 1851,1879
Spering v. Spering . . . 920
Sperling v. Rochfort . . 894
, Be Van
Hagan .... 886
Spettigue's Trusts, Be . . 246
Spettigue, Be . . . 1218
Speyer v. Inland Rev. Commrs. 160
Spicer V. James . . . 1470
• V. Martin . . . 532
• V. Spicer . . . 906
Spiokernell v. Hotham . . 1388
Spier V. Bernard . . . 263
Spiers and Sevan's Case, Be
Roxburghe Press . . 2443
Spiers v. Brown . 661, 662, 667
Spike V. Harding . . . 1823
SpUler, JJe . . . .898
, SpiUer V. Madge . 1559
V. Maude . . . 1300
— V. SpiUer . . . 1983
v. Turner . . .706
Spillers and Baker, Be . . 395
Spindler, Re, Exp. Rolph . 1941
■ andMears, iJe . '.2165
Spiral Globe Co., Be 1963, 1964,
[2443]
Spirett V. WUlows [902, 903], 905,
907, 910, 911, 2284
Spbitine, Be . . . .741
Spitalfields Schools, i?e . . 2407
Spittle V. Walton . . .110
Spode V. Smith . . . 1559
Spokes V. Banbury Bd. 442, 443,
523, 608, 610, 612
■ — V. Grosvenor Hotel Co. 69, 97,
2242
Spooner's Estate, Be . . 2403
Spooner v. Payne . . . 445
Sporle ?;. Whayman . 1980,1983
Table of Gases.
ccli
PAGE
Spottiswoode v. Clarke . . 517
Spradbury's Mortgage, Be . 1859
Sprang v. Leo . . .887
Spratt's Pat. v. Ward & Co. . 361
Spratt V. Jeffery . . .2163
Spring V. Pride . . . 1630
Springall, Re ... 262
Springett D. Dashwood . .1135
Springfield, Be, Chamberlain v.
Springfield
V. Thame
Springhead Co. v. Riley
Sprot, Be
Sproule V. Prior
Sprunt V. Pugh
Spurgin v. White
Spurr I), Hall
Spurrier v. Fitzgerald
V. La Clocke
. 1509
. 670
. 676
• [809]
. 1475
409, 442, 773
710, 1255
. 37
Spurstowe's Charity, Be
Spurway v. Glynn
Spyer v. Haswell
■ V. Hyatt
Squibb v. White
Squire, Exp. .
V. Ford
■ V. Purdoe
Stables, Be .
Stace V. Gage
Stacey v. HUl
Stachemann v. Paton
Stackhouse v. Cs. Jersey
Stackpoole v. Beaumont
■ V. Walsh
Stacpoole V. Stacpoole
Stafford's (L.) Settlement, Be
Stafford Char., Be 1259,
[2178]
. 723
. 2383
. 1446
[1009]
. 915
[1639]
. 157
. 2045
. 2015
. 899
. 1807
2009, 2084, 2208
. 671
1099, 2043
. 894
424
1124
1744
1265,
3236
1533
1569
52
1858
886,
887
Stagg V. Medway, &c. Co. . 2003
Stahlsohmidt v. Lett 1387, 1467,
1469
V. Walford . 130
Staight V. Bum . . 518, 562
Staines, &c. Ry. Co., Be . . 2420
, Be, Staines v. Staines 328,
1371
■ (E.) V. Cantillon (Bui
keley) .
■ V. Buckley
■ V. City of London
• V. Selby .
• V. Stafford, Be Price
V. Rudlin
Stainforth v. Gooding
Stains v. Banks
Stainton v. Carron Co.
1170, 1312, 1315, 1337, 1341, 1503,
2236
. 1847
[1891]
. 1870
748, 1148,
PAGE
Stamford's (L.) Settled Estates,
Be 1745, 1746, 1755,
1772, 1773, 1780
, &o. Banking Co. v.
Smith . . 1383
— — - (E.), Be, Payne v.
Stamford 1165, 1170,
1188, 1758
(E.) V. Hobart . 1652
Stamford (E.) and Warrington,
Be . . . 1772
Pajrne v. Gray . 1542
, &c. Banking Co. and
Knight, Be . 2166, 2201
— Union v. Bartlett, Be
Watson [1025], 1026, 1157, 1386
Stammers v. ElUott . 1319, 1588
Stanoomb v. Trowbridge
U. D. C 443
Standard Discount Co. v. La-
grange 827, 828, 829, 830
— Gold Mining, Be . 81
Manufac. Co., Be
([1891] 1 Ch. 627) 1948,
1969
798
1804
1321
1628
1946
Vestry .
894, 897,
■ • V. St. Giles
Standering v. Hall .
Standeven v. Murgatroyd
Standing v. Bowring
Stanford, Exp., Be Barber
— — - V. Hurlstone . 547, 552
• V. Roberts (26 Ch. D.
155) . 294, 299, 301
— V. Roberts (6 Ch. 307) 1698
— V. Roberts ([1901] 1
Ch. 440) . . 1778
— V. Roberts (52 L. J. Ch.
50) . . . . [975], 981
Stanger, Be, Moorsom v. Tate . 1149
— — — — Leathes v. Stanger
Loathes
Stanhope's Trusts, Be
Stanhope Colls. Co., Be .
V. Collingwood
V. Stanhope
Staniar v. Evans
Stanier v. Evans
Staniland v. Staniland
Stanley's Case
Settled Estato
298
1509
482
1655
116
1132
1087
. 188,
. 1033
. [931], 933
. 1965
i. Be . 1741
Stanley of Alderley (L.), -Be . 2407
• ,Be .... 1216
-, Tonnant v. Stanley 1147
— V. Bond . . [469], 473
— V. Coulthurst 541, [1652],
1656, 1693
^— - V. Grundy . . 1894, 1897
V. Jackman . . 1654
• V. Norwich (Mayor of) 1250
cclii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Stanley v. Plevins . . . 504
- (L.) V. Shrewsbury (E.) 519,
559
— ■ V. Stanley (7 Ch. D. 589 ;
26 W. R. 310) 473. 869,
883, 1115
V. WUd . . .383
V. Wrigley . 1818, 1820
Stannard v. Harrison 124, 658, 669
— V. Lee . . . 669
V. St. Giles' Vestry . 694
Stansfield, Re . . 1508, 1559
■ V. Bradford (Corp. of)
V. Hobson
Stanton v. Baring .
V. Hall .
V. Hatfield
V. Lambert, Be Lam-
bert's Estate
1868
. 291
859, 908
1394, 1404
866, 874,
887, 888
. 2251
921, 1633
718, 797
2360, 2362
. 1572
■ V. Tattersall
Stapilton v. Stapilton
Stapleford Co., Re .
Staples, Exp.
Stapleton v. Conway
V. For. Vin. Assoc. 673,
674
Star and Garter Hotel, Be . 249
Star Newspaper Co. v. O'Connor 527,
528
Starbuok v. Mitchell . .1158
Starey v. Graham . . . 2319
Starkey v. Bk. of England 2242,
2248
U.Dyson . . .1106
^ V. Eyres, iBe Deakin . 1678
Starr Bowkett Bldg. Soc. and
Sibun, Be . . . . 2165
Startin v. Peckover . [1500]
Stawell's Trusts, Be . 1663, 1664
Stead, Exp., Re Mundy . . 838
• , Re . . . .262
, Witham v. Andrew . 1305
. 1910
. 1605
. 1719
. 243
■ V. Banks
■ V. Hardaker .
-V. Harper
■V. Smith
■ V. Williams, Stead v. An-
634
101
derson ....
Steatham, Re, Steatham v.
Steatham ....
Stedman, Re (58 L. T. 709) 333, 1807
• (V.-C. H., June 27,
1874) . . 1002
— — -, Coombe v. Vincent
1784, [1797], 1797, 1808
J). Dunster, 2?e Hartley 1540
V. Hart . 1026, 1363, 1378
— • V. Webb . . . 1038
Steed V. Galley
V. Preeoe
980, 1490, 1803
. 935,2075
. 821
Steeden v. Walden
Steedman v. Hakim
Steel's Case, iJe Whitley Part-
ners ..... 157
Steel V. Cobb . . . 1030
V. Dixon 1935, [2070], 2080
Steele & Co., Be Layton . . 277
, Be, Gold V. Brennan .1183
v. Mid. By. . . 688,2353
V. North Met. Ry. Co. . 696
V. South Wales Miners
Federation . . 712
V. Stewart . . 90, 94
V. Stuart . . 2300, 2302
Steen, Be, Steen v. Peebles . 1660
Steeping, Rector of Little, Be . 2359
Steer v. Steer . . 716, 1499
Steers v. Rogers 633, 652, 1316,
1898, 2318
Stein V. Stein . . . 2035
Steinmetz v. Halthin . . 908
Stenning, Re, Wood v. Stenning 1088,
1325
Stenotyper, Re . . 2288, 2289
Stenson, Be, Exp. Merriman . 1377
Stephen, Be . . . .277
V. .Cunningham, Be
Hamlet .... 1665
Stephens, Exp. (11 Ves. 24) 1319,
1322
• (3 Ch. D. 807) . 2286
— , Be (3 Ch. D. 659) . 2333
(L. R. 9 C. P. 187) 57
■ — (8 Ch. 465 ; 21 W.
R. 494) . . 207
■ ([1904] 1 Ch. 322) 1509
-, Warburton v.
•Stephens . 1381,1388
— V. Green . 487, 1928, 2034
— — V. James . . 966, 995
— V. Newborough (L.) 288,
290, 1130, 1135
— v. Peel . . .626
Stephenson, i;a;2J. . . 1898,2022
— , Re, Exp. Brown . 2286
V. Heathcote . 1474
— ■ V. Parker, Re Parker 1514
^ u. Stephenson . 112
■ ■ V. Yorke [2026], 2039,
2244
Stepney v. Biddulph . . 2238
Spare Motor Wheel Co.
W.Hall . . . .648
Sterling, Exp. . . . 1038
Stern v. Tegner . . . 501
Sterndale v. Hankinson . . 1388
Steuart v. Gladstone 107, 2098, 2107
Table of Cases.
ccliii
PAGE
Stevens, Exp. {2 Ph. 722) 2392, 2393
(15Jur. 243) . 2400
, iJe .... 1714
(15 Eq. 110) . . 1511
, Cooke V. Stevens 1081,
1120, 1122
V. Austen .
V. Biller
V. Brett
V. Chown .
V. Griffin .
V. Guppy .
V. Keating
V. King
V. Met. Dist. Ry.
1079
. 1323, 1932
. 663
38, 513, 594
. 174, 243
. 2162
. 631
. 1426
522, 699,
820
V. Mid. Hants Ry. Co. 2045,
2412
V. Phelips . . .482
V. Savage . . . 1013
V. S. Dev. Ry. . . 697
V. Theatres, Ld. 1587, 1901
V. Thompson, Be Thomp-
30, 851
879, 947,
1632
u. WUdy . . .662
Stevenson, Exp. . . . 824
,Be . . .307
V. Abington . 1506, 1515
; V. Anderson . . 494
V. Masson 1519, [1533],
1538, 1667
V. Mayor of Liverpool 1430
V. Watson . . 399
Steward, 2Je .... 2389
■ V. Blakeway . 2132, 2135
V. England, Be Eng-
land . . 1383,1868
son
V. Trevor-Garriok
■ V. Fish
■i;. N.
Co. .
Tram,
Stewart's Case
Stewart, Exp.
, Be (41 Ch. D. 494) 301
(L. R. 2 P. C.
(8 W. R. 297)
[937]
Metropolitan
. 45
. 2260
. 1928
,302,
303
1070
1214,
1220
— ([1908] 2 Ch. 251) 1366,
1504
- — , Stewart v. Stewart 1667
i;. AUiston . . 2195
U.Austin . . . 2260
V. Casey, Be Casey 2318, 2340
V. Fletcher . 869, 871
«. G. W. Ry. . . 713
V. Rhodes 414, 472, 474,
475
PAGE
Stewart v. Sheffield . . 1509
V. Smith . . . 2156
— V. Stewart (15 Ch. D.
539) . 1447, 1481, 1538
V. Stewart (27 L. R. Jr.
351) . . . 1875
— — V. Stewart (6 CI. & F.
911) . . . 2236
V. Stewart, Be Somes . 2120
V. West Derby Burial
[2304], 2304
1104
Bd,
Stiokney v. SeweU
Stiff V. Cassell
■ • V. Eastbourne L. B.
Stigand v. Stigand .
Stikeman v. Dawson
Stiles V. Eceleston .
Still V. Webb, Be Webb
StUIweH V. Ashley .
Stilwell, Exp., Be Drury-Lowe's
Sett. .
Stimpson v. Emmerson
Stirke, Be
Stirling v. Burdett .
— • V. Du Barry
■ V. Forrester
527
713
6
945
513
305
1206
230
397
279
2078
821
2078
Stirling-Maxwell v. Cartwright 1357,
1521
StobeU V. Niven . . . 2143
Stock's Devised Estates, Be . 1145
Stock V. ElHs ... 67
V. Hooper's Tel. Works . 31
V. Meakin . . 1993, 2183
V. Vining . 1645, 1646, 2238
Stookbridge, &o. BUI, Be [2413], 2420
Stockdale v. Nicholson . . 1512
— V. Onwhyn . . 669
Stocken, Be, Jones v. Hawkins [1416],
1418
V. Dawson . [2132]
■ V. Patrick . . 884
Stocker v. Dean
V. Planet BIdg. Soo.
V. Rodgers
V. Wedderburn
2139
547,
552
653
527
Stockley v. Parsons, Be Parsons 877,
1419
Stockman v. Baylis . . [930]
Stockport Ragged, &c. School,
Be . . 1279,1280
, &o. Ry. Co., Be . 2347
; &0. Co. V. Manoh.
Corp 695
Stocks V. Dobson . . . 1927
Stockton Iron Furnace Co., Be 826,
827, 829, 1943
— , &c. Ry. V. Brown . 697
Football Co. V. Gaston 434
ccliv
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Stodhart v. Ryle . . [1496]
Stier, iJe . . . .109
Stoffell V. Whitworth . . 505
Stogdon, Be . . . 263, 279
V. Lee 852, 855, 860, 869,
875
Stoke Parish Council v. Price . 611
Stokes, Exp 2076
, Re, Parsons v. Miller [1604],
1605
V. Bridgman . .1677
V. Check
V. Clendon
V. Grant
V. Heron
V. Prance
V. Riokman,
man
V. Spencer
V. Stokes
V. Trumper
Stokoe V. Cowan
■ V. Robson
Stone's Will, Re
Stone, Re
■ V. A.-G., Re Sutton
V. Bennett .
V. Compton .
■ V. Godfrey
V. Liokorish .
V. Lidderdale
V. Parker
V. Smith
V. Stone
V. Theed
V. Yeovil Corp.
Stonehewer v. Thompson
Stoner v. Todd
Stonor's Trusts, Re
Stonor V. Curwen ,
V. Fowle
. 1570
. 2088
. 36
. 1568
1054, 1057, 1063,
1146
Re Riok-
1427, 1632
. 1942
805, 1876
. 1062
. 2284
1878, 2272, 2228,
2229, 2231
. 1928
738, 2129
1301, 1303
. 1090
. 2082
2235, 2236
295, 1065, 1878
. 445
. 1477
. 2187
. 1388
. 1710
699, 2348,
2349
. 1862
. 2315
879, 1632
. 1652
. 436
247, 251
. 293
Stooke V. Taylor .
Storer, Re
& Co. V. Johnson and
Weatherall 240, 258, 260
V. G. W. Ry. Co. . 2141, 2212
Storey, Re, Exp. Popplewell 1941,
1943
V. Bermondsey Town
Clerk . . .817
V. Prestage . . . 1568
V. Scottney . . . 1517
V. Waddle . . 792, 793
Storie, Re . . 1259, 1269, 1289
Stormont v. Wickens . .914
Storry v. Walsh . . . 1480
Story V. Gape
V. Johnson
V. Lennox
PAGE
. 1081,1091
. 1819
73, 84, 95, 842
. 1503
. 1131,1132
. [709]
V. E.
. 671
Stott V. Lord
■ V. Milne
V. Storey
Stourbridge Canal Co.
Dudley . .
Stourcliffe Estates Co. v. Bourne-
mouth Corp. . . . 706
Stourton v. Stourton . 1000, 1001
Stowell, Be . . . . 2368
• V. Cole . . . 1312
Straohan, Re, Exp. Cooke . 1088
■ ([1895] 1 Ch. 439) 72, 75
Strachy v. Francis . . 537, 546
Strafford (E.) and Maples, Re 1755,
2170, 2182
Straford, Re . . . .280
Strahan v. Graham . . 2141
Straker v. Hamilton . [1691]
i>. Reynolds . . 71
V. Wilson . 1621, 1700, 2134
Strand Music Hall Co., Re 1948, 1966
WoodCo., iJe . . 30
Strange v. Brennan . . 1053
■ V. Pooks . [2073], 2086
V. Harris . . . 1442
Strangeways, Be, Hickley o.
Strangeways . . . 1751
Strangways v. Read . . 966
Stranks v. St. John . . 2207-
Strapp V. Bull 740, [765], 1880, 1884
Stratford v. Ritson . . 1373-
V. Teague . [1140]
Stratheden (Lord), Re, Alt v.
Stratheden 1300, 1544
, Re, Cowper v.
Stratheden . . . . 1568
Strathmore Estates, Re . . 2359
• V. Vane, Re Bowes
([1901] A. 79) . [223]
, Re Bowes ([1900]
2 Ch. 251) . 298
— ■ (C. of) V. Bowes . 2280
■ (E.) V. Vane, Re
Bowes (37 Ch. D.
128) . 1493,1992
(E.) V. Vane, Re
Bowes (N. 2)
([1896] 1 Ch. 507)1553
(E.) V. Vane, Re
Bowes (33 Ch. D. 586) . 1992
Strattman v. Batthyany, Re
Batthyany . 1518
— ■«. Walford . . 1518
Stratton, Exp. . . [1716]
Re, Exp. Salting . 2022
V. Rastall . 2087
Table of Cases.
cclv
PAGE
. 125
1529, 1531,
1627
Streatham and General Estates
Strauss v. ITrancis .
Streatfield v. Streatfield
Co., Re
Street, Re
V. Crump
V. Gover
V. Hope
V. Robinson
■ V. Street
V. Union Bank of Spain
Streeten v. Whitmore
StreUey i\ Pearson
. 1966
. 279
. 177
. 40
[427], 432, [446]
. 1568
. 400
627
419
520, [2204],
2206, 2207
Stretton v. Ashmall 1104, 1105, 1109
V. G. W. Ry. . 686, 2139
Strickland v. Strickland (10 Sim.
374) . . 1607
V. Symons . 1498, 1499
V. Weldon . 1251, 1290
Stringer, and Riley, Re . . 397
V. Harper . . 1149, 1475
Strohmenger v. Finsbury, &c.
Building Soc. . . 2056,2065
Strong, Re (32 Ch. D. 342) 307, 432,
1070
(31 Ch. D. 273) . 31
(26 L. J. Oh. 64 ; 5
W. R. 107) 951, 1015
V. Bird . . 1366, 1504
V. Carlyle Press . 30, 754
V. Padmore . . 1233
V. Stringer . . . 2206
V. Strong (4 Jur. N. S.
942) . . 345
■ (18 Beav. 408) 1095
Stronge v. Hawkes 1373, 1471,
[1487], 1604, 1607, 1850
Strother, Re . . . .264
Stroud V. Gwyer . 1088, 1109, 1618
■ V. Lawson ... 49
V. Norman . . . 1676
V. Royal Aquarium . 703
Stroughill V. Anstey 1479, 1480, 2032
Strousberg v. Republic of Costa
Rica
V. Saunders .
13
287
StrugneU v. Strugnell . . 1806
Strutt's Trusts, Re (16 Eq. 629) 1807
Strutt V. Tippett . . . 1990
Stuart, Re (2 D. G. P. &. J. 1) 1213
(41 Cb. D. 494) . 305
(74 L. T. 546) . 312
(4 D. & J. 317) 1221, 1881
([1897] 2 Ch. 583) . 1110,
1111
, Smith V. Stuart 1121, 1421
., Exp. Cathoart . 266
Stuart and Olivant, Re
V. Babington
• V. Balkis Co.
V. Bruere
V. Bute
— — — V. Cockerell
V. Diplock
PAGE
. 2166
. 1352, 1544
. 112, 113
. 1619
. 950
488, [1534], 1542
. 530, 532
• V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. . 2155
V. Maskelyne, Re Mas-
kelyne British Type Writer . 755
Stubbins, Exp. . . 1092, 2288
Stubbs, Re, Barney v. Stubbs 754,
755, 824
, Hanson v. Stubbs . 1364
. 248
. 894
. 1926
. 2224
. 702
. 1656
2144, 2145
. 480
. 1341
. 1068
. 290
. 700
. 1508
. 517
599, 601, 603
. 905, 908
. 30
. 1385, 1433
151, 153, 154
. 631
. 2403
1080, 1083, 1503
. 495
. 1404
V. Dale, Re Dale .
V. Sargon .
• V. Slater
Stuoley, Re .
Studdert v. Grosvenor
V. Von Steigilitz
Studds V. Watson .
Stumore v. Campbell
Stupart V. Arrowsmith .
Sturdy, Re .
Sturge V. Dimsdale
V. E. Union Ry. .
0. G. W. Ry.
Sturgeon v. Hooker
Sturges V. Bridgman
V. Champney
Sturgis Syndicate, Re
V. Morse
Sturla V. Freccia
Sturz V. De La Rue
Styan, Exp. .
Styles V. Guy
Suart V. Welch
Suche (Joseph) & Co., Re
Sudbury and Poynton Estates,
Re, Vernon v. Vernon . 1753, 1754
Sudbury, Re . . . .1189
Sudeley's (L.) Settled Estates,
Re . . . 1772, [2029]
Sudeley (L.) and Baines & Co.,
Re ... . 1150, 1674
Sufiell V. Bk. of England 2243, 2245
Suffield, Re . . . .188
, Exp. Brown 1049, 1052
Suffolk (E.) V. Lewis . . 2459
Sugden v. Aylsbury , Re Alsbury 1 62 1 ,
1700
V. St. Leonards (L.) 829,
2230
Sugg V. Silber
. 362
Suggitt's Trusts, Re
905, 910
Suir, &c. Sch., Re .
. 1262
Sullivan v. Metoalf
. 2266
. 405
V, Sullivan
. 933
cclvi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Sumatra Tobacco Plantations
Co., iJe .... 2434
Summer, Re (22 W. R. 639) . 1591
: (V.-C. M., 98 Feb.
1870) . . . [1735]
Summerfleld v. Prichard . 81
Sumners' Settled Estates, Re . 1751
Summers, Re, Bos well v. Gurney 1370
— V. Barrow, Re Walker 1168
■ V. Griffiths . . 2255
Summerson, Re, Downie v.
Summerson . . 532, 2201
Sumpter v. Cooper . . 2040
Sumison v. Crutwell . . 749
Sunderland Bldg. Soc, Re, King
V. Rawlings . 2064
■ • 36tli Universal
Bldg. Soc, Re . 2056
, Freemen of, Exp. 370
Sureombe v. Pinniger . . 1628
Surman v. Wharton 860, 874, 888
Surrey Commercial Dock v.
Kerr . . . 1488
, &c. Ry. Co., Re . . 2420
Surteeg v. Parkin . . .1607
V. Woodhouse . 1993, 2183
Suse (No. 2), Re, Exp. Dever . 2301
Sussex Brick Co., Re . . 2446
Sutcliffe, Re, Alison v. Alison . 89
■ V. Booth . . .588
■ V. Gledhill, Re Green-
wood . . .479
V. James . . . 1835
V. Wardle . . . 2139
Sutherland v. Cooke 1614, 1617, 1623
(D.) V. Heathoote 569,
2235, 2310
— V. Sutherland ([1893]
3 Ch. 169) 1694, 1762,
1767
V. Sutherland (17
Beav. 209) ... 72
Sutton's Estate, Vaughan v.
Murphy . . 725
Trusts, Re . 492, 1155
Sutton, iJe (11 Q. B. D. 377) 267, 278
(21 Ch. D. 855) 374, 1160
(W. N. (85) 122) . 1186
, Hard wick v. Sutton 1468
, Lewis V. Sutton . 1298
, Stone V. A.-G. 1301, 1303
Coldfield Sch., iJe . 1261
Parish of, to Church 1268,
1279, 1281
V. Barnet Bd. . . 443
• V. Doggett . . . 1404
• V. Downham . . [337]
V. English & Colonial
Produce Co. . 475,704
PAGE
Sutton V. Grey . . . 2081
• V. Huggins . . .135
■ V. Jones . . . 739
V. Martin, Re Poinons . 850
. 743
■ V. Rees
■ V. Smith
■ V. Stone
• V. Sutton
1381
■ V. Tatham .
V. Wilders .
Svendsen v. Wallace
Swabey v. Dovey .
Swaby V. Dickon .
Swain, Re, Monkton v. Hands
1840, 1861
445, 1842
1865, 1873,
1874
. 2296
1086, 1105
. 295
. 64
769, 771, 1884
1296
Phillips V. Poole 1303, 1304
-, Swain v. Bridgeman 1114,
1432
V. Ayres
V. Fellows
V. Smith
Swaine v. Denby .
V. G. N. Ry.
Swainston v. Finn .
Swaisland v. Dearsley
Swale V. Milner
V. Swale
Swallow, The
Swan's Estate, Re .
Swan, Exp. .
, Re (2 H. & M. 34)
2206, 2308
. 932
. 775
1800, 1801
. 600
. 2348
2150, 2151
. 1403
. 751
. 834
. 1346
. 2243
893, 908,
1155, 1159
— (I. R. 4 Eq. 209) 2076,
2077, 2080
V. N. British Australasian
Co. . . 2243,2245
V. Swan
V. Webb
Swanley Coal Co. v. Denton
Swann v. Webb
Swansea Corp. v. Quirk
Shipping Co. v. Dun-
can
Vale Ry. v. Budd
Swanston, Re . . .
V. Lishman
Swayne v. Inland Rev. Com.
V. Swayne
Sweet V. Benning .
V. Maughan .
V. Meredith .
• V. Sweet
Sweetapple v. Horlook
Sweeting, Re
V. Sweeting
1809
1485
1947
1371
66,92
19
81
968
74
159
487, 1928
665, 669
662, 663
. 2219
919, 922
. 1631
307, 1072
. 1304
Sweetland v. Turkish Cigarette
Co 785
Sweetmeats Automatic Co. v.
Inland Rev. Com. . . 158
Table of Cases.
cclvii
PAGE
Swift V. Grazebrook . . 842
V. Kelly . . . 2050
■ V. Pannell . . . 1944
• V. Swift . 921, 927, 996
■ V. Wenman . . . 926
Swinbanks, Exp., Re Shanks . 1032
Swinburne v. Ainslie, Re Ainslie 545
Swindell v. Birm. Syndicate 361,
828, 831
■ V. Bulkeley . .1386
Swindon, &c. Ry. Co., Re, Charl-
ton V. Rolleston . . 2394, 2399
Swinfen v. Swinfen . 125, 1086
Swire, Re, Mellor v. Swire 185, 188,
796, 800
V. Francis . . . 2249
■ V. Redman
Swyny v. Harland .
■ V. N. E. Ry. Co.
2074, 2085
. 307
403, 824
. 1553
Syer v. Gladstone
Syers v. Met. Bd. of Works . 2390
V. Syers [2091], 2095, 2107,
2110
Sykes, Re, Sykes v. Sykes 304, 1498
V. Bond . . . 1056
V. Dyson . . 442, 448
V. Firth . . .361
V. Howarth . 632, 633, 643
V. Sacerdoti ... 29
V. Schofield . 1802, 1807,
2219
V. Sowerby Dist. Coun
cil
• V. Sykes (3 B,
(2 P.
Symes v. Eyre
V. Glynn
V. Lee
■ V. Magnay
V. Symes
&C,
&M,
541)
163)
610
623
924
1095
1458
899
498
1540, [1673J
Symington v. Caledonia Railway
Co. . . 569
• ■ V. Footman, Pretty
& Co 627
Symonds v. Gas Co.
V. Hallett
V. Jenkins
— V. Wilkes
. 1314
866, 926
162, 180
. 1652
Symons' Case . . 945, 2296
Symons, Re (21 Ch. D. 757) . 352
, Betts V. Betts 318, 1423
— ^, Luke V. Tonkin . 1121
V. James . . . 1368
V. Leaker . . . 580
V. Rees . . .788
Sympson v. Prothero . 482, 1046
Synge v. Synge (9 Ch. 128) . 1529
([1894] 1 Q. B.
466) 1626
VOL. I.
T.
PAOK
T., Re (a solr.) . . [1068]
T. M. Wilson's (Sir) Estate and
the Hampstead, &c. Ry. Co. [2358],
2451, 2453
Taber, Re, Arnold v. Kayess 869,
1568
Tabernacle Bldg. Soo. v. Knight 395,
402
Tabor v. Brooks . . 966, 1148
Tacon v. National Standard Land
Co. . . . 177, 178, 2221
Tadcaster, &e. Co. v. Wilson . 2156
Tadman v. D'Epineuil, Re
D'Epineuil . . 1405,1948
Taff Vale Ry. Co. v. Amalga-
mated Soo. of Ry. Servants . 712
Taff Vale Ry. Co. v. Canning [577],
578
Taggart v. Taggart
TaUby v. Official
. 1648,1653
Receiver 1948,
2141
Tait, Exp 721
V. Jenkins . . . 751
V. Lathbury . . . 1657
V. Northwick (L.) . . 1474
V. Swinstead . . . 1674
Taite v. Goshng . . .533
Taitt, Re ... . 1183
Talbot's Trade Mark, Re 2330, 2342
Talbot Crosbie, Re, Pattisson v.
Talbot Crosbie . . [1151]
Talbot, Re, King v. Chick 1370, 1851
— -(E.)?;. Braddai . .1837
V. Ford . . . 2149
— V. Frere . . 1319, 2046
V. Hope Scott 541, 552, 747,
750
V. Jevera
— • V. Kemshead
V. La Roche
V. Marshfield
. 1666
. 1883
. 643
83, 93, 1135,
1453, 1670
. 141.5, 1553
. 1745
V. Radnor (E.)
V. Searisbriok
V. Shrewsbury (E.) 954, 995,
1000, 1538
V. Stanitorth . . 2278
— V. Talbot . . .935
V. Von Boris & Wife . 2272
Talbott V. Minett . . .340
TaUatire, Re . . . .1186
TaUerman v. Dowsing Radiant
Heat Co 622
Tambracherry Estates Co., Re 2433,
2434
TampHn's Case, Re Canadian
Meat Co. . . . 2260
r
cclviii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Tamplin, Be, Exp. Barnett . 1945
■ — V. James 2150, 2158, [2170]
V. Miller . . .872
Tarn worth (L.) v. Ferrers . 636
Sch.,Re . 1276,1281
Tancred's Settlement, Ee . 1529
Tanored v. Delagoa Bay Co. 492,
828, 1928
Tangye v. Stott . . 629, 640
Tankard, Re . . . . 2285
Tann, Re, Gravatt v. Tann . 1488
Tanner, Re . . . .968
V. Danoey . . . 1448
■ V. Heard . . .1877
• V. Smart . . . 1326
• V. Smith . . . 2165
Tanqueray v. Bowles 1131, 2283, 2287
Tanqueray-WiUaume and Lan-
dau, Re 888, 1368, 1480, 2167
Tanswell v. Scurrah . . 106
Tapfield v. Hollman . . 1949
Tapley v. Eagleton . . 1553
Tapling v. Jones . . . 662
Tapp & London Dock Co., Re . 1556
V. Jones . . . 478
Tappenden v. RandaU . . 1344
Tarantella Trade Marks, Re . 2328
Tarbottom v. Earl
Tarbuek v. Woodcock
Tardifl v, Richardson
V. Robinson
1573
1030
1108
1712
1052, 1449
Tardwell v. HoweU
Tarleton v. Bruton, Re Roberts 1559
Tarn, Re . . . .497
■ V. Commercial Bank of
Sydney . . .132
• V. Emmerson, Re Leng 881,
1405, 1406
V. Turner . . .1863
Tarrant's Trusts, Re . . 1426
Tarratt v. Lloyd . . .122
Tarsey's Trusts, Re . . 859
Tasker (W.) & Sons, Re . . 2045
V. Shepherd . . 2119
V. SmaR 1855, 1857, 2147,
2161, 2185
V. Tasker and Lowe . 861
Tasmanian Main Line Co. v.
Tatham v. Drummond
■ V. Parker .
PAGE
1446
443, 452
Clark
Tasmanian, The
Tassell v. HaUen
V. Smith
Tatam v. Reeve
■ V. Williams
Tate, Re
V. Fulbrook
V. Leithead
V. Williamson
. 363
. 837
15, 17
. 2015
. 1378
. 1388
. 1157
. 661
. 1366
[2254], 2255,
2256
TattersaU v. Nat. Steamship Co. 357
Tatton V. London and Lane. &o.
Co 138
Taunton ii. Morris . 906, 908, 910
■ — V. Royal Ins. Co. . 701
• • V. Sheriff of Warwick-
shire . . . [1959], 1969
Taws V. Knowles . . 561, 679
Taylar v. MiUington . [1116]
Tayler, Re (2 D. P. & J. 124) . 967
V. G. I. R Ry. 1099, 2242,
2243
Tayleur v. Wildin . . . 2084
Taylor's Agreement Trusts, Re 1186,
1206, 1212
Case . . .832
Estate, Re . . 1671
, Tomlin v.
Underhay . 356, 1447
• Settlement, Re . . [869]
— — Trusts, Re 1591
Trusts, Re ([1905] 1 Ch.
734) .... 1621, 1700
Taylor, Exp, (18 Q. B. D. 295) 1092
, Re Ambrose Lake
Co. . . 2269
Goldsmid . 2288
Grason . . 2129
Potts . . 761
(W. N. (66) 5) 1181,
1208
— (9 Ha. 696) . . 1489
Taylor, Be (62 L. J. Ch. 728) . 1752
— (North, J., 28 Feb.
1893, B. 286) [1757]
(Q. B. D., 22 May,
1900) . . . 1070
([1909] 1 K. B. 103) 830
— , An Infant (4 Ch. D.
157) . . .997
, Atkinson v. Lord . 1114
, Cloak V. Hammond 1509
, Daubney v. Leake 1456,
1514
, Edmonton Union v.
Deely . . 1026, 1157
■, lUsley V. RandaU . 1673
, Martin «>. Freeman 1304
— -, Mason v. Taylor . 1038
, Pedder v. Pedder . 892
-, Smart v. Taylor . 970
■ , Stileman and Un-
derwood . 1038, 1042
— , Taylor v. Taylor 1561,
1573
— — ■ V. Wade . 1588
V. Whittaker 2363
Table of Cases.
cclix
PAGE
Taylor, Be, Turpin v. Pain 405, 406,
1313
, Whitby V. Highton 887
w. A.-G. . . .382
V. Bk. of N. S. Wales . 2087
V. Batten . . 73, 74
V. Blakelook . 1082, 1089
V. Bland, Re Roper 353, 1450,
1454
• V. Brown . . . 2156
■ ■ V. Cartwright 1388, 1537,
1634, 1668
V. Chichester, &c. Ry. . 2359
—U.Clark . .1614,1618
■ V. Coenen . 2281, 2284, 2286
V. Creagh . . . 1356
V. Dowlen . . . 1129
V. Eckersley (2 Ch. D.
302) 737, 739,
741, 2140
(5 Ch. D.
740) . . .742
■ V. Gates . . .110
V. GiUott . . . 2208
«. Grange . 836,1800,1801
V. Hailstone . . 884
V. Haygarth . . 1614
V. Haylin . . . 1341
■ V. Hibbert . . . 1619
V. Hodson, Be Hodg-
son .. . 2311
■ V. HoUard . . 1383, 1865
■ V. Holt . . . 1343
V. Jardine . , 253, 729
V. Johnston . . 2274
■ ■ V. Jones . . .787
V. London and County
Bank 1065, 1082, 1089,
1170, 1430, 1928, 2033,
2034, 2037, 2044, 2045
V. M'Keand . . 1940
■ • V. Manners . . . 1366
*. Meads . 861, 864, 887
V. Midland Ry. . 1099, 2242
■ — V. Mostyn 667, 1695, 1835,
1898, 1907
u. Neate . 746,752,2110
■ V. NichoUs . . .788
■ V. N. & S. Wales Bk. . 2084
— V. Oliver ... 74
V. Pede . . .936
■ V. Pillow . . .662
■ V. Plumer . . 1088, 1091
■ V. Poncia . . . 1781
V. Popham . . .252
■ V. Portington . . 2148
V. Roe (W. N. (93) 26) 170, 413
(No. 1) (W. N.
(93) 14) . . 434
Taylor v. Rundell
V. Russell
■ V. St. Helens (Corp.)
■ V. Salmon .
- V. Shafto
- V. Sharp, Be Ogden
PAGE
76
1087, 2032, 2045
583
2146
669
1302,
1306
I'. Soper . 733, 749, 1836
V. Southgate . . 799
V. Tabrum . 1079, [1098]
V. Taylor (20 Eq. 159) 1537,
[1587], 1588, 1669
— • (8 Ha. 120) 1572,
(17 Eq. 324)
(10 Eq. 477)
- V. Turnbull
- V. Waters .
- V. Wheeler .
- V. Witham .
-, Plinston Bros. & Co.,
Ld. V. Plinston .
-, Sons and Tarbuck, Be
1574
1574
1361,
1594
475
1662
1841
151
435
261,
270
. 2243
872, 1676
Teague, Be (11 Beav. 318) . 255
■;;. Pox, Be Godden . 1622
■ V. Richards . . 1508
Teague's Case
Settlement, Be .
Teall V. Watts
Teasdale v. Braithwaite
■ V. Sanderson
Tebb V. Cave
Tebbitt v. Tebbitt
Tebbs V. Carpenter
Tecorna Co., Be
Tee V. De Caux
V. Ferris
Teebay v. M. S & L. By.
Teed v. Beere
V. Carruthers
Tees Bottle Co., Be
Teevan v. Smith
Tegg, Be
Teign Valley Co., Be
1803, 1807
880, 1629
. 1809
. 600
1162, 1646
1122, 1123, 1124
. 610
. 2014
. 1304
Co. . 2311
1326, 1693
. 1837
. 31
. 1864
1148, 1156
[2408, 2409],
2411, 2412
V. Southwood 609
Telegraph Co., Be . . . 2432
Tel. Despatch Co. v. M'Lean . 626
Telescriptor Syndicate, Be .133
Telford v. Met. Bd. of Works 692, 696
V. Ruskin . . 69, 84
Tellett V. Lalor ... 28
Temperton v. Russell 120, 516, 601
Tempest, Exp. . . 2288, 2289
-, Be . . . . 1164
— V. Camoys (L.) 1148, 1149,
1358
cclx
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Tempest v. Ord . . .770
V. Tempest . . 1555
Temple Bar, The . . . 360
Temple Church, Bristol, Be . 2399
: — Lands, Be . 2399
Temple, Exp.- . . .1893
■ ~ V. Bk. of England . 715
• V. Temple . . .503
V. Thring . . . 1560
Templer, Be . . . 1206, 1210
Tenby (Mayor of) v. Mason . 696
Tendring Hundred Waterworks
Co. V. Jones 1063, 1066,
2124
Union v. Dowton
Tennant, Exp.
, Be (25 L. R. Ir. 522)
■ ■ (40 Ch. D. 594)
1993
2127
872
1142,
1775
— V. Stanley, Be Stanley 1147
— V. Trenchard 185, 331,
1079, 1838, [1979], 1983
Tennent v. City of Glasgow Bk. 2263
V. Welch .
Terrell, Be .
V. Matthews
Terry and White, Be
897
247, 2250
. 1083
2195, 2196,
2236
V. Sweeting, Be Duncan 116,
2249
Tesseyman's Settled Estates, Be 898,
1743, 1776
Tetley, Be .
■ V. Griffith .
. 2285
853, 875
Mary
688, 697
. 2066
. 1572
Teuliere v. Vestry of St.
Abbott, Kensington
Teulon v. Curtis
Tew V. E. Winterton
Tewart v. Lawson . 781, 1475, 1609
Teynham (L.) v. Webb . . 1664
Thacker, Be . . . . 1699
. V. Hardy . . . 2299
V. Key . . 966, 1149
Thaokrah v. Ferguson . . 1323
Thackwray and Young's Con
tract. Be
Thames Steam Perry Co., Be .
■ Tunnel, Be
Tharp, Be ... .
-, Tharp v. Maodonald
707
798
2406
1717
885
1425
399
V. Tharp
Tharsis, &o. Co. v. Loftus
Sulphur, &c. Co. V. So-
ciete des M6taux . . 13
Thatcher's Trusts, Be . . 971
Thatcher v. D'Aguilar . . 1029
Thavies Charity, Trustees of. Be 2399
Theod's Settlement . .1664
Theed v. Debenham , . 558
PAGE
Thellusson v. Liddard . . 2045
■ ■ V. Woodford [766, 767,
772, 1684], 2368, [2448]
Theobald v. King, Be Leonard 1108
Thexton v. Edmonston . .105
Theys, Exp., Be Milan Tram.
Co. . . . 1318, 1321, 1.323
Thiedemann v. Goldsohmidt . 713
Thiery v. Chalmers . 967, 1157
Thistlethwaite v. Garnier 62, 356
Thomas' Patent
• Settlement, Be
2320
2383
969
1156
2401
Thomas, Exp.
-, BeiUW.R. 276)
^— (12 W. R. 546)
([1891] 3 Ch. 482) 1618,
1619
, Exp. Sheriff of
Middlesex . . 419
, Evans v. Griffiths .304
■ •, Thomas v. Howell 916,
1488, 1491
■ 1 •. WeatheraU v. Thomas
1778
■ ■, Wood V. Thomas . 1615
■ Ryan, Be .
■ V. A.-G. .
■ V. Brigstock
■ V. Buxton
■V. Cooper
. 2136
. 1446
. 1897
[337], 345, 424
. 1872
- V. Cross 264, 487, 488, 1054
- V. Daw
• V. Dunning
- V. Ellis
- V. Elsom, Be Elsom
688
1861
1023
930,
936
920
[2048]
1379, 1593, 1594
. 940
. 1276
. 125
. 1222
. 1303
-V. Jones (1 D. J. & S. 63) 886
(1 Dr. & S. 134)1425,
1449, 1455
- V. Kelly . . 503, 817
- V. Everard
- V. Fawn
- V. Griffith .
- V. Gwynne
- V. Harford
■ V. Harris .
■ V. Heath .
- V. Howell .
- V. Lloyd .
- V. Montgomery
- 1'. Nokes .
- V. Owen
- V. Pal in
164, 1056
. 1446
. 208
. 578
98, 135, 208
-j;. Price . 869,883,1115
- V. Rawlings . . 90
V. Roberts (V.-C. K. B.
May 22, 1850, B.
861; 3 Dr. & S.
758) . . . [990]
Table of Cases.
cclxi
Thomas v. Roberts ([1898] 1 Q.
B. 657) . . 1942
V. Searies . 1941, 1943, 1945
V. Sec. of St. for India 93
— V. Spencer, Be Spencer 809
V. Sutters . . . 2104
■ ■ — V. Sylvester . . 2050
• V. The Queen . . 382
— V. Thomas (2 K. & J. 85) 882
■ ■ (27 Beav.
537) . 1552
(22 Beav.
341) 1874,2046
— (2 K. & J.
79) . 973, 979
, Dunn V.
Snowden . . 1590
• V. Turner . . .664
V. Walker . . . 1218
V. Williams (14 Ch. D.
864) 361, 362, 512, 676
V. Williams (24 Ch. D.
1148, 1164, 1754
. 1452
. 307
558)
Thomason v. Moses
Thompson's Estate, Re .
Trusts, Re, Thomp-
son V. Alexander 1166,
1213
WiU, Re . . 1758
Thompson, Re (8 Beav. 237) 265, 278
(V.-C. W. 11 Dec.
1858) . 1732, 1734
Thompson & McMilliams Con-
tract, Re . . 1354
(21 L. R. Ir. 109) 1753
— ■ — (30 Ch. D. 441) 260,
263, 268
■ ■ ■ (1 Ex. 864) . 969
([1906] 2 Ch. 199) 1544
■ , Exp. Baylis
([1894] 1 Q. B.
462) 265, 266, 279
, Griffiths. Thomp.
son . 1419, 1541
• ■ ■ ■. Machell v. New-
man 1512, [1532]
• , Stevens v. Thomp-
son . 30, 851
and Holt, Re 1901, 2169,
2186
-~ V. Adv.-Gen. . . 1256
■ — - V. Anderson . . 752
V. Bennett, Re Poole 887,
1367
— V. Birkley . . 41
— — ■ V. Blackstone . 2153
V. Bowyer . . 1868
V. Burra . 916, 1531
. V. Cartwright . 2035
Thompson v. Clive .
V. Cohen
1>, Cooper
■ V, Corby
PAGE
. 1448
. 1949
1380, 1468,
1470
. 1302
. 1331
. 1869
88, 1425, 1499
90, 93
V. Fmeh 1084, 1090, 1109,
[1116], 1135
V. Daniel
V. Drew
V. Dunn
V. Ealk
- V. Fisher
- V. Gill .
- V. Grant
- V. Griffin
[1651], 1653
. 191, 759
. 1921
. 964
— V. Hammersmith
Corp. . 688, 697
— V. Harris, Re Middle-
ton . 1450,1452,1605
— V. Hickman . . 574
— V. Hudson (10 Eq.
497) 1848,1873,1903,
1907
— V. Hudson (6 Ch.
320) . 1324,1325
-w. Milligan . . 2287
— V. Montgomeiy 622, 627
— V. Montgomery, Re
Joule . 2332,2342
— y. Palmer . . 16
— V. Partridge . . 105
— V. Planet B. B. Soo. 2059
— V. Richardson
— V. Ringer
- V. Smith
- V. Stanhope
- V Thompson
- V. Tomkins
1443, 1928, 1934
- V. Waithman . 1384, 1386
- V. Walker
1790, ISIO
. 2202
. 500
672, 673
924, 1460
488, 1082,
[1078]
. 2186
. 915
156, 2284
. 1.356
. 2237
. 495
[1003]
389, 2113
1382,
2262
V. Clydesdale Bk. 2035,
2039
— V. Waterlow
— V. Watts
— V. Webster
— V. Whitelock
— V. Whitmore
■ V. Wright
Thomson, Exp
— -— V. Anderson
V. Clanmorris (L.)
- V. Eastwood
- V. Elinn .
- V. Grant .
• V. Shakespear
- v.- Simpson
1135, 1432,
1433, 1447
. 807, 1804
, 1367,1468
. 1.303
. 2301
cclxii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Thomson v. S. E. Ry. Co. . 800
^ V. Thomson 870, 872, 925
V. Tomkins . .1150
— — • V. Trustees, &c. Corp. 2431
— • V. Weems . . 2246
Thorley, Se . . . 1134, 1137
, Thorley v Massam 1571
, &c. Co, V. Massam 512,
[617], 676
Thorn v. City Rice MUls . . 1970
■ V. Coms. of Works . 2140
■ V. Kerr . 1112, 1387, 1388
V. Taylor . . . [10]
V. Worthing Rink Co. . 635
Thornber v. Sheard
Thornborrow, Re .
Thorndike v. Hunt
Thome's Estates ,
Thome v. Cann
'- V. Heard
. 2273
. 1734
1070, 1089
. 2045
1114, 1385, 2249,
2250
— V. T. ([189.3] 3 Ch. 196) 1428,
1479
Thome- George v. Godfrey, Be
Godfrey . . [849], 851, 852
Thomeloe v. Hill .
V. Skoines
624
[275], 514
. 532
Thomewell v. Johnson
Thorneycroft v. Crockett 1863, 1903,
1907
. 1876
. 348
1913, 1914,
1919
1007, [1012]
Thomiley, Be, WooUey v. Thor-
ThornhUl v. Evans
— V. Glover
V. Manning
«;..Thomhiil
niley
Thornley v. Thomley
Thornton, Be
■ V. Bright
■ D.. Curling
■ .— V. Ellis .
■ V. Pinch .
V. France
• V. Hawley
V. Howe .
D. Little .
?;. Maynard
V. McKewan
V, Thornton
V. Union
718
38, 512
875, 906, 927
1155, 1213
. 1632
. 1356
. .1620
1996. 2004
. 1867
. 1489
. 1301
. 578
. 1321
[2068], 2077
. 132
Discount
Bank Co. of London 361
• V. Varley, Be Varley 1656
Thomycroft's Patent, Be 2320, 2.321
Thoronghgood's Case . . 2245
Thorp V, Holds-worth (W. N.
(76) 159) . . 162
V. Holdsworth (3 Ch. D.
637) . , 46
PAGE
Thorp V. Holdsworth (3 Ch. D.
642) , . . 2094
V. Owen . . . 1589
V. Thorp . . . 1156
Thorpe, iJe .... 2270
, Vipont V. Radcliffe 1065,
1443
V. Bestwiok . . 1539
— : V. Bnimfitt . . 575
V. Freer . . . 340
V. Holdsworth (7 Eq.
139) [2024], 2030, 2043
V. Hughes . . . 517
V. Macaulay~ . . 96
Threappleton, Be, Exp. Carter 1941
Three Towns Banking Co. v.
Maddever, Be Maddever 2281, 2287
Threlfall, Be . . . .770
, Exp. Queen's Bldg.
Soc.
V. Wilson
1894
30, 851
. 1372
. 250
. 1304
. 2146
. 1893
. 1.520
258, 262
. 1857
. 1427
. 2147
ThrelfeU v. Harrison
Throckmorton v. Crowley
Thrupp V. Collett .
Thuman v. Best
Thunder v. Belcher
Thurburn v. Steward
Thurgood, Be
Thurlow V. Mackeson
Thursby's Settlement, Be
Thursby v. Eceles .
V. Farish, Be Bradford 820
V. Thursby 1108, 1616, 1622
Thurston, Be, Thurston v. Evans 886
V. Nottingham Build-
ing Soc. .... 944
Thwaites, Be, Yerburgh v. Aston 794
— — V. Coulthwaite . 2104
V. Foreman . . 1428
Thynne, Be ([1911] 1 Ch. 282) 1929
(E.) V. Glengall 1667, 1668,
1669
(L.) V. Sari 423, 1826, 1922
V. Shove 524, 684, 685
V. St. Maur, Be Duke of
Somerset . . . 851, 933
Tibbit's Settled Estates, iJe . 1745
Tibbs, 2fe . . . .968
Tichborne v. Mostyn . 458, 678
V. Tichborne . 748, 2033
Tichener, Be . . . . 1928
Tiokel V. Short . . 1316, 1339
Tiokner v. Old . 1108, 1616, 1617
■ — V. Smith . . . 1121
Tid St. GUes' Charity Trustees,
Exp 2383
- St. Giles, Be . . . 1277
Tidd, Be, Tidd v. Overall 1326, 1386
V. Lister 908, 909. 1697, 2021
Table of Cases.
cclxiii
PAGE
Tidswell, Re, Exp. Tidswell . 881
~ ,Be . . .398
Tiedemann v. Ledermann, Freres,
-Re 1324
Tiel, Be .... 188
■ V. Barlow . . .188
Tierney, Re . . . . 2058
Tiessen v. Henderson . . 705
Tiffin V. Mains . . . [803]
Tilbury v. Silva 588, 591, 592, 2310
Tildesley v. Harper . 45, 46, 50
TDl, Exp 743
Tilleard, Re . . . 265, 268
Tillett, Re, Field v. Lydall 1056,
1504
V. Charing Cross Bridge
Co. . . . 2141
V. Nixon . . . 749
V. Pearson 183, [1996], 2004
V. Straoey . . 290, 292
Tilley v. Thomas . . . 2156
Tilling V. BIythe . . 378, 738
TUlotson V. Hargrave . . 939
Tillott, Re, Lee v. Wilson 1082, 2247
Tillstones, Re . . . 232
TUney v. Stamfield . . 457
Tilt, Re . . . .1629
Timmis, Re, Nixon v. Smith 1114,
1432
Timms, Re . . . .793
Timothy v. Crown . . 889, 900
Timson v. Wilson . . .360
Tinokler v. Compton . . 1459
Tindal v. Cobham . . . 2184
TindaU, Jfe .... 1590
■ V. PoweU . . 1331, 1339
Tingri Tea Co., Re . . . 1964
Tink V. Rundle . . . 745
Tinkler, Re (5 D. & S. 722) . 1575
(20 Eq. 456) . 1579
■ • V. Hindmarsh . . 1498
Tinkley v. Tinkley . . .850
Tinney v. Tinney . . . 914
Tinnuchi v. Smart . . . 432
Tinsley v. Laey . 658, 662, 668
Tippett and Newbould, Re . 869
Tipping V. Clarke . . . 674
— V. Eckersley . . 526
V. Hawes . . . 1914
V. Power 1466, 1467, 1851,
1852, 1879, 1883
— — — - V. St. Helen's Smelting
Co. . . . 599
— V. Tipping . 1475, 1607
Tipton Green v. Tipton Moat
Co 1904, 1906
Titchmarsh v. Royston Water
Co 579
Titley V. Davis . . 1910, 2015
PAGE
Titley v. Wolstenhohne . . 1080
Titus Salt (Sir), Bart., Sons &
Co.'s Application . . 2331
Tiverton and N. Devon Ry. Co.
V. Loosemore . . 698, 2393
Tobin V. The Queen . . 382
Todd, Exp., Re, Ashcroft . 2285
,Re . . . 1444,1525
V. Beilby . . 1573, 1579
- V. Brereton, Re Brereton [1787]
V. Downes . . . 1338
v.Gee. . . . 2158
V. Moorhouse . . 1481
V. N. E. Ry. Co. . 569, 571
V. Studholme 341, 1379, 1609,
1850
- V. Todd . . [1003]
Tod-Heatley v. Benham 534, 600,
602
Toft V. Stevenson . . 1382, 2188
Tofts V. Stephenson . . 1861
Toke V. Andrews . . 39, 40
Toker v. Toker . . .1637
Toleman, Re, Exp. Bramble . 1040
. Westwood V.
Booker . . . 1354, 1358
Tolhurst V. Associated Portland
Cement Co. ... 492
ToUemaohe, Re . . .1145
■ , Exp. Anderson 151,
152
V. ToUemache 1200,
[1681], 1681
Toller V. Carteret .
ToUet V. Toilet
Tollner v. Marriott
Tolputt & Co. V. Mole
Tolson V. Jervis
— ■ V. Sheard .
Tombs V. Roche
Tomkins v. Colthurst
V. Saffery
723, 1834
1677, 1841
. 1540
. 297
. 187
1422, 2153
1600, 1606
[1603], 1606,
1607
. 2299
Tomkinson v. Balkis Co. . 2242
V. S. E. Ry. . 37, 702
Tomlin v. Budd . . 707, 1267
— V. Latter, Re Price 1357, 1677
V. Luce [1891], 1900, 1901
V. Tomlin . . 1315, 1350
V. Underhay, Taylor's
Estate, Re . . . 356, 1447
Tomline v. The Queen . 66, 383
Tomlinson, Re . 996, 1465, 1696
— — , Qoods of . . 886
■ V. Broadsmith
24, 1031,
2124
■ V. Gregg . 1861, 1877
V. Land and Finance
Co. . . . 29
6cixiv
Table of Cases.
Tomlinson v. Leigh
Tommey v. White .
Tompsett v. Parmer
: V. Wickens
Tompson v. Dashwood
V. Hope .
V. Leith .
PAGE
1644, 2238
. 340
[1398]
342, 1923
. 95
. 206
. 1871
Toms, Re . . . [1715]
■ — V. Clacton Dist. Council 245
Tomson v. Judge . 1056, 2274, 2275
V. Rolph . . . 1222
Tone V. Preston . . . 568
Toner v. Thompson . . 1453
Tonge's Settled Estates, Be . 1742
Tonsley v. Heffer . . .147
Toogood's Trusts, Be . 486, 1156
Toogood, Be . . . . 2015
Tooke V. Hartley . . . 1922
V. Hollingworth . .1091
Tooker v. Annesley 645, [1681], 1681
Tookey's Trusts, Be . . 2404
Toole V. Young . . .668
Toomcr, Be, Exp. Blaiberg . 1944
Tootal's Trusts, Be . 1358, 1519
Tootal, Be, Hankin v. Kilburn 1554,
1580
V. Dickenson
V. Spicer
Toovey v. Turner, Be Bacon
Topham, Exp.
■ V. Booth .
■ V. Greenside, &c. Co,
[1012]
. 1404
. 877
. 2288
. 1868
496,
1948, 1960
■ V. Lightbody . . 1515
V. Portland (D.) 808, 841,
843, 844, [1671], 1674, 1676
Topley V. Corsbie . . . 1947
Toplis V. HurraU . . . 1085
Topping, Exp. . . . 2121
Torbock v. Westbury (L.) . 706
Torkington v. Magee . 492, 1929
Torrance v. Bolton 348, 1990, 2232
2235
Torre v. Browne . . . 1572
■ V. Torre . . . 1645
Torrington & Okehampton Ry.
Bill, Be . 2418, 2421
■ — (Lord) V. Lowe . 2297
Torry Hill Estate, Be . . 1773
Tosh V. N. British Building
Society . . . 2057,2064
Tottenham, Be, Tottenham v.
Tottenham . 1361
• , &c. Ry. Co., Be . 2393
Dist. Council v.
Williamson 604,
611, 695
— Local Board v. Wil-
liams . [1988]
Tottenham v. Barry
■ — ■ — — — ■ V. Emmett .
— — V. Green
■ — V. Swansea Zinc Co.
PAGE
18
2278
2278
754,
1951
Touche V. Met. Ry.
Co. .
Toulmin v. Millar
V. Price
■ V. Reid
■ V. Steere
Warehouse
. 841
. 1336
. 2229
495, 1312
2405
1168
2145
243,
289, 294
Toutts' Will, Be, Be Martyn 1174,
1187
. 1474
1093,
1335
. 918
. 1629
1893, 1896
.. 2330
. 278
Tourney, Exp.
Tourret v. Cripps
Tousey v. Sheffield, Be Dixon
Tower v. Lord Rous
Towers v. African Tug Co.
V. Davys
V. Hogan
Towerson v. Jackson
Towgood V. Pirie .
Towle, Be ... .
Towndrow, Be . . .
Townend, Be, Townend v.
Townend .
V. Kirkham
' V. Sheriff of Yorkshire
■ — ■ — V. Toker .
■ — ■ V. To^vnend (1
201) .
V. Townend (1
1595
1639
174
419
1629
211) .
Townley v. Bedwell
- ■ — ~ V. Deare .
V. Moore .
V. Sherborne
Giff.
1124, 1428
Giff.
1146, 2133
. 1490
. 362
[1885]
. 1083
To\TOsend, Be (1 Mac. & G. 686) 1221,
1881
— (2 Ph. 348) . 1221
— — , Exp. Hall . 422
V. Cams . .1303
V. Champemowne . 2185
V. Haworth . . 632
V. Jarman 625, 529, 2111
V. Stangroom 1644, 2146,
2238
— — V. Townsend . [796], 800
V. Westacott . 2283, 2284
Townshend's (Lord) Settlement,
Be 118
Townshend v. Harrowby . 1632
• V. Martin . . 253
V. Windham . 1606
Townsley, Be . . [1017]
Townson v. Harrison, Be Har-
rison . . . 1573,1620
Table of Gases.
cclxv
PAGE
Towry's Settled Estate, Re,
Dallis V. Towry . . . 1560
To wry, Re, Dallas v. Law . 1654
Towsey v. Groves . . . 933
Toynbee v. Duoknell . . 424
Tozer v. Walford . . .513
Tozier v. Hawkins . . .16
Tracey's Trusts, Re . .1157
Tracy «. HereTord (L.) . . 1870
V. Open Stock Exch. . 804
Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Middles-
brough Trade Assoc. . 665, 669
Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Vickers 695,
754
Trade-Mark " Alpine," iJe . 2330
— — " Sanitas," Re . 2330
Trafalgar Co. v. Francis . [2072]
TrafFord, Exp. . . 2365, 2399
V. Blanc, Re Truefort 46,
724, 1523
V. Machonochie, Re
Moore . . . .920
Trail v. Jackson 828, 831, 1465,
1557, [1582]
Traill v. Baring . 713, 2082, 2248
Train v. Clapperton . . 1148
Trainor v. Phoenix Fire Ass. Co. 392
Transatlantic Co. v. Pietroni 26, 722
Trant, Re . . 739, 768, 779
Trappes v. Meredith . . [143]
Travers v. Townsend . .1134
• V. Travers . . . 1539
Travis, Re, Frost v. Greatorex 1666
V. Illingworth . .1166
— — V. Mihie 1096, 1496, 150.3,
[2131], 2133
Treasure, Re . . , 886, 1366
Treasury Solicitor v. Harvey [1584]
■ — ■ — — — V. Lewis, Re
Dash . 1561
V. White . 107
TredweU, Be, Jeffray v. Tred-
weU .... 860
Tree v. Bowkett . . .666
Trego V. Hunt [681], 684, 2111
Trehearne, Re, Exp. Ealing
Local Board . . . 481
Treherne v. Dale . 434, 435, 466
Treleaven v. Bray . . 164, 2080
Treley v. TiJley . . .731
Tremayne v. Rashleigh . . 1632
Trench v. Heathcote, Re Heath -
cote 1447, [1663], 1666. 1677
Trenchard, Re . 1366, 1573, 1754
Trent v. Hunt . . . 1895
Tress v. Tress . . .920
Trestrail v. Mason . . . 1477
Trethewy v. Helyar 1149, 1451,
1512, 1605, 1619
Trothowan, Re, Exp. Tweedy
TrevaUon v, Anderton
Trevelyan v. Charter
Trevena v. Juleff .
V. Trevena
Trevor v. Hutohins 1113,
V. Trevor .
■ V. Whitworth
Trevor-Roper, Re .
Tribe v. Taylor
Tribourg i'. Pomfret (L.)
Trick, Re
Trickey v. Trickey .
Trimble v. Goldbery
•«. HiU
Trimingham v. Maud
Trimleston v. Colt .
V. Hamil
Trimmer v. Bayne .
Trinidad Asphalte Co. 1
bard .
Trin. Coll., Camb., Exp.
Trinity House, Exp.
■ Corp. ?;. Burge
Tritton, Re, Exp. Singleton
V. Bankart
PAGE
1951
1699
1056, 2186
. 1010
. [891]
;, 1387, 1468
1651, 1655
700, 2430
[1679]
. 1330
. 2015
1159, 1160
. 1620
. 2111
. 493.
. 2301
. 1608
1899, 1900
1476, 1667
Am-
. 568
. 2380
. 2399
. 97
. 1929
21, 146
. 1821
. 2320
Trodd V. Downes .
Trotman's Patent .
Trott's Estate, Re, Pomeroy v.
Summerhay . . . 1370
Trott V. Buchanan . 1474, 1476
■ V. Jones . . [1463]
Trotter, Re, Trotter v. Trotter 1057,
1539
• V. Maclean 151, 152, 249,
573
Troughton v. Biakes
— — — ■ V. Hunter
Troutbeck v. Roughey
Trowell v. Shenton
1483, 1504,
1861, 1862
. 2109
. 864
827, 946, 1629,
2167
Trower, Re . . . .1156
Trubee, Re . . [1200], 1212
Truefitt V. Umpleby . . 429
Truefort, Re, TrafEord v. Blanc 46,
724, 1523
Trueman's Estate, Hooke v.
Piper .... 1031
Tmlock V. Robey . 149, 1868, 1906
Truman v. Pope, Re Dudgeon . 1302
, &o. V. Redgrave 729, 746,
749
■ V. L. B. & S. C. Ry. Co. 702
Trumper v. Trumper . . 2021
Truscott V. Diamond Rock Bor-
ing Co 1694
Trusler v. Cummings . . 660
Trustees, &c. Co. v. Short . 1866
cclxvi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Trutoh V. Lamprell . . 1084
Try V. Try . . . .745
Trye v. Sullivan, Be Young 881, 886
Tryon, Be 190, 191, [258], 277, 1136
V. National Provident
Institution ... 50
Tubbs V. Wynne
Tubby V. Tubby
Tuck, Be
V. Priester
■ ■ V. Silver
. 2182
. 1372
433, 521
663, 664
. 509
■ V. Southern Counties De-
posit Bank 414, 841, 1943, 1945
Tucker's Settled Estates, Be
([1895] 2 Ch. 468, C. A.) . 1780
Tucker, Be, Tucker, v. Tucker
([1893] 2 Ch. 323) 1573,
1574, 2049
, Tucker v. Tucker
([1894] 3 Ch. 429) 1081,
1384, 2127
— — V. Bennett . 1634, 1643, 1644
■ V. Boswell . . . 1619
■ — ■ V. Brunswick Trading
Co,
■ — V. Burrow , .
V. Collinson
• V. Good, Be Bonner
V. Homeman
• V. Kaye
■ V. Linger
V. Loveridge
■ V. Morris
V. New Brunswick Co,
V. Vowles .
V. Wilson .
V. Wintle, Be Wintle
Tuckett's Trusts, Be
Tuckett V. Shaw, Be Shaw
Tuckey v. Henderson
Tuokley v. Thompson
510
1669
1022
1511
1136
632
Tuder v, Morris
Tuer's WiU Trusts, Be .
Tuer, Be . . .
V. Turner
Tuff, Be, Exp. Nottingham
TuffneU, Exp.
Tufnell, Be .
■ • V. Nichols .
[1681]
. 495
. 188
. 533
. 1926
, 1543
. 1142
. 1451
. 1537
1407, 1848,
1852, 2005
. 1S59
967
1157
. 881
. 1982
382, 383
. 1910
. 501
. 2384
91,94
Tulk V. Moxhay . . .632
TuUett V. Armstrong 862, 869, 871
■ V. ColviUe, Be Wood . 1544
TuUis V. Jacson . . 389, 397
Tullit V. TuUit . . .981
Tulloch V. TuUoch . . .327
Tufton V. Harding
Tugwell, Be .
-V. Hooper ,
Tullock V. Hartley . . . 1823
Tunbridge Wells Improvement
Commrs. v. Southborough
Local Board . . . 706
Tunno, Be, Raikes v. Baikes . 1579
Tunstall, Be . . . . 1188
r- V. Trappes . 1343, 2230
Tupper V. Tupper . . . 925
Turcan, Be . . ' . .312
Turkey (Bank of) v. Ottoman
Bank . . . 515, 1443
Turkington v. Kearman . . 1897
Turnbull, Be ([1897] 2 Ch. 415) 874
, Turnbull v. Nicho-
las 206, 431, 855, 857,
885, 1094
V. Porman . 853, 875
— — V. Garden
V. Hayes, Be Hayes
— — V. Janson
V. Robertson
TurneU v. Sanderson
Turner's Estate, Be
Settled Estates, Be
1333
1427
288
481
393
2398
1675
Turner, Exp. (2 D. P. & J. 354) 482
■ , Be Emma Mine . 1042
, iee{14 Sept. 1875, B.
1592) . . [873]
(24 W. R. 54) 78, 79
, (29 Ch. D. 985) . 150
— (24 March, 1896, B.
1532) . . . [991]
— ([1906] W. N. 27) . 154
■ ([1897] 1 Ch. 536) 1110,
1111,1115
— — , Barker v. Ivimey . 1090
, Glenister v. Harding 153
• , Turner v. Turner . 1667
—t;. Walter . 1365
-. Wood V. Turner 1047,
1049
, In the Goods of , . 864
and Skelton, Be . 345, 2196
■ ■ V. Beaumont . [2027]
— V. Bridgett . . .497
— V. Buck . 544, 1445, 1446
V. Burkinshaw 1330, 1342,
1345
• V. Chfford . . .449
— V. Collins 243, 1128, 1633,
1638, 2273, 2274
1315
579
• V. Corney .
■ V. Crush
- V. Pord . .
- V. Prampton
- V. Green
- V. Hancock
- V. Harvey .
. 1062
. 1452
. 2151
819, 1129, 1135,
1159
. 2252
Table of Cases.
cclxvii
PAGE
Turner v. Hellard, Be Harrison ISO,
1356
V. Heyland . . 241
V. King, Be Davenport
[1672], 1676
V. Letts , . . 1038
— V. Major . . 683, 2108
■ ■ V. Marriott . . . 2188
V. Martin . . . 1426
■ V. Midland Ry. Co. . 2347
V. Mirfield . . .603
V. Morgan . . 1803, 1809
V. Moy . . . 2140
V. Mullineux . 1128, 1171
V. Newport . .1622
V. Nicholson, TBePickard 1803
■ V. Read, Be Read . 1512
• V. Ringwood Highway
Board . . 552, 581
V. Sargent . . 1653, 1654
V. Smith ([1901] 1 Oh.
213) 1838, 1902, 1982,
2031, 2036
V. Snowdon . . 929
• V. Speakman . . 1222
■;;. Turner (V.-C. K., 11
June, 1858,
B. 1291) . 765
■ (2 D. M. & G.
28) . . 865
— (1 Jac. & W.
47) . . 1403
(M. R., 12
Nov. 1801,
B. 402) [1484]
(2 Ambl. 766) 1569
{[1911] 1 Ch.
716) . . 1588
, HaU V. Tur-
. 1341
. 1892, 1895
1091, 1377
ner
V. Wakh
■ V. Wardle
■ V. Watson, Be Watson 1588
V. Willis . . .263
V. Wright . . 537, 541
Tumey, Be, Tumey v. Turney 1543
V. Bayley . . 87, 95
Turnock v. Sartoris . 290, 393
Tumor v. Clowes . . . 2139
Turpin v. Pain, Be Taylor 405, 406,
1313
V. Somersetshire Tram.
Co. . . . [2419], 2425
Turquand, Exp., Be Parker . 1943
V. Fearon . . 50
■ V. Kirby . . 1361
V. Rhodes . 2151, 2162
— — V. Wilson 179, 1314, 2094,
2162
Turret Court, The .
Turton v. Barber .
V. Lambarde
V. Meacham
V. Turton .
Turwin v. Gibson .
Tussaud, Be
PAGE
. 297
. 91
. 1655
. 2037
246, 620, 626
. 1366
. 1668
-, Tussaud w. Tussaud 1669
V. Tussaud . 626, 627
Tweddell v. Tweddell . . 965
Tweed, Exp. . . . 1047, 1048
Tweedale, Be . . 909, 1015
, Exp. Tweedale . 2280
V. Ashworth . 631, 654
V. Tweedale . . 2015
Tweedie, Be . . . .264
and Miles, Be . 1150, 1674
V. Hayward, Be Hay-
ward .... 1468
Tweedy, Exp., Be Trethowan . 1951
, Be (9 W. R. 398) 1209, 1216
Twickenham Urban District
Council V. Munton . [1989]
Twigg, Be, Twigg v. Black 1514, 1586
■ V. Kfield . .
334
. 1670
. 1071
98, 116, 118,
2266
[1043], 1048
. 1058
. 967
. 2383
741, 777, 779
. 1061
Tyler, Be (8 W. R. 540) . [893], 897
■ (5 De G. & Sm. 56) . 1186
([1891] 3 Ch. 252) ,
— ([1907] 1 K. B. 865)
-, Tyler v. Tyler
Twisden v. Twisden
Two Sohcitors, Be .
Twycross v. Grant
Twynam v. Porter
Tyars v. Alsop
Tye, Be
Tylden, Be .
O^Iee V. Tylee
V. Webb
•;;. Bell
— ■ — ■ V, Charrington
V. Drayton .
■ V, Thomas
V. Yates ' . 2277, 2278, 2279
Tyndall v. Castle . . .533
V. Lawledge, Be Cook
1304
2236
1543
1358
[727]
79
2041
Tynemouth Corp. v. A.-G.
■ Tram. Co., Be
Tynte, Be . . .
Hodge
1809
1291
2425
1381
2278
459
Tyrone Election Petition, Be
TyrreU v. Bk. of London 1057, 2268
V. Painton . 760, 762, 856
Tyson v. Cox ... 2085
V. Fairelough . . 748
V. Keloey, Be Keloey . 1949
Tyssen, Be, Knight Bruco v. But-
terworth .... 1677
cclxviii
Tahle of Cases.
u.
Udell V. Atherton .
Udny V. Udny
Ullee, Re
Ulster Bank v. Synott
Bldg. Soc, Be
Mar. Ins. Co., Be
Umfreville v. Johnson
PAGE
. 2249
1518, 1519
997, 999
. 2243
1091, 1325
2440, 2441
29, 236, 253,
601
Underbank MDIs Co., Be 1965, 1966
Underhay v. Keed . . [732], 750
Underwood Son & Piper v, Lewis 1031
■ jiJe . . 1180,1490
■ • — , Underwood v.
Underwood 353, 730
■ — V. Barker . 529, 530
V. Bedford & Camb.
Ry. Co. . . 2393
V. Courtown (L.) . 2041
V. Frost . [776], 779
V. Hatton . . 1595
V. Jee . . . 799
V. London Music
Hall . . 706
■ V. See. of State for
India . 93, 290
■ ■ V. Wing . 1614, 1590
Uneeda Trade Mark, Re . . 2331
Unett V. Wilkes . . . 1530
Ungar v. Sugg . . . 636
Ungley v. Ungley . [1625], 2140
Union Bk. of Australia v. Mur-
ray Aynsley . . 1320
of Lond., Exp., Re
Queensland
Mercantile
Co. . 843
■ — — V. Ingram [128,
1844], 1848, 1870,
1897, 1905
. V. Kent 1928,
2031, 2034, 2045
— — — — V. Lenanton 1940
__- _ V. Manby 64, 78
• ■ ■ V. Munster 333,
335, 1847, 2152
Union Bk. of Scotland v. National
Bk. of Scotland . 1992, 2043
— — Cement Co., Re . . 1039
Credit Bk. v. Mersey
Harbour Board
Electrical Light Co. v.
Electrical Storage Co.
— — ■ Lighterage Co. v. Lond.
Graving Dock Co.
Unite, Re, Edwards v. Smith .
United Club & Hotel Co., Re .
2243
41,
644
568
1254
1699
PAGE
United Horse Shoe Co. v. Stewart 651
Kingdom, &c. Co., Be 303,
797
Land Co. v. G. B. Ry. [576],
578
Mining & Finance Corp.
V. Becher . . . 1061
Realization Co. v. Inland
Revenue Comrars. . 160
Service Association, Be 132
Co., Be . 2242
United States v. Macrae . 97, 1330
V. Wagner . 67
• — Playing Card Co.,
Be . . . .621
■ Telephone Co. v. Bas-
sano 31, 32
— V. Dale 511, 522
• ■ — V. Donohoe 179,
651
V. Globe
Telegraph
Co. 632
V. Harrison 634,
635
— V. Mitchell 178
• — V. Patterson 653
— — V. Sharpies 632
• — V. Smith 178, 643
V. Tasker 36, 130
— ■ V. Walker . 651
Unity Bank, Sxp. . . . 945
Joint Stock Bank Ass.
V. King . . [1986], 1990
Universal Stock Exchange v.
Strachan . . . 1378,2299
Univ. Coll. of N. W., Exp. Rex
V. Income Tax Corns. . .1301
Univ. of London, &c. Fund, Re,
Fowler v.. A.-G. . . . 1252
Univ. of London v. Yarrow 1301,
1305
Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge v. GUI . . 49
Unsworth, Re . . . 1056
V. Jordan . . 2107
Unwin v. Unwin . . .766
Upfill V. Wright . . . 2292
UpfuU's Trusts, Re . 1025, 1026
Upmann v. Elkan . . . 625
V. Forester 240, 509, 523,
625
Upperton v. Harrison . . 1879
— — ■ — V. Nickolson 2162, 2165,
2169, 2189
Upton Warren, Re . . 1263
V. Brown . 314, 1629, 2134
■ V. Ferrers (L.) . . 1344
V. Prince . . 1537, 1668
Table of Cases.
cclxix
PAGE
Urmston v. Singleton . .2185
V. Whitelegg . . 530
Urquhart, Re (24 Q. B. D. 723) 13
(Jan. 24, 1875, B.
459) . . [2356]
— ^— V. Butterfield . 1519, 1523
V. Macpherson . 2249
Usborne v. Limerick Market
Trustees . . . 1345, 1376
UsLl V. Brearley . . 30, 31
V. Whelpton . . .361
Utterson v. Mair . . . 1503
Uvedale v. Halfpenny . . 1645
Uxbridge (L.) v. Staveland . 97
■ & Rickmansworth Ry.
Bill, Exp. . . [2417], 2422
V.
v., Re
Vadala v. Lawes
Vagliano, Re, Vagliano v. Vag-
liano
— ■ Bros. V. Bank of Ens-
306
724
1258
1341
land ....
Val de Travers Co. v. London
Tramways Co. ... 49
Vale of Neath Ry. Act, Re,
Jersey v. Jersey . . . 2364
Vale V. Meredith . . . 1883
V. Oppert 32, 77, 825, 1040
Valentini v. Canali . . 944
VaUance, Re . . . .1304
— ■ — ; Exp. Limehouse
Bd. of Works 150, 1358,
1521
•, VaUance v. Blag-
den . . . 2291
'■ — V. Birm. &c. Land Corp. 50
VaUetort, &c. Co., Re . 2032, 2037
Vallee-j;. Dumerque
Valpy^iJe ([1906] 1 Ch. 531)
& Chaplin, Exp.
13
1478
1965
1489, 1492
. 2207
. 457
692, 696
1330, 2332
. 2320
Van t).,Barnett
V. Corpe
V. Price
Vance v. E. Lane. Ry.
Van Duzer, Re
Van Gelder's Patent, Re
Van Gelder & Co. v. Sowerby
Bridge Flour Socy. 50, 633, 1893
Van Gheluive v. Nerinckx 1363,
1365, 2002
Van Hagan, Re, Sperling v.
Rochfort . . . .886
Van Laun, Re . . . 263
Van Laun & Co. v. Baring Bros. 497
Van Praagh v. Everidge . .2143
PAGE
Van Sandau, Exp. . . . 457
, Re . . . 429
V. Rose . . 511
Van Sandaw v. Brown . . 1031
Van Spengler v. Graham . 470
Vane v. Barnard (L.) . . 541
(E.) V. Rigden . 1369, 1504
V. Vane (9 Mar. 1876, B.
470) . . [103]
— " (2 Ch. D. 124) 951,
967, 1155
(8 Ch. D. 383) . 1385
Vanrenen v. Piffard . . 800
Vansittart v. Vansittart 920, 921,
1000
Vanzeller v. Vanzeller . . 506
Vardon's Trusts, Re 865, 869, 870,
1529
Varley, Re, . . ■ . . 374
, Thornton v. Varley 1656
Varteg Chapel, Re . . . 374
Vase, Re ... . 1810
Vaudrey's Trusts, Re . . 2400
Vaughan, Re, Vaughan v.
Thomas 1296, 1304,
1305
■ V. Buck . . .908
■ V. Lloyd . . . 1841
V. Murphy, Sutton's
Estate . . 725
V. Vanderstegen (An-
nesley's Case (2
Drew. 409) 1039, 1981
• — — ■ — — ■ V. Vanderstegen
Drew. 165)
— — ■ V. Vanderstegen
Drew. 363)
— ■ — — — V. Vaughan
V. Walker
Vautin, Re, Exp. SaSery
Vavasseur v. Krupp
Vawdrey v. Simpson [384], 393, 2113
Veal V. Veal
Venable v. Poyle .
Venables v. Baring
V. Schweitzer
Venn and Furze, Re
Venning v. Loyd
Ventnor Harbour Co., Re
Vera Cruz, The
Veret v. Duprez
Verity v. Wylde
Verlander v. EddoUs
Verner v. Atkinson
V. Cochrane
V. Gen. & Comm
Tr.
— — ■— V. Winstanley
(2
. 1606
(2
861, 862,
1608
. 742
. 854
1032, 2288
. 130
894, 1561
. 1898
. 2038
96, 315
1480, 2167
721, 722
. 1998
. 816
. 747
1045, 1046
. 307
. 1007
. 109
Invt.
. 699
. 2049
cclxx
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Verney's Settled Estates/ Be . 1772
Verney v. Verney . . .1711
Vernon, Re ([1901] 1 I. R. 1) . 1268
• , Bwens & Co. 1064, 1065,
2035, 2037
V. Croft . . .486
V. Hallam . . .528
V. Manvers . . 1145
V. St. James' Vestry 602, 603
■ ■ ■;;. Va-wdry . . . 1340
• — V. Vernon, Be Sudbury
& Poynton Estate . 1753, 1754
Verrell's Contract, Be . . 1479
Verrell, Be ([1903] 1 Oh. 65) . 2167
331
930
334
2146
1675
1631
1369, 1376
Verrall v. Cathoart
Vertue v. Miller
Vesey v. Elwood
Vezey v. Bashleigh
Viant V. Cooper
Viant's Settlement
Vibart v. Coles
Vicar of Castle Bytham, Exp. . 2360
Queen Camel, Be 2365, 2379
St. Mary, Wigton, Exp. 2360
St. Sepulchre's, Exp.
(4 De G. J. & S. 232) . . 2407
Vioary v. G. N. By. Co. . . 70
Vioat, iJe . . . 1184,1219
Vicker's Case, Be, British Bur-
mahLeadCo. . . . 2260
Viokers, Be . . . . 1220
, Vickers v. Mellor . 1558
, Viokers v. Vickers 1538,
1667, 1668
V. Bell . . . 1359
V. Hand . . . 2181
V. Oliver . . 1382, 1605
Sons & Maxim v.
Coventry, &c. Works 129
V. Scott . . 1618, 1619
V. Siddell . . . 2324
V. Viokers . 389, 2096, 2148
1361, 1448, 1449,
1451, 1454
British, &c,
. 494
. 31
&c. Soc, Hill's Case . 2061
Steamboat Co., Be 746, 753
. 1010
. 645
862, 865, 943,
947, 1627, [1639]
. 2252
2330, 2342
. 1509
. 1007
. 421
, 2230
ViekerstafE, Be
Victor Sohne v.
Steam Co. .
Victoria, The
Vider v. Parrott
Vidi V. Smith
Viditz V. O'Hagan
Vigers i>. Pike
Vignier, Be .
Villar V. GUbey
Villareal v. Mellish
Villars, Exp. .
ViDiers v. VOliers
Vimbos, Be .
Vinall V. De Pass
Vince, Be
V. Walsh
Vincent's Patent
Vincent, Be .
— ([1909] 1 Ch. 810)
V. Corney .
V. Goings .
V. Spioer .
V. Venner .
V. Vincent
Vine V. Raleigh ([1891] 2 Ch. 13) 1145,
1695, 1697
([1896] 1 Ch. 37) 1745,
1750
(24Ch. D. 238) 1741
PAOE
743
479
2129
[120]
2315
121
1159,
1515
1010
1874
542
282
1629, 2147
Viner v. Vaughan
Viney's Trusts, Be
Viney, Exp. .
V. Bignold
V. Chaplin
Vingoe and Davies, Be
539, 543
. 1051
826, 830, 832
. 392
188, 379, 2184
2289
Vinson v. The Prior Fibres Con-
solidated .... 39
Vint V. Hudspith . . 138, 816
V. Padgett . . 2013, 2015
Vipont V. Butler . . . 1137
• V. Badcliffe, Be Thorpe 1065,
1443
Virtue v. Miller . . 800, 933
Vivian & Co., Be (W. N. (86) 32) 2434
([1900] 2 Ch.
654) . . . 1968
V. Little ... 78
Vizitelly v. Mudie's Library . 677
Voisey, Exp., Be Knight . 1894
Von Brentano, in the Estate of 1356
Von Brockdorff v. Malcolm 1427,
1677
Von Frantzius, Be . . , 382
Von Heyden v. Neustadt . 632
Von Joel V. Hornsey . . 618
Vorley v. Barrett . . . 2079
V. Cooke 1053, 1054, 2245,
2246
V. Richardson . . 358
Voss & Saunder's Contract,
Re . .
Vowles, Be
■ V. Colmer
V. Young
Voyle V. Hughes
Vulcan Boiler Vo,
Rev. Com.
VuUiamy v. Noble
Vyner v. Hoylake Ry. Co,
Vyse V. Brown
. 1846
. 1128
. 610
. 136
. 1628
Inland
. 160
1321, 2124
. 2223
. 479
Table of Cases.
cclxxi
FAOE
Vyse V. Foster 74, 93, 1040, [1119],
1123, 1125, 1133, 1145,
1498, 2132, 2133
Vyvyan v. Vyvyan . . 494
W.
W., Be, W. V. M. . 953, 993, 999
Wacher, Be . . . . 1220
WaddeU v. Blookey . . 31
■ V. Toleman . 1839, 1984
V. Wolfe . . . 2163
Waddilove v. Taylor . 489, 1882
Waddington v. Waddington [1549]
Wade and Thomas, Be
290, 1876,
1881
. 1013
. 2076
1013, 1214
. 1010
. 1030
1848, 1879
■ V. Wilson 1845, 1847, [1977]
- V. Broughton
- V. Coope
V. Hopkinson
- V. Scruton
- V. Stanley
■ V. Ward
Wade-Gery v. Handley . . 1422
■ V. Morison . . 393
Wadeer v. E. I. Co. . . 95
Wadham CoU., Be . . [2450]
■ u. N. E. Ey. Co. . 2347
• V. Eigg
319, 1126, 1421
Wadley v. Wadley . . . 1704
Wadsworth, Be, Ehodes v. Sug-
den . 1048,1049
. • V. Smith . . 389
Wagstafi's Settled Estates, Be 1782
Wagstaff, Be ... 106
([1907] 2 Ch. 35) 1512
Waidanis, Be, Elvers v. Waida-
nis . . . . 1080, 1182
Wainewright, Be .
V. Elwell .
Wainf ord v. Heyl .
Wainwright's Case
Met,
Consumer's Assoc, Be
Wainwright v. Miller
V. SeweU
Waite V. Bingley
V. Morland
V. Webb
Wake V. Conyers
V. HaU
V. Wake (1 Ves. jun. 335)
Wakefield v. Brown
V. Bucoleugh (D.) .
■ ■ V. Childs
— ■ V. Llanelly Ey.
V. Moffat
. 1718
. 1864
863, 1606
. 2260
Coal
. 1345
1544, 1656,
1677
. 1352
. 150, 1357
872, 923, 1444
. 1304
. 1823
. 1952
916
287
509
914
398
1665
Wakeham, Be
Wakeman v. Eutland (D,
Walbanke v. Sparks
Walbeok, Be .
Walbran, Be .
Walburn v. IngUby
Waloot V. Botfield .
V. Lyons
• — ■ • V. Walker .
PAGE
. 2120
. 1371
. 494
. 1353
. 1509
77, 842
1518, 1535, 1656
51, 1105
. 669
[1766], 1768
. 1939
842, 1257
. 1035
. 1449
Waldegrave, Be
Walden, Be, Exp. Odell
Waldo V. Caley
Waldon v. Thompson
Waldron v. Frances
Waldy, Be, Bradshaw v. Waldy [470]
■ V. Gray 1826, 1838, 2033,
2035, 2042, 2230
Wales V. Carr . 1876, 1881, 1984
V. Jeffreys, Be Grant . [10]
WaUord, Be, Walford v. Wal-
ford . . . 1907
V. Gray . . 908, 1626
V. Walford 842, 843, 844
Walhampton Estate, Be . .2015
Walkden Aerated Waters Co.,
Be 2333
Walker's Case . . . 835
— — Estate, Be (60 L. J.
Ch. 25) . . .431
— Estate, Be ([1909] P.
115) . . . 1590
— Settled Estate, Be
([1894] 1 Ch. 189) . 1778
Trusts, Be . . 1758
Walker, Be (7 Ch. 120) . 1447, 1590
1180
2286
856
374
1105,
1146
■ (3 Ch. D. 209)
■ (26 Ch. D. 510)
■ (55 J. P. 551)
■ (16 Jur. 1154)
• (59 L. J. Ch. 386)
(LI. & G. temp.
Sug. 324) 908, 1013,
1014
([1908] 1 Ch. 560) 1671,
1677
— , Church V. Tyacke 1513
, Dummers v. Bar-
row . . . 1186
-^, Meredith v. Walker 1038
, Sheffield Banking
Co. V. Clayton . 2076
— — , Summers v. Barrow 1168
, Walker v. Dun-
combe . . 965
, Walker v. Lutyens 1510
, Walker v. Walker 1107,
1666
and Brown, Be . . 400
cclxxii
Table of Cases,
PAGE
Walker and Hughes, Re . .1168
and Lomax, Re . . 2432
and Oakshott, Re . 2200
and Smith, Re . . 2436
V. Appaoh, Re Hobson 1622
V. Armstrong . . 1646
V. Bach, Re Bach . 1499
V. Balfour ... 20
V. Banaghar, &c. Co. . 797
■ V. Beanlands . . 1042
V. Bell . . .452
— V. Blackmore . 118, 284
V. Bradford Old Bank . 492
- V. Brewster 598, 602, 605
• V. Budden . . .821
V. Bunkell . . .405
V. Clarke . . 636, 637
• V. Clay . . . 1940
• — ■ V. Crystal Palace Gas
Co. . . . 296
V. Darnell . . 70, [120]
■ V. Dodds . . 10, 18
V. East Riding Club,
&c. Co. . [2172]
V. Fletcher . . 572
V. Gammage, Re Natt . 1514
V. Gen. Mutual Bldg.
Soo. . . 401,2060
V. Hu-sch . 752, 2127, 2128
V. Jones . . . 1922
v. Linom . . 2030, 2031
• V. L. & N. W. Ry. . 389
■ V. Martineau, Re Grant 1573,
1620
• V. Mottram . . 685
■ V. Poole . . 74, 109
■ ■ V. Preswick . . 2076
■ • V. Sehgmann . . 1423
V. Shore . . . 1614
V. Smith . . 1054, 1056
. V. Strickland . . 1011
. V. Symonds . 1120, 2247
V. Taylor . . 939, 1480
V. Ware, &c. Ry. Co. 1991,
2223, 2224, 2393
V. Wild . . .775
V. washer . . 241, 1455
V. Woodward 1123, 1124, 1315
Wall, Re, Pomeroy v. Williway 1301
V. Bright . . . 1488
V. Bushby . . . 1428
V. Dunn . . . [564]
V. London and Northern
Assets Co. 516, 695, 706
• V. Rogers
V. Stanwich
V. Wall .
Wallace's Case,
Petroleum Co.
Re
896, 1115
. 978
. 865
Scottish
. 2263
WaUaoe, Re .
V. Allan
PAGE
. 459
788, 789
. 908
. 1862
894, 897,
V. Auldjo .
V. Evershed
V. Greenwood
1803, 1804, 1806
V. Universal Automa-
tic Co. [1959], 1969
V. Wallace . . 1703
WaUasey Brick and Land Co.,
Re . . . 2432
Local Board v, Gracey 604,
611
Waller, Re, White v. Scholes . 1510
V. Atkinson
V. Barrett
V. Childs
V. Holmes
V. Horsfall
V. Lacy
V. Loch
WaUgrave v. Tebbs
WaUinger's Estate, Re
887, 888
1464, 1594
. 1254
. 1040
. 2230
. 1324
. 677
. 1304
. 1427
WaUmgford v. The Mutual Soc. 24,
821, 823, 1836, 1856, 2250
Wallington v. Cook . . 1870
Wallis, Exp. . . . .896
• and Barnard, Re . 2186, 2201
, Re ([1902] 1 K. B. 719) 1934
, Exp. Liokorish 296, 1065,
1878
V. Bastard . . . 1322
V. Bendy, Re Bendy . 1632
V. Grout . . . 2163
■ V. Hepburn . . . 827
— V. Hirsch . . .391
V. Jackson . . . 179
V. Lichfield . . .407
V. Morris . . . 2001
■ V. Sarel . . . 2181
• V. Sayers . . . 1948
V. Smith 117, 482, 2150, 2189
V. S. G. for New Zealand 1253,
1296
WaUroth v. Roper .
WaUwroth v. Holt .
WaUwyn v. Lee
Wabnesley v. Gerard
Wahnsley v. Child .
V. Foxhall
V, MUne .
■ V. Wahnsley
■ — V. White
Walond V. Walond
Walpole, Re .
Walrond v. Goldman
V. Rosslyn
. 801
. 2104
. 2042
. 1656
2229, 2230
. 165
1950, 1952
. 1126
392, 393, 2113
. 347
. 1631
. 1944
. 1491
V. Wahond (Joh. 18)
881,
919
Table of Cases,
Cclxxiii
PAGE
Walrond v, Walrond (29 Beav.
586) . . . 1118, 1124, 1559
Walsall Overseers v. L. & N. W.
Ry. .
Walsh V. Brown
V. Gladstone
V. Lonsdale .
• v. Trevanion
— V. Wason
Walsham v. -Stainton
Walter v. Amherst (E.]
V. Ashton
— V. Emmot
V. Goring
■ V. Head
— ■ V. Hodge
■ V. Howe
V. James
■ V. Lane
817
1510
1257
2206
940
486, 907
90, 92, 2249
[1923]
. 627
. 626
. 1391
. [619]
. 860
669, 670
. 138
. 671
V. Parrott, Re Parrott 905,
1653, 1654, 1655
■ ■ V. Selfe . . 595, 600
— V. SteinkopfE . . 670
V. Yalden . . . 1381
Walters' Trusts, Re, Nelson v.
Walter . . . .312
Walters, Re (9 Beav. 303, n.) 258,
263, [272]
V. Green . . 49, 602
V. Jackson . . 940
V. Northern Coal Co. 1983,
2139
V. Walters . . 1466
— D.Webb . . . 2305
■ • ?;. Woodbridge . .1128
Walthampton Estate, Re .2015
Walthamstow Local Board v.
Staines . . . [1988]
Walton, Exp., Re Bradley 1092, 1126
• V. Butler . . . 2105
V. Edge
V. Lavater .
0. Shaloross
2064
632
1482
16
[1078]
Wancke v. Wingren
Wand V. Docker
Wandsworth Board of Works v.
United Telephone Co. . . 581
Wandsworth Borough C. v. Golds 581
Gas Co. V. Wright 1031
— ■ — — ■ — Union v. Worthing-
ton 1157
Wanklyn v. WUson . 1083, 1313
Wanstead Local Board v. Hill 600
Wansworth's Trusts, Re . . 1680
Want V. Campain [1101], 1115, 1432
Wanzer, Re . . . .721
Warburg, Exp., In re Whalley 14,
826
Warburton v. Edge . . 1038
VOL. I.
PAGE
Warburton v. Haslingden Local
Bd. . . 397
V. HiU . . 474, 488
V. Huddersfield In-
dustrial Soc. . 702
V. L. & Bl. Ry. . 517
V. Loveland . . 2031
— — ■ — — — V. Stephens, Re Ste-
phens . . . 1381, 1388
Warbutton v. War button . 916
Ward's Estate, Re . . . 2383
- Settled Estates, Re 898, 1741
Ward, Exp 2389
— — , iJeBuUock . . 1945
, Re (6 Jur. N. S. 441) . 372
(6 Jur. N. S. 717) . 1570
([1896] 2 Ch. 31) 260, 268
(28 Ch. D. 719) . 261
(7 Ch. 727) . . 1670
(31 Beav. 1) . . 1061
, Bemment v. Balls . 1425
, Simmons v. Rose . 1061
Exp. Ward 826, 2210, 2300
- & Henry's Case
■ & Co. V. WaUis
■V. Arch
■V. Audland .
- V. Barton
2210
. 2235
1432, 1490
. 1630
. 1882
- V. Birmingham Breweries,
Limited . . . 1972
- V. Booth . . .448
- V. Byrne . . .529
- V. Carttar . . 1869, 1899
- V. Combe . . . 1621
- V. Duncombe . 1082, 2034
- V. Eyre . . 264, 299
- V. Gamgee . . . 1071
- V. Garnons . . . 2230
- V. Ghrimes . . . 2165
- V. Gray . . . 1569
■ V. HipweU 710, 1255, [1286],
1288
■ V. Holmes, Re Dean . 304
- V. Jarvis, Re Jarvis . 465
- V. Lawson 261, 264, 273, 289,
299, 1040
1870
- V. Lookyer .
- V. Mackinlay, Re Mack-
inlay . . . 1372
- V. Morse, Re Brown . 251
- V. Nat. Bank of New Zea-
land . . . 2083
- V. PiUey . . .403
- V. Royal Exchange Ship-
ping Co. . . . 1966
- V. Shakeshaft 473, 1363, 1883,
1918, 2001
- V, Sharpe . . . 1054
■ V. Sittingbourne, &o. Co. 1314
cclxxiv
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Ward V. Swift . 745, 774, 1884
V. Trathen . . .348
V. Ward (14 Ch. D. 506) 906
■ (3 Mer. 706) . 928
• (6 Beav. 251, n.) 932,
1029
(2 H. L. C. 777) 1498,
1502, 1503
(18 W. E. 87) . 1802
- V. Wood, Be Wood
- V. Yates
Ward Lock & Co. v. Long
Warde v. Aldam
■ ■ V. Dickson
V. Warde
Warden, Exp.
V. Jones
V. Peddington
Warder v. Saunders
Wardle v. Hargreaves
■ V. Oakley .
Wardley, Exp.
Ware, Be
. 1447
. 910
. 665
. 1549
. 2165
94, 996
. 2096
. 1628
■ [59]
. 117
. 1514
. 1981
. 1406
. 984
-, Cumberlege v. Ware 1631,
1678
V. Aylesbury & Bucking-
ham By. Co. . . 2221
V. Cann . . . 1541
V. Cumberlege . . 1251
V. Egmont (L.) . 2034, 2035
V. Gardner . . . 2286
V. L. B. & S. C. By. Co. 706
V. PolhUl . . .980
V. Regent's Canal Co. 514, 694
Waring, Exp.
■ ■ V. Pearman
■ — V. Scotland
V. Waring .
• ■ V. Williams
Warne v. Dell
■ V. Lawrence
■ V. Eoutledge
• V. Seebohm
2301
. 400
. 2164,2195
[1439]
. 282
. 793
2, [660], 663
. 861
[660], 661, 662,
668
Warner's Settled Estates, Be . 1742
• Will, Be . . [1729]
Warner and Powejl's Arb., Be 396
V. Baynes . . . 1803
V. Jacob . 1848, 1857, 1900
V. Moir, Be Moir 1541, 1656
V. Mosses . 104, 112, 290
. . V. Smith . . . 2097
Warr (Frank) & Co. v. L. C. C. 2348
WarraU v. Johnson . . 1038
Warren's Settlement, Be . 1591
• Trusts, Be
1529
422
871
([1900] 2 Q. B. 138) 2288
Warren, Exp., Be Holland
, Be (52 L. J. Ch. 928)
PAQE
Warren, Tie, Weedon v. Reading 1149
■ — V. Davies . . . 1368
■ V, Postlethwaite . 1449
V. Richardson . .2163
- V. Rudall . . 1553, 1698
Warrender v, Foster 1181, 1233,
[2218]
V. Warrender . 920
Warrick v. Warrick . . 2237
Warriner v. Rogers , . 1629
Warter v. — . . . . 1419
• — V. Anderson . . 1460
• V. Yorke . . . 1013
Wariok & Birmingham Canal
V. Burman . 520, 609
, &c. Ry., Be [2413], 2420
■ — — — ■ Canal Co. v. Birming-
ham Canal Co, . 785
— Char., Be . . . 1263
V. q. CoU., Oxf. 77, 83, 87,
590
Tyre Co. v. New Motor,
&c. Co. . . . 626, 627
Warwicker v. Bretnall . 981, 1491
Wasdale, Be, Brittin v. Part-
ridge .... 2034
Washburn & Moen Co. v. Patter-
son 32
Wasse V. HesHngton . . 1368
Wassell V. Leggatt . . 866, 1114
WasteU V. Leslie . . . 744
Wasteneys v. Wasteneys . 922
Waterer v. Waterer . 1490, 2135
Waterfall v. Penistone . . 1950
Waterford and Passage Ey. Co.,
Be 2419
Waterhouse v. Bk. of Ireland . 2039
V. Gilbert . . 497
V. Wilkinson . 329
Waterland v. Serle . . 1047
Waterlow v. Bacon . .713
Waterman v. Ayres . . 2330
Waters, Exp. . . . 2149
• , Be, Preston v. Waters 1430,
1431
— -, Waters v. Boxer . 1446
V. Shaftesbury 76, 1318,
1328, 1334
- ■!;. Taylor . 277, 282, 752
— V. Waters . . 340, 2164
Watford Bur. Bd., Exp. . . 1262
,Be .... 1276
— , &c. Ry. V. L. & N. W.
Ry 392
Watkins' Settlement, Be . 1573
Watkms, Be, Exp. Evans 183, 742,
759, 2004
— — — - V, Barnard . . 1410
V. Brent . . . 717
Tahte of Cases.
cclxxV
PAGE
Watkips V. Cheek . . . 1480
V. Lindsay . 1321, 1406
V. Malcolm, Re Saville [868]
V. Scottish Imperial
Insurance Co. . . .13
Watling V. Lewis . . . 1836
Watmough, Be, Sergenson v.
Beloe ... 18, 193
Watney v. Trist 679, 683, 2090, 2095
V. Wells . 2109, 2110, 2113
Watson & Co., Be . . [2327]
, Exp. . . 2062, 2303
, Be Love . . 1940
Be, Exp. Johnston,
Johnston v. Wat-
son .
Official Ee-
191
ceiver . . . 1938
-, Be, Stamford Union v.
Bartlett [1025], 1026,
1157, 1386
, Turner v. Watson . 1588
, Be (53 L. J. Ch. 306)1038
- (19 Ch. D. 384, C. A.) 1220
- (10 Jur. N. S. 1011) 2383
— - ([1892] W. N. 192) . 1543
([1904] 49 Sol. J. 54) 1425
, Carlton v. Carlton . 1355
-, Walker and Quickfall,
Be . . . 2431
- V. Allcook . . . 2087
- V. Birch . 1371, 1388, 1432
- V. Blakeney,iJe Hendry 1296
- V. Brickwood . . 1474
- V. Cave . 121, 824, 826
- V. Cleaver . .105
- V. Cox . . 2218, 2220
- V. Gass 1809, [1816], 1819
- V. Gray . . 541, 553
- V. G. W. Ry. Co. . 297
- V. Holliday . 651, 652
- V. King . . . 1590
- V, Leamington CoU., Co.
Lim. . . . 535
- V. Lyon . . . 1042
- V. Northumberland (D.) 1819
- V. Parker . 149, 362, 1360
- V. Petts . . 786, 821
- V. Reid . . . 2155
- V. EodweU 38, 163, 277,
823, 1054, 2273
- V. Row 1033, 1127, 1449, 1453
- V. Saul . . . 1112
- V. Strickland . . 1947
- V. Teignmouth (L.) . [941]
- V. Waltham . .1837
- V. Watson . 1667, 1668, 1669
, Be Hancock 1542
— Loveman 1558
Watson V. Woodman
PAGE
1057, 1113,
1384, 2127
V. Young . . . 1542
& Sons V. Daily Record
(Glasgow), Ltd, ... 14
Watt V. Barnett ... 4
V. Crayke . . . 1676
V. Ligertwood . . 459
V. Wood . . . 1666
Watts, Exp. (19 W. R. 400) . 715
, Be (9 Ha. 106) . . 1207
— — (7 Beav. 491) . . 1315
, Smith V. Watts 315, 1376,
1852, 1877
V. Alford . . .892
- V. Bucknall . . . 2266
V. DriscoU 1982, [2102], 2107,
2124
473, 762, 2000
. 578
. 1859
. 270
474, 475
. 911
. 2086
. 528
2013, 1024, 2045
892, 1558, 2139
V.
V. Jefferyes
V. Kelson
V. Lane
Penny
V. Porter
V. Shrimpton
V, Shuttleworth
■tt. Smith
Symes
V. Watts
V.
Waugh, Be (29 Beav. 666)
(25 W. R. 555)
V. Carver .
V. Land
V. WaddeU
— ■ V. Wren
Wauton V. Coppard
Wavell V. Mitchell, Be Mitchell
Waverley Typewriter, Be
Way's Trusts, Be .
Way, Be ... .
V. Poy ....
Wayman v. Monk, Be Monk .
Wayn v. Lewis
Wayne v. Hanham
Waynes Merthyr Co. v. Radford
Weall, Be (37 W. R. 779)
, Andrews v. WeaU
, James
Rice
284
1481
2127
1862
261
2076
534, 535
1860,
1861
1972
1628
1158
842
1377
1847
1926
41,
65
312
1085,
1135
51
1668
Weardale Coal and Iron Co. v.
Hodson .... 1945
Weare, Be . . 1069, 1070
Wearing v. Ellis . . 1863
WeatheraU v, Thomas, Be Tho-
mas . . 1778
■ — • V, Thornburgh 1514,
[1584], 1586, 1666
cclxxvi
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Weatherby & .Sous v. Inter-
national House Agency 661, 667
Weatherby v. St. Giorgio 1430, 1516
Weaver, Be . . 794, 969, 1148
— ', Higgs V. Weaver . 1410
Webb's Estate . . 287, 290
~ Trusts, Be (46 L. J. Ch.
769) 1632
Webb, Be (M. R., 17 Nov. 1876) 268
(V.-C. K., 13 July,
1877, B. 2198) . 894
■ ■ (2 Eq. 456) . .1159
, Lambert v. Still 1054,
1341, 1902
— , Leedham v. Patchett 1573
, Still V. Webb . . 305
132
601
165
1559
- V. Adkins
■ V. Baoher
■ ■"■ Byng
■ v. De Beauvoisin
- V. Direct London, &c. Ry.
Co. ... 2149
■ V. Earle . . .700
■ V. East . . 96, 97
■ V. England . . .1378
- V. Grace . . .261
- V. Hewitt . . 2085, 2086
- V. Hughes . . . 2156
■ V. Jonas . . 1146, 1474
■ V. Manoh. Ry. . 694, 697
■ V. Mansel . . .833
■ V. Oldfield, Be Cranston 1300
- V. Roche . . . 1906
• V. Sadler . . 1489, 1542
• V. Shaftesbury (L.) 980, 1148,
1166, 1529
■ V. Shropshire Ry. Co,
■ V. Smith
V. Stanton
V. Webb
Webber v. Hunt
V. Lee
V. L. B. <
Co.
V. TivUl
Webley v. Webley
Webster's Case
Estate, Be
S. C. Ry.
1966
2021
479
1130
1903
2145
844
1326
998
2260
2401
Webster and Jones' Contract,
Be . . 302, 2201
,Be . . 261,270,481
•, Derby Union v.
Sharratt . . 1027
V. Armstrong . .139
V. Bray . . 2091, 2095
V. British Empire Ass.
Co. 122, 1343, 1344,
1345
. ■ ■ V. Cook . . . 2278
PAGiS
. 528
. 2186
. 1041,1080
236, 287, 379
. 170
. 1910,1915
. 2081,2084
. 1288
Webster v. Dillon .
V. Donaldson
— — ■ V. Le Hunt
— — - — - V. Manby .
— ■ — — - V. Myer
— — ■ — • V. Patteson
■ — - V. Petre .
V. Southey
V. Webster {3 Swa. 490) 684,
2125
— — (3 Jur. N.
S. 655) . 922
(31 Beav.
393) . . . 1081
— V. Whewall 64, 86, 155
Wedderburn, Be . . .1145
— — V. Clark . 779, 780
■ V. Pickering . 361
V. Wedderburn (4
M. & Cr. 585) 721
V. Wedderburn (17
Beav. 158) . 1035
V. Wedderburn (4
My. & C. 41) 1340,
1341, [2131], 21.33
V. Wedderburn (22
Beav. 104) . . 2118, 2119
Wedderburne v. Llewellyn . 378
Wedgwood v. Adams 1404, 1452,
2149
Weed V. Ward . . . 402
Weeding, Be . . . 1181, 1233
— , Armstrong v. Wil-
kin 1556
Weedon v. Glover . . [1507]
V. Reading, Be Warren 1149
Weekes v. Gallard . . . 2149
V. King . . .601
Weeks v. Evans . . . 1362
V. Stourton . . 79, 1921
Wegg-Prosser v. Evans . 52, 2076
Wegmann v. Corcoran 31, 634, 635
Weikersheim's Case . 752, 2106
Weiniger's Policyy Be . 1934, 2033
Weir Hospital, Be . . . 1256
•, Be, HoUingworth v. WU-
hng . . . 2041
V. Barnett . . . 2249
V. 3eU . . . 2249, 2263
Weise v. Wardle ... 78
Welbourne, Be . . . 1721
Welch V. Chandler . . [1116]
V, Channel!, Be Evans 966,
1134
V. CoU., Be Brace . 1426
— — V. Knott . . .623
— — V. Nat. Cycle Co. . 1915, 1971
Welchman, Be . . . 279
Weld BlundeU v. Wolseley . 542
Table of Cases.
cclxxvii
PAGE
Weldhen v. Scattergood . . 3]
Weldon v. Dicks . . .662
— V. Maples, Teesdale &
Co. . . . 32
V. Winslow . . 850
Welford v. Liddell . . . 3126
Wellborne, Re . . . 281
Wellby V. Still ([1894] 3 Ch.
641) . . 302
• — — ([1895] 1 Ch.
524) . . 302
(66 L. T. 523) 295, 459
Wellcome, He, Be Burroughs,
Wellcome & Co. . 2335
— — V. Thompson . . 2330
Weller v. Ktzhugh . . 1160
V. Ker . . .966
Welles V. Middleton 1053, 1054, 2274
WeUesley's Case . . .523
Wellesley v. Beaufort (D.) 457, 459,
950, 965, 991, 1011, 1013
(L.) V. Mornington 486,
487, 509, 522, 1136,
1674, 2021
— — V. Wellesley (4 D. M.
& G. 537) . 1228, 1233
V. Wellesley (6 Sim.
497) . . 541, 542
V. Wellesley (L. C,
July 16, 1831) . . . 1003
WeUington's Settled Estates,
&c.. Re . . [2454], 2458
Wells, Re (8 Beav. 416) 262, [272],
276, 277, 278
— (48 L. T. 859) . . 1752
— — , Hardisty v. Wells . 1529
■ — , Molony v. Brooks 717,
747, 748, 1368, 1468
— — . Wells V. Wells [961],
969, 971
• V. Abraham . . 1229, 1230
V. Borwick, Re Hardy . 1579
V. Gibbs . . .470
— V. Kilpin 183, 1862, [1997],
2004, 2005
u. Malbon . . 926,1160
V. MaxweU . 2141, 2156, 2170
(No. 1) . 2156
V. Wells . 1095, 1109, 1509
(15 June, 1910) [1638]
Welman v. Welman [1640], 1645
Welsbach Incandescent Co. v.
New Sunlight Co. . 66, 70
Welsbach Incandescent, &o. Co.
V. New Incandescent, &c. Co. 632
Welsh Flannel, &c. Co., Re . 1344
V. Hole . . . 1049
Welton V. Saffery . . .700
■\Yenham, Re, Exp. Battams . 412
PAGE
Wenham, Re, Hunt v. Wunliam 1387
Gas Uo. V. Champion
Gas Lamp Co. . 634, 646, 654
Wenlook (L.) v. Eiver Dee Co. 316,
402, 403, 404, 702, 1967, 1968
Wenman v. Lyon Co,
Wenmoth's Estate, Re
Went, Re, Exp. Bayly
Wcntworth v. Lloyd
— V. Tubb
1940
. 1509
. 719
291, 295, 845
. 1134, 1378
■ • V. Wentworth 1123,
1610, 1617, 1619, 2134
Werderman v. Society Gen^rale
d'Eleotricite
Werner Motors v. Gamage
Wesley v, WaUcer .
Wesleyan Methodist Chapel,
Wandsworth
West & Hardy's Contract, Re .
(Cornwallis & Munro's
Contract .
— — •, Exp., Re Mount Morgan
Gold Mine
, Re George v. Grose
■ V. Diprose
V. Dobb
V. Downman
V. Gwynne
V. Houghton
V. Jones
V. Laing
V. Morewood
• V. Sackville (L.)
V. Shuttleworth
— ■ — ■ V. Swinburne
■ V. Turner, Re Kelly's Settle,
ment . . . 474
V. West . . .299
- V. White . . .361
- V. WiUiams . 1992, 2033, 2043
■ V. Wythes, Re Wythes [1689],
1697, 1698
, &c. Co. V. Clayton . . 73
West African Tel. Co., Re . 2433
West Cumberland Iron Co. v.
Kenyon . . . 587, 589
West Cumberland Iron and
Steel Co., Re . . . 480
West Cumberland Steel Co., Re 2428
West Devon Great Consols
Mine, Re . . . .125
West Ham Central Charity
Board v. E. London Water-
works . 541, 542, 544, 545
West Ham Char., Re [1247], 1263
West Ham Borough v. Goddard [1989]
West India, &c. Co., Ld. and
Reduced, Re . . 2430, 2434
liVest Lancaahire Co., Re , 745
2317
623
2208
1280
864
1745
2245, 2264
. 1539
501, 1946
. 534
1377, 2183
. 535
. 534
. 1876
. U20
. 573
108, 374
. 1267
[795]
cclxxviii
Table of Cases,
West Leigh Coll. Co. v. Tunni-
olifie & Hampson . . 573
West London Comm. Bk., Re . 1362
West London Comm. Bk. v.
Kitson .... 2248
West London Comm. Bk. v.
Belianoe, &c. Bldg. Soc. 1900,
[2024], 2044
West London and Gen. B. Soc,
Be . 2057, 2061, 2064, 2065
West London Syndicate, Ld. v.
I. R. Commrs. . . 159, 685
West of England Bank, Re,
Exp. Booker . . . 702
West "of England Bank, Re,
Exp. Hatcher . . .858
West of England Bank v. Bat-
chelor .... 1039
West of England Bank v. Can-
ton Co 76
West of England Bank v.
Nickolls .... 1903
West of England Co. v. Murch,
Re Booker . . . 1149, 1165
West of England Fire Ins. Co.
V. Isaacs .... 2079
West Band Central Gold Mining
Co. V. Bex . . . .382
West Biding Bldg. Soc, Re 2057,
2058, 2062, 2064
West Biding Bldg. Soc, Re,
Exp. Pullman . . . 2057
West Biding, &o. By., Re . 226
West Surrey Water Co. v. Chert-
sey Union . . . 698
West Yorkshire Darracq Agency
Ld. V. Coleridge . . . 1366
Westacott v. Bevan 1046, 1047, 1048
Westall V. Bain . . [1375]
• V. Sparrowell . [1076J
Westbrook, Re {11 Eq. 252) . 373
(W. N. (73) 167) 1590
V. Blythe
Westbury Sanitary
V. Meredith
Westby v. Westby .
Westcott, Exp.
V. CulUford
2001
Authority
130
[468]
2120
1452
Westcynthius, Re . . . 2303
Westerman v. Pantlin . [2218]
Western v. M'Dermott 526, 532, 555
Western Bank of Scotland v.
Addie . . 2249, 2252, 2263
Western Counties Marine Co. v.
Lawes Chemical Manure Co. 676
Western Counties Steam, &c
Co., Re ... . 1094
Western Suburban Bldg. Soc. v.
Martin . . , 401, 2000
PAGE
Western Suburban Bldg. Soc. v.
Bucklidge .... 14
Westerton v. Ennis, Re Ennis [1417]
Westfield's Char., iJe . . 1271
Westfield, Re, Beg. v. Manley
Smith .... 2350
Westgate v. Crowe 129, 241, 248
Westhead v. Biley . [758], 760, 761
V. Sale . . . 1217
Westlake, Re, Exp. Willoughby 1042,
1991
Westly V. Westly . . .751
Westmaoott v. Bobins . . 2194
Westmeath, Re . [1003, 1004]
V. Westmeath . 921
Westminster, Dean, Sec, of. Re 2389
Westminster Brymbo Co. v.
Clayton 73, 399, 518, 520, 566, 589
Westmoreland (E.) v. New
Sharlston Collieries Co. . 569
Westmoreland Green and Blue
Slate Co., iJe . . .112
Westmoreland Green and Blue
Slate Co., Re Bland's Case . 2269
Westmoreland Slate Co. v. Peil-
den . . . . 1363,2000
Weston's Case . . 836, 2269
Settlement, Re . 1427
Weston & Thomas, Re 2165, 2166,
2168
Re
- ([1902] 1 Ch. 680)
-, Davies v. Tagart
919
1561
1109
514
1449
2156
738
132
2189
V. Arnold
■ V. Clowes .
V. Collins .
V. Levy
■ V. Neal, Re Neal
— • ■ I). Savage .
Westoverw. Chapman 1119, 1123,1134
Westwood, Re . . 972, 1180
V. Booker, Re Tole-
man . 1354, 1358
V. Docwra . . 1029
WetenhaU v. Dennis . 1403, 1448
Wethered v. Cox . 177, [236], 1835
Wetherell, Exp. . . . 1981
^- V. Collins . . 1884
Wetherhead, Re, Wetherhead
V. Cavalier . . [1418]
Weymouth v. Davis . [2025]
Whaley, Re ([1908] 1 Ch. 615) 1561
V. Brancker . 99, 572
V. Busfield, Re Busfield 14
V. Dawson . . 1820
■ Bridge Printing Co. v.
Green .... 2270
Whalley (Mark) & Whalley (W.
n.),R(' . . . 1218
Table of Cases.
cclxxix
Whalley, Be
PAQE
. 263
-, Exp. Warburg 14, 826
V. Lane. & Yorkshire
Ry. Co 589
Wharam v. Broughton 444, 449, 452,
2241
Wharton's Char., Re L.
Wharton, Re
V. Barker
■ • V. Masterman
[1272]
[949], 985
. 1508
1251, 1419,
1666
. 1914
. 1041
Whatton v. Cradook
Wheatoroft, Re
Wheatley, Re, Smith v. Spenoe 870,
1529
■ ■ V. Bastow . . 1070
— • V. SUkstone & Haigh
Moor Coal Co. . 1968
■ — V. Smithers . . 2123
• V. Westm. &o. Co. 393,
527, 2142
Wheaton v. Graham
■ • V. Maple .
Wheeldon v. Burrows
Wheeler's Sett., Briggs v. Ryan
. 1877
383, 561
. 661
855,
875
Wheeler, iJe (1 D. M. & G. 434)
[1017], 1221, 1881
(1 Sch. & L. 242) 1379,
1380
([1904] 2 Ch. 66) . 1587
, Hankinson v. Hay-
ter . . . 853
and De Rochow, Re .1168
— V. Gill . . . 1403
«. Home . . . 1316
V. HoweU . . 1368, 1536
V. Humphreys . . 1666
V. Le Marchant . 90, 94, 95
— — V. Sargeant . . 2273
• ■ V. Smith . . .1305
V. Tootel [976], 1726, 1730,
1737, [1740]
[1608]
1747, 1754,
1757
. 1674,1675
1903, [1975,
V. Williams
Wheelwright v. Walker
Whelan v. Palmer .
Whetham v. Davey
1976], 2122, 2124
Whetstone v. Dewis 2, 1422, 1802
Whicker v. Hume 1306, 1357, 1453,
1520
Whincup V. Hughes . 969, 1378
Whinney, Exp., Re Harrison
and Ingram
Whistler, Re .
V. Hancock
Whiston V. Rochester
Whitaker's Trusts, Re
2286
1480, 2167
135, 827
. 1254
. 1153
PAOB
Whitaker, i?e . . 1365,1369
■ ■ ([1901] 1 Ch. 9) . 1406
([1904] 1 Ch. 299) 1406
([1911] 1 Ch. 214) 1159,
1450, 1515
, Christian v. Whit-
aker . 879, 1632
— — ■ -, Denison-Pender v.
Evans . 252, 1450
— ■ -, Whitaker v. Pal-
mer 1363, 1405, 1407,
1469
V. Barrett, Re Barrett 1348,
1350, 1369
V. Feather . . [360]
V. Goodwin . [1661]
V. Kershaw, Re Ker-
shaw . . 1594
V. Rush . . . 1322
V. Wright . .1376
Whitbread, Exp. . . . 1980
— • V. Jordan . . 2035
• V. Kingham . . 1531
V. Lyall . . 1910
V. Smith . 1697, 1871
— V. Watt . 1990, 2188
Whitby's Trusts, 2?e . . 967
Whitby V. Highton, Re Taylor 887
V. Mitchell
Whitchurch (George), Ld.
Cavanagh
■ — — ■, Re, Re Simpson
V. Golding .
1544, 1676
2250
1758,
1773
2230
Whitcombe, Re . . , 265
White's Charities, Re . . 2310
— — — — V. London
Corp. . . .581
Mortgage, Re . .1859
Trusts, Re . . 1253
White & Co. V. Credit Reform
Ass. . . .68
— — — and Smith's Contract, iJe 2166,
[2199]
, Exp., Re Nevill . . 1331
, Re, Exp. Nichols ([1902]
W. N. 114)
(19 W. R. 39) .
(5 Ch. 698) .
([1898] 1 Ch.
299)
262,1031
306, 432
1207, 1220
297,
. 1137
-, Fitzsimon v. White 1047,
1050
-, Morley v. White 2120, 2125
-, Pennell v. Franklin 1057,
1137
-, White V. Edmond . 1591
-, White V. White (22
Ch. D. 555) . . 1530
cclxxx
Table of Gases.
PAGE
Wtite, Re (Bev. E.), White v.
White ([1893] 2 Ch.
41) . . . 1303
, In the Goods of . . 1554
V. Barker . . . 2105
V. Barton . . . 1442
V. Baugh . . .773
V. Boby . . 2141, 2157
V. British Empire Co. . 1935
V. Bromige . . [131, 134]
■ V. Butt ... 30
■ — — V. Carmarthen Ky. Co. . 1972
V. City of Lond. Brewery
Co. . . 1870,1899
V. Cohen . . .599
V. Cordwell, Re Cord-
well's Estate 906, 910, 1587
• V. Cox . . 152, 946
V. Coxe . . . 1007
V. Damon . . . 2138
V. EUis, Re Wyatt 1082, 2034
, V. Gudgeon . 1483, 1851, 1879
. V. Headland's Patent
Electric Storage
Battery Co. . . 248
V. Herriok 986, 894, 895, 1015
V. Jackson . . . 1453
V. James 1573, [2047], 2049
0. King . . . [Ill]
■ V. Lincoln (Lady) . 262
■ V. Mellin . . .676
■ V. Metealf . . .767
0. Pearce . . . 1051
■ . V. Peterborough (Bp. of) 1879
■ . V. Peto . . .403
■ V. Phibbs . . .768
V. St. Barbe . .1675
, V. Scoles, Re WaUer . 1510
• V. Sewell, Re Sewell . 1092
• V. Simmons . . 1839, 1984
V. Southend Hotel Co. . 533
V. SpafEord ... 79
V. Steinwaoks . . 517
V. Steward . . . 1423
V. Summers . . . 1540
V. White (4 Feb. 1828,
B. 898) . 714
: — (4 Ves. 27) . 1710
■ ■ — (15 Bq. 247) 1645,
[2233], 2238
— (9 Ves. 561) 1710,
1711
([1898] P. 124) 293,
1023
V. Witt . . 830, 2286
V. Wood . . . 445
Whiteford, iJe . . . 1447
Whitehaven Banking Co. v.
Beed .... 1966
PAGE
Whitehead, ^x^)., . . .860
■ — — , Re Whitehead 864
■ — — , Re . . 1069, 1071
, Peacock v.
Lewis 1447, [1611],
1616, 1620
V. Lynes . 467, 773
V. Whitehead 1557, 1699
Whitehouse's Case, Re Russian
Ironworks Co. . . . 2264
Whitehouse, Exp., Re General
Horticultural Co. . 479, 480
Whitehouse, Re, Whitehouse v.
Edwards
Whitehouse v. Hugh
V. Partridge .
1670
533, 580
505, 506
Ry.
. 2264
. 399
. 1084
Whiteley's Case, Re Gen.
Syndicate .
Whiteley and Roberts, Re
, Re
— , Learoyd v. White-
ley . 1104, 1106
!-, London (Bishop
of) V. A.-G. [1296]
■ , London (Bishop
of) V. Whiteley . 1255
— V. Edwards . 856, 870
V. Learoyd . 759, 761
■ Exerciser v. Gamage 289,
380
1063
1936
2333
2331
951
1569
2379,
2400
. 540
2229, 2232
. 348
. 473
1847, 1914
. [338]
. 349
Whiteman v. Hawkins .
V. Sadler
White Rose T. M., Re .
Whitfield's Bedsteads, Ld., Re
Whitfield, Exp.
■ , Re, Hill V. Mathie
, Incumbent of. Re
V. Bewit .
— V. Eausset
— V. Lequentre
V. Prickett
V. Roberts
Whitford v. Steele .
Whitham, Re
Whithawm v. Westminster
Brymbo Coal and Coke Co. . 2183
Whiting V. Bassett . .111
V. Burke . . 2078, 2080
— to Loomes . 157, 2187
Whiting's Settlement, Re 121, 1510,
1541
Whitley Partners, Re, Steel's
Case
■ V. Challis .
)'. Honeywell
V. Lowe
Whitman v. Watkin
Whitmarsh v. Robertson
157
746
11
1384
695
1136
Table of Cases.
cclxxxi
PAGE
Whitmore, iJe . . . 1559
V. Maokeson . . 2247
— V. Mason . 2096, 2120
V. Oxbonow . 1360, 1496
— ■ V. Turquand . . 1443
Whitmore Searle v. Whitmore
Searle .... 1717
Whitmores (Edenbridge), Ld. v.
Stanford . . . [582], 588
Whitney v. Moignard . . 36
- V. Smith 1086, 1122, 1423,
1930
Whittaker, Be . . . 1370
, Whittaker v. Whit-
taker 1376, 1446,
1568, 1629
— — V. Barrett, Re Bar-
rett . . . 1467
■ V. Tox . . . 2155
V. Howe . . 520
V. Kershaw (44 Ch.
D. 296) . 31, 851
V. Kershaw (45 Ch.
D. 320) . 852, 875
V. Scarborough Post 85
Whittemore v. Whittemore . 2196
Whitten, Be, King v. Whitten 1542
Whittet V. Bush . . 2256, 2278
Whitting, Be, Exp. Rowell . 158
Whittingham v. Cusack . . 87
V. Wooler . . 661
Whittinstall v. Grover . . 2125
Whittington v. Gooding 120, 1458,
1459
• V. Seal-Hayne . 2247
Whittle V. Henning 895, 1427, 1428
Whitton V. Jennings . . 631
Whitwell V. Arthur . . 2108
■ — ■ V. Wilson . . 870
Whitwham v. Moss . . 520
V. Pieroy, Be Pieroy 1305,
1521
V. Westminster, &c.
Co 552
Whitwood Chemical Co. v.
Hardman . . . 527, 528
Whitworth v. Gaugain . . 1999
• V. Whyddon . . 750
Whorwood, Be, Ogle v. L. Sher-
borne ..... 1560
Whyte V. Ahrens . 41, 65, 1342
^i;. Whyte . . . 1537
Whytehead v. Boulton . . 1613
Wickenden v. Rayson . 332, 1372
Wickens' Trusts . . .160
Wickens, Exp. . . . 1946
V. Townshend . . 742
Wickham, Be, Marony v. Tay-
lor . . . 132
PAGE
Wickham v. Evered . . 2184
— • — • V. Marq. of Bath [1294],
1299, 1308
V. Nicholson .
V. Wickham
Wicks V. Hunt
— — V. Scrivens
V. Wicks
Wioksteed v. Biggs
Widdow, Be .
Widdowson v. Duck
Widgery v. Tepper
Wiedeman v. Walpole
Wield's Patent
Wier V. Tucker
Wigan Glebe Act, Be
V. Junction Ry. Co. The
Great Central Ry. Co. [2446], 2446
Wigg V. NichoU . . . 1307
Wiggeston Hospital, Be . . 397
. 1846
. 545
. 518
. 1863,2006
. 119
293, 294, 296
. 1591
. 1148
473, 1363, 2000
. 72, 73, 80
. 2320
. 88
. 2380
Wiggins V. Horlock
V. Peppin .
Wigham v. Measor
Wight's Trusts, Be
Wight, Be .
■ V. Shaw
. 1669
262, 1030
. 1847
. 2030,2040
. 2380
. 241
Wightwick V. Pope . . 30
Wiglesworth v. Wiglesworth . 1083
Wigney v. Wigney 924, 925, 926,
2042
Wigram v. Buckley . 412, 2041
— V. Fryer . . 698, 2347
Wigsell V. School for Indigent
Blind
Wilberforce v. Hearfield .
Wilbraham v. Livesey
V. Scarisbrick
Wilcock, Be .
V. Terrell .
Wiloooks V. Butcher
Wilcox & Gibbs v. James
— V. Redhead
V. Steel
Wilcoxon, Be, Exp. Andrews
Griffith
■ • V. Mackenzie .
Wild V. Lookhart .
• V. Southwood
2158
. 1824
2166, 2207
. 1664
. 1759
443, 445
. 1622
. 653
. 2145
. 594
2120
2288
. 2023
. 1879
412, 421, 472,
474
. 914
V. Wells
V. Woolwich Borough Coun-
cU . . . [687], 688, 2354
WUday v. Bennett
V. Sandys
Wilde, Be .
■ V. Gibson
V. Milne
■ V. WaKord, Be Harrald
1426
1616
258
2252
2110
252,
1050
cclxxxii
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Wilde V. Watson . . . 2140
Wilder v. Pigott . . .865
Wildes ?;. Dudlow . 1120,1121,1470
Wilding V. Andrews . . 341
V. Bean ... 13
V. Bolder . . . 1188
V. Landor . . . 1451
V. Sanderson 124, 125, 2151,
2235
Wildridge v. M'Kane . . 774
Wildy V. Mid. Hants Ry. Co. . 753
Wiles i>. Cooper . . 750, 1130
■ V. Gresham . . . 1079
Wilkes' Estate, Re . 2388, 2389
Wilkes, Re ... . 1255
V. Saunion . . 1904, 1907
V. Spooner . . . 532
Wilkins, iJe . . . 206,431
, Wilkins v. Bother-
ham . . 1449,1579
■ V. Aikin . . 661, 667
■ «;. Pry . . . 1984
• V. Hogg . . . 1079
■ ■ V. Jodrell . . . 1569
• ■ V. Mayor of Birming-
ham . . . 2348
■ • V. Stevens . . . 1088
Wilkinson's Estate, Re . 1680, 2360
Wilkinson, Exp. . . 1575, 2389
, Re (9 Eq. 71) . 373
■ (10 Ch. 73) 204, 487
. (2 Coll. 92) . 277
(1 C. M. & R. 142) 1256
(4 Ch. 587) . 1426
■ ■ (16 W. R. 537) . 2399
, Esam V. A.-G. [1295],
1298, 1307
; Lloyd V. Steel . 1697
V. Alston . .1336
w. Barber . . 1305
V. Bewick . . 1086
V. Bewicke . . 730
V. Blades, Re Lart 122, 139
V. Castle . . 1810
V. Charlesworth 908, 1914
V. Clements . . 2157
V. CoUey . . 769
V. Dent . . . 1529
V. Duncan . 1544, 1622
V. Gibson . . 920
V. Griffith . . 621
V. Hartley . . 2189
V. Henderson . . 2125
. V. Hull, &c. Ry. Co. 098,
706
V. Joberns . 1805, 1810
V. Jouglim . . 1014
V. L'Eaugier . . 714
v'. Lindgren . .1301
Wilkinson v. Nelson
V. Rogers
V. Schneider
V. Smart
V. Unwin
Wilks V. Bannister
■ • V. Davis
■ V. Groom
Willan, Re .
— ■ V. Lancaster
Willats V. Hooper .
WUlatts V. Cay
Willoook V. Terrell .
Willcocks V. Butcher
V. Doughty
Wille V. St. John
Willes V. Greenhill .
V. Middleton
533
. 1644
526, 535
886, 900
263, 268
. 2080
. 1511
. 2148
. 1086
1209, 1216
. 1368
[15001
. 894
441, 757
. 1572
. 1359
1022, 2142
1081, 1109
. 1055
Willesden Loc. Bd. and Wright,
Re 397
Willesford v. Watson 392, 393, 2114
WiUet V. Cazenove, Re Lacy [1395]
Willett and Argenti, Re 2185, 2187,
2201
V. Blandford [2117], 2119,
2131, 2133
V. Pinlay . . 1110, 1558
WiUey, J?e . . . 1171,1180
William of Kyngeston, Re . 1277
William Smith, Re . . 2399
WilUam Symington, The . 249
Williames, Re, Andrew v. Wil-
hames 544, 1377, 1388, 1553, 1695
WiUiams' Estate, Re . 1469, 2407
; WiUiams
V. WiUiams . . 2002
Settled Estate, Re . 226
■ Settlement, Re, Wil-
liams V. WUliams . 1631
Trusts, Re . . 1216
WUliams & Newcastle (D. of).
Re . . . 2187
& Parry, Re (72 L. T.
968) . . . 1365
, Exp. . 965, 1894, 2268
— , Re Raggett . 2015
, Re, Exp. Love . . 279
(7 Jur. N. S. 323) 77
(5 D. & S. 515) 344,
1181, 1209, 1215
— (15 Beav. 417) . 264
(4 K. & J. 87) . 1156
(V.-C. B. 11 Mar.,
1876) . .1159
(36 Ch. D. 231) 1185,
1190
(3 D. F. & G. 104) 1042
(6 Jur. N. S. 1004) 1016,
1655, 1656
Table of Cases.
cclxxxiii
Williams, Re (59 L. T. 310)
(12 Beav. 510)
■ (26 T. L. R. 604)
([1904] 1 Ch. 52)
PAGE
887
1061
1315
1353,
1466
— ([1907] 1 Ch. 161) 1543
— ■ and Stepney 391, 399
, Andrew v. W. 1387, 1388
, Davies v. Williams 1386
, Foulkes V. Williams 1427
— •, Jones V. Williams 1362,
1363, 1405, 1409, 1410
, Morgan v. Williams 1499
, Spencer v. Brig-
house . . 1422
, Williams v. Wil-
liams (15 Eq. 270) 1364,
2002
- — . Williams v. Wil-
liams (W. N. (95)
36) . . . 1568
V. Allen 247, [359], 1108,
1354
V. Arkle . . 1539, 1540
V. A.-G. . . .730
V. Aylesbury, &o. By. 708,
2221, [2222], 2224,
2225, 2380
V. Bagnall . . 568
V. Baily 881, 919, 920, 921
V. Bolland . . 803
0. Bolton (D.) . . 545
V. Brisco [23], 24, 2148,
2155
V. Carmarthen, &c. By. 188
V. Cartwright . . 17
V. Chitty . [1589], 1368
V. Colonial Bank 714,
1933, 2038
V. Day . . 541, 1902
V. De Boinvmo 376, 821
V. East London Ry.
Co. . . 2168,2185
V. Evans . . 1951, 1246
V. Fowler . 1364, 1368
V. Frere, Re Smith . 71
V. Gabriel
V. Games
V. Glenton
V. Griffiths
V. GwjTi .
V. Headland
. 600
. 1805
341, 2181
. 1320
. 914
1464, 1595
V. Hopkins, Re Hop-
kins
V. Hunt .
V. James .
V. Jenkins
1405
. 169, 1836
. 578
. 1761
Re Price 1130,
1451, 1454, 1606
Williams v. Jersey (E.)
PAGE
603, 2157
V. Jones (36 W. B.
573) . 2238
— — (34 Ch. D.
120) . 819
^,iee Hartley 1112,
1860
V. Jordan . . 2143
V. Kershaw . . 1308
V. Lomas . . 1087
V. Marson, Re Buckle 1571
V. Mayne . . 865
V. Mercia . . 1631
V. Mitchell, Re Byron's
Settlement . . 1426
V. Morgan . . 1837
V. Nixon . . 1084, 1085
V. Nye . . .631
V. Owen . . 1838, 2089
V. Page . . .1341
V. Peel River Co. . 743
V. PhiUips . . 592
V. Piggott . . 1054
V. PoweU . . 1124
V. Preston . . 1030
V. Price . . . 1899
V. P.ofW. Ins. Co. 76,81,674
V. Quebrada By. Co. 79, 91
V. Baggett
V. Bawlinson
V. Bobbins
V. Boberts
V. Boker .
V. Byley
V. Scott
V. SorreU
V. Spargo
567, 573
2076
526
1540
. 1232
[1330]
1093, 2255, 2268
. 1902,2036
. 2209
V. Swansea Canal Co. 294
V. Teale . . . 1652
V. Thomas 914, 1455, 1990
([1909] 1
Ch. 713) . . 1485
V. Thorpe . . 1934
V. Trench, Re Edwards 1343,
1344
V. Trye ... 97
V. Vane ... 8
V. Walker . . 897
V. Ware . . 225, 310
V. Wentworth . .1378
V. Wight . . . 1130
V. Williams (L. B. 1
P. & M. 178) 920
(17 Ch. D.
437) 1064, 2033,
2035
(L. JJ. 23
Ap. 1853, B.
729) . [1117]
oclxxxiv
Table of Cases,
PAGE
Williams v. Williams (20 Ch. D.
659) . . 1459
— — — ■ (W. N.
(99) 166) [1790],
1809
-(2 011.294) 1633
— , Re Hart-
ley 1112, 1426,
1606, 1866
— & Partridge 1061
V. Wood . 330, 2151, 2163
Williamson, Exp. The Nat.
Perm., &c. Soc. 2060
— V. Barbour . 1340, 1341
V. Burrage . . 1836
■ V. Gordon . . 939
V. Jeffreys . . 1317
V. L. & N. W. By. 37
V. Nelson . . 1645
• ■ V. N. Stafford Ry.
Co. . . 246
— ■ V. WUliamson (V.-C.
B. 22 Mar., 1875,
B. 866) . [1374]
■ — : V. Williamson (9
Ch. 729) . . . 2207, 2208
Willis, Be ([1902] 1 Ch. 15) 1696,
1778
— , Exp. Kennedy 1894, 1895,
1937
— — , Peroival & Co., Re 1319,
1320, 1322
■ u.Baddeley . . 67
V. Barron . . 2272, 2273
■ V. Beauchamp (E.) 39, 131
■ V. Childe . . . 1254
■ V. Howe (E.) . 39, 131
, Re Jennens . 1385
V. Jernegan . . . 1339
V. Kibble . . .1137
V. Newham . . .1326
■ — V. Wakeley Bros. . . 407
1). Watney . .1952,2311
D.Wells . . 401,712
— — V. Willis (34 Beav. 340) . 915
. ■ . — (38 W. R. 7) 333,
1784, 1802, 1806
. ■ — (17 Sim. 218) .2083
Willmott V. Barber 244, 251, 514,
532, 2153, 2157, 2236, 2247
. V. Jenkins . 1430, 1431
. V. London Celluloid
Co. . . 1968,2289
. — V. Ogilby . . 186
Willock V. Noble . . 885, 887
Willoughby, Exp., Re Westlake 1042,
1991
^— , TJe (30 Ch. P. 324) 953,
997
PAGE
Willoughby, Be ([1911] 2 Ch.
581) . . 1447
— V. Drummond, Re
Gresley's Settlt. 1508
■ ■ ■ V. Middleton 866, 1627,
1632
— ■ V. Willoughby 2030,
2044
■ ■ — Osborne v. Holy-
oake .... 886, 1427
Wills' Trusts, Re . . . 293
Wills T. M., Re . 89, 2342, 2343
V. Luff 737, 750, 761, 1921,
1983
WUlson V. Leonard . . 1368
Willway's Trusts, Re [1679], 1680
Willyams v. Matthews, Mat-
thews V. Matthews . . 796
Wilmer t). Currey . .1378,2119
■ • V. Kidd . . .729
V. McNamara & Co. . 699
Wilmot V. Alton . . . 1950
■ V. Warren . . [1703]
WUmott V. Freehold House, &o.
Co 3, 28, 136
Wilson's Case . . .945
— — (Sir T. M.) Estate and
the Hampstead, &o. Ry. Co.,
Re . . [2358], 2451, 2453
Wilson, Exp. . . . 1898
■ and Stevens, Re . 2181, 2201
Wilson's (Maryon) Settled Es-
tates, Re . . . .1747
— , Re (29 Ch. D. 790) . 304
— (12 May, 1814) . 1003
— ■ (14 W. R. 161) . 1159
— (31 Ch. D. 522) 1189,
1215, 1216
(19 Beav. 594) 1279, 1280
■ (1 Eq. 247) . . 1525
([1907] 1 Ch. 394) 1616,
1618, 1619
— ■ ([1907] 2 Ch. 572) . 1508
■ , A.-G. V. WoodaU 20,
146, 317
. Alexander v. Calder 1418,
1419
, Parker v. Winder . 1531
— — -, Pennington v. Payne
1481, 1482
, Wilson V. Altree 243,
794
, WOson V. HoUoway 2135
■ V. Amalgamated Socy.
of Engineers . . 712
■ V. Angus . . . 424
■ V. Balcarres, &e. Co. . 51
■ V. Barnes . . . 1300
■ V, Bennett , , , 1080
Table of Cases.
cc
Ixxxv
PAGE
Wilson V. BirchaU, Be BirohaE 126,
943, 1149
V. Bury (L.)
V. Church
• V. Clapham
■ V. Cluer
■ V. Coles
■ V. Colson
• V. Compton
. 1093
50, 66, 719, 840,
843, 844, 2237
. 2182
1877, 1903
. 1490
. 429
. 152
■ V. Cox-Shiclaii-, iJeHorne 1133
■ V. Coxwell . 1466, 1468, 1469
— V. De Coulon
— - V. Dundas .
— - V. Dunsany
— • V. Ferrand .
— ■ V. Ford
— V. Foster
- — • V. E\irness Ry. Co.
— V. Gann
— V. Glossop .
— - V. Greenwood
— V. Hart
— V. Hill
— • V. Johnstone
— ■ V. KeUand .
- — ■ V. Lloyd
— ■ V. Maddison
— V. Metcalfe
■ V. Moore
■ V. Morley
108
. 480
1363, 1524
. 723
. 884
2401, 2402
. 2141
105, 643
. 883
331, 751
525, 532
. 1149
[2100], 2112
. 1968
2086, 2126
. 1446
353, 444, 1885,
1903, 1904
. 1086
. 1555
• V. Northampton, &c. Ry. 83,
90, 91, 93, 515, 527.
2138, 2141, 2157
■ V. O'Leary . . 1510, 1537
■ V. Peake
1124
- V. Queen's Club Co. 561, 1896
- V. Raffalovich . . 74
- V. Round . . 1048, 1051
- V. Short . . . 2262
- V. Smith . . 31, 32
- V. Squire . . . 1450
- V. Thomson . 2174, 2190
- V. Thornbury 79, 84, 151,
1531, 2247
• V. Todd . . . 1459
• V. Townsend . . 1529
- V. Turner . . 964, 966
- V. Union Oil Mills Co. . 631
- V. Waddell . . .589
- V. West Hartlepool Co. 842,
2147, 2154
■V. WilHams . .2111
-V.Wilson (1 H. L. C.
538) . . 920,2140
■ V. Wilson (1 L. C. Eq.
7th ed. 577) . . 921
• V. Wilson (2 Ke. 249) . 751
PAGE
Wilson V. Wilson (1 Sim. N. S.
288) . . 1666
([1911] 1 K.
B. 327) . . . 1468
V. Wright . . [1788]
Wilton's (E.) Settled Estates, 526.
1769
Wilton V. Brignell ... 68
- V. Colvil . . . 1631
V. Hill . . .896
V. Osborn . . . 2279
Wilts & Berks Canal Co. v.
Swindon W. W. Co. . 84, [584]
Wilts & Somerset Ry. Co., Be,
Exp. Brewer . . . 950
Wiltshire, Be . . . 1420
, Exp. Eynon . 1941
V. Marshall . . 298
V. Smith . . .1873
Wimbledon Conservators v.
Dixon . . 578
L. Board v. Croydon
Sanitary Autho-
rity . . 514,517
L. Board v. Under-
wood .... 1947
Wimborne (L.) & Browne's Con-
tract .... 1745
Wimby v. Manchester Steam
Tram. Co 632
Winan's Patent . . . 2321
Winans v. A.-G. . . . 1519
Winch V. Birkenhead Ry. 697, 708
Winchelsea's (E.) Policy Trusts,
Be . . . 1131, 1132, 1990
Winchelsea v. Garetty . . 1475
Winchester (Bp.), Exp. . . 2390
V. Bowker . 77
V. Eournier . 2241
V. Knight . 543
V. Mid Hants
Ry. Co. . 2224
V. Paine 1853, 1921
2384, 2403
. 293
. 734
Windhill L. Board v. Vint 531, 1249
Windle v. Brass . . . 548
Windsor, &o. Ry. Co., Be . 2398
& Annapolis Ry. Co.
V. Reg. . . .382
V. Cross . . [1661]
Windus V. Windus . . . 1589
Winehouse v. Winehouse, Be
Maggi 1363, 1364, 1405, 1406, 2002
Wing V. Angrave . . 1590, 1591
V. Tottenham & Hamp-
stead Ry. Co. [2221], 2223,
2224, 2393
Winder, Exp.
Windham v. Bainton
V. Guibilei
cclxxxvi
Table of Cases.
Wing V. Wing
Wingiield & Blew, Be
V. Erskine, Be
yer .
■ V. Wingfleld
Wingrove v. Thompson
• V. Wingrove
Winkle, Be .
r V. BaUey
Winkworth. v. Winkworth
PAGE
. 1512
. 883
Hud-
. 1593
. 1511
. 123
. 2272
984, 1366
. 1157
[1075],
1445
Winn, Be {[1910] 1 Ch. 278)
, Reed v. Winn
■ V. Bull
Winnifrith v. Card .
Winpenny v. Courtney .
Winsoom, Be
Winslow, Be, Frere v. Winslow 1090,
1450, 1595
1513
881
2144
338
1317
996
Winstanley's Settlement, Be
Winter v. Easum .
■ ■ V. Innes
Winterbottom, Be .
Winterfield v. Bradnum .
Winteringham, Be .
Wintle, Be . . .
■ , Tucker v. Wintle
■ V. Bristol & S. W. By,
Winton (Bp.) v. Beavor
■ V. Newland
Wintour v. Clifton .
Wirth's Patent, Be
Wisden v. Wisden .
Wise, Be
([1896] 1 Ch. 281)
■ -, Exp. Mercer
, Jackson v. Parrott
226
863
2126
[276]
29
1208
153
1543
514
939
1822, 1824
. 1531
2312, 2315
1368, 1452
1216, 1217
1543
2283
966,
1149
1132
1653
2302
307
■ ■ V. Perpetual Trustee Co,
■ V. Piper
Wiseman v. Vandeputt .
Wisewold, Be
Wissner v. Levison and Steiner [2024]
WithaU, iJe . . . .305
■ , V. Nixon . . 1853, 1922
Witham v. Andrew, Be Stead . 1305
■ — V. Vane
8,20
547
896
1838
1407
380
Wither v. D. & C. Winchester .
Witherby v. Eackham .
Witherington v. Tate
Withernsea Brick Works, Be .
Withey v. Haigh .
Withington v. Neumann, Be
Marsden . 300
V. Withington 1168,
1186
_ — . — . District Local Board
V. Manchester Corp. . .601
Withy V. Cottle . . 2139, 2156
PAGE
Withy V. Mangles . . . 1513
Witt V. Ames . . . 1035
V. Banner . . . 1944
V. Corcoran (2 Ch. D. 69) 435,
456, 522, 673,
820, 2093, 2096
(8Ch. 476) 392,
2096
. (21 W. R. 47)
— ■ (V.-C. B. June,
1873) .... [682]
Witted V. Galbraith . . 17
Witten, iJe . . . [988], 998
Witter V. Witter . . .980
Wittman v. Oppenheim 240, 509,
523
Witts V. Young . . . . 1847
Witty V. Marshall . . 1000, 1001
Wolff, iJe .... 2394
V. Van Boolen . .117
V. Vanderzee [1890], 1900, 1907
WoUaston, iJe . . .886
u. Berkeley . . 1591
V. King . . 1529, 1542
— V. Tribe . 1635, 1637
— — V. WoUaston 1450, 1451,
1574
Wooley V. N. L. Ry. . . 95
Wolmer v. Forester, Be Duke of
Cleveland . . . [1690]
Wolmershausen «, GulUck 1113,
[2073], 2078, 2081
_ — V. O'Connor . 524
— ■ — — V. Wolmershau-
sen & Co.. Ld. . . . [618]
Wolterbeck v. Barrow . . 1646
Wolverhampton Corp. v. Em-
mons .... 2141
Wolverhampton, &c. Banking
Co., Exp. . . . 1089,2250
Wolverhampton, &c. Banking
Co. V. Bond ... 4
Wolverhampton, &c. Banking
Co. V. George . . .941
Wolverhampton, &c, Ry. v. L. &
N. W. Ry. ... 707
Wolverhampton Waterworks v.
Hawkesford . . . 594
Wombwell v. Barnsley Corp. . 2351
— — V. Bellasysa . 537, 542
Wimersley, Be, Etherodge v.
Womersley 474, 760, 799. 1304
Womersley v. Horsnail, Be Hors-
nail 1150
Wonham v. Machm . 343, 1879
Wontner v. Wright . . 2231
Wood's Estate . 884, 1709, 1712
— ^ — ■ — — — — , Be, Exp, Com-
missioners of Works . . 2407
Table of Cases.
cclxxxvii
PAGE
Wood, Me (3 My. & C. 266) . 1717
(4 Dec. 1857, Reg.
Min. f. 117) . . 229
— — (7 Jur. N. S. 323) . 1216
— — (21 W. R. 104) . 125
— — (32Ch. D. 517) . 1671
— — (13 Q. B. D. 479) . 414
— ([1902] 2 Ch. 642) . 1511
— , Exp. HaU . .511
• — , Anderson v. London
City Mission . . 1558
— , A.-G. V. Anderson 1490,
1585
— — — — , Brooking v. Brook-
ing . . [1012]
— — , Davidson v. Wood . 1378
■, TuUett V. Colville . 1544
— — , Ward V. Wood . 1447
— ■, Wood V. Hooper . 871
— — ■ V. Lambert 2332,
2342
— — ■ & Ivery, Ld. v. Hamblet 165,
361
— — - V. Anderston Foundry Co. 13
— — - V. Aylward . . . 2145
V. Beetlestone 1209, 1214,
1215, 1232, 1233
663, 664, 670
304, 1129, 1135
. 666
534, 535
. 1427
1514
■ V. Boosey
■ V. Calvert
■ V. Chart
■ V. Cooper
■ V. Cotton, Re Cotton
■ V. Douglas, JRe Douglas
1055, 1057, 2274
. 481
1784, 1797, 1806,
1807
. 110
607
2304
. 742
1063, 1385
395, 683
. 776
. 494
. 343
828
. 121
17, 20, 806
. 2144
. 601
. 1901
Waterworks
, 699
. 1606
. 1445
■ V. Rendell, Be Rendell . 1359
■ V. Robson . . . 2113
■ V. RowclifEe . . . 1933
- V. Downes
- V. Dunn
- V. Gregory
- V. Harpur
- V. Harrogate Commrs.
- V. Headingley
- V. Hitehings
- V. Jones
- V. LUlies
- V. Lindsay .
- V. Lyne
- V. Maekinlay
■ V. Madras Canal Co.
- V. McCarthy
■ V. Middleton
• V. Midgley ,
■ V. Mdes
• V. Murton
• V. Odessa
Co.
■ V. Ordish
, Penoyre
Wood V. Saunders .
V. Soarth
-^ V. Scoles
V. Siloock
PAGE
. 578
. 2146
2106,2113
2141, 2158
V. Stenning, Be Stenning 1088,
1325
V. Surr . . 1853, 1921
— V. Sutoliffe . . .514
V. Thomas, Be Thomas 1616,
1618, 1619
V. Turner, Be Turner 1047,
1049
— ■ — — V. Vincent . . .483
V. Weightman 1352, 1375,
1595
V. Westall . . . 1352
— V. Wheater . . 423, 1922
V. White . . 2147, 2161
— ■ V. Wood, Markwell's Case 1595
— — ■ (10 Eq. 193, 207) 516
— (9 Ex. 190) 712, 2107
(19 W. R. 1049) 866
(5 Ha. 229) . 1130
Woodall, Be . . . .899
V. Clifton . . 532, 1543
Woodard, Be . . 258, 1060
Woodbridge & Sons v. Bellamy 530
Woodburn's Trust, Be . . 2398
Woodburn, iJe . . . 1159
V. Grant . . 151
Woodcock V. 0. W. & W. Ry.
Co 2084
Woodd, Be, Exp. King . . 2300
Wooderson v. Raphael . . 671
Woodfall V. Arbuthnot . . 1208
Woodfin and Wray, Be . 307, 522
Woodford v. Brooking . . 1848
Woodgate, Be . . .1185
v.. Field . . 1360, 1427
V. Godfrey . . 1938
Wood Green, &c. Char., Be, Exp.
Middlesex C. C. 1269, 2400, 2401
Woodham, Be, Exp. Conder . 418
Woodhead v. Ambler, Be Ambler 881
Woodhouse, Be . . . 1751
— - — ■ — ■ — ■ — ■ V. Newry Naviga-
tion Co. . 520, 694
— — V. Walker . 544, 1695
V. Woodhouse 1113,
1354, 1388
Woodin, Be, Woodin v. Glass [962],
970, 1447
Woodman v, Higgins . 2229, 2231
Woodmeston v. Walker . . 1569
Woodroffe v. Daniel . . 80
V. Moody, Be Moody 971,
[1440], 1445, 1440
Woodruffe v. Brecon Ry. Co. 520,
[550]
cclxxxviii
Table of Cases.
Woods, jSe
PAGB
. 1168
— ([1904] 2 Ch. 4) 1610,
1617, 1618
— , Exp. Ditton 263, 295,
1839, 1984
and Lewis, Be . . 2181
V. Beaumont, Re Beau-
mont
— V. Cock, lie Plamank .
■ V. Creaghe .
V. Greenwell v. Mur-
ray .. .
V. Sowerby
V. Woods .
Woodstock V. Oxford By. Co. .
Woodward v. Darcy
V. Dowse
— — V. Groulstone .
— • V. Humpage
V. King
■ — — V. Pratt
761
881
776
Woof V. Barron
Woolaoott V. Sennett
Woolcott V. Peggie
Wooldridge v. Norris
Woolf V. Pemberton
V. Woolf
1350
1351
249
380
1467
. 914
. 150
. 1056
. 511, 521
. 900
[1976], 1983
[1891]
. 2165
1351, 2075
. 934
Woolfe V. Automatic, &c.
Co.
Woolford's Trustee v. Levy
WooUam v. Hearn .
V. RatclifE
945
648,
2326
419
2146
621
Wooley, Be . . . . 2400
Coal Co., Be . . 2434
■ — • V. Broad . . . 644
V. Colman 296, 329, 331,
1455, [1845], 1847, 1848
V. Thorniley, Be Thorni-
ley . . . . 38, 512
Woolmore v. Burrows . . 541
Woolridge v. Woolridge . 1630, 1531
Woolscombe, Be . . . 949
Woolstencroft v. Woolstencroft 1477
Woolston V. Boss 743, 745, 769, 1896
Wootton's Estate, Be . 1773, 2389
Worcester, &c. Co. v. Bliok, Be
Pumfrey 1131,
1132
■ ■ V. Pirbank
Pauling & Co. 12, 412
Charity, iJe . . 1264
Wordsworth v. DarreU [1566], 1578
V. Dayrell . . 893
Working Men's Mutual Society,
Ltd., iJe . . . 105,298
Workman, Clark & Co. v. Lloyd
BrazUens . .169
V. Belfast Harbour
Commrs. . . 391, 392, 393
Worley v. Frampton . . 2186
Wormald, Be, Frank v. Muzeen 871
V. Maitland . . 2040
V. Muzeen . . 1573
Worman v. Worman . 1146, 1149
Worms V. Do Valder . . 723
V. Smith . . .609
Wormsley, Be, Hill v. Worms-
ley . . . 1477
V. Sturt . . 1317
Worraker v. Pryer . . 121, 1351
Worrall, Be, Gumey v. Clare . 1799
Worsley, iJe . . . .876
Worswiok, Be, Robson v. Wors-
wiok 92
Worth, iJe . . . .271
Wortham's Settled Estate, Be 1768
Wortham, Exp. . . . 1061
— V. Dacre (L.) . . 2190
Worthing Corp. v. Heather . 1543
Worthington's T. M., Be . 621
Worthington, Be . [892], 897, 2383
& Co., Be . . 2336
— — V. Abbott 124,
1836, 1922
— V. Curtis . . 1091
V. M'Craer . . 968
V. Moore
. 166
Wortley, Be, CuUey v. Wortley [47]
— V. Birkhead . . 2044
Wotherspoon v. Currie 616, 621,
622, 626
Wragg, Be (1 D. J. & S. 356) . 1216
, Ltd., Be ([1897] 1 Ch.
786) . . .700
— V. Morley . . . 1456
Wray, Be . . 420, 436, 1066
V. Hutchinson . . 2109
V. Kemp . . 1029, 1031
^— V. Wray . . . 2111
Wreford, Exp., Be Ashby . 2286
Wren v. Weild . . 636, 641
Wrench v. Wynne . . . 486
Wrexham (M. of) v. TampUn . 1301
— • — ; Mold and Connah's
Quay Ry. Co., Be
([1899] 1 Ch. 440) 1967,
2061
— — , &e. Ry. Co., Be
([1900] 2 Ch. 436) . 766
, &c. Ry. Co., Be
([1900] 1 Ch. 261) 241, 756, 1880,
2408
Wrey, Be .... 2361
— V. Smith . . . 1613
Wride v. Clarke 1367, 1602, 1604,
1605, 1852
Wrigglesworth, Be . . . 127
Wright's Trusts, Be 1773, 2362, 2383
Table of Cases.
cclxxxix
PAGE
Wright and Marshall, Be 1673, 1719
and Son v. Bull . . 248
, Crossley & Co.'s Appli-
cation, Be 2329, 2332, 2338
, Exp. . . . 1980
— , Be (12 C. B. N. S. 705) 1061
(3 K. & J. 419) 1156,
1460, 1466
(2 K. & J. 595) . 1520
— (15 Beav. 367) . 1156
([1906] 2 Ch. 288) . 1529
([1907] 1 Ch. 231) . 1541
, Kirke v. North . 179
, Wright V. Sanderson 1046
V. Atkyns
V. Bond
V. Carter
of
V. Castle
V. Chard
V. Commrs-
Revenue
V. Davies .
V. Deeley .
V. Gofi
V. Hitchcock
V. Horton .
V. Howard .
• V. Kirby
■ V. Lambert
V. Larmuth
• V. Leonard
■ V. Lukes
■ V. Maidstone (L.)
■ V. M'Guffie
■ V. Mills
• V. Monarch Invest. Soc.
1809
. 2160,2169
1053, 1055,
1056, 2273, 2274
1029, 1030
. 838
Inland
. 157
. 1377
. 2060
1646, 2237
632, 634
. 1965
. 2156
1851, 1880
. 1622
1380
857
1443
2229
364
95
401,
V. Morley .
V. Mudie
V. Pitt
V. Redgrave
V. Robotham
V. Rose
V. Rutter .
V. Simpson
V. Snowe
V. Stanfield
2059
908, 909, 2076
. 1320
72,73
502, 720
87, 1698
. 1490
. 894
. 723
. 945
. 2040
V. Swindon, &c. By. 116, 117,
135
V. Tanner . . . 2099
V. Tuckett . . . 1700
V. Tugwell, Be Robinson 1304
V. Vanderplank . 2273, 2274
V. Vernon ... 87
V. Warren , . 1556, 1557
V. Wilkins . . .112
V. Woods, Be Harvey . 1449
V. Wright (5 Sim. 449) 364
PAGE
Wright V. Wright (16 Ves. 188) 1491
Wrightson, Be 42, 189, 1540, 2104
, Wrightson v.
Cooke
352, 1078,
1120, 1170
[1098]
. 1870,1900
. 1427
. 1368,1481
1865, 1869, 1871
1664
V. Bryant
Wrigley v. Gill
V. Loundes
V. Sykes .
Wrixon v. Vize
Wrottesley's Sett., Be
Wroughton, Be, Montague v.
Festing . . 1001
V. Colquhoun 1448, 1570,
1573, 1579, 1580
WulfE «. Jay . . . . 2086
Wuterick's Patent, Be . . 2320
Wyatt, Be, White v. Ellis 1082, 2034
V. Barwell . . . 2040
V. Cooke . . 2275, 2279
V. Harrison . . . 568
V. Palmer . . 39, 138
V. Sherratt . . . 1083
Wyche, iJe .... 1137
Wycherley v. Barnard . .2162
V. Wycherley . 1633
Wycombe Ry. Co. v. Donning-
ton Hospital . . 2147, 2152
Wye VaUey Ry. Co. v. Hawes 20,
2071
Wyersdale Sch., Be . . 1258
Wyeth V. HiU
Wyld V. Ward
Wylde, Be .
V. Legg
V. Radford
Wylie, Be, WyUe v. Moffat
Wyllie V. Pollen
Wylly, Be .
Wylson V. Dunn
2143.
2148
Wyman v. Carter
V. Knight
[1117]
. 149
. 205
. 1933
. 1992
. 886
. 2036
. 1159
2145, 2146,
2149, 2168
. 2167
344, [417], 423,
425, 768, 2111
V. Paterson 1086, 1104,
1123, 1610, 1617
Wymer u. Dodds . . 52,116
Wynch, iJe .... 1621
V. Grant . . . 1091
Wyndham's Estate Act, Be . 2450
Trusts, Be . . 1631
Wyndham v. Ennismore (L.) 966,
995, 1001
Wynn's Estate, Be
Wynn, Be
HaU Coal Co., Be
V. Morgan .
Wynne v. Hughes .
V. Humbreston
VOL. I.
1680
. 1680
. 1965
. 2168
. 800
76, 91, 93
t
ccxc
Table of Cases.
PAGE
Wynne v. Newborough (L.) . 769
V. Price . . . 2295
V. Styan . . . 1862
V. Tempest . 21, 1111
Wynne-Pinch v. Chaytor 395, 403,
404, 406, 817
Wynter v. Bold . . .1665
Wyrley Canal Co. v. Bradley . 571
Wyse V. RusseU . . . 2144
Wythe V. Henniker . 1474, 1475
Wythes, Be, West v, Wythes [1689],
1697, 1698
V. Labouchere . . 2083
— V. Lee . . 1990, 2188
X.,Be .
, X. V. Y.
X.
Y.
1752
954
Yallop V. Holworthy . . 978
Yapp V. WUliams . . 378, 380
Yare v. Harrison . . . 1442
Yates, Re (3 D. J. & S. 402) . 799
([1901] 2 Ch. 438) . 1569
, Batcheldor v. Yates 1901,
1939, 1951
and KoUett's Patent . 2320
V, Armstrong, Arm-
strong's Patent, Be 648,
2326
V. Cousins . . . 2109
V. Finn . 2113, [2115]
V. Hanby . 187S, 1904, 2066
- V. Madden . . . 892
V. Morton, Be Dodson . 981
V. Terry . . . 482
V. Univ. Coll. Lond. . 1540
V. Whyte . . . 2080
— V. Yates . . 1570, 1619
Ydun, The . . . .245
Yeadon Local Board, Be . 396
• Waterworks Co. and
Yeadon Local Board, Be . 398
Yearsley v. Yearsley . 290, 378
Yeates v. Praser, Be Fraser . 1258
Yeatman v. Read . . .184
V. Yeatman . . 1096
Yellowly fc. Gower . . . 544
Yelverton v. Yelverton . 1519, 1522
Yeo V. Da we . . . .157
Yeomans v. Haynes . 320, 1380
V. Williams . . 1366
Yerburgh v. Aston, Be Thwaites 794
Yerbury, Be, Ker v. Dent . 753
Yesoombe v. Landon
Yetts, Be
V. Foster
PAGE
. 2000
260, 270
. 837
. 1861
Yewens v. Robinson
Yglesias v. Rl. Exch., &c. Corp. 287
V. Yglesias . . 924
Yielding and Westbrook, Be . 2200
YoUand, &c. Co., Be . . 1963
Yonge V. Furse . . . 1474
—— V. Toynbee . . 821, 1030
Yool V. G. W. Ry. . . . 701
York, Be, Atkinson v. Powell [791],
794, 1410, 1470
York Glass Co., Ltd. and Re-
duced, Be, Exp. Robinson . 2430
York (Mayor of) v. Pilkington 590
and N. Mid. Ry. Co. v.
Hudson .... 1334
York Street Flax Spinning Co.,
Be 2432
York Union Bk. Co. v. Artley 1845,
1983
Yorke, Be, Barlow v. Yorke . 1780
V. Pole . . . 1232
Yorkshire Banking Co. v. Mul-
lan . . . 750, 768, 1«92
Yorkshire Laundries v. Pickles 834,
835
Yorkshire Provident, &o. v. Gil-
bert 72
Yorkshire Tannery v. Eglington
Chemical Co. ... 17
Yorkshire Waggon Co. v.
Maolure . . . 704, 1967
Yorkshire Waggon Co. v.
Newport Coal Co. . . 242
Youde V. Cloud . . . 1080
Young, Exp 996
, iJeKitchin . . 1208
, Be Quartz Hill, &c.
Co. ... 106
, Be (Chitty, J., 31 Oct.
1891, B. 1256) [1994]
(Byrne, J., July 22,
1899) . . [2460]
(Byrne, J., June 22,
1900) . [2482], 2464
(V.-C. S., 18 Jan.
1856, B. 392) . [991]
, Exp. Jones . . 2128
, Trye v. Sullivan 881, 886
and Harston's Contract,
Be . 341, 2181, 2200
V, Ashley Gardens Prop. 165,
374
V. Brassey . . 7, 513, 514
V. Buckett . . .396
— — V. Combe . . . 1122
V, Dallimore . . [426]
Table of Cases.
ccxci
PAOE
Young V. English . . . 1038
V. Everest . . . 1403
V. Fernie . . . 640
V. Halahan . . . 2235 1
■ V. Hodges . . . 1429
■ V. HoUoway ([1895] P.
87) . 139
■ ■ Be Hollo-
way ... 85
V. Mackintosh . 1652, 1655
■ — • V. Macrae . . . 620
• V. Martin . . . 1450
V. Naval, &o. Co-opera-
tive Soc. of S. Africa 703
V. Smith . . .1632
— V. Wallingford . . 2249
• V. Ward . . . 1861
-v. Waterpark . . 1665
■ ■ V. Young (3 Eq. 801) . 2043
(13 Eq. 175) 979,
1818
PAGE
Young V. Young Manufacturing
Co 109
Younge v. Cocker . . . 941
— ■ — — • V. Buncombe . . 2184
Younghusband v. Gisborne . 473
Youngs, Be, Doggett v. Eevett 125,
132, 825, 1120, 1358, 1425
Ystalyfera Gas Co., Be . . 1992
■ — — Iron Co. V. Neath and
Brecon Ry. Co. . . . 2139
Zalinoff v. Hammond . .391
Zambaoo v. Cassavetti 799, 800,
1104, 1147
Zierenberg v. Labouchere . 41
Zimbler v. Abrahams . . 2206
Zuccato V. Young ... 23
Zumbeck v. Biggs . . 71, 78
( ccxciii )
TABLE OF STATUTES.
29 Hen. III. o. 4 (Statute of Merton). .
591, 914.
6 Edw. I. 0. 1 (Statute of Gloucester) . .
914.
13 Edw. I.
0. 18 (Writ of Elegit).. 418.
0. 34 (Westminster 2nd). .914, 916.
c. 46.. 591.
17 Edw. II. 0. 10 (De Prerogativa Re-
gis).. 1530.
27 Hen. VIII. c. 10 (Statute of Uses). .
916.
31 Hen. VIII. o. 1 (Partition). .1800.
32 Hen. VIII.
c. 9 (Champerty), s. 2. .2309.
c. 32 (Partition) . . 1800, 1801.
34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. 20 (Fines and
Recoveries Act, 1542).. 1717.
13 Eliz.
0. 5 (Fraudulent Conveyances) . .
2283; s. 5.. 2285.
c. 10 (Ecclesiastical Corporations)..
1288, 1289.
c. 20 (Leases of Benefices). .756, 1930.
14 EUz. c. 11 (Leases). .1289.
18 Eliz. 0. 11 (Leases). .1289.
27 EUz. c. 4 (Fraudulent Conveyances)
..880, 1300, 2004, 2290.
43 Eliz. c. 4 (Charitable Uses).. 1280,
1300, 1301.
21 Jac. I.
c. 3 (Monopolies).. 634; a. 6.. 647.
c. 16 (Limitation Act, 1623).. 19,
1326, 1386, 1866; s. 2.. 1057;
s. 3.. 1063, 1326, 1385; o. 7.. 850.
12 Car. II. e. 24 (Guardian). .953, 955
ss. 8, 9.. 978.
22 & 23 Car. II. o. 10 (Statute of Distri-
bution), 1410, 1504, 1514; s. 5..
1417, 1669.
29 Car. II. c. 3 (Statute of Frauds)..
s. 2. .769 ; s. 4. .1968, 2078, 2081,
2135, 2144, 2145; s. 5.. 2144;
s. 17.. 1938.
1 Jac. II. 0. 17 (Distribution), s. 7..
1514.
2 Will. & Mary (Penalties), sess. 1,
c. 5, s. 4.. 97.
4 & 5 Will. & Mary, c. 16 (Clandestine
Mortgages).. 1858.
8 & 9 WiU. III. c. 31 (Partition). .1800.
9 & 10 Will. III. c. 15 (Arbitration) . .
388, 390.
2 & 3 Anne, c. 4 (Yorkshire Registry). .
2039.
3 & 4 Anne, c. 18.. 1800.
4 Anne, c. 10 (Amendment of Law)..
19, 1380, 1806.
4 & 5 Anne, c. 16 (Account, co-tenants),
s. 27.. 1316.
5 Anne, c. 18 (Yorlcshire Registry) . .
2039.
6 Anne,
0. 2 (Irish Registry) .. 2039, 2041.
c. 35 (East Riding Registry ).. 2039.
c. 72 [Cestui Que Vie Act, 1707) . . 154,
1713, 1714; ss. 1—5.. 1714.
7 Anne, c. 20 (Middlesex Registry Act,
1708).. 2003, 2039; s. 1..2039.
8 Anne, c. 14 (or 18), s. 1. .422.
2 Geo. n. c. 22 (Set-off). .1319.
4 Geo. II. c. 28 (Landlord and Tenant
Act, 1730).. 749.
7 Geo. II.
c. 8 (Stock- jobbing).. 97.
0. 20 (Mortgage Act, 1733).. 1841;
s. 1..1840; s. 2.. 1840; a. 3..
1841.
8 Geo. II.
c. 2 (North Riding Registry). .2039.
c. 13 (Engraving Copyright Act,
1734).. 668; s. 1..668.
c. 24 (Set-off).. 1319.
9 Geo. II. c. 36 (Charitable Uses Act,
1735).. 1265, 1279, 1294, 1206,
1299, 1305; s. 2.. 1307; s. 3..
1299; s. 6.. 1306.
11 Geo. II. c. 19 (Distress for Rent Act,
1737).. 97, 1698; s. 11.. 768.
17 Geo. IL
c. 29 (Foundling Hospital). .1307.
c. 38 (Poor Relief Act, 1743).. 1363.
Vol. I. ends with p, 846 ; Vol. 11. with p. 1824.
CCXCIV
Table of Statutes.
26 Geo. 11.
0. 22 (British Museum), b. 14.. 1307.
0. 33 (Clandestine Marriages), s. 3 . .
949.
29 Geo. IT. c. 36 (Inolosure Act, 1756) . .
592.
7 Geo. III. c. 38 (Engraving Copyright
Act).. 668.
] 1 & 12 Geo. III. 0. 10 . . 1869.
17 Geo. III. c. 57 (Prints Copyright
Act, 1777).. 668.
19 Geo. III. 0. 23 (Bath Infirmary)..
1307.
30 Geo. III. i;. lxxxii..975.
34 Geo. III. 0. 75 (Crown Lands), s. 8
..151.
30 Geo. III. 0. 52 (Legacy Duty Act,
1796). .230, 310, 1367; s." 22..
1152; s. 27.. 230; s. 32.. 950,
1152, 1154.
38 Geo. III. c. 87 (Administration of
Estates Act, 1798) . . 1354.
39 Geo. III. 0. 73 (Legacy Duty Act,
1799).. 1256.
39 & 40 Geo. III.
c. 36 (Transfer of Stock Act, 1800). .
714, 715; s. 2.. 715.
c. 98 (Accumulations Act, 1800 ;
Thellusson Act). .1451, 1534, 1665,
1697, 1745; s. 2.. 1665.
41 Geo. III. c. 90 (Crown Debts Act,
1801).. 191, 1126; s. 5.. 191;
s. 6.. 190, 191.
42 Geo. III. c. 116 (Land Tax Re-
demption Act, 1802), ». 123. .1381.
43 Geo. III.
0. 84 (Ecclesiastical Benefices) . . 756,
1930.
u. 107 (Queen Anne's Bounty Act,
1803).. 1307.
0. 108 (Gifts for Churches Act, 1803)
..1296, 1307.
45 Geo. III. c. 28 (Legacy Duty Act,
1805).. 230.
46 Geo. III. c. 37 (Witnesses Act, 1806)
..97.
47 Geo. in. c. 25 (Army).. 531.
51 Geo. III.
c. 105 (Royal Naval Asylum). .1307.
u. 115 (Gifts for Churches Act, 1811)
..1299; 3. 2.. 1307.
52 Geo. III. c. 101 (Charities Procedure
Act, 1812; Sir Sam. Romilly'a)..
1247, 1258, 1260, 1262, 1263, 1278,
1285; s. 1..1262; s. 2.. 1262;
s. 3.. 1262.
53 Geo. III.
c. 24 (Administration of Justice), s. 2
..191.
c. 127 (Ecclesiastical Courts Act,
1813).. 192.
c. 141 (Annuities).. 2048.
54 Geo. III. c. 56 (Sculpture Copyright
Act, 1814).. 671.
55 Geo. III.
c. 184 (Stamp Act, 1815).. 1256,
1489.
c. 192 (Copyholds).. 1530.
66 Geo. IIL
0. 50 (Sale of Farming Stock), ». 11 . .
526.
c. 56 (Probate Duty, Ireland, Act,
1816).. 1256, 1304.
13. 60 (Unclaimed Dividends) .. 2462,
2464.
67 Geo. III.
0. 22 (Ireland), s. 51.. 1363.
c. xxix. (Metropolitan Paving Act)
..688, 697, 2349, 2354.
c. 93 (Distress (Costs) Act, 1817)..
s. 2.. 818.
c. 99 (Ecclesiastical Benefices) . . 756.
s. 1..1930.
68 Geo. m. e. 91.. 1284.
3 Geo. IV. c. 92 (Annuities). .2048.
4 Geo. IV.
e. 76 (Marriage Act, 1823).. 1016,
1586; s. 14.. 1018; s. 16.. 949,
1017, 1018; s. 17.. 1016, 1017;
s. 23.. 1018; o. 24.. 1018.
c. 83 (Factors Act) . . 1931.
5 Geo. IV. c. Ill (Crown Debts Act,
1824)., 191.
6 Geo. IV. c. 94 (Factors Act).. 1931,
1932, 1933.
7 Geo. IV.
c. 77 (Annuities).. 2048.
9 Geo. IV.
c. 14 (Statute of Frauds Amendment
Act, 1828).. 1326; s. 1..1384;
o. 4. .1319; s. 9. .1384.
c. cxiii. .591.
10 Geo. IV. 0. 7 (Roman Catholic Eehef
Act, 1829).. 1267.
11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV.
c. 21 (Prohibition) 785; s. 1..789.
f.. 36 (Contempt of Court Act), s. 15. ,
424, 444.
c. 40 (Executors Act, 1830).. 1112,
1539.
c. 46 (Illusory Appointments). .1677.
0. 47 (Debts Recovery Act).. 940,
1232; s. 11.. 940, 1232; s. 12..
940, 1232.
1 Will. IV. c. 65 (Infants' Property Act,
1830: Lord St. Leonards'). .972,
985, 1180, 1203, 1206; s. 12.. 311,
985, 986, 987; s. 14.. 986, 987;
s. 15.. 987; s. 16.. 311, 985, 987;
B. 17. .311, 985, 987, 1731 ; s. 18. .
988; s. 32.. 971, 972, 1180; ss.
35, 44.. 971.
1 & 2 Will. IV.
u. 58 (Interpleader Act, 1831).. 492 ;
s. 6.. 745.
2 & 3 Will. IV.
0. 57 (Charities Procedure Act, 1832)
..1263; B. 3.. 1263.
Vnl. I. mils with p. 840 ; Vol. II. viiJi p. 1824.
Table of Statutes,
ccxcv
c.
c.
c.
3 &
2 & 3 Will. IV.
0. 71 (Prescription Act, 1832, Lord
Tenterden)..580, 591—603; b. 2
..560, 568, 579; s. 3.. 383, 560,
561 ; s. 4.. 560.
87 (Registry of Deeds (Ireland)
Act).. 2039.
93 (Ecclesiastical Courts Contempt
Act, 1832).. 191; s. 1..192; s. 2
..192,441.
115 (Roman Catholic Charities Act,
1832).. 1267.
4 •\Vill. IV.
u. 15 (Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833)
..247, 667, 670; s. 1..666, 669;
s. 2.. 97, 669.
u. 27 (Real Property Limitation Act,
1833). .914, 1287, 1430, 1865, 1866,
2066; s. 1..1327; s. 2.. 914,
1381, 1865; 3. 3.. 1381; o. 6..
1386; s. 16.. 1866; s. 24.. 1865,
1867; ». 25.. 1112, 2049; s. 26..
1385; s. 28.. 1866, 1807, 1868
s. 34.. 1381, 1867, 1868; s. 30..
1800; s. 40.. 1381, 1382, 1431,
1432, 1865, 1869; s. 41.. 914,
1382; s. 42.. 1382, 1384, 1447,
1571, 1867, 1873, 1874, 2049.
e. 42 (Civil Procedure Act, 1833). .
1873; s. 2.. 544, 1388; s. 3..
1382, 1865, 1873, 1874, 2262;
=. 4.. 1865; s. 5.. 1383, 1433;
s. 28.. 1343, 1344, 1370, 1572;
B. 29.. 1.344; =. 39.. 389, 390;
ss. 39— 41.. 388.
0. 70 (District Notaries Act, 1833) . .
229.
u. 74 (Fines and Recoveries Act,
1833).. 864, 896, 897, 899, 1208,
ni5 etseq.; s. 1..1718; ss. 15—
21. .1717; s. 15. .1719; s. 19..
1718; s. 22.. 1717; s. 33.. 1715,
1717; s. 38.. 1717, 1718, 1842;
=. 39.. 1717; s. 40.. 1718, 1842;
a. 47.. 1643, 1717, 2142, 2235;
s. 48.. 1715, 1717; s. 49.. 1715,
1717; ss. 56— 73.. 1842; ». 62..
1842; s. 71.. 1716, 1718; s. 77..
1718; ss. 84— 88.. 892; s. 84..
896 ; s. 91. .895, 896, 897, 899.
0. 104 (Administration of Estates
Act, 1833). .1362, 1367, 1372, 1466,
1605, 1606, 1982, 2046; s. 3. . 1606.
0. 105 (Dower Act, 1833).. 882, 916,
1536, 1862; ss. 4, 7.. 916.
0. 106 (Inheritance Act, 1833). . 1607 ;
s. 3.. 1512.
& 5 Will. IV.
u. 22 (Apportionment Act, 1834)..
1698.
c. 24 (Superannuation Act, 1834),
s. 30.. 383.
c. 29 (Irish Securities). .1144.
c. xxxviii. 3. 1 . . 1307.
5 & 6 Will. IV.
0. 50 (liighway Act, 1835), s. 67.,
581.
0. 54 (Marriage Act, 1835), s. 2..
1522.
0. 62 (Statutory Declarations Act,
1835), ss. 14, 15, 16, 18.. 228.
5 & 6 Will. IV.
c. 76 (Municipal Corporations Act,
1835).. 1264, 1266; s. 2.. 1255;
3. 71.. 1266; s. 92.. 1291.
6 & 7 WiU. IV.
c. vii. s. 4.. 1307.
c. XX. 3. 6.. 1307.
V. 32 (Benefit Building Societies) . .
2055, 2057, 2061, 2064 ; a. 5. .2059.
c. 70 (School Sites), s. 3 . . 1264.
0. 71 (Tithes Commutation). .2050.
c. 85 (Marriage Act, 1836), =..2..
1522.
c. 86 (Births and Deaths Registration
Act, 1836), s. 38.. 153.
1837.
1 Vict.
0. 26 (Wills Act) . . 150, 886, 980, 1357,
1530, 1671, 1921.
B. 7.. 953, 980.
H. 10.. 1676.
3. 15.. 1137, 1538.
3. 24.. 886, 1554.
». 25.. 1554.
B. 27.. 1426.
s. 33.. 1508, 1559.
s. 42.. 886.
c. 28 (Real Property Limitation Act)
..1865, 1867.
1838.
1 & 2 Vict.
u. 106 (Pluralities Act). .97.
u. 110 (Judgments Act).. 15, 183,
253, 449, 468, 473, 745, 756,
758, 1077, 1869, 1870, 1999,
2001, 2005, 2046, 2047, 2284.
3. 11.. 1999.
s. 12.. 469, 473, 2130.
3. 13.. 1838, 1999,2005.
B. 14.. 414, 469, 471, 472, 473,
474, 475, 1839.
s. 15.. 414, 472.
3. 17.. 253, 299, 1269, 1345,
1870, 2000.
s. 18.. 183, 253, 299, 321, 472,
2000.
B. 19..183, 2001, 2003.
3. 21.. 2003.
3. 92.. 1370.
c. 117 (Private Bill Deposits). .2419.
B. 2.. 2419.
3. 3.. 2419.
Vol. I. end.s with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCXCVl
Table of Statutes.
1839.
2 & 3 Viot.
0. U (Judgments Act). .2041.
=. 4..1'83, 1362, 2001.
s. 8.. 2003.
c. 54 (Custody of Inf ants) .. 884, 989,
996.
0. 60 (Debts Recovery Act).. 940,
1232.
s. 1..940, 1232.
0. 71 (Metropolitan Police Courts
Act),
s. 40.. 494.
1840.
3 & 4 Vict.
0. 72 (Marriage Act),
s. 5.. 1522.
c. 77 i (Grammar Schools Act)..
1260.
s. 24.. 1260.
c. 82 (Judgments Act). .468, 473.
ri. 1..471, 472,475.
s. 2.. 183, 2001.
c. 86 (Church Discipline Act). .785.
c. 92 (Non-Parochial Registers Act)
..153.
1841.
4 & 5 Viot.
c. 35 (Copyhold Act). .1801.
s. 11.. 981.
c. 38 (School Sites Act) . . 1299.
s. 6.. 1993.
a. 7.. 1264.
s. 10.. 1993.
5 Vict.
c. 5 (Court of Chancery Act),
s. 4.. 715.
s. 5.. 472, 716.
a. 22.. 191.
1842.
5 & 6 Vict.
c. 35 (Income Tax Act),
s. 61.. 1308.
s. 108.. 1571.
c. 39 (Factors Act). .1931, 1932.
s. 7.. 1933.
c. 45 (Copyright Act).. 668, 669, 670,
671.
s. 2.. 665, 671, 672.
B. 3.. 664.
s. 13.. 664.
s. 15.. 662, 664, 665, 667.
s. 16.. 665.
a. 17.. 662, 665.
s. 18.. 665, 668, 696.
s. 19.. 664.
ss. 20— 22.. 669.
5 & 6 Vict. u. 45
s. 23.. 663, 664.
s. 24.. 663, 664,670.
B. 26.. 652.
0. 55 (Railways Regulation),
s. 4.. 689.
c. 69 (Perpetuation of Testimony Act)
..109.
u. 82 (Legacies, Ireland). .1256, 1304.
c. 94 (Defence Act).. 2454, 2455,
2457.
s. 9.. 2458.
a. 25.. 2458.
s. 26.. 2454, 2458.
0. 100 (Copyright of Designs). .660.
1843.
6 & 7 Vict.
c. 37 (New Parishes Act). .1307.
c. 73 (Solicitors Act).. 253, 263, 265,
267, 269, 272, 277, 294, 311,
316.
s. 2.. 1071, 1072.
s. 26.. 307.
a. 32.. 818, 1057, 1071, 1072.
B. 37.. 254, 256, 259 et seq., 268,
269, 271, 273, 300, 1054, 1060.
s. 38.. 280, 281.
s. 39..280, 281, 282.
s. 40.. 280.
a. 41.-267,277,281, 300.
a. 43.. 253, 256.
s. 45.. 760.
s. 48.. 254.
0. 85 (Evidence Act) . . 1018.
1844.
7 & 8 Vict.
c. 12 (International Copyright Act). .
665.
ss. 3, 10.. 665.
u. 37 (Schools Sites Act). .1299.
u. 45 (Nonconformist Chapels Act) . .
1265.
s. 12.. 255.
0. 66 (Aliens), s. 16.. 1522.
c. 85 (Railways Regulation Act), s. 19
..1972.
c. 97 (Charitable Donations and
Bequests (Ireland) Act) . . 1298,
1306.
u. 101 (Poor Law Amendment Act),
a. 27.. 1026.
s. 73.. 1288, 1299.
1845.
8 & 9 Vict.
u. 16 (Companies Clauses Act).. 691,
1382, 1387, 1929, 1948, 1970,
2037.
Vol. I, e.v(U with J), 846 ; Vol, J J. with f. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
ccxcvii
; 9 Vict. c. 16.
s. 18.. 2242.
ss. 45, 63.. 81.
ss. 53, 54.. 754.
s. 121.. 700.
sched. C..1970.
. 18 (Lands Clauses Consolidation
Act).. 204, 205, 227, 304, 305,
310, 361, 396, 398, 400, 512,
686, 687, 697, 821, 828, 1046,
1141, 1699, 1719, 1773, 1774,
1998, 2139, 2152, 2167, 2185,
2186, 2189, 2190, 2345 et seq.,
2459.
s. 1..2407.
s. 3.-698,2390.
s. 7.. 2384.
B. 11.. 744.
s. 16..698, 2354, 2393.
s. 18.. 2347, 2390.
a. 22.. 2347.
s. 23.. 2347, 2349, 2351.
s. 24.. 2347.
ss. 25— 37.. 2349.
s. 30.. 2350.
s. 34.. 2350.
B. 35.. 2350.
H. 38.. 2351.
ss. 38— 57.. 2349.
s. 52.. 2351.
s. 68.. 492, 533, 698, 699, 1929,
2347, 2348, 2349, 2392.
s. 69.. 981, 1275, 2358 et seq.,
2373, 2375, 2377, 2379, 2381,
2384.
s. 70.. 2355, 2356, 2358, 2359,
2360, 2361, 2362, 2367.
s. 71.. 2359.
s. 72.. 2359.
s. 73..2357, 2358, 2359.
6.74.. 1775, 2362, 2384, 2386,
2387, 2388, 2401.
s. 76.. 2390, 2394.
s. 78.. 981, 2394.
s. 79.. 2384.
H. 80.. 2360, 2364, 2365, 2370,
2371, 2381, 2394 et seq., 2402,
2404, 2406, 2407.
s. 82.. 1218, 2405, 2406.
H. 83.. 258, 2351, 2399, 2405,
2406.
s. 85.. 687, 698, 2224, 2354,
2390, 2392, 2393, 2394.
ss. 85— 87.. 2390, 2391.
s. 87.. 2390, 2393.
s. 92..2352, 2354, 2393.
=. 94.. 2349.
s. 95.. 2453.
s. 96.. 2348, 2349.
s. 97.. 2348.
s. 105.. 2349.
s. 110.. 2349.
s. 112.. 2349.
s. 115.. 2349.
8 & 9 Vict c. 18.
s. 124.. 2349.
B. 127.. 706, 707.
s. 128.. 706, 707, 2139.
s. 130.. 2349.
s. 135.. 13.
0.20 (Railway Clauses). .578, 1966,
2349.
s. 15.. 699.
s. 16.. 582, 698.
s. 32.. 699.
s. 49.. 520.
s. 53.. 582.
s. 77.. 571.
ss. 77— 85.. 570.
s. 78.. 564, 570, 571, 2350,
2393.
=. 80.. 574.
s. 81.. 2393.
c. 56 (Land Drainage Act). .1741.
c. 70 (Ciiurcli Building Act).. 1247,
1263.
c. 76 (Revenue Act).. 1256, 1304.
c. 97 (Public Funds). .1552.
c. 106 (Real Property Act),
s. 6.. 2309.
u. 109 (Gaming Act),
s. 18.. 1378, 2104,2299.
0.118 (Inclosure Act).. 592, 1821,
1822, 1824.
ss. 34, 73.. 592.
s. 56.. 365.
s. 105.. 1821.
c. 127 (Small Debts Act),
». 8.. 422.
1846.
9 & 10 Vict,
u. 20 (Parliamentary Deposits Act). .
310, 2419, 2420, 2423.
s. 3.. 2419.
s. 4.. 2419.
s. 5.. 2413, 2420.
u. 59 (Religious Disabilities Act) . .
1267.
c. 70 (Inclosure Act).. 1821, 1822,
1824.
1847.
10 & 11 Vict.
c. 15 (Gasworks Clauses Act),
s. 8.. 581.
0. 16 (Commissioners' Clauses Act),
s. 60.. 11 32, 1880.
c. 17 (Waterworks Clauses), 700.
ss. 22— 27.. 571.
B. 29.. 553.
s. 68.. 693, 704.
0. 58 (Marriage (Society of Friends)
Act).. 1586.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. U. with p. 1824.
CCXCVIU
Table of Statutes.
10 & 11 Vict,
u. 96 (Trustee Relief ).. 1025, 1152,
1154, 1642.
s. 1..1152.
s. 2.. 1152.
c. Ill (Inolosure Act). .1821, 1822,
1824.
1848.
11 & 12 Vict.
i;. 43 (Summary Jurisdiction Act :
Jervis)..1377.
c. 45 (Winding-up).. 2063.
c. 63 (Public Health).. 699, 1621,
1696.
s. 64.. 600.
s. 140.. 600.
c. 87 (Debts Recovery Act). .940.
u. 91 (Poor Law Audit Act),
a. 4.. 695.
c. 99 (Inclosure Act) . . 1821.
ss. 13, 14.. 1821.
c. 119 (Public Money Drainage
Act),
s. 3.. 1859.
13 & 14 Vict,
c. 43 (Court of Chancery of Lancaster
Act),
s. 15.. 192, 193.
0.60 (Trustee Act).. 211, 424, 878,
938, 940, 1171, 1172, 1183,
1184, 1186, 1205, 1218, 1232,
1820, 2218, 2462.
s. 2.. 1180, 1206.
s. 5.. 1183, 1204, 1218.
B. 6.. 1218.
s. 7.. 1225.
B. 15.. 1210.
s. 20.. 204, 1225.
s. 25.. 1212.
B. 26.. 1212.
». 28.. 1210.
H. 29.. 1225.
s. 30.. 941, 1230, 1820, 1821.
B. 32.. 1177.
s. 33.. 1184.
u. 94 (Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners Act) . . 1267.
c. 97 (Stamps).. 1982.
sched..l982.
0. 101 (Poor Law Amendment Act),
o. 5.. 1026.
1849.
12 & 13 Vict.
c. 14 (Distress for Rates Act). .421.
c. 26 (Leases).. 1694.
c. 49 (School Sites Act). .1299.
u. 68 (Consular Marriage Act).. 1018,
1522, 1586.
c. 74 (Trustee Further Relief). .1152.
s. 1..1152.
c. 77 (Incumbered Estates, Ireland),
s. 14.. 191.
u. 103 (Poor Law Amendment Act),
s. 16.. 1026.
c. 106 (Bankruptcy),
s. 141.. 1928.
c. 108 (Winding-up). .2063.
i;. 109 (Petty Bag Act). .804.
c. xci. (The General Land Drainage
and Improvement Company's
Act).. 2048.
1850.
13 & 14 Viot.
c. 28 (Trustee Appointment Act).
1265, 1266, 1267.
c. 35 (Sir G. Turner's).. 356, 357.
s. 1..357.
s. 2.. 357.
o. 14.. 164, 357, 358.
ss. 15, 17.. 358.
s. 28.. 152, 894.
s. 33.. 358.
1851.
14 & 15 Vict.
c. 24 (Schools Sites Act). .1299.
0. 25 (Landlord and Tenant). .1952.
c. 64 (Railways Regulation Act),
s. 3.. 2423.
u. 83 (Court of Chancery Act),
s. 5. .191.
c. 97 (Church Building Act). .1247.
c. 99 (Evidence Act),
». 7.. 153.
ss. 8— 13.. 154.
s. 14.. 153, 154.
s. 16.. 1822.
c. 100 (Criminal Procedure Act)..
401, 462.
B. 19.. 462.
0. 104 (Episcopal and Capitular Es-
tates Act). .1267, 1712, 2399
2453.
s. 1..2453.
s. 6.. 2453.
s. 7.. 2402.
1852.
15 & 16 Vict.
c. 3 (Crown Administrations). .1585.
c. 12 (International Copyright Act) . .
665, 666.
0. 31 (Provident Societies) .. 2063.
u. 51 (Copyholds).. 1823, 2453.
0. 54 (County Courts),
s. 5.. 445.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
ccxcix
15 & 16 Vict.
16 & 17 Vict 0. 137,
c. 55 (Trustee Act).. 311, 424,
940,
s. 1..1276.
1183.
s. 2.. 1276.
s. 2.. 1206.
0. 3.. 1276.
s. 3.. 972.
s. 4.. 1270.
s. 4.. 1204.
s. 5.. 1276.
s. 8.. 1187.
B. 6.. 1276.
s. 9.. 1186.
s. 7.. 1276.
s. 20.. 1198.
s. 8.. 1276.
s. 23.. 1198.
o. 9.. 1276.
u. 76 (Common Law Procedure)
s. 10.-1276,1290.
s. 114.. 572.
s. 11.. 1276.
ss. 135, 141, 142.. 116.
s. 12.. 1276.
5. 151.. 841, 843.
H. 13.. 1276.
s. 219.. 1840.
s. 14.. 1274, 1276, 1281.
.'.220.. 1841.
s. 15.. 1276.
c. 80 (Court of Chancery Act).
.769,
s. 16.. 1276.
770, 1338, 1818.
=. 17.. 711, 1263, 1276, 1277.
s. 27.. 313.
s. 18.. 1262, 1276, 1277.
s. 31.. 96.
B. 19.. 1277.
s. 42.. 315, 557.
s. 20.. 1262, 1277.
c. 83 (Patents),
=.21.. 1278, 1288.
s. 25.. 2315.
H. 22 . . 1278.
ss. 27, 28.. 648, 2315.
s. 23.. 1278.
s. 39.. 648.
s. 24.. 1268, 1278.
s. 42.. 645.
s. 25.. 1278.
s. 43.. 652.
». 26.. 1268, 1278.
c. 86 (Chancery Procedure Act) .
.486,
s. 27.. 1278.
508, 769, 1847, 1861.
s. 28.. 313, 1203, 1270, 1275,
s. 5.. 1421.
1278, 1282.
ss. 18, 20.. 74.
s. 29.. 1278, 1282.
s. 22.. 229.
s. 30.. 1278, 1282.
s. 42 (9).. 1859, 1860.
s. 32.. 1278.
s. 44.. 122.
s. 33.. 1278.
». 45.. 1351.
s. 34.. 1278.
K. 48..328,330, 1845, 1846,
1983.
s. 35.. 1278.
s. 55.. 327, 328, 1371.
s. 36.. 1278.
c. 87 (Court of Chancery Act) . .
1818.
s. 37.. 1278.
s. 38.. 1278.
1853.
s. 39.. 1278.
0. 40.. 1278, 1282.
16 & 17 Vict.
s. 41.. 1278.
c. 48 (Criminal Procedure).. 101
,
s. 42 . . 1278.
c. 51 (Succession Duty).. 230, 1367.
s. 43.. 1262, 1278.
s. 15.. 230.
o. 44.. 1278.
s. 16.. 1256, 1308.
s. 46.. 1278.
s. 27.. 1308.
s. 47.. 1246, 1279.
s. 42.. 342, 1742.
s. 48.. 1246, 1270, 1279.
s. 44.. 342.
o. 49.. 1270, 1279.
s. 52.. 342.
3. 50.. 1279.
c. 70 (Lunacy Regulation). .899
, 983.
8. 51.. 1271, 1272, 1273, 1279.
rf. 119.. 985.
s. 52.. 1271, 1279.
s. 123.. 2108.
H. 52.. 1279.
s. 124.. 985.
ss. 54— 60.. 1256, 1279.
s. 125.. 985.
B. 61..1279, 128L
H. 134.. 1233.
=. 62.. 1274, 1277, 1279, 1280,
s. 136.. 985.
1282.
c. 97 (Lunatic Asylums) .. 1026,
2462.
s. 63.. 1281, 1282.
s. 104.. 1025.
s. 64.. 1281.
c. 119 (Betting Act),
H. 65.. 1266, 1281.
s. 3.. 2104.
s. 66.. 1270, 1274, 1280, 1281,
0. 137 (Charitable Trusts).
1248,
1282.
3249, 1266, 1271, 1272,
1273,
B. 69.. 1277.
1274, 1275, 1276, 1282.
Vnl. I. ends wilh p. 846 ; Vol. II. vi'lh p. 1824.
ccc
Table of Statutes.
1854.
17 & 18 Viot.
0. 32 (Church Building Act). . 1247.
V. 34 (Attendance of Witnesses Act) . .
100.
a. 1 . . 103.
c. 36 (BiUa of Sale). .1936, 1950.
s. 1..1939.
s. 7.. 1938, 1939, 1940, 1950.
u. 67 (Defence Act). .2457, 2459.
0. 82 (Chancery of Lancaster),
s. 7.. 193.
s. 8..9, 18, 193.
s. 10.. 193.
c. 90 (Usury Laws Repeal Act) . .
1869, 2048.
c. 104 (Merchant Shipping),
s. 99.. 981.
0. 113 (Real Estate Charges Act :
Locke Eng's)..1476, 1478,
1553, 1982, 1991.
u. 116 (Episcopal and Capitular Es-
tates Act) . . 1267, 1712.
0. 117 (West Indian Incumbered
Estates).. 779.
e. 125 (Common Law Procedure)..
389, 397, 945, 2229.
s. 3.. 360, 403.
ss. 3— 17.. 388.
s. 5.. 396, 826, 2349.
=. 6.. 360.
s. 11.. 391, 396.
ss. 12, 13.. 394.
s. 17.. 2349.
s. 26.. 154, 2366.
». 27.. 155.
s. 51.. 66.
s. 58.. 565, 572.
ss. 60— 67.. 475.
B. 61.. 478, 480.
s. 65.. 481.
ss. 79, 82.. 512.
s. 82.. 552.
s. 87.. 2229.
». 92.. 116.
1855.
18 & 19 Vict.
0. 15 (Judgments Act),
ri. 4.. 183, 2001.
s. 5.. 183.
s. 6.. 2001.
s. 12.. 1573, 2048.
s. 14.. 2048.
u. 32 (Stannaries Act),
s. 10.. 194.
c. 43 (Infants' Settlement Act). .311,
879, 909, 951, 1005, 1006,
1015, 1016, 1627, 1630, 1633.
3. 1..1015.
B. 2.. 1015.
18 & 19 Vict. 0. 43.
a. 3.. 1015.
s. 4.. 1015.
0. 81 (Places of Worship Registration
Act),
s. 9.. 1277, 1280.
c. 90 (Crown Suits Act).. 238, 1250,
1585.
8. 1..1250, 1268.
s. 2.. 1250, 1268.
s. 17.. 1250.
c. 117 (Ordnance Board Transfer Act)
..2457,2458.
B. 5.. 2458.
s. 10.. 2458.
B. 18.. 2458.
s. 19.. 2458.
0. 120 (Metropolis Management Act)
..1697.
s. 54.. 96.
s. 96.. 581.
s. 98.. 604.
s. 105.. 581.
ss. 135, 225.. 698.
0. 121 (Nuisances Removal),
B. 8.. 601, 604.
s. 12.. 612.
c. 122 (Metropolitan Buildings) . .
2441.
s. 83.. 558.
c. 124 (Charitable Trusts). .1248,
1249, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1275,
1276. 1278, 1279, 1281.
s. 6.. 1290.
ss. 6— 9.. 1281.
s. 9.. 1274, 1281.
s. 10.. 1247, 1281.
s. 12.. 1271, 1272, 1279.
s. 13.. 1247, 1281.
s. 15.. 1246, 1270, 1279.
s. 16.. 1281.
ss. 17— 29.. 1279.
o. 18 . . 1272, 1279.
B. 19 . . 1289.
s. 21.. 1271.
s. 23 . . 1272.
s. 24.. 1272.
s. 25.. 1271, 1273.
». 27.. 1279.
H. 29.. 1275, 1281.
s. 32.. 1281.
s. 33.. 1281.
s. 34.. 1281.
=. 35.. 1281.
B. 37.. 1279.
B. 38.. 1281.
B. 39.. 1281, 1289.
B. 40.. 1270, 1281.
B. 44.. 1279.
s. 45.. 1279.
B. 46.. 1281.
s. 47.. 1279.
B. 48.. 1280.
s. 49.. 1280, 1282.
Vol. I. ends with p, 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
ccci
18 & 19 Viot.
0. 134 (Court of Chancery Act),
s. 16.. 309.
1856.
19 & 20 Vict.
0. 47 (Joint Stock Companies). .2440.
c. 50 (Sale of Advowsons Act). .1801.
c. 96 (Marriage (Scotland) Act) . .
1586.
0. 97 (Mercantile Law Amendment). .
1326, 2076.
a. 5.. 1091, 1364,2076.
s. 9.. 1326, 1385.
a. 10.. 1386, 1866.
s. 11.. 1386, 1866.
s. 12.. 1386.
s. 14.. 1384, 1386, 1867,2127.
0. 108 (County Courts), 805.
c. 113 (Foreign Tribunals Evidence
Act).. 103.
c. 119 (Marriage and Begistration
Act).. 1016.
s. 19.. 1018.
s. 21.. 1018.
c. 120 (Settled Estates),
o. 5.. 1726.
s. 16.. 976.
s. 23.. 980, 1798, 1803.
s. 24.. 980, 1803.
s. 25.. 980, 1803.
1857.
20 & 21 Vict.
i;. 31 (Inolosure Act),
ss. 6— 11.. 1819, 1821, 1822.
c. 57 (Married Women's Reversionary
Interest Act : Sir R. MaUns) . .
487, 864, 865, 895, 896.
s. 4.. 895.
c. 77 (Court of Probate Act).. 747,
1354—1356.
a. 26.. 435.
s. 46.. 1355.
s. 47.. 1355.
s. 62.. 1362.
a. 64.. 1362.
s. 70.. 747, 1354.
s. 71.. 747, 1354.
H. 72.. 747.
s. 73.. 747, 1354, 1357, 1359.
s. 74.. 747, 1354, 1359.
». 75.. 747, 1354.
s. 76.. 1354.
s. 77.. 1354.
». 78.. 1354.
s. 79.. 1355.
c. 79 (Probate, Ireland),
s. 94.. 1355.
s. 95.. 1355.
20 & 21 Viot.
0. 85 (Matrimonial Causes Act),
B. 4..923.
s. 21.. 888, 898, 923,1444.
s. 25.. 888, 923, 1444.
B. 26.. 883, 923.
s. 35.. 925.
s. 45.. 923, 924, 925,920.
s. 55.. 817.
0. clvii. (Mayor's Court),
s. 12.. 788.
s. 15.. 788.
ss. 16— 19.. 804.
s. 20.. 804.
s. 48.. 804.
=. 52.. 804.
s. 54.. 804.
1858.
21 & 22 Viot.
i;. 25 (Births and Deaths Begistration
Act) . . 153.
S3. 1—4.. 153.
c. 27 (Chancery Amendment : Sir H.
Cairns).. 518, 519, 559, 640,
651, 2155, 2157, 2158.
s. 2.. 360, 2157.
s. 5.. 2304.
u. 44 (Universities and College Es-
tates). .1267, 2363, 2380.
s. 27.. 2363.
c. 56 (Confirmation of Executor (Scot-
land) Act). .1355.
s. 9.. 1355.
s. 12.. 1355.
a. 13.. 1355.
s. 14.. 1355.
s. 17.. 1355.
s. 19.. 1355.
s. 29.. 1355.
a. 42.. 1355.
s. 43.. 1355.
c. 57 (Ecclesiastical Leasing) . . 1267.
0. 61 (Inclosure),
s. 1..1267.
c. 72 (Landed Estates Court (Ireland)
Act),
a. 36.. 190, 191.
u. 94 (Copyholds).. 2453.
3. 6.. 2451, 2453.
c. 95 (Probate),
a. 16.. 1355.
s. 18.. 1354, 1359.
8. 21.. 1354.
3. 22.. 1354.
V. 96 (West Indian Incumbered
Estates).. 779.
0. 98 (Local Government Act),
s. 62.. 2183.
0. 104 (Metropolitan Management
Amendment Act),
a. 31.. 611.
Vol. I. ends mth p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCCll
Table of Statutes.
21 & 22 Vict.
0. 108 (Matrimonial Causes Act),
s. 7.. 898.
s. 8.. 898, 923.
1859.
22 Vict.
u. 12 (Common Rights, War Depart-
ment).. 2457.
s. 1..2457.
c. 20 (Evidence by Commission Act)
..72.
c. 26 (Superannuations),
ss. 2, 18.. 383.
22 & 23 Vict.
u. 21 (Queen's Remembrancer),
s. 8.. 2458.
c. 31 . . (Probate, Ireland) . . 1355.
c. 35 (Law of Property Amendment
Act: Lord St. Leonards')..
1111, 1151, 1352, 1375, 1482,
1594, 1595, 1596.
ss. 4— 9.. 2209.
s. 10.. 2050.
s. 14.. 1080, 1482.
s. 15.. 1080, 1482.
s. 16.. 1481, 1482.
B. 17 . . 1482.
s. 18.. 1482.
s. 23.. 1482.
s. 24.. 2168.
s. 25.. 1482.
B. 26..1133, 115L
s. 27.. 1464.
s. 29.. 1351, 1595.
s. 30.. 1151.
s. 31.. 1131, 1151.
s. 32.. 1141.
0. 43 (Inolosure Act). .1821.
ss. 10, 11.. 1821, 1822.
e. 50 (Charitable Trusts). .1279.
c. 59 (Railway Cos. Arbitration Act)
..392.
u. 01 (Matrimonial Causes Act),
s. 5.. 923, 924.
s. 8.. 870.
0. 63 (British Law Ascertainment Act)
..808,1525.
B. 1..809.
s. 2.. 810.
s. 3.. 810.
s. 4.. 810.
s. 5.. 810.
c. Ixxxi. (Charing Cross Railway Act),
s. 95.. 2423.
1860.
23 & 24 Vict.
c. 5 (Indian Securities),
s. 1 . . 1355.
23 & 24]Viot.
0. 11 (Endowed Schools),
s. 1..1260.
s. 2.. 1260.
c. 15 (Probate Duty Act). .1367.
i;. 18 (Marriage (Society of Friends)
Act).. 1586.
s. 2.. 1018.
c. 28 (Stock Jobbing). .97.
c. 34 (Petition of Right Act).. 381,
382.
s. 2.. 382.
ss. 11, 12.. 383.
0. 38 (Law of Property Amendment
Act: Lord St. Leonards')..
1363, 1364, 1365, 1999, 2001,
2003.
s. 1..200I.
ss. 1—5.. 183.
s. 3.. 1363, 2002.
B. 4.. 2002.
s. 8.. 1482.
=. 10.. 1381, 2360.
». 11..114L
s. 13.. 1411, 1432.
c. 59 (Universities and College Estates
Act Extension) . . 1267.
u. 83 (Infant Marriage Act),
s. 1..1015.
0. 106 (Lands Clauses) .. 2345 et seq.,
2456, 2457.
s. 7.. 2459.
c. 112 (Defence Act). .2454 et seq.
=. 14.. 2458.
B. 21.. 2458.
s. 22.. 2458.
s. 23.. 2454, 2458.
s. 29.. 2459.
s. 36.. 2458.
s. 45.. 2459.
s. 46..2454, 2458, 2459.
0. 115 (Crown Debts and Judgments
Act).. 2026, 2027, 2028, 2041.
s. 2.. 2041.
c. 124 (Ecclesiastical Commissioners
Act).. 1267, 1707, 1708, 1712.
s. 20.. 1712.
s. 24.. 1712.
s. 25.. 1712.
s. 35.. 1712.
B. 36.. 1712.
B. 37.. 1712.
s. 38.. 1712.
c. 126 (Common Law Procedure)..
492, 497.
B. 12.. 495.
s. 13..420.
s. 17.. 492, 497.
s. 20.. 1319.
s. 26.. 913.
c. 127 (Solicitors Act). .485.
s. 22.. 307.
s. 23.. 1072.
s. 24.. 1068.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
CCClll
23 & 24 Vict. c. 127.
s. 26.. 1072.
s. 27 . .253 299.
s. 28.' .'482,' 744,' 1042, 1043, 1044,
1046, 1050, 1366, 1993.
li. 134 (Roman Catholic Charities Act)
..1267,1279.
s. 5. .1255.
u. 136 (Charitable Trusts) . . 1247,
1272, 1276, 1281.
s. 2.. 1256, 1264, 1281.
=. 4.-1264,1282.
s. 5.. 1264, 1282.
a. 8.. 1282.
s. 9 . . 1282.
a. 10.. 1282.
s. 11.. 1278.
s. 12.. 1272, 1279.
s. 13.. 1282.
=. 14.. 1282.
s. 15.. 1278.
s. 16.. 1255, 1282.
s. 17.. 1279.
s. 18.. 1279.
s. 19.. 1279.
s. 20.. 1281.
s. 23 . . 1279.
c. 142 (Union of Benefices Act). .757,
1930.
u. 145 (Trustees, Mortgagees, &c. :
Lord Cranworth). .1149, 1168.
s. 1..1079.
s. 2.. 1079.
a. 8.. 1710.
s. 9.. 1710.
s. 11.. 1904.
s. 15.. 1983.
ss. 11— 30.. 1166.
s. 26.. 969.
s. 29.. 1482.
s. 30.. 1149.
c. 149 (Court of Chancery Act),
B. 5.. 1020.
1861.
24 & 25 Vict.
c. 3 (Bank of England Payments),
ss. 7, 10.. 206.
c. 10 (Admiralty Court),
s. 15.. 2000.
c. 11 (Foreign Law Ascertainment
Act).. 808, 810.
c. 92 (Probate Duty Act). .1268.
c. 96 (Larceny Act). .1125.
s. 75.. 1125.
S3. 75 et seq. .1125.
s. 80.. 1125, 1126.
s. 85.. 1126.
s. 86.. 1126.
c. 98 (Forgery Act),
s. 20.. 2243.
c. 114 (Wills Act : Lord Kingsdown)
..1355,1677.
24 & 25 Vict. c. 114.
s. 1.. 1355, 1357.
s. 2.. 1355.
s. 3.. 1355.
a. 4.. 1355.
s. 5.. 1355.
u. cxiv. (Ramsay Railway Act) . .
2423.
c. 133 (Land Drainage). .787.
s. 35.. 2040.
c. 134 (BankruiJtcy). .1181.
8. 110.. 1187.
1862.
25 & 26 Vict,
i;. 42 (Chancery Regulation : Rolt)..
1802.
s. 2.. 508.
c. 45 (West Indian Incumbered Es-
tates),
s. 3.. 779, 780.
c. 53 (Land Registry : Lord West-
bury).. 301.
c. 63 (Merchant Shipping). .2142.
■ ss. 66— 78.. 2303.
i>. 67 (Declaration of Title : Lord
Cranworth).. 301, 1048.
c. 68 (Fine Arts Copyright Act)..
660, 664, 666, 667, 671.
a. 1..671.
s. 4.. 664.
s. 6.. 664, 671.
s. 7 (cl. 4).. 664, 668.
s. 8.. 664.
u. 86 (Lunacy Regulation). .899.
s. 12.. 967.
c. 87 (Provident Societies). .2063.
c. 89 (Companies Act). .13, 798, 1147,
1948, 1971, 1973, 2037,
2063, 2064, 2094, 2446.
s. 4.. 2055.
s. 22.. 1929.
s. 30.. 1928, 1992, 2043.
a. 32.. 81.
ss. 41, 42.. 628.
s. 43.. 1965.
B. 56.. 785.
a. 58.. 72.
s. 69.. 27.
B. 76.. 1361.
s. 78.. 857.
H. 81.. 194.
s. 85.. 133.
s. 87.. 761.
s. 98.. 2295.
s. 101.. 701.
s. 115.. 70, 89, 96, 112, 458,
1039.
S3. 120, 121.. 194.
s. 122.. 194, 843.
s. 123.. 194.
s. 161.. 704.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCCIV
Table of Statutes.
25 & 26 Vict. c. 89.
s. 163. :76].
s. 104. .2289.
o. 165.. lOl, 1062,2270.
s. 199.. 2095.
c. 102 (Metropolis Management
Amendment Act),
s. 75.. 689.
s. 77.. 2183.
s. 85.. 558.
s. 106.. 611.
c. 108 (Confirmation of Sales Act) . .
1680.
i;. 112 (Charitable Trusts Act). .1276,
1282.
1863.
26 & 27 Vict.
u. 29 (Corrupt Practices Prevention
Act),
s. 2.. 294.
c. 65 (Volunteers).. 2458.
ss. 31— 40.. 2458.
u. 87 (Trustee Savings Banks Act),
s. 11.. 1093.
s. 14.. 1363, 1410.
c. 106 (Charity Lands Act). .1299.
u. 112 (Telegraph Act). .582.
c. 118 (Companies Clauses) .. 1382,
1966.
s. 22 . . 1966.
s. 24.. 1966.
ss. 25, 26.. 754.
s. 28..81.
1864.
27 & 28 Vict.
0. 45 (Leases).. 1730.
c. 57 (Admiralty Lands and Works)
2458.
u. 76 (Registry of Deeds, Ireland)..
2039.
c. 89 (Defence, Amendment). .2458.
c. 108 (West Indian Incumbered
Estates),
s. 6.. 779, 780.
u. 112 (Judgments Act).. 183, 329,
414, 449, 758, 759, 1425, 1858,
1802, 1993 et seq., 2001, 2003,
2047.
s. 1.. 759, 760, 1999.
B. 2.. 183, 473, 2001.
s. 4..760, 1838, 1993, 1998,
2001, 2003, 2004, 2005.
s. 5.. 2004.
c. 114 (Improvement of Lands Act). .
948, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1755,
17'<2, 1775, 2360.
s. 8.. 1701.
s. 9.. 1701, 1702, 1778.
ss. 10— 17.. 1701.
27 & 28 Vict. c. 114.
s. 21.. 973, 1701.
s. 22.. 1701.
s. 23.. 1701.
s. 24.. 1701.
B. 56.. 1702.
s. 69.. 1702.
1865.
28 & 29 Vict.
(No. X.) (Indian Succession Act)..
1356, 1520.
0. 27 (Parliament). .294.
c. 64 (Colonial Marriages) .. 1586.
c. 65 (Defence).. 2458,
0. 78 (Mortgage Debentures).. 1973.
s. 3.. 1973.
ss. 42 et seq. . . 1973.
c. 86 (Partnership : BoviU's Act)
2129.
s. 1..2129.
c. 89 (Greenwich Hospital) .. 1299.
c. 99 (County Court Equitable Juris-
diction Act) .. 1160.
s. 1..2161.
s. 3.. 807.
s. 9.. 1851.
c. 104 (Crown Suits).. 2003.
ss. 53— 64.. 230.
u. 124 (Admiralty Powers). .2458.
1866.
29 & 30 Vict,
u. 19 (Parliamentary Oaths),
s. 5.. 818.
c. 39 (Government Stock). .1241.
s. 20.. 1241.
c. 90 (Sanitary),
s. 19.. 601, 604.
u. 96 (BiUs of Sale).. 1936.
c. 108 (Railway Companies Securities
Act, 1866),
ss. 3, 8, 10.. 2446.
c. 122 (Metropolitan Commons, 1866)
..592, 692.
1867.
30 & 31 Vict.
i;. 29 (Banking Companies (Shares)
Act).. 2296, 2299.
s. 1..2296.
c. 44 (Chancery, Ireland),
s. 159.. 1315.
u. 47 (Lis pendens). .2026, 2027, 2041.
s. 2..2027, 2041, 2042.
c. 48 (Sale of Land by Auction). .
s. 5.. 330, 2152.
a. 6.. 2152.
s. 7.. 334.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
cccv
30 & 31 Vict.
c. 64: (Charitable Donations and Be-
quests (Ireland) Act).. 1298.
0. 59 (Statute Law Revision). .1800.
0. 64 (Lords Justices). .191.
c. 69 (Real Estate Charges Act) . .
1477, 1991.
s. 1..1478.
s. 2.. 1477, 1488.
u. 127 (Railway Companies). .190,
420, 1970, 2081, 2408 et seq.
s. 3.. 420, 756.
B. 4.. 755, 2412.
s. 6.. 2409.
ss. 6— 24.. 2409.
s. 7.. 2409, 2410.
s. 8.. 2410.
s. 9.. 2409, 2410.
s. 10.. 2410.
s. 11.. 2410.
B. 12.. 2410.
s. 13.. 2410.
s. 14.. 2410.
s. 15.. 2410.
s. 16.. 2408, 2411.
B. 17.. 2408, 2410, 2411.
s. 18.. 2408, 241 L
s. 19.. 2411.
s. 23.. 2412.
s. 24.. 1966.
B. 36.. 687, 2392.
s. 37.. 2351.
c. 131 (Companies).. 2064, 2430, 2431,
2432, 2433.
B. 9.. 2430.
B. 10.. 2432.
s. 11.. 2432.
s. 13.. 2435.
s. 14.. 2435.
s. 15.. 2436.
s. 25.. 2443.
s. 38..2260, 2265, 2266.
c. 133 (Consecration of Churchyards
Act),
s. 5.. 2200.
c. 142 (County Courts Act),
s. 5.. 247.
s. 9.. 2161.
u. 144 (Policies of Assurance Act) . .
492, 1082.
s. 3.. 1934.
s. 6.. 1934.
1868,
31 & 32 Vict.
0. 4 (Sales of Reversions Act). .2278.
u. 37 (Evidence).. 155.
c. 40 (Partition Act).. 1230, 1783
et seq., 1800, 1802 et seq.
s. 3.. 897, 979, 1783, 1784, 1790,
1803, 1804, 1805.
31 & 32 Vict. 0. 40.
s. 4.. 1786, nm 1792, 1797,
1800, 1803, 1804, 1805.
s. 5.. 1793, 1795, 1803, 1805.
s. 6.. 331, 1794.
s. 7.. 1820.
s. 8..980, 1490, 1798, 1803,
1806.
s. 9.. 1796, 1806, 1807.
s. 10.. 1810.
c. 54 (Judgments Extension Act) . .
191.
s. 3.. 191.
s. 4.. 181, 759.
c. 71 (County Courts (Admiralty)
Act),
s. 3.. 240.
s. 9.. 240.
u. 86 (Marine Insurance) .. 492, 1082.
s. 1..1318.
0. 101 (Titles, Scotland).. 1517.
c. 119 (Regulation of Railways Act),
s. 33.. 2351.
s. 41.. 2350.
c. 125 (Parliamentary Elections),
s. 41.. 294.
0. cxxx. (Salford Hundred Court of
Record Act).. 788.
1869.
32 & 33 Vict.
c. 18 (Lands Clauses), 2345 et seq.
s. 1..2351.
0. 26 (Trustee Appointment Act) . .
1265.
D. 41 (Poor Rate Assessment and
Collection Act),
s. 16.. 770.
c. 42 (Irish Church Act) . . 1558.
u. 46 (Administration of Estates) . .
1364, 1369, 1469, 1470, 1607,
2002.
c. 48 (Companies Clauses) . . 1966.
c. 56 (Endowed Schools), 1260, 1261,
1273.
s. 8.. 1260.
s. 9.. 1260, 126L
s. 10.. 1260.
B. 11.. 1261.
s. 13.. 1262.
s. 14.. 1260, 126L
(1)..1261.
B. 19.. 1262.
s. 23.. 1262.
s. 30.. 1260.
ss. 31— 51.. 1260.
3. 39.. 1262.
(3).. 1262.
s. 42.. 1262.
s. 49.. 1273.
D. 62 (Debtors Act) . . 191, 425, 457,
465, 506, 845, 1126.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
VOL. I.
CCCVl
Table of Statutes.
32 & 33 Vict. c. C2.
B. 4.. 306, 409, 425, 426, 428,
429, 431, 432, 433, 460, 464,
466, 782, 1093.
(3).. 431, 432, 433, 435, 460,
466, 1335, 2105.
(4).. 306, 307, 431, 432, 433,
435, 460, 466, 1062.
B. 5.. 306, 409, 436, 856, 870.
s. 6.. 436, 437, 505.
s. 8.. 442, 2217.
c. 71 (Bankruptcy Act).. 435, 449,
1092, 1407, 1588, 1949.
ss. 6, 7.. 742.
s. 12.. 436, 481, 1839.
s. 16 (5).. 1839.
s. 31.. 652, 1334,2265.
B. 32.. 1406.
s. 49.. 1126, 1128, 1334.
s. 65.. 2283.
s. 66.. 2283.
B. 72.. 2125, 2283.
s. 88.. 448.
s. 91.. 2285.
e. 92.. 2289.
s. 126.. 2081.
c. 110 (Charity Trusts).. 1276, 1282.
s. 10.. 1282.
s. 11.. 1282.
B. 12.. 1255, 1282.
s. 14.. 1282.
s. 15.. 1264, 1277, 1282.
s. 17.. 1282.
V. 114 (Railways Abandonment Act)
. .2423.
s. 5.. 2419, 2423.
c. 116 (Heritable Securities (Scotland)
..1517.
1870.
33 & 34 Vict.
c. 14 (Naturalization) . . 155, 1356,
1522.
s. 12.. 155.
c. 20 (Mortgage Debentures). .1973.
s. 4.. 1973.
s. 7.. 1973.
s. 8.. 1973.
s. 9.. 1973.
c. 23 (Forfeiture Act).. 1187, 1217,
1585, 1715, 1832, 1840.
B. 1 . . 1585, 1840.
ss. 1 — 4.. 1585.
S3. 6— 11.. 1585.
s. 9.. 1718, 1840.
s. 10.. 1718, 1840.
s. 12.. 1718, 1840.
s. 13.. 1840.
S3. 13— 30.. 1585, 1686.
s. 16.. 1840.
c. 28 (Attorneys and Solicitors). .266,
1053.
33 & 34 Vict. c. 28.-
B. 4.. 265, 267, 1053.
s. 8.. 266.
ss. 9, 10.. 266.
s. 11.. 266, 267, 1053.
s. 17.. 299.
s. 19.. 284.
u. 30 (Wages Attachment Abolition)
..479.
0. 34 (Charitable Funds Investment)
..1146,1299.
s. 1..1291.
B. 2.. 1291.
s. 3.. 1291.
c. 35 (Apportionment).. 1698, 1699,
1898,2361.
B. 2.. 1698, 1700.
B. 5.. 1698, 1699, 1700.
s. 7.. 1699.
0. 52 (Extradition),
s. 19.. 435.
c. 66 (Limited Owners' Residences)
..948, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1777.
s. 3.. 1702.
s. 4.. 1702.
c. 61 (Life Assurance Companies)..
387, 798, 2425.
B. 3.. 1144.
s. 4.. 387.
c. 69 (Statute Law Revision).. 2463.
c. 71 (National Debt). .2460 et seq.
s. 24.. 154.
ss. 61— 53.. 2463.
ss. 51— 68.. 2460, 2463.
B. 54.. 2463.
s. 55..2460, 2463, 2464.
s. 56.. 2464.
s. 57.. 2464.
s. 58.. 2464.
D. 69.. 2464.
s. 60.. 2462, 2464.
s. 61.. 2463.
B. 62.. 2463.
s. 67.. 2463.
B. 68.. 2463.
c. 75 (Elementary Education) .. 533,
818, 1260.
s. 5.. 1261.
s. 14.. 1261.
B. 23.. 1261.
s. 83.. 155.
c. 77 (Juries).. 364.
u. 78 (Tramways). .763, 2419, 2421.
s. 12.. 2424.
s. 18.. 2425.
B. 33.. 392.
3. 64 (2).. 2424.
c. 79 (Postmaster-General),
s. 21.. 156.
c. 93 (Married Women's Property . .
282, 487, 858, 873, 874, 905,
1367.
s. 1..873.
s. 2.. 873.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with, p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
cccvii
33 & 31 Vict. 0. 93.
s. 3.. 873.
s. 4.. 873.
B. 5.. 873.
s. 6.. 873.
s. 7.. 873.
B. 8.. 873.
s. 9.. 873.
s. 10.. 873, 874, 878, 1538.
s. 11.. 873.
B. 12.. 857, 858, 873.
s. 13.. 873.
c. 97 (Stamp Act),
o. 16.. 156.
s. 17.. 157.
s. 19.. 828.
s. 70.. 157.
s. 105.. 1982.
e. 104 (Joint Stock Companies Ar-
rangement Act). .825.
1871.
34 & 35 Viet.
c. 27 (Debenture Stock). .1973.
0. 34 (Indian Pensions). .445.
ss. 11, 12.. 445.
c. 36 (Pensions Commutation)..
1633.
c. 43 (Ecclesiastical Dilapidations) . .
448.
s. 36.. 1377.
s. 53.. 1377.
c. 44 (Incumbents' Resignation)..
756, 1320.
s. 10.. 1931.
G. 45 (Sequestration). .446.
c. 58 (Life Assurance Companies)..
2425.
c. 70 (Local Government Board),
s. 5.. 155.
0. 84 (Limited Owners' Residences) . .
1700, 1701, 1702, 1777.
c. 86 (Regulation of the Forces)..
1929.
c. 102 (Charitable Trusts, Ireland)..
1255, 1283, 1298.
1872.
35 & 36 Vict.
c. 13 (Irish Church Act Amendment
Act),
s. 7.. 1772.
K. 24 (Charitable Trusts Incorpora-
tion Act, 1872).. 1255, 1283.
ss. 1—12 . . 1283.
s. 14.. 1300.
u. 39 (Aliens).. 1522.
0.41 (Life Assurance Companies)..
2425.
c. 44 (Chancery Funds).. 202, 226,
1154.
35 & 36 Vict, c. 44.
ss. 3, 8, 10.. 207.
s. 5.. 226, 488, 1001.
s. 6.. 471.
u. 50 (Railway Rolling Stock Protec-
tion),
8. 3.. 420.
u. 57 (Debtors, Ireland). .191, 1126.
c. 68 (Military Forces Localization). .
2393, 2458.
s. 3 (3).. 2393.
u. 86 (Borough and Local Courts of
Record Act),
Schedule, clause 12. .804.
0. 91 (Borough Funds Act). .692.
u. 95 (Epping Forest),
s. 3.. 591.
1873.
36 & 37 Vict.
u. 12 (Custody of Infants Act).. 921,
989, 996, 997, 2148.
s. 1 . .997.
s. 2.. 921, 997, 1000.
c. 50 (Places of Worship Sites Act). .
952.
s. 1..952.
c. 06 (Judicature Act, 1873). .89, 188,
492, 552, 749, 998, 1431.
s. 3.. 785.
s. 4.. 814.
s. 6. . 1952.
s. I6..191] 747, 804, 1714.
s. 17.. 204, 309, 1714.
(3);. 1219.
(5).. 1254.
s. 18. .372, 791, 794, 800, 815.
(2).. 10.
(5).. 204.
s. 19.. 497, 653, 815, 817.
s. 24.. 13 12.
(2).. 62, 88.
(3).. 1090, 1423, 1855.
(5).. 275, 383, 713, 270, 785,
797, 920, 2074.
(7).. 164, 737, 760, 885, 1090,
1354, 1802.
s. 25.. 737, 747, 751, 1929.
(1)..1404.
(2).. nil, 1382, 1431, 1432,
1902, 2049.
(3).. 540, 541, 1693, 1902.
(4).. 1569.
(5).. 1892, 1895.
(6).. 260, 491, 492, 493, 1082,
1155, 1322, 1323, 1360,
1928, 1929, 2079.
(8).. 377, 501, 512, 513, 552,
676, 737, 738, 747, 749,
758, 759, 760, 786, 787,
844, 951, 1897.
(10).. 995.
(11).. 1467, 2080.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCCVUl
Table of Statutes.
36 & 37 Vict. 0. 66.
s. 29.. 360, 363.
s. 30.. 363.
=. 34.. 146, 327, 367, 797, 1264,
1643, 1666, 1834, 2161,
2206, 2234.
(2).. 191, 1183, 1214.
(3).. 950, 1183, 1214, 1250,
1313.
s. 36.. 792.
=. 37.. 363.
B. 39.. 191, 309, 1264.
s. 40.. 363.
s. 42.. 376.
s. 45.. 817, 818.
s. 47. .435, 458, 817, 818, 1071.
s. 49.. 124, 135, 174, 242, 320,
498, 522, 819, 820, 1129.
s. 50.. 320, 820.
=. 51.. 121 9.
s. 56.. 385, 388, 559, 604.
s. 57..360, 388, 403, 405.
s. 58.. 388.
s. 59.. 388.
o. 61.. 152.
B. 63.. 792.
B. 64.. 174.
s. 65.. 17.5, 794.
s. 66. .56, 75, 80, 175, 1313, 1508.
s. 67.. 805.
s. 76.. 1952.
s. 77.. 110.
B. 83.. 402.
s. 87.. 1068.
s. 89.. 513, 788.
s. 90.. 806.
B. 94.. 204.
s. 100.. I, 40, 372, 373, 408,
2326.
c. 72 (Defence Acts Amendment) . .
2458, 2459.
0. 87 (Endowed Schools) .. 1260.
1874.
37 & 38 Vict.
c. 37 (Powers of Appointment Act) . .
1678.
s. 2.. 1678.
u. 42 (Building Societies Act).. 161,
395, 401, 402, 2050, 2055,
2059, 2060, 2061, 2062, 2063,
2064, 2065.
s. 3.. 2059.
B. 12.. 2056.
s. 13.. 2056.
s. 14.. 2056.
s. 15.. 2062.
s. 16 (2).. 2062.
(9).. 401, 2059.
s. 18. .2056.
s. 25.. 1144.
s. 32.. 2063, 2065.
37 & 38 Vict. c. 42.
s. 34.. 2059.
H. 35.. 2059.
s. 36.. 401, 402, 2059,2060.
B. 41.. 161, 2060.
B. 42.. 2058.
s. 43.. 2062.
u. 50 (Married Women's Property
Act).. 857, 873, 884.
s. 3.. 859.
s. 5.. 857.
c. 57 (Real Property Limitation Act). .
1113, 1327, 1381, 1429, 1431,
1865, 1866.
s. 1..914, 1113, 1287, 1381,
1867.
s. 2.. 1381.
a. 7.. 1865, 1866.
s. 8.. 1112, 1327, 1381, 1383,
1431, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868,
1873, 1874.
s. 10.. 1112, 1382, 1432, 1571,
1866, 1873, 2049.
u. 62 (Infants' ReUef Act). .945, 946.
s. 1..943, 944, 946.
s. 2.. 944, 946.
c. 68 (Solicitors Act),
s. 12.. 307.
c. 78 (Vendor and Purchaser Act) . .
830, 1859, 2074, 2189, 2197.
s. 1..340, 1657,2163.
s. 2.. 87, 1079, 2163, 2187, 2208.
(2).. 532.
(4).. 345.
(8).. 345.
s. 4.. 1182, 1196, 1483, 1859.
s. 5.. 897, 1182.
s. 6.. 864.
s. 7.. 2047.
s. 8.. 2041.
s. 9..339, 2162, 2198, 2200.
0. 87 (Endowed Schools) .. 1260.
B. 5.. 1261.
s. 14 (4).. 1261.
u. 88 (Births and Deaths Registration
Act) . . 153.
c. 96 (Statute Law Revision) . . 1026.
1875.
38 & 39 Vict,
u. g^Building Societies). .2055.
c. 12 (The Amendment Act). .666.
c. 55 (Public Health Act).. 126, 305,
396, 397, 400, 413, 520, 572,
688, 742, 818, 1988, 1993, 2215.
B. 4.. 553.
s. 13.. 610.
s. 15.. 609.
s. 16.. 553, 609, 697, 698.
s. 17.. 609.
s. 21.. 609.
s. 39.. 602.
Vol I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
cccix
38 & 39 Vict. c. 55.
s. 51.. 553.
s. 52.. 553, 602, 704.
s. 54.. 553, 698.
a. 55.. 553.
s. 57.. 553.
s. 61.. 2149.
s. 64.. 551.
B. 68.. 611.
s. 69.. 611.
s. 91.. 601, 604.
ss. 94— 106.. 604.
=. 107.. 604, 611.
s. 111.. 604.
s. 112.. 600, 601.
=. 131.. 601.
H. 150.. 397, 742,2183.
s. 173.. 2215.
s. 174 (2).. 2150.
s. 179.. 2352.
s. 180.. 2352.
s. 211.. 770.
a. 256.. 818, 1947.
a. 257. .1755, 1866, 9987, 2040.
=. 261.. 1947.
s. 264.. 518, 611.
a. 285.. 601.
83. 297, 298.. 696.
a. 308.. 392, 553, 698.
c. 60 (Friendly Societies Act).. 787,
1172.
s. 15 (7).. 1363.
s. 22.. 401.
sa. 22, 30.. 803.
0.77 (Judicature Act).. 367, 437,
1364.
a. 3.. 1714.
=,. 7.. 1219, 1717.
a. 10. .420, 422, 1318, 1321, 1350,
1362, 1363, 1370, 1379, 1404,
1406, 1407, 1421, 1469, 1593,
1852, 1943, 2002.
a. 11.. 792.
a. 12.. 815, 827, 829, 830, 833.
a. 14.. 1068.
a. 21.. 360, 363, 1030.
s. 24 (7).. 127.
u. 79 (Legal Practitioners Act).. 261.
c. 86 (Conspiracy and Protection of
Property),
3. 7.. 49, 602.
u. 87 (LandTransfer Act). .301, 1182,
2025, 2039, 2374.
s. 26.. 1837, 1920.
B. 27.. 1846.
s. 48.. 1182.
a. 53.. 2041.
». 81.. 1981.
a. 95.. 2025, 2029, 2244.
a. 96.. 2029.
a. 116.. 2029.
B. 127.. 2039.
a. 129.. 2047.
c. 89 (Local Loans Act). .227.
38 & 39 Vict.
0. 90 (Employers and Workmen) . .
943.
0. 91 (Trade Marks Registration)..
619, 621, 2332, 2333, 2334,
2336, 2338, 2342.
s. 10.. 2332.
1878.
39 & 40 Vict.
c. 17 (Partition Act). .1783 et spq.,
1802.
B. 3. .1796, 1806, 1807, 1808.
3. 4. .1795, 1796, 1797, 1808.
(1)..1808.
(2).. 1808.
(3).. 1807, 1808.
(4).. 1808.
(5).. 1808.
a. 5.. 1809.
». 6.. 897, 979, 1791, 1803, 1804.
1805, 1806, 1818.
s. 7.. 1803, 1804.
0. 18 (Treaaury Solicitor Act).. 219,
1580, 1583, 1584.
s. 1.. 1584, 2423.
a. 2 . . 1584, 1585.
s. 3.. 1584.
a. 4.. 1584.
B. 6.. 1584.
s. 9.. 1585.
c. 22 (Trade Union Amendment Act
s. 16.. 712.
c. 33 (Trade Marks Registration,
1876).. 619.
0. 56 (Commons).. 593.
a. 30.. 593.
». 31.. 591.
a. 33.. 1821.
0. 59 (Appellate Jurisdiction Act),
a. 17.. 363.
a. 20.. 497, 817.
0. 61 (Poor Law),
a. 20.. 1026.
0. 70 (Inventoriea : Scotland). . 1355.
a. 41 . . 1355.
a. 45.. 1355.
c. 75 (Rivera Pollution Prevention
Act),
». 2.. 611.
3. 3.. 97.
3. 10.. 97, 608.
s. 11.. 608.
s. 17.. 611.
s. 20.. 611.
1877.
40 & 41 Vict,
c. 18 (Settled Estates). .343, 344,
349, 373, 976, 1699, 1718,
1719, el scq., 1752, 1774,
1773, 1804.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. 11. with p. 1824.
cccx
Table of Statutes.
40 & 41 Vict. 0. 18.
=. 4..172G, 1727, 1742.
ss. 4— 15.. 1726.
s. 5.. 1725, 1727, 1729, 1742.
B. 10.-1726,1729.
s. 11.. 1722.
B. 12.. 1729.
0. 13.. 1728.
B. 14.. 1725, 1727.
s. 15.. 1730.
s. 16.. 1731, 1733, 1734.
s. 17.. 1719.
s. 19.. 1733, 1734.
ss. 20, 21 . . 1738, 1739, 1741.
s. 22.. 1732, 1738, 1742.
s. 23 . . 1741.
s. 26.. 1720, 1721, 1722, 1724,
172G, 1741.
». 27.. 1721, 1723, 1724.
s. 28 . . 1724.
s. 29.. 172,5, 1726, 1734.
s. 30.. 1722, 1724, 1726.
=. 31.. 1721, 1722, 1723,1741.
s. 33.. 1725, 1743.
B. 34.. 980, 1490, 1727, 1728,
1731, 1732, 1737, 1798, 1803.
s. 35.. 980, 1490, 1731, 1803.
o. 36.. 980, 1490, 1727, 1731,
1803.
s. 38.. 1741.
s. 40.. 349.
s. 41 . . 1725, 1732.
s. 46.. 1742.
s. 49.. 1719, 1720.
s. 50.. 1722, 1741.
ss. 50— 62.. 898, 1723.
s. 51.. 1722.
s. 54.. 1731.
c. 21 (Prisons),
s. 51.. 155.
c. 26 (Companies).. 2430.
s. 3.. 2430, 2432.
s. 4.. 2433, 2436.
(1)..2433.
(2).. 2433.
c. 34 (Real Estate Charges Act :
Locke King's Act Extension)
..1477, 1478, 1488, 1552,
1982, 1991.
c. 37 (Trade Marks Eegistration) . .
619.
c. 39 (Factors) . . 1931.
ii. 2.. 1932.
B. 3.. 1933.
s. 4.. 1933.
c. 59 (Colonial Stock Act). .1144.
c. 63 (Building Societies Act).. 2055,
2056.
1878.
41 & 42 Vict.
c. 10 (Weights and Measures),
s. 25.. 818.
41 & 42 Vict.
c. 19 (Matrimonial Causes),
s. 3.. 924.
i;. 31 (Bills of Sale). .1936, 1938, 1942,
1943, 1944, 1947, 1948, 1950.
s. 4.. 1929, 1936, 1937, 1939,
1940, 1944, 1951.
s. 5.. 1937, 1939, 1950.
B. 6.. 1894, 1895, 1937, 1947.
s. 7.. 1937, 1950.
s. 8.. 1940, 1946.
B. 10.. 1942, 1943, 1944.
(2).. 1942.
(3).. 1942, 1943.
s. 24.. 1943.
0.54 (Debtors Act).. 432, 463, 466,
1062.
c. 76 (Telegraph Act). .582.
1879.
42 & 43 Vict.
c. 11 (Bankers' Books Evidence Act)
..82, 1315.
B. 3.. 113, 155.
s. 4.. 155.
s. 5.. 113, 1165.
B. 7.. 61, 76, 82.
s. 10 . . 166.
c. 68 (Public Offices Fees Act) . . 158.
s. 3.. 158.
c. 66 (Endowed Schools Continuance
Act),
s. 2 . . 1260.
0. 76 (Companies),
. s. 6.. 1966.
0. ccvi. (East Indian Railway Com-
pany Purchase Act),
B. 37.. 1145.
1880.
43 & 44 Vict.
c. 8 (Isle of Man Loans Act). .227.
c. 46 (Universities and Colleges Es-
tates Amendment Act) . . 1267,
2363, 2380.
1881.
44 & 45 Vict.
0. 12 (Customs and Inland Reven\ie
Act).. 1367.
c. 41 (Conveyancing and Law of Pro-
perty Act).. 7 7 4, 964, 1169,
1171, 1182, 1186, 1265, 1266,
1769, 1876, 1893, 1895, 1904,
2306, 2307.
s. 2.. 1864.
s. 3(1).. 2163.
(2).. 2187.
(4).. 2167.
(6).. 2166, 2187.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. witJi p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
cccxi
44 & 45 Vict. 0. 41.
8. 4.. 1488.
s. 5.. 165, 327, 1373, 1846, 21G7,
2168.
(1)..332.
(2).. 332.
(3).. 332.
s. 6 (2).. 562.
o. 9.. 338, 345, 181.3, 1876, 2171,
2174, 2179, 2187.
(8).. 1813.
(11).. 1813.
s. 10.. 1892, 1895, 1896.
s. 13.. 2208.
s. 14.. 312, 1892, 2207, 2209,
2306, 2308.
(1).. 2306, 2307.
(2)..312, 2306, 2307.
(3).. 2307.
(6).. 2306, 2308.
(8).. 2307.
(9).. 2307.
s. 15.. 715, 1863, 1864, 1992.
s. 16.. 78, 1874.
=. 17.. 2014, 2016.
s. 18.. 1896, 1897, 2207.
s. 19.. 1846, 1897, 1900, 1901,
1904, 1951, 1983, 1969.
(1)..543, 749.
s. 20.. 1857, 1900, 1901.
s. 21.. 1900, 1983.
s. 22.. 1900.
=. 23.. 1904.
s. 24.. 1384, 1897.
(1)..749.
(2).. 743.
(2)— (8).. 749.
(8).. 767.
8. 25.. 1842, 1843, 1844, 1845,
1979, 1983.
(1)..328.
(2).. 328, 1804.
(3).. 328.
(4).. 329.
s. 30.. 1080, 1182, 1190, 1194,
1196, 1198, 1482, 1484, 1859.
s. 31.. 1166, 1168, 1169, 1185.
s. 32.. 1171.
s. 33.. 1184.
8. 35.. 1079, 1150.
8. 37.. 1149.
3. 39.. 871.
a. 42. .971, 976, 982, 983, 1162.
(1)..982, 1164.
(2).. 982.
(3).. 982.
f4)..982.
(5).. 982.
1..982.
2.. 982.
3.. 982.
(6).. 983.
a. 43.. 959, 962, 969, 971, 976,
1162, 1164, 1445, 1446.
44 & 45 Vict. 0. 41, s. 43.
(1).. 969, 970.
(2).. 961, 970, 971.
(3)..961, 970, 971.
(4).. 970.
8. 44.. 1702, 1763,2049.
8. 45.. 2049.
8. 46.. 229.
8.47.-229.
8. 52.. 864, 1676.
s. 55.. 1055.
B. 56.. 1032, 2184.
B. 65.. 2186.
s. 66.. 1063.
8. 70.. 349, 1741.
0. 44 (Solicitors' Remuneration Act)
. .253, 267, 277, 278, 288, 289,
290, 294, 299, 300, 1765, 2399,
2405.
s. 1..267.
o. 2..301.
s. 5.. 301.
a. 7.. 301.
8. 8.. 260, 267, 300, 1054.
(1)..267.
(2).. 267, 300.
(3).. 267.
(4).. 267, 300.
8. 9.. 267.
c. 58 (Army Act). .445, 479.
s. 141.. 531, 757,761.
c. 68 (Judicature),
8. 9.. 817, 831.
H. 22.. 175.
1882.
45 & 46 Vict.
0. 9 (Documentary Evidence Act),
8. 2.. 155.
c. 38 (Settled Land Act). .976, 1169,
1581, 1585, 1689, 1694, 1697,
1702, 1738, 1743 et seq., 1770,
2206, 2361.
a. 2. .1744, 1749, 1757, 1775.
(1)..1745, 1746.
(2).. 1744, 1746.
(3).. 1746.
(4).. 1744, 1746.
(5).. 1686, 1749.
(6).. 1749.
(7).. 1686.
(8).. 1745.
(10).. 1746, 1749.
8. 3.. 1748, 1752, 1753, 1755,
1756, 1769, 1800.
(iii)..1822.
s. 4.. 1748, 1752, 1753, 1756,
1769, 1800.
(2).. 1822.
8. 5.. 1748, 1752, 1753, 1756,
1822.
8. 6.. 1748, 1753, 1756, 1761,
1762, 1769.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
cccxu
Table of Statutes.
45 & 46 Viot. 0. 38.
s. 7.. 1748, 1753, 1756, 1760,
1761, 1762, 1769.
(2).. 1763.
s. 8.. 1748, 1753, 1756, 1760,
1761, 1762, 1769.
(1)..1762, 1763.
s. 9.. 1748, 1753, 1756, 1760,
1761, 1762, 1769.
B. 10.. 1748, 1753, 1756, 1759,
1760, 1761, 1763, 1764,
1769.
s. 11.. 1694, 1748, 1753, 1756,
1761, 1763, 1770.
s. 12.. 976, 1748, 1753, 1756,
1761, 1763, 1769.
s. 13.. 1748, 1753, 1756, 1761,
1764, 1769.
s. 14.. 1764, 1769.
s. 15.. 1747, 1764, 1767.
s. 16.. 1748, 1752, 1753, 1756,
1769.
s. 17.. 1748, 1751, 1752, 1753,
1756, 1769.
B. 18.. 1744, 1748, 1752, 1753,
1756, 1770, 1822.
s. 19.. 1748, 1752, 1755, 1756,
1800.
s. 20.. 1748, 1752, 1753, 1755,
1756,1762.
s. 21.. 1141, 1U2, 1768, 1771,
2382.
(1)..1771.
(2).. 1771, 1772.
(3).. 1771.
(4).. 1771.
(5).. 1771.
(6).. 1771.
(7).. 1771.
(8).. 1771.
(9).. 1771, 1773.
(10).. 1748, 1766, 1771, 1-/73.
(11).. 1771.
(12).. 1771.
s. 22.. 1767, 1773.
(1)..1773.
(2).. 1773.
(3).. 1770, 1773.
(4).. 1773.
(5).. 1773, 1774.
(6).. 1773.
(7).. 1773.
s. 23.. 1 779.
s. 25.. 1753, 1777, 1778.
(xiii)..1778.
s. 26.. 1753, 1755, 1775, 1776,
1779.
(1)..1779.
(2).. 1776, 1779.
s. 27.. 1753, 1778.
s. 28.. 1753.
(vi)..1686.
(ix)..1686.
s. 29.. 1753.
45 & 46 Viot. c. 38.
s. 30. .1702, 1703, 1753, 1778.
8. 31.. 1748, 1753, 1766, 1769.
(1)..1769, 1822.
(2).. 1769.
(3).. 1769.
B. 32. .1141, 1774, 2360, 2361.
s. 33.. 1142, 1774, 1775.
s. 34.. 1747, 1769, 1770, 1775.
s. 35.. 1764, 1770.
(I).. 1769.
(2).. 1769.
s. 36.. 949, 1776, 1780.
B. 37.. 1764, 1768, 1770.
(1)..1768.
(2).. 1766, 1768.
(3).. 1768.
H. 38.. 1747, 1751, 1752, 1756,
1773, 2206.
(1)..1758.
(2).. 1758.
B. 44.. 1746, 1747.
B. 45. .1752, 1755, 1822, 2206.
(2).. 1756.
(3).. 1756.
s. 46.. 1746, 1747.
(3).. 1747.
(4).. 1747.
(5).. 1747.
(6).. 1747.
(7).. 1747.
s. 47.. 1693, 1747.
s. 50.. 1746, 1753.
s. 51.. 1753.
B. 52.. 1754.
s. 53.. 1686, 1754, 1755, 1768,
1769, 1770, 2206.
s. 55.. 1749, 1769.
B. 56.. 1741, 1746, 1749, 1754,
1755.
(2).. 1754.
s. 57.. 1749.
s. 58.. 1749.
(1)..1750, 1752.
(u)..1750, 1752.
(iv)..1750.
(v)..1750.
(vi)..1686, 1750, 1751.
(viii)..1751.
(ix)..1686, 1751.
s. 59.. 952, 1743, 1748, 1749,
1751.
s. 60.. 952, 983, 1748, 1749,
1751.
s. 62.. 1752, 1762.
s. 63.. 1761, 1781, 1782.
s. 64.. 1079, 1710.
c. 39 (Conveyancing) . . 1034.
s. 2 (8).. 1063.
(9).. 1063.
(10).. 1063.
s. 3..1034, 2166, 2207.
(1)..1034.
(2).. 1034.
Vol. I. ends with j>. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
CCCXlll
45 & 46 Vict. 0. 39.
B. 8.. 229.
8. 9.. 229.
s. 11.. 2186.
s. 12.. 1864.
0. 40 (Copjrright : Musical Composi-
tions).. 669, 670.
u. 43 (BiUs of Sale Act). .1939, 1941,
1943, 1944, 1949.
a. 3.. 1944.
s. 4.. 1944, 1949.
s. 5.. 1943, 1946.
s. 6.. 1945, 1949.
B. 7.. 1945, 1947.
s. 8.. 1941, 1946.
s. 9.. 1937, 1946, 1947.
s. 10.. 1947.
o. 12.. 1947.
s. 13.. 1947.
s. 14.. 1947, 1966.
s. 15.. 1944.
s. 17.. 1943, 1948, 1970.
0. 50 (Municipal Corporations
Act).. 1266, 1281, 1290,
1291.
ss. 108, 109.. 533.
o. 133.. 1266, 1281.
s. 140.. 1291.
o. 61 (BiUs of Exchange Act). .316.
s. 1..714.
=. 30 (2).. 2272.
ss. 57, 89.. 1343.
ss. 62, 89.. 1365.
c. 75 (Married Women's Property
Act).. 480, 849 et aeq., 861,
863, 864, 866, 869, 870, 873,
874, 878, 881, 884 et seq., 905,
906, 923, 1014, 1094, 1530,
1587, 1676, 1741, 1806 2280,
2383.
s. 1..855, 874, 885, 887, 1094,
1296, 2152.
(1)..874, 1296.
(2).. 751, 849, 850, 851, 852,
855, 856, 875, 877.
(3).. 875.
(4).. 875, 880.
(5).. 856, 864, 875, 879.
3. 2.. 874, 876, 879, 887.
3. 3.. 881, 1365, 1406.
3. 4.. 887, 1607.
a. 5.. 874, 876, 879, 887.
s. 6.. 877.
s. 7.. 877.
o. 8.. 877.
s. 9.. 877.
s. 10.. 877, 881.
s. 11.. 872, 874, 878.
3. 12.. 850, 851, 858.
3. 13.. 854, 878, 885.
a. 14.. 857, 858, 878.
s. 15.. 854, 855, 879.
s. 17.. 316, 858, 877.
s. 18.. 885, 1094.
45 & 46 Vict. 0. 75.
a. 19.. 847, 848, 852, 855, 872,
878, 879, 885, 1632.
s. 21.. 965.
s. 22.. 873.
s. 23.. 888.
3. 24.. 857, 885, 1094.
0. 80 (Allotments Extension Act)
. . 1267, 1268, 1278.
a. 8.. 1267.
s. 9.. 1267.
B. 10.. 1267.
3. 11.. 1267.
s. 14.. 1267.
3. 15.. 1268.
1883.
46 & 47 Vict,
c. 18 (Municipal Corporations),
B. 3.. 1266.
s. 8 . . 1266.
c. 29 (Judicature Funds Act).. 202.
3. 7.. 226.
0. 36 (City of Loudon Parochial Chari-
ties).. 1278, 1283.
3. 10.. 1283.
8. 21.. 1283.
o. 39.. 1283.
s. 48.. 1283.
0. 39 (Statute Law Revision Act)..
303.
0. 49 (Statute Law Revision and Civil
Procedure Act).. 122, 152,
164, 356, 357, 508, 518, 789,
2157.
c. 52 (Bankruptcy).. 436, 444, 1126,
1362, 1370, 1405, 1407, 2326.
s. 4.. 502, 742.
(1)..413, 481, 502, 876, 2286.
s. 6.. 742, 1092.
a. 9.. 420, 761.
(1)..1066.
3. 10.. (2) 133, 42L
s. 16.. 1126.
3. 17 (8).. 1070.
s. 18 (11).. 1410.
a. 24.. 818.
s. 27..72, 90, 1409.
D. 28.. 2289, 2299.
s. 30.. 1092, 1128, 1335.
s. 37.. 1128, 1335, 1376, 1405,
2265.
(1)..652, 1405.
a. 38.. 1321, 1405, 1406.
s. 39.. 1405, 1389.
B. 40.. 1363, 1376, 1406, 1410.
(3).. 2121.
3. 41.. 963.
3. 42.. 743, 1407.
(2).. 1407.
a. 43.. 1039.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCCXIV
Table of Statutes.
46 & 47 Viot. 0. 52.
s. 44.. 422, 1091, 1092.
(iii)..1929.
8. 45. .421, 474, 481, 1077, 1406,
1409.
8.46(1).. 418.
(2).. 421.
(3).. 423.
s. 47. .1132, 1409, 2285, 2286.
s. 48..2079, 2288, 2289.
». 49.. 412, 472, 1039, 2189.
8. 50 (5).. 2034.
8. 52.. 448.
s. 53 (2).. 761.
8. 54.. 1091.
8. 55.. 1410.
s. 56 (5).. 1842.
8. 74 (6).. 2075.
a. 92.. 2283.
8. 95.. 1410.
8. 102.. 2283.
(4).. 2120.
8. 103. .306, 409, 428, 436, 818.
B. 104.. 818.
8. 106.. 801.
8. 108.. 1410.
8. 125.. 421, 791, 1363, 1407,
1408, 1409, 1410, 1470,
2125.
(1)..1408, 1409.
(2).. 1408, 1467.
(3).. 1408.
(4)..794, 1408, 1410.
(5) 1408.
(6).. 1409.
(7).. 1409.
(8).. 1409.
(9).. 1409.
(10).. 1409, 1410.
s. 145.. 422.
a. 146.. 418.
8. 147.. 1187.
s. 168.. 761, 1408, 1839, 2225.
8. 169.. 418.
2nd Sohed.., rr. 9 et seg. .1839.
r. 21 . . 1376.
3rd Sched... 1240.
c. 57 (Patents, Designs, and Trade
Marks) . . 619, 2312, 2310, 2327,
2334, 2342.
s. 4.. 2338.
B. 18.. 648.
(10).. 648, 2324.
s. 19.. 648, 2324.
8. 25.. 2319.
(4).. 2321.
s. 26.. 2323.
(3).. 2324.
(4) (o).. 2324.
s. 29.. 643, 652, 653.
(6).. 253, 643,653.
s. 30.. 645.
s. 31.. 652, 053.
s. 32.. 618, 636, 637, 648.
46 & 47 Vict. 0. 57.
s. 58.. 97.
s. 64.. 2337, 2344.
(l)(c)..2329.
(2).. 2338.
(3).. 2331, 2332.
8. 65.. 623, 624,2334.
s. 66.. 2334.
B. 67.. 2334.
a. 70.. 624, 2335.
8. 71.. 2335.
8. 72.. 2335, 2336.
s. 73.. 2335, 2337.
D. 74.. 2337, 2338.
8. 75.. 2338.
s. 76.. 2343.
8. 77.. 620.
a. 78.. 2327.
H. 85. .2340.
8. 92.. 2344.
8. 103.. 2344.
a. 104.. 2344.
a. 113.. 619.
c. 61 (Agricultural Holdings Act) . .
397, 545, 1779, 1893.
a. 29.. 1779, 2040.
8. 34.. 1952.
1884.
47 & 48 Vict.
c. 18 (Settled Land Act). .1744.
8. 4.. 1769, 1770.
B. 5.. 1755.
(3).. 1755.
E. 6(1).. 1781.
(3).. 1781.
8. 7.. 1761, 1763, 1781.
(1)— (7).. 1781.
(8)— (10).. 1782.
s. 8.. 1743, 1751.
c. 41 (BuUding Societies). .401, 2055.
2060.
8. 2.. 2060.
c. 54 (Yorkshire Registries) .. 2039,
2040.
8. 23.. 1063.
u. 61 (Judicature Act),
8. 8.. 403.
88. 9— 11.. 388.
a. 13.. 309.
a. 14.. 344, 416, 417, 424, 1228,
1234, 2215, 2218.
s. 16.. 103.
c. 68 (Matrimonial Causes Act),
a. 2.. 927.
a. 3.. 870, 927.
a. 4.. 92'/.
c. 71 (Intestates' Estates Act). .1230.
8. 4.. 1490, 1585, 1861.
s. 5.. 1231.
s. 7.. 1585.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
cccxv
1885.
48 & 49 Vict.
u. 26 (Yorkshire Registries). .2039.
0. 86 (Artillery and Rifle Ranges) . .
2458.
s. 3.. 2458.
c. 63 (Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks).. 2312, 2344.
s. 5.. 2312.
u. 73 (Purchase o£ Land, Ireland),
s. 13.. 1758.
0. 74 (Evidence by Commission Act),
s. 2.. 72, 107.
1886.
49 & 50 Vict.
0. 27 (Guardianship of Infants Act) .
952, 954, 992—997, 999.
s. 2.. 964, 955.
s. 3(1).. 954.
(2).. 954, 955.
(3).. 955.
B. 4..955.
s. 5..955, 989, 997.
s. 6.. 955.
s. 9.. 955.
B. 10.. 955.
s. 11.. 955.
s. 13.. 955.
c. 33 (International Copyright Act) .
666.
s. 2.. 666.
(3).. 666.
s. 4..66C.
o. 6.. 666, 670.
s. 11.. 666.
e. 37 (Patents, &o.)..2312.
1887.
50 & 51 Vict.
c. 23 (Incumbents' Resignation Act),
s. 6.. 1320.
c. 26 (Allotments, &c. Act). .1893.
c. 27 (Markets and Fairs : Weighing
of Cattle),
s. 4.. 594.
c. 28 (Merchandise Marks Act),
s. 2.. 628.
s. 12.. 628.
c. 30 (Settled Land Act). .1744.
s. 1..1772.
c. 48 (Allotments Act),
s. 13 (2).. 1268.
c. 49 (Charitable Trusts). .1271, 1276,
1284.
s. 2.. 1284.
s. 3.. 1284.
50 & 51 Vict. c. 49.
B. 4.. 1271, 1272, 1279, 1284.
s. 5.. 1279, 1284.
0. 65 (Sheriffs Act),
s. 14(1).. 436.
s. 20.. 419.
s. 28 (3).. 438.
c. 57 (Deeds of Arrangement Act) . .
1942, 2244, 2287.
B. 4.. 2287.
s. 5.. 2287.
s. 6.. 2287.
s. 8.. 2287.
0. 73 (Copyholds),
s. 16.. 2050.
B. 45.. 1182, 1196.
1888.
61 & 52 Vict.
0. 2 (National Debt (Conversion) Act)
..226, 1142.
B. 2 (2).. 1142.
(4).. 1142.
s. 18.. 233.
s. 19.. 1142.
B. 20.. 1142.
s. 21 (1)..1930.
s. 25 (2).. 1574, 1930.
s. 27.. 1142.
c. 8 (Customs and Inland Revenue) . .
156.
(2).. 1256.
0. 17 (Copyright : Musical Composi-
tions). .669.
0. 25 (Railway and Canal Traffic) . .
816.
ss. 2, 8, 17.. 785.
u. 41 (Local Government Act),
s. 29.. 824.
s. 64.. 1266.
c. 42 (Mortmain and Charitable Uses
Act). .1293, 1294, 1296, 1297,
1300, 1306.
8. 4.. 1296.
o. 5.. 1293— 1297.
s. 6.. 1295, 1298.
s. 7.. 1297.
s. 10.. 1296, 1297.
B. 11.. 1296.
s. 13.. 1300.
0. 43 (County Courts Act). .788, 802,
803.
a. 41.. 297.
s. 56.. 633.
B. 57.. 248.
s. 65.. 805.
s. 66.. 805.
8. 67.. 805, 1160, 1184, 1239,
1351, 1834, 2161, 2206.
s. 67 (4).. 806.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 j Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCCXVl
Table of Statutes.
51 & 52 Vlot. 0. 43.
s. 68.. 806.
s. 69.. 804, 805, 1351.
B. 70.. 1160.
s. 74.. 786, 2161.
s. 75.. 1351, 1834.
B. 113.. 242.
H. 116.. 247.
s. 118.-271,297, 805, 1035.
ss. 124, 126, 129.. 806.
s. 126.. 802.
s. 127.. 786, 787.
B. 128.. 787, 788.
ss. 129, 130.. 787.
s. 132.. 788, 806.
s. 151.. 803, 807.
a. 156.. 503.
s. 157.. 503.
s. 187.. 805.
c. 46 (Oaths).. 111.
c. 50 (Patents, Designs and Trade
Marks).. 2312, 2327, 2334,
2338.
s. 5.. 648.
s. 10.. 2330, 2337, 2344.
cl. ((d), (e)).. 2330, 2331.
(2).. 2338.
s. 16.. 2337.
s. 17.. 621, 2338.
s. 25.. 2324.
c. 51 (Land Charges, Registration
and Searches Act).. 183,
1778, 1993, 2002, 2003,
2029, 2039.
s. 4.. 2002, 2028.
s. 5.. 414, 453, 759, 2002, 2028,
2039.
s. 6.. 414, 2002, 2003.
s. 8.. 2028, 2029.
s. 14.. 2028, 2029, 2039.
i;. 52 (Public Health (Building in
Streets) Act.. 520.
c. 59 (Trustee Act).. 1101, 1710.
s. 2.. 1032.
s. 3.. 1150.
=. 4.. 1105.
H. 6.. 870.
s. 8.. 151, 782, 1066, 1093, 1100,
1112, 1114, 1119, 1383, 1387,
1388, 1432, 1571.
c. 62 (Preferential Payments in Bank-
ruptcy Act) . . 1363, 1971,
1972.
s. 1..1406, 1972.
(1)..1971.
(6).. 1406.
s. 3.. 1400.
c. 65 (Solicitors Act), 1068.
s. 11.. 1072.
s. 12.. 1068.
s. 13.. 1069. 1071.
s. 14.. 1069.
s. 16.. 1072.
s. 19.. 1069.
1889.
52 & 53 Vict.
u. 7 (Customs and Inland Revenue
Act).. 1367.
s. 18.. 157.
c. 10 (Commissioners for Oaths)..
a. 1 (2).. 110.
(3).. no.
B. 3.. 110.
s. 5.. 110.
a. 6..11],228, 229.
c. 30 (Board of Agriculture). .1700,
2448, 2451.
s. 2.. 1701, 1778, 1779.
s. 11.. 2449.
c. 32 (Trust Investment Act) . . 1093,
1143, 1291.
c. 36 (Settled Land Act) . . 1744, 1770.
ss. 2, 3.. 1769.
c. 45 (Factors Act). .1931, 1932.
s. 1..1931.
s. 2.. 1931, 1932.
(1).. 1931, 1932.
s. 3.. 1931.
B. 4.. 1931.
s. 5.. 1932.
s. 6.. 1932.
s. 7.. 19.32.
B. 8.. 1933.
a. 9.. 1933, 1934.
s. JO.. 1934.
u. 47 (Palatine Court of Durham Act)
..816.
s. 4.. 193.
s. 8.. 1184.
c. 49 (Arbitration Act).. 316, 384 el
sag., 398, 401, 821, 823, 2059,
2346, 2347, 2349, 2350, 2351.
s. 1..389.
ss. 1—12.. 388.
a. 2.. 384, 390.
H. 3.. 390, 402.
s. 4.. 384, 3S9, 391, 392.
s. 5.. 384, 394.
s. 6.. 394.
s. 7.. 394, 396, 824.
s. 8.. 394.
B. 9.. 384, 396.
s. 10 (1)..397.
(2).. 397.
s. 11.. 395, 397.
s. 12.. 385, 396.
s. 13.. 167, 360, 385, 388, 404,
405, 604.
(1)..402.
(2).. 402.
ss. 13— 17.. 388.
s. 14.. 386, 387, 388, 402, 403,
404, 405.
s. 15(1).. 404.
(2).. 405, 407.
(3).. 400, 407.
rs. 17.. 816.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
cccxvu
52 & 53 Viot. 0. 49.
a. 18.. 101, 106,404.
s. 19..395, 403, 405, 2101.
s. 20.. 399.
B. 22.. 395, 404.
a. 24.. 396, 401, 2060, 2347.
8. 27.. 389.
1890.
53 & 54 Viot.
c. 5 (Lunacy).. 983, 985, 1026, 1183,
1190, 1205, 1216, 1233.
H. 108.-1183,1219.
s. 116.. 967, 1218, 1752, 2225.
(2).. 1752.
s. 117.. 983, 984, 1492.
(1)..1862.
s. 118.. 984.
s. 119.. 2108.
.s. 120.. 899, 984, 1070, 1762,
1806.
s. 123.. 984.
(1)..1492.
s. 124.. 899.
s. 128.. 1168, 1190, 1220, 1670.
s. 129.. 1168, 1190, 1220.
ss. 133— 140.. 1183.
ss. 134r-136..1206.
s. 134.. 967, 1157.
ss. 135— 143. .1191, 1219, 1220.
s. 135.. 1218, 1881.
(3).. 1218.
8. 136.. 1204, 1218.
(4).. 1218, 1219.
s. 137.. 1219.
s. 141.. 1183, 1191, 1219.
=. 142.. 1183, 1220.
B. 143.. 1206, 1219.
s. 145.. 204.
s. 147.. 204.
s. 299.. 1025.
K. 300.. 1026.
8. 338.. 1219.
8. 340.. 1204, 1219.
8. 341.. 1180, 1219.
8. 342.. 1183, 1204.
u. 16 (Working Classes Dwellings)..
1299.
0. 19 (Trustees Appointment) . .
1265.
o. 2.. 1265.
s. 3.. 1265.
s. 4.. 1266.
8. 5.. 1266.
B. 6.. 1266.
s. 7.. 1266.
0. 23 (Chancery of Lancaster Act) . .
1183.
s. 3.. 519, 652, 816.
8. 4.. 816, 831.
c. 29 (Intestates' Estates). .914, 1485,
1514, 1586.
53 & 54 Viot. 0. 29.
83. 1, 2, 3.. 1586.
0. 39 (Partnership Act) . . 1365, 2094
et seq.
a. 1 (1)..2094.
(2) (a).. 2094.
(b)..2094.
(c)..2094.
8. 2.. 2128, 2129.
(3).. 2128.
B. 3.. 1498, 2128, 2129.
s. 5.. 1066.
s. 6.. 2124.
s. 7.. 2124.
a. 8.. 2124.
s. 9.. 2114, 2123.
s. 10.. 2123.
s. 11.. 2123.
a. 12.. 2123.
8. 13.. 1066, 1089,2124.
(1)..2124.
(2).. 2124.
s. 14.. 2127.
(1)..2127.
(2)..2125, 2127, 2177.
s. 15.. 2124.
s. 16.. 2124.
s. 17.. 2097.
(2).. 2126.
(3).. 2126.
a. 18.. 2081, 2124.
a. 19.. 2094.
s. 20.. 2134.
(3).. 2134, 2135.
a. 21.. 2135.
s. 22.. 2135.
8. 23.. 411, 412, 421, 474, 2108,
2122, 2129.
a. 24 (3).. 2112.
(4).. 2112.
(7).. 2106.
(8).. 2113.
8. 25.. 2113.
a. 26(1).. 2097.
(2).. 2097.
s. 27 (1)..2097.
(2).. 2097.
a. 28.. 2104.
a. 29.. 2104.
a. 30.. 2105.
8. 31.. 1975, 2107.
(1)..2102, 2106.
(2).. 2102, 2107.
8. 32.. 2107.
8. 33.. 683, 2107, 2119.
(1).. 2107, 2117.
(2).. 2108.
8. 34.. 2 108.
s. 35.. 683, 2108.
a. 36.. 2126.
(1)..2126.
(2).. 2109, 2126.
(3).. 2126.
a. 37.. 2109.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol II. with p. 1824.
CCCXVIU
Table of Statutes.
53 & 54 Viet. o. 39.
s. 38.. 2109.
s. 39.. 2110, 2118.
B. 40.. 2112.
s. 41.. 2090.
s. 42.. 2113.
(1)..2118.
(2).. 2118.
H. 43.. 2118.
s. 44.. 2110.
s. 45.. 2094.
0. 44 (Judicature Act). .241, 439.
ci. 1..369, 406, 497, 815.
s. 2.. 363, 369.
s. 4. .439.
sis.. 106, 241, 247, 439, 838,
2398, 2407.
c. 45 (Police Act),
s. 11.. 817.
c. 57 (Tenanta' Compensation). .1778,
1893.
c. 62 (Companies, Memorandum of
Association) . .2439.
B. 1..2441.
(5) (a).. 2441.
(b)..2441.
(d)..2441.
s. 2.. 2441.
u. 63 (Companies (Winding-up) Act)
..797,2064,2435,2440.
s. 3.. 807.
s. 8.. 822.
s. 15.. 479.
0. 64 (Directors' Liability Act).. 42,
1382, 2261, 2265.
s. 3.. 2261.
s. 4.. 2261.
s. 5.. 2261.
c. 09 (Settled Land Act). .1744.
s. 2.. 1744.
s. 4.. 1746.
=. 5 . . 1753, 1755, 1769, 1800, 1822.
s. 6.. 1694, 1753, 1769.
s. 7.. 1755, 1762.
(2).. 1762.
s. 8.. 1762, 1769.
s. 9.. 1763, 1764, 1769.
». 10.. 834, 1759, 1764, 1767.
B. 11.. 1753, 1755, 1770, 1772.
s. 12.. 1752.
s. 13.. 1777, 1778.
(ii)..1696, 1777, 1778.
(iv)..1134, 1778.
s. 14.. 1771, 1773,2383.
a. 15.. 1772, 1780.
s. 16.. 1757.
s. 17.. 1169, 1758.
s. 19.. 454, 2028, 2029.
. 71 (Bankruptcy Act). .1410.
s. 1.. 396, 421, 502.
s. 3.. 2287.
s. 8.. 2289.
». 11.. 501, 503.
(1).. 418, 419.
63 & 54 yict. e. 71. s. 11.
(2).. 421, 422.
B. 12.. 422.
s. 21.. 794, 1363, 1408,1470.
(1)..1408.
(2).. 1408.
(3).. 1409.
a. 23.. 1345, 1370.
B. 28.. 743, 1407.
s. 36 (3).. 2124.
1891.
64 & 55 Vict.
0. 3 (Custody of Ciiildren). .998.
s. 3.. 998.
s. 4..998.
0. 10 (Middlesex Registry).. 2039.
c. 17 (CiiaritableTrustsRecoveryAct)
. . 1276, 1284.
s. 3.. 1284.
s. 5.. 1284.
s. 6.. 1284.
0. 39 (Stamp Act). .156, 158, 160,
230, 2442.
s. 14.. 156, 1060.
s. 15.. 156, 160.
s. 32.. 158.
ss. 52, 53.. 159.
s. 54.. 159, 160, 1920,1982.
s. 55.. 159.
s. 57.. 159, 160, 1920.
s. 59 (1)..159, 161.
s. 62.. 1170, 1208.
B. 64.. 153.
B. 80.. 705.
s. 82.. 160.
s. 82 (1)..160.
s. 86(1).. 158, 160, 1982.
s. 87 (2).. 158.
B. 90.. 230.
B. 93.. 161.
s. 97.. 161.
s. 98.. 100.
s. 101.. 161.
s. 112.. 158.
B. 113.. 158.
sched. I.. 153, 158, 160, 161.
u. 50 (Commissioners for Oatlis),
s. 2.. Ill, 229.
c. 54 (Ranges Act). .2458.
s. 11.. 2458.
c. 64 (Land Registry : Middlesex
Deeds).. 2039.
s. 1.. 2025, 2244.
sched. L..2039.
para. 14.. 2039.
0. 65 (Lunacy Act). .1205, 1218.
s. 22.. 1026.
s. 28.. 1180.
c. 73 (Mortmain and Charitable Uses
Act).. 1293, 1297, 1300, 1306,
1307, 1308.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
cccxix
64 & 55 Vict. c. 73.
s. 3.. 1295, 1297, 1298, 1300,
1306, 1307.
=.5.. 1251, 1292, 1293, 1295,
1297, 1298, 1306, 1307.
s. 6.. 1251, 1298, 1307.
s. 7 . . 1296, 1297, 1298, 1306, 1307.
(2).. 1299.
s. 8.. 1295, 1298, 1306.
s. 9.. 1298.
c. 76 (Public Health (London) Act). .
1621, 1696, 2182.
1892.
55 & 56 Vict.
c. 6 (Colonial Probates) .. 1356.
0. 9 (Gaming Act). .1378, 2104.
u. 10 (Short Titles).. 1744.
c. 11 (Mortmain and Charitable Uses)
..1298,1299.
o. 13 (Conveyancing and Law of Pro-
perty). .2306, 2307.
s. 2(1).. 2307.
(2).. 2306, 2307.
(3).. 2307.
s. 4.. 40, 2306,2308.
B. 5.. 2308.
s. 6.. 1169.
c. 15 (Charitable Inquiries : Expenses
Act).. 1284.
e. 19 (Statute Law Eevision Acts) . .
715.
c. 23 (Foreign Marriage Act).. 1522,
1586.
c. 27 (Parliamentary Deposits and
Bonds)..2420, 2421, 2422,
2424.
s. 1 (l)..24i8, 2421.
(2).. 2421, 2423.
(3).. 2421.
(4).. 2421.
(5)..242L
s. 2.. 2423.
c. 29 (Technical and Industrial Insti-
tutions),
s. 10.. 1299.
0. 35 (Colonial Stock Act). .1144.
c. 39 (National Debt (Stockholders'
Rehef ) Act),
s. 3.. 972, 1181.
8. 4.. 1211, 1213.
s. 5.. 1213.
s. 6.. 233.
c. 43 (MiUtary Lands) .. 2456, 2457,
2458, 2459.
s. 2.. 2459.
Sohed...2458.
0. 53 (Pubho Libraries). .1267, 1301.
s. 13.. 1299.
u. 57 (Private Street Works Act),
s. 6.. 1989.
s. 13.-1988,2183.
55 & 56 Vict.
0. 58 (Accumulations Act).. 1666,
1697.
0. 59 (Telegraph Act). .582.
1893.
56 & 57 Vict.
c. 5 (Regimental Debts),
s. 2.. 1363.
0. 21 (Voluntary Conveyances) .. 880,
1300, 2004, 2290.
B. 2.. 2290.
B. 3.. 2290.
8. 4.. 2290.
c. 37 (Liverpool Court of Passage),
s. 10.. 816.
0. 39 (Industrial and Provident
Societies).. 1186.
c. 53 (Trustee Act).. 205, 227, 311,
424, 486, 863, 874, 878, 938,
940, 1080, 1103, 1105, 1142,
1143, 1144, 1149, 1150, 1151,
1154, 1164 et seq., 1172, 1174,
1176, 1187, 1188, 1191, 1204,
1213, 1214, 1219, 1223 et seq.,
1240, 1265, 1266, 1291, 1621,
1648, 1710, 1758, 1794, 1812,
2180, 2217.
s. 1..1142.
B. 2 (2).. 227, 1144.
s. 4.. 1142.
s. 5.. 1146.
(1)..1973.
s. 8.. 1105, 1111.
o. 9.. 1107.
s. 10.. 751, 1163, 1166, 1167,
1168, 1169, 1186, 1265.
(1)..1166.
(2).. 1167, 1169.
(3).. 1167.
(4).. 1107.
(5).. 1167.
(6).. 1167.
3. 11.. 1171, 1265.
(1)..1171.
(2).. 1171.
(3)..117L
(4). .1171.
a. 12.. 1163, 1265,2045.
(1)..1169, 1170.
(2).. 1169.
(3).. 1169.
(4).. 1170.
(5).. 1170.
s. 13.. 1079.
s. 14.. 720, 1150,2153.
B. 15.. 1079.
s. 16.. 864.
8. 17.. 1032, 1084, 1085.
(1).. 1032, 2184.
(2).. 1033.
(3).. 1033.
Vol. J. ends with p. 846 ; 7qI Ih pith f. 1824.
cccxx
Table of SiMutes.
56 & 57 Viot. 0. 53.
s. 19.. 1710.
(1)..1710.
(2).. 1710.
s. 20.. 1482.
H. 23.. 1133, 1151.
s. 24.. 1131, 1151.
8.25.. 1172, 1174, 1186, 1187,
1188.
(1)..1171, 1172, 1175, 1176,
1177, 1178, 1)84.
(2).. 1080, 1174, 1175, 1184.
(3).. 1184, 1187.
s. 26.. 1172, 1175, 1186, 1205,
1216, 1864.
(i)..1205, 1206.
(ii)..1191, 1192, 1193, 1205,
1206.
(a).. 1191, 1192, 1206, 1225.
(b)..1192, 1193, 1206.
(c)..1192, 1193, 1206.
{iii)..1193, 1205.
(iv)..1194, 1205.
(v)..1194, 1205, 1212.
(vi)..1194, 1205, 1854.
(a).. 1172, 1206.
(b)..1172, 1206.
ss. 26— 29.. 1172.
s. 27.. 1195, 1208.
s. 28.. 1191, 1209, 1864.
s. 29.. 1195, 1196, 1209, 1864.
(a).. 1195, 1209.
(b)..l]95, 1209.
(c)..1195, 1209.
(d)..1195, 1209.
(e)..1195, 1210.
s. 30.. 1172, 1221, 1224, 1225,
1232, 1372.
s. 31.. 941, 1172, 1221, 1224,
1225, 1226, 1229 et seq.,
1372, 1804, 1820, 2218.
B. 32.. 1172, 1175, 1191 et seq.,
1207, 1221, 1225, 1231.
ss. 32— 41.. 1172.
o. 33.. 1196, 1213, 1231, 1224,
1225, 1226, 1229, 1854.
B. 34.. 1186, 1196, 1197, 1210,
1213, 1214.
(1)..1210.
(2).. 1210.
s. 35.. 1172, 1174, 1210, 1216.
(1)..1175 et seq., 1181, 1198,
eMe?., 1199, 1210.
(i)..1198, 1210.
(ii)..1198, 1199, 1201, 1211.
(a).. 1198, 1199, 1211.
(b)..1198, 1199, 1200,
1201, 1202, 1211.
(o)..1198, 1199, 1201,
1202,1211.
(d)..1198, 1200, 1201,
1202, 1211.
(e)..1198, 1202, 1203,
1204, 1211.
.56 & 57 Vict. 0. 53, s. 35 (1).
(iii)..1198, 1199, 1201,
1211.
(a).. 1211.
(b)..120], 1211.
(2).. 1198, 1204, 1211, 1213,
1214, 1229.
(3).. 1175, 1176, 1177, 1198
et seq., 1211.
(4).. 1175, 1176, 1177, 1198
e« seq., 1211.
(5)..1176, 1198e<«e!?., 1211.
(6). .1211.
s. 36.. 1175, 1214.
(1)..1214.
(21.. 1214.
s. 37.. 1167, 13 84.
is. 38.. 1179, 1217, 1220.
s. 39.. 1217, 1266.
s. 40.. 1216.
s. 41.. 1183.
s. 42.. 232, 310, 375, 470, 491,
492, 950, 1149, 1152, 1153,
1155, 1161, 1262, 1277,
1445. 1642.
(1)..1152.
(2).. 1152.
(3).. 1152.
s. 43.. 1217.
s. 44.. 1678, 1679, 1680.
B. 45.. 1110, 1115.
(1)..870.
B. 46.. 1183,
s. 47.. 1759.
(1)..1169.
(2).. 1169.
(3).. 1169.
s. 48.. 1217.
s. 49.. 1176, 1177.
s.. 50.. 1172, 1179, IISO, 1192,
1193, 1194, 1210.
s. 52.. 1183.
0. 61 (Public Authorities Protection
Act).. 245, 611.
s. 1..245.
c. 63 (Married Women's Property
Act).. 851, 853, 855, 870, 875,
887
B. 1.. 849, 853.
s. 2.. 849, 851.
s. 3.. 886.
0. 71 (Sale of Goods Act). .944.
s. 2.. 944.
ss. 38— 41.. 2224.
s. 38.. 2302.
ss. 44— 46.. 2302.
s. 45(1).. 2303.
s. 62.. 2302.
c. 73 (Local Government Act, 1894). .
1268.
s. 14.. 1268.
s. 58 (5).. 94.
s. 70.. 1268.
s. 75.. 1268.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with -p. 1824.
Table 6f Statutes.
cccxxi
lg94.
57 & 58 Vict.
c. 10 (Trustee Act, 1893, Amendment
Act, 1894).. 1172, 1680.
s. 1..1232.
s. 2.. 1183.
s. 3.. 1678.
s. 4.. 1103.
u. 16 (Judicature Act),
s. 1..817, 823, 831.
(1)..823.
(a).. 822.
(b)..822.
(2).. 823.
(3).. 823.
(4).. 395, 786, 821.
(5).. 395, 817.
(6).. 823.
c. 30 (Kuance Act). .230, 1366.
». 2 (1)..1479.
s. 40.. 159.
c. 35 (Charitable Trusts (Places of
Religious Worship) Amend-
ment Act). .1280.
c. 46 (Copyhold). .205, 2448 et seq.
s. 3.. 2358.
s. 26(1).. 2451.
(a).. 2451.
(b)..2451.
(2).. 2451.
s. 32 (1)..2452.
(2).. 2452.
(a).. 2452.
(b)..2452.
(3).. 2452.
s. 33. .2448, 2449, 2450, 2451.
(1)..2452.
(2).. 2452.
(3).. 2452.
(4).. 1452.
o. 51.. 2448.
(1)..2452.
(2).. 2453.
s. 52.. 1823.
B. 53 (1)..2453.
(2).. 2453.
s. 64.. 57.
s. 75.. 2453.
B. 84.. 1801.
s. 88.. 1182, 1196, 1198, 1209.
c. 47 (Building Societies Act).. 2050,
2055, 2063.
H. 1..2056.
s. 6.. 2056.
s. 7.. 2063.
a. 8.. 2064.
s. 9.. 2064.
s. 10.. 2064.
a. 11.. 2064.
s. 13.. 2063.
s. 14.. 2063.
s. 20.. 401, 2059.
B. 25 (2).. 2055.
57 & 58 Vict.
c. 54 (Railway and Canal Traffic).
ss. 1, 2.. 785.
0. 60 (Merchant Shipping),
ss. 492— 501.. 2303.
c. ocxiii (London Building Act). .548,
1697.
1895.
58 & 59 Vict.
0. 11 (Lands Clauses, Taxation o£
Costs), 3. 1..2351.
0. 25 (Mortgagees' Legal Costs Act) . .
295, 1878.
s. 2.. 1065, 1878.
o. 3.. 1064, 1065, 1878.
(1)..1879.
(2).. 1879.
s. 4.. 1879.
c. 26 (Friendly Societies Act), s. 10
(1)..401.
c. 35 (Naval Works) .. 2458, 2459.
u. 39 (Summary Jurisdiction (Married
Women) Act)..3L
c. 43 (Naturalization). .1522.
1896.
59 & 60 Viet.
0. 0 (Naval Works). .2458.
li. 8 (Life Assurance Companies (Pay-
ment into Court) Act) . . 206,
1155, 1161.
B. 2.. 1161.
c. 25 (Friendly Societies Act).. 400,
1171, 1172.
s. 1..400.
s. 25 (2)..117L
(3).. 1171.
s. 34.. 1171.
B. 35(1).. 1363.
S3. 44-^9.. 1171.
s. 51.. 1171.
3. 68 (1).. 400, 401, 1172.
c. 28 (Finance Act),
H. 32.. 2.365.
B. 33.. 2028.
c. 35 (Judicial Trustees Act).. 717,
748, 1180, 1234 et seq., 1230,
1237.
B. 1..1237.
(1)..1235, 1237, 1238.
(2).. 1238.
(3).. 1238.
(4).. 1238.
(5).. 1238.
(6).. 1239.
s. 2.. 1239.
s. 3.. 1104, 1107, 1110, 1239.
s. 4.. 1239.
(1)— (6).. 1239.
(7)— (11).. 1240.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
VOL. I.
CCCXXll
Tahle of Statutes.
59 & 60 Viot.
u. 45 (Stannaries Court Abolition
Act).. 194.
0. 48 (Light Railways Act). .2425.
B. 11 (k)..2425.
s. 13.. 2425.
u. 61 (Vexatious Actions Act), s. 1 . .
39, 132.
1897.
60 & 61 Vict.
c. 19 (Preferential Payments in Bank-
ruptcy Amendment Act) . .
1971, 1972.
a. 2.. 1971.
s. 3 . . 1972.
u. 37 (Workmen's Compensation Act)
..30.
0. 65 (Land Transfer Act). .121, 312,
939, 1196, 1225, 1351, 1352,
1353, 1356, 1361, 1368,
1422, 1429, 1431, 1448,
1450, 1459, 1466, 1480 et
seq., 1595, 1605, 1846, 2094,
2167.
s. 1 . . 1209, 1234, 1351, 1362,
1860, 1861, 1862.
(1)..H82, 1233, 1352, 1426,
1860, 1862.
(2).. 1353, 1426.
(3).. 1353, 1355.
(4).. 1183, 1353, 1860, 1862.
(5).. 1353.
s. 2 . . 1353.
(1)..1353.
(2).. 1353, 1595.
(3).. 1353, 1361, 1367, 1449,
1605, 1606, 1982.
(4).. 1353.
s. 3.. 1429.
(1)..159, 1208, 1429.
(2).. 1429.
(3).. 1429.
(4).. 1429.
s. 4..143L
(1)..1431.
(2).. 1431.
(3).. 1431.
s. 7.. 2029.
(2).. 2025, 2244.
s. 8.. 1981.
». 9 (3).. 2049.
Sched. L..2039.
1898.
61 & 62 Vict,
c. 10 (Finance Act).. 160.
s. 5.. 161.
s. 6.. 100, 1920.
c. 26 (Companies). .2442, 2443.
61 & 62 Viot.
u. 41 (Prison Act),
s. 11.. 101, 439.
0. 46 (Revenue),
s. 8.. 161.
s. 9.. 158.
c. 48 (Benefices Act). .1801.
s. 1 (2).. 1801.
s. 10.. 446.
0. 55 (Universities and Colleges Es-
tates). .1267, 1769.
s. 1..1769.
s. 2..1769, 2363, 2380.
s. 3.. 1769.
s. 6.. 1769.
(1)..2363.
(2).. 2363.
(3).. 2363.
1899.
62 & 63 Vict.
^5. 4 (Solicitors Act). .1072.
s. 1 . . 1072.
c. 6 (Judicature Act), 833.
s. 1.. 815, 829.
c. 9 (Finance Act),
s. 4.. 160.
s. 5.. 161.
(1)..16L
s. 7.. 158.
s. 8.. 158, 160, 1967.
£.. 9.. 160.
B. 10.. 158.
s. 11.. 160.
u. 20 (Bodies Corporate (.Joint
Tenancy) Act).. 233, 1213.
c. 30 (Commons Act),
s. 22.. 1299, 1307.
c. 33 (Board of Education Act),
s. 2.. 1260.
c. 46 (Improvement of Land Act)..
1700, 1702.
s. 1 . . 1702.
a. 3.. 1702.
s. 4.. 1702.
s. 5.. 1702.
1900.
63 & 64 Vict.
c. 26 (Land Charges). .183, 759, 1362,
1365, 1862, 1999 et seq., 2029,
2042.
s. 1..2002.
s. 2 (1)..414, 759, 2002, 2005,
2028.
(2).. 2002.
(3).. 2003.
s. 3.. 2003.
B. 4.. 2003.
s. 5.. 1363, 1993.
Sched. . . 1993.
Vol. J. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. uilh p. 1824.
Table of Statutes.
cccxxm
63 & 64 Vict.
0. 48 (Companies). .2262, 2265.
s. 8.. 704.
s. 9.. 2262.
B. 10.. 2263, 2265.
(4).. 1963.
s. 15.. 1964.
s. 28.. 2263.
u. 51 (Money-Lenders Act) . . 1869,
1936, 2279,
fl. 1..1869, 1870, 2277.
H. 2.. 1936.
(])(b)..193G.
s. 3.. 1936.
c. 56 (Military Lands). .2458.
0. 62 (Colonial Stock Act) .. 227, 1144.
s. 2.. 1144.
1901.
1 Edw. VII.
c. 10 (Larceny Act). .1125, 1333.
s. 1 (1)..1125, 1126.
(2).. 1125.
1802.
2 Edw. VII.
c. 34 (Patents Act). .2312.
1903.
3 Edw. VII.
0. 31 (Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries Act).. 2451.
1905.
5 Edw. VII.
0. 15 (Trade Marks Act).. 613, 619,
2327 et seq.
s. 3..621, 2329, 2339.
s. 4.. 2327.
s. 5.. 2340.
«. 6.. 620.
a. 7..234L
s. 8.. 623, 624,2334.
S3. 8— 11.. 2329.
B. 9 (3).. 2330.
(4).. 2330, 2331.
(5)..2327, 2329, 2331.
3. 10.. 2334.
». 11..624, 2335, 2339, 2341.
s. 12.. 620, 2328.
s. 12 (4).. 2327.
(6).. 2329.
s. 13.. 2329.
a. 14.. 2329.
s. 14 (10).. 2329.
B. 15..2327, 2330, 2337.
a. 16..62L
s. 18.. 2329.
as. 19, 20.. 2335.
5 Edw. VII. 0. 15.
a. 21.. 2339.
B. 22.. 2335.
a. 26.. 2334.
a. 26(a)— (d).. 2334.
s. 28.. 2328.
ss. 30, 31.. 2328.
a. 32.. 2341, 2344.
3. 33.. 2341.
B. 34.. 2344.
a. 35((1)— (4))..2339, 2341.
a. 36..620, 2328, 2338.
B. 37..2339, 234L
a. 38.. 2341.
3. 39.. 621.
a. 40.. 2339.
B. 41.. 620, 621,2339,2342.
3. 42.. 620, 2339.
a. 45.. 620.
a. 46.. 625.
B. 47.. 2343.
a. 50.. 2341.
ss. 52, 58.. 2344.
a. 59.. 2328.
B. 63.. 2339.
a. 64.. 2334.
s. 64 (10).. 2332.
s. 65.. 2344.
B. 68.. 2328.
s. 73.. 630.
1906.
6 Edw. VII.
c. 24 (Solicitors Act),
a. 1..1072.
c. 34 (Prevention of Corruirtion Act) . .
2270.
u. 47 (Trade Disputes Act). .37, 001.
s. 2.. 602.
s. 4..712.
c. 55 (Public Trustee Act).. 717,
1180, 1243.
s. 3 (4).. 1243.
(5).. 1243.
as. 4, 5, 10 . . 1243.
B. 13.. 1315.
3. 15.. 1243.
1907.
7 Edw. VIL
c. 12 (Matrimonial Causes Act). .924.
c. 13 (Finance Act),
3. 10.. 1967.
c. 18 (Married Women'a Property
Act).. 947, 1633.
a. 1.. 864, 885, 897, 1208.
a. 2.. 865, 879, 1627, 1632.
c. 23 (Criminal Appeal Act). .818.
c. 24 (Limited Partnershipa Act) . .
683, 2094, 2095.
8. 4.. 412.
Vol. I. enda with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCCXXIV
Table of Statutes.
7 Edw. VII.
0. 28 (Patents and Designs (Amend-
ment) Act). .2312.
0.29 (Patents and Designs Act)..
2312 et seq.
s. 1 (1)..2312.
(2).. 2312.
o. 3.. 2312.
S3. 4, 5.. 2313.
ss. 9, 10.. 2313.
s. 11(1).. 2313.
(a).. 2313.
(b).. 2313, 2314.
(o)..2313.
(d)..2313.
ss. 12, 13.. 2314.
s. 14.. 2314, 2318.
(2).. 2314.
s. 17.. 2314.
(.3)., 651.
s. 18 (1)..2319.
(2).. 2319.
(3).. 2319.
(4).. 2319, 2321.
(5).. 2319.
3. 21.. 648, 2315,2316.
(1)..2315.
(2).. 2316.
(6).. 2315, 2316.
(7).. 2315, 2316.
(8)..648, 2315, 2316.
a. 22.. 647, 648,2316,2322.
B. 23.. 651, 2316.
a. 24 ((1)— (5)).. 2316.
(5) (a, b).. 2317.
(6).. 2317.
s. 25.. 2321.
(1)..2323.
(2).. 2323.
(3).. 2323.
s. 26 ((1)— (4)).. 2323.
s. 27(1).. 2323.
(2).. 2324.
(3).. 2324.
(4).. 2324.
s. 28.. 2317.
s. 28 ((1)— (4)).. 2318.
ss. 29, 30.. 23 14.
B. 30 (9).. 2324.
s. 31 (1)..2324.
s. 34.. 645.
s. 35..650, 652, 653.
s. 36.. 636, 648.
o. 37.. 2318.
s. 39(1).. 2322.
s. 40.. 2312, 2313.
s. 42.. 635.
». 43.. 633, 2312, 2314.
8. 44.. 2314.
s. 45.. 2313.
ss. 49— 61.. 667.
33. 53, 64.. 665.
s. 60.. 97.
B. 72.. 2322.
I 7 Edw. VII. c. 29.
j 6.91.. 2344.
3. 92 (2).. 2317.
s. 93.. 2313.
s. 98(l)(b)..643, 652.
c. 47 (Deceased Wife's Sister's Mar-
riage Act).. 1586.
3. 1..1569.
c. 50 (Companies Act),
3. 3.. 2262.
1908.
8 Edw. VII.
V. 4 (Patents and Designs Act),
s. 1..2323.
c. 28 (Agricultural Holdings Act)..
1289, 1779, 1893.
3. 20.. 1779.
3. 21.. 1952.
3. 41.. 1289.
c. 32 (Friendly Societies Act).. 400,
1171.
s. 4.. 1171.
3. 6.. 401
c. 69 (Companies (Consolidation) Act)
..13,455,798, 823, 829, 1147,
1382, 1961, 1966, 2260 et seq.,
2426 et seq.
s. 1..2055.
s. 8.. 627.
3. 9. .2437, 2438, 2439, 2440.
s. 9 (1)..2439.
(1) (a).. 2441.
((2)— (4)).. 2439.
(5).. 2440.
3. 9 (6).. 2440, 2441.
(7).. 2440.
s. 22.. 1929.
3. 26.. 2447.
=. 27.. 1928, 1992,2042.
B. 32..2210, 2260, 2445.
s. 35.. 2445.
s. 41 (l)(e)..2436.
(4).. 2437.
3. 45.. 2439.
o. 46.. 2430, 2432.
ss. 46—56. .2426, 2427, 2430.
s. 47.. 2432.
3. 48.. 2432, 2433.
s. 49.. 2432, 2433, 2435.
s. 49 (3).. 2429, 2435.
B. 51.. 2436.
3. 55.. 2436.
33. 58, 59.. 1965.
3. 62.. 12, 2447.
H. 69.. 2438.
s. 70.. 2154.
3. 75.. 2447.
s. 80.. 2262.
((l)-(3))..2262.
((4)— (5)).. 2263.
s. 81..2263, 2264, 2265.
(l)(m)..2263.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
TcAle of Statutes.
cccxxv
8 Edw. VII. 0. 69, s. 81.
((l)-(6))..2263.
(9).. 2263.
H. 84.. 42, 1382, 2261.
(1) (a).. 2261.
(b).. 2261, 2262.
(o)..2262.
(2).. 2262.
(3).. 2262.
(4).. 1335, 2262.
(5).. 1335.
s. 88.. 1322, 2442.
s. 88 ((1)— (3)).. 2442.
a. 89.. 701, 704, 1336.
s. 91.. 700.
s. 93.. 2443.
(1)..1961.
(2).. 1962.
(3).. 1962, 1963.
(4).. 1962, 1963.
(5).. 1962, 1963.
(6)— (9).. 1963.
B. 94(1) (2).. 1963.
B. 95 (1)..1963.
(2).. 1964.
B. 96..1964, 2443, 2444.
ss. 97— 99.. 1964.
s. 100 (1) (2).. 1964.
s. 101.. 81.
((1) (2)).. 1964.
s. 104.. 1966, 2045.
s. 107.. 736.
s. 109.. 785.
=. 116.. 12.
a. 120.. 133, 798, 825, 1967.
s. 125.. 1321.
s. 126.. 1361.
s. 128.^857.
B. 131.. 2440.
(6).. 788.
8. 132.. 2440.
s. 133.. 807.
s. 137.. 2350.
s. 140.. 133, 797, 798.
s. 142.. 133, 761.
s. 149.. 707, 754, 797.
=. 151.. 1361.
e. 163.. 1361, 2295.
s. 165.. 1321.
s. 174. .70, 72, 89, 96, 106, 112,
241, 242, 458, 824, 825.
s. 175 (1)..822.
ss. 176, 177.. 506.
ss. 178, 179.. 194.
B. 180.. 194, 195, 843.
(2).. 194.
s. 186.. 798.
s. 192.. 704.
s. 193.. 797, 798.
s. 210.. 2289.
o. 211.. 761.
s. 212 . .1322.
s! 215! !701, 1062, 1094, 2269,
2270.
8 Edw. VII. 0. 69.
B. 224.. 479.
s. 242 (6).. 2447.
S3. 245, 246.. 2440.
B. 264.. 2438.
o. 265.. 133, 798.
ss. 267, 268.. 2095.
3. 270.. 133, 798.
3. 274.. 12.
B. 278.. 27, 30.
s. 281.. 2263.
3. 285.. 2262, 2440.
1909.
9 Edw. VII.
u. 39 (Oaths Act).. 111.
c. 49 (Assurance Companies Act) . .
206, 310, 2425.
s. 2.. 206.
=. 3.. 387.
s. 18.. 387.
1910.
10 Edw. VII.
c. 8 (Finance (1909-10) Act).. 230,
1366.
H. 58.. 1256.
s. 62 (1)— (12).. 343.
s. 74 (6).. 1170.
10 Edw. VII. & 1 Geo. V. c. 36.
0. 36 (Expiring Laws Continuance
Act),
Sched...l260.
1911.
1 & 2 Geo. V.
c. 37 (Conveyancing Act),
3. 1.. 327, 332.
». 3.. 1897.
s. 4.. 1900.
s. 5.. 1900.
s. 6(1) (2).. 2049.
=. 7.. 860, 871.
3. 8.. 1080.
3. 10 (3).. 1150.
s. 12.. 1353.
H. 13.. 2035.
s. 14. .976, 982, 1164.
c. 38 (Money-lenders Act),
s. 1 . . 1936.
c. 40 (Lunacy Act). .1219, 1820,
1881.
s. 1..1191, 1219, 1220.
u. 46 (Copyright Act) . .661, 663, 665,
666.
3. 7.. 663.
B. 17 (2).. 669.
s. 19.. 670.
3. 20.. 671.
B. 29.. 665.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
( cccxxvii )
TABLE OF RULES AND ORDERS.
RULES OF COURT, 18S3.
ORDER
\ OEDEE XI. — continued.
I. (Form and Commencement of Action),
1. 1..7, 14, 15, 19, 1386.
1. 1..371, 376, 803, 1252.
j
(a).. 14.
r. 2.. 371, 376.
!
(b)..14, 15.
II. (Writ of Summons),
(c)..14, 15.
r. 1 . . 1.
(d)..14.
r. 4..6, 18,513.
[
(e)..13, 14, 15, 16.
r. 5..6, 14.
1
(f)..14, 16.
I. 8 A.. 2343.
i
(g)..14, 17, 19.
III. (Indorsement of Claim),
r. 2..7, 16, 17.
r. 6.. 169, 175, 1087, 1894, 2161.
r. 4..7, 18,69.
L. 7.. 261, 279.
1. 5.. 6, 7, 18.
f. 8.. 170, 313, 1078, 1313, 1350.
I. 6.. 7, 18.
IV. (Indorsement of Address),
r. 8..12, 19.
r. 1.. 174, 379.
r. 8 A..9, 19, 1157..
r. 2.. 174, 379.
r. 9 A.. 260.
r. 3..174.
XII.
(Appearance),
V. (Issue of Writ of Summons),
rr. 1—5.. 174.
r. 9.. 189.
r. 6.. 174.
(a).. 371.
r. 7 . . 174.
(c)..2343.
r. 8..23.
(e)..372.
r. 9.. 174, 1072,
(2).. 2362.
r. 10.. 379.
VI. (Concurrent Writs). .2.
1. 11.. 379.
r. 1..6, 14.
r. 12.. 22.
r. 2..6, 14.
r. 15.. 411.
VII. (Disclosure by Solicitor and Plain-
f. 25..22.
tiffs),
1. 28.. 173.
1.1.. 131. ,
r. 30.. 20, 23.
r. 3.. 11, 1032,1034, 1035.
XIII
(Default of Appearance). . 173.
VIII. (Renewal of Writ),
r. 1 . . 19, 373, 378, 929, 936.
r. 1..1, 2.
1.2.. 20, 170.
1.2.. 152.
r. 3.. 168, 169.
IX. (Service of Writ of Summons)
r. 4.. 169, 170.
..373.
r. 5.. 168, 169, 170.
1.1.. 11.
1.6.. 166, 169, 170.
1.2.. 4, 5, 11, 13, 173, 378.
1. 7.. 168, 169, 170.
r. 3.. 11, 173.
r. 8.. 168, 109, 171,173.
r. 4..8, 11, 373, 935.
r. 9.. 171, 929.
r. 5.. 11, 444.
r. 10.. 171.
1. 8.. 11, 12, 173.
1. 11.. 174.
r. 9.. 4, 11.
r. 12.. 25, 172, 178.
r. 15.. 19, 173.
XIV.
(Leave to sign Judgment and
X. (Substituted Service). .4, 13, 14, 378.
Defend where Writ specially
XI. (Service out of the Jurisdiction) . .
Indorsed).. 25, 135, 175, 247,
12, 19, 20, 45, 411, 806.
291, 314, 1048, 1836, 2264.
Vol. I. enclx mth p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCCXXVIU
Table of Rules and Orders.
OKDER XIV. — continued.
r. 1..16-I, 821, 828, 2001.
r. 2.. 313.
r. 3.. 169.
r. 6.. 23.
1. 27.. 403.
XV. (Application for an Account) . . 181,
189, 318, 828, 1369, 1836.
r. 1..98, 170, 181, 427, 1078,
1313, 1347, 1350, 1410, 1467,
1826.
r. 2. .170, 313, 1078, 1313, 1350.
XVI. (Parties).. 44.
r. 1.. 49, 242, 602.
r. 2.. 47, 49, 60.
r. 4.. 1095, 1459, 1515.
1. 5.. 1095, 1459.
r. 6.. 1095, 1359, 1424, 1860.
r. 7.. 1095, 1807, 1861.
1. 8.. 1216, 1424, 1860.
1. 9.. 120, 1424, 1510, 1860.
r. 9a.. 127, 1505, 1510.
r. 11. .48, 50, 51, 405, 512, 1033,
1090, 1094, 1096, 1858.
1. 12.. 53, 1358.
r. 14.. 427.
r. 16. .849, 851, 932, 937, 1094.
r. 17.. 928.
r. 18.. 929, 935.
1. 19.. 372, 935, 1216.
1-. 20.. 932.
r. 21.. 104, 933, 939.
r. 22.. 1020, 1021, 1022.
r. 23.. 1020, 1021, 1022.
1. 24.. 1020, 1021, 1022.
1. 25.. 1020, 1021.
r. 26.. 1020, 1022.
r. 28.. 1020, 1023.
1. 29.. 378, 1020, 1022.
1. 31.. 242, 293, 1020, 1023.
r. 32.. 121, 1505, 1515.
(a).. 120, 1510.
(b)..1510.
r. 33.. 1422, 1515.
r. 34.. 1423, 1515.
r. 35.. 1423, 1515.
1. 36.. 1423, 1515.
r. 37.. 1515.
1. 38.. 1423, 1515.
r. 39.. 318, 1423, 1515.
r. 40.. 189, 318, 1420, 1423,
1515.
r. 41.. 318, 351.
r. 43 . . 1423.
1. 45.. 1362.
r. 46. .119, 120, 122—1424, 1515.
r. 47.. 317, 1359.
r. 48.. 8, 19, 20, 21, 164, 2071,
2072, 2080.
rr. 48— 55.. 164, 316.
1. 49.. 24, 53,2072.
r. 50.. 175.
r. 51.. 175.
r. 52. .20, 22, 24, 146, 1095, 2072.
OEDEK XVI. — continued.
r. 53.. 22, 24,2072.
r. 54.. 242.
r. 55.. 20, 870, 1090.
XVII. (Change of Parties by Death)..
116, 148, 2363.
1. 1..115, 119, 849.
1. 2.. 116, 117, 119,284, 849.
r. 3.. 110, 119, 1858.
r. 4.. 114, 115, 117, 118, 119,
284, 414, 850, 1913, 2009.
r. 5.. 117, 119.
r. 6.. 119.
1. 7.. 119.
r. 8.. 119, 148.
r. 9.. 148.
r. 10.. 148, 182.
XVIII. (Joinder of Causes of Action),
1. 2.. 2, 423, 1419, 1422, 1802,
1826, 1835, 1921.
r. 4.. 1094.
r. 5.. 40, 1499.
XVIIIa. (Trial without Pleadings)..
43, 145,
XIX. (Pleading Generally),
r. 2. .512
r. 3!!35, 39, 40, 1318, 1855.
1. 4.. 36, 372.
1. 6.. 41, 1342.
1. 7.. 35, 41.
r. 8.. 42.
r. 9.. 372.
r. 10.. 147, 172, 178, 372, 373,
377, 416.
r. 13.. 162.
1. 17.. 162.
1. 19.. 46, 162.
r. 20.. 162, 2146.
r. 21.. 39, 372.
rr. 22— 25.. 372.
1. 24.. 2145.
r. 27.. 34, 36.
XX. (Statement of Claim),
r. 1 (a).. 135.
(b)..512.
r. 4.. 44, 172.
r. 6.. 1855.
XXI. (Defence and Counter-claim),
r. 6.. 173.
r. 10.. 1318.
r. 11.. 164.
r. 12.. 24, 164.
r. 13.. 164.
1. 15.. 35, 40.
r. 16.. 39.
r. 17.. 251, 1312.
r. 24.. 69.
XXII. (Payment into and out of Court
and Tender).. 227, 245.
r. 1..1841.
r. 12b.. 203, 1507.
r. 17.. 226, 1141, 1621, 2360,
2420.
r. 18a.. 22.5, 1445.
Vol. I. rnd.i with p. 846 ; Vol. II. m'tJi p. 1824.
Table of Rules and Orders.
cccxxix
ORDER
XXIII. (Keply and Subsequent Plead-
ings),
r. 3.. 36, 40.
r. 5..41.
XXIV. (Matters arising Pending the
Action),
1. 2.. 35, 39.
r. 3.. 162, 167, 180.
XXV. (Proceedings in Lieu of Demur-
rer).. 88.
1. 1..38, 383,512.
r. 2.. 38, 138,355, 828.
r. 3.. 38, 828.
1. 4..34, 38, 88.
r. 5.. 164, 165, 374, 383.
XXVI. (Discontinuance),
r. 1. .41, 120, 128, 129, 245, 1030.
r. 3.. 128, 129.
r. 4.. 129, 132.
XXVII. (Default in Pleading), 34, 98,
171, 173, 444, 827.
r. 1.. 133, 135.
r. 2.. 168, 171, 172, 173.
1. 3.. 171, 172, 173.
1. 4.. 166, 171, 172, 173.
r. 5.. 171, 172, 173.
r. 6.. 168, 171, 172.
r. 7.. 168, 171, 172, 173.
r. 8.. 171, 172, 173.
1. 9.. 179.
r. 10.. 171.
r. 11.. 171, 172, 176, 177.
r. 12.. 176, 177, 180.
1. 13.. 40, 41, 172.
1. 14.. 177.
r. 15.. 136, 138.
XXVIII. (Amendment), 44, 45, 516.
r. 1.. 44, 738.
1.4.. 44.
r. 6.. 44, 356.
r. 7.. 46.
r. 9.. 45.
r. 10.. 45.
1. 11.. 125, 174, 187, 188, 203,
396.
r. 12.. 45.
XXX. (Summons for Directions), 24,
28, 42, 119, 135, 145, 171,
172, 173, 178, 361.
r. 1..25, 14.5, 316,363.
r. 2.. 25, 145, 147, 166.
r. 5.-25,26,28,377.
r. 7.. 25.
r. 8.. 25, 135, 171.
r. 12.. 145.
XXXI. (Discovery and Inspection) . .
497.
r. 1..54, 63, 65, 83, 1317.
X. 2.. 54, 63, 64.
r. 3.. 63, 68.
r. 5.. 54, 63, 65, 88.
r. 6.. 63, 69,88.
1. 7.. 63, 68, 83.
ORDER XXXI. — continued.
r. 8.. 63, 68.
r. 9.. 63, 68.
r. 10.. 54, 03, G9.
r. 11..54, 63, 69.
I. 12..54, 63, 70, 71, 76, 382,
933.
r. 13.. 54, 63.
I. 14.. 54, 63, 74, 76.
r. 15..58, 63, 75, 79, 155, 293.
r. 16.. 63, 75.
1. 17.. 63, 73, 75, 80, 155.
1. 18.. 58, 63, 73, 75, 79, 80.
r. 19.. 63, 80, 87.
r. 19a.. 79, 80.
1. 20.. 63, 71, 81, 88.
r. 21.. 63, 97, 133, 135, 178,410,
427, 428, 433, 434, 444.
r. 22. .63, 98, 410, 416, 433, 444.
L. 23.. 98.
1.24.. 63, 99.
1. 26.. 63, 227.
r. 27.. 64.
r. 28.. 64, 66.
r. 29.. 65, 933.
XXXII. (Admissions),
r. 1.. 162, 179.
r. 2.. 141, 162.
r. 3.. 162.
r. 4..141, 163, 179.
r. 6.. 178, 181, 329, 377, 828,
1083, 1314, 2094, 2162.
r. 7 . . 162.
r. 9.. 162.
XXXIII. (Issues, Inquiries, and Ac-
counts), 189, 318.
r. 2.-189,319, 1313, 1316, 1350,
1420, 1508, 2162-
I- 3.. 1314.
r- 4.. 319, 1316.
r. 4a.. 1315.
r. 5.. 319, 1316, 1340-
1. 6.. 1350.
1. 7.. 319, 796, 1312, 1350.
r. 8..319, 1122, 1318, 1882,
1904, 1907.
r- 9.-319,1461.
XXXIV. (Special Case). .356, 496.
r. 1.. 356, 357.
r- 2 -.131, 355,356.
r. 3.. 357.
1.4.. 355, 357.
r. 5.-357.
r. 6.. 357.
1. 8.. 164, 356, 357.
r. 9.. 368, 370.
r. 10.. 368.
r. 11.. 370.
r. 12.-370.
XXXV. (Proceedings in District Regis-
tries),
1. 1 . - 173-
r. 2- -173, 243.
r- 3-.173-
Yol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol.'JI. with p. 1824-
cccxxx
Table of Rules and Orders.
OKDEE XXXV. — continued.
r. 4.. 174, 243.
r. 5.. 176.
r. 6.. 174, 313.
1. 6 (a).. 174, 243, 313.
r. 7.. 174, 313.
r. 8.. 174.
r. 9.. 174, 243.
r. 10.. 174.
r. 11.. 174.
r. 12.. 174.
r. 13.. 175, 794, 1313.
r. 14.. 175.
r. 16..175, 791, 794.
r. 17.. 175.
r. 20.. 175.
r. 21 . . 174.
XXXVI. (Trial).. 148, 497.
r. 1..146, 367, 1524.
r. 1 (a).. 146, 367.
r. 2.. 145.
1. 3..145, 360, 640.
r. 4.. 146, 360.
r. 5.. 360.
1. 6.. 146, 360.
1. 7.. 360, 402.
r. 7 (a).. 370.
r. 8.. 145, 177, 359,360.
r. 9.. 363.
r. 11.. 145.
r. 12. .134, 135, 136, 138, 364.
r. 13.. 145, 363.
r. 14.. 145, 147.
r. 15.. 145.
1. 16.. 135, 147.
r. 19.. 145, 364.
r. 21.. 181, 182, 314, 351.
r. 22 (b)..174.
r. 26.. 360.
r. 30.. 148.
r. 31 . . 137, 148, 364.
r. 32.. 136, 138,148,364.
r. 33.. 136, 138, 148, 364.
1. 34.. 145, 364.
r. 35.. 439.
r. 39.. 351, 363.
r. 41.. 165, 166, 363.
r. 42.. 165, 364.
1. 43.. 316.
r. 44..316, 359, 362.
r. 45.. 316, 403.
r. 47 (b).. 316, 403.
r. 48.. 316, 404.
r. 49.. 316, 404.
r. 50. .62, 71, 316, 386, 387, 404.
r. 51.. 316, 405.
r. 52.. 316, 387, 388,405.
r. 52a.. 388.
r. 53.. 316, 405.
X. 54 .. 167, 316, 353, 385, 388, 405.
r. 55.. 3 16, 385, 388,405.
r. 55 (a).. 388.
r. 55(b).. 388, 407.
1-. 55 (c)..62, 388, 404,405.
OEDBB
XXXVII. (Evidence),
r. 1..100, 104, 112, 150, 152,
352, 894, 1419.
r. 3.. 106, 1217.
r. 5..100, 101, 104, 112, 374.
1. 6 (a).. 107.
r. 7.. 71.
r. 9.. 415.
r. 10.. 112.
r. 11.. 112.
1. 13.. 102, 112,315.
r. 14.. 112.
r. 15.. 112.
r. 16.. 112.
r. 18.. 112.
J.. 20.. 112.
I. 21.. 99, 105.
r. 22.. 99, 105.
r. 23.. 99.
1. 24.. 99.
r. 25 . . 99
rr. 26^34.. 394, 404.
r. 28.. 319.
r. 35.. 108, 109.
1. 36.. 109.
1. 37.. 108.
r. 38.. 108.
r. 39.. 102.
rr. 39— 50.. 112.
XXXVIII. (Affidavits and Depositions),
1.1.. 100, 319—374.
i.. 3.. 109, 161,249, 836.
r. 4..110.
r. 5.. 110.
r. 6..111, 228, 229.
r. 7.. 109.
r. 8.. 109.
1. 11.. 320.
r. 13.. 109.
r. 14.. HI.
r. 16.. 110, 1942,2287.
r. 17.. 110.
1. 19.. 514.
1. 19 (a).. 1189.
1. 20.. 319.
r. 21.. 319.
r. 25.. 104.
r. 26.. 104.
r. 27.. 104.
1. 28.. 105.
1.29.. 105.
r. 30.. 295.
XXXIX. (Motion for New Trial),
r. 8.. 158.
XL. (Motion for Judgment),
r. 1..177.
r. 2..179, 386, 287, 406.
r. 6.. 387, 406.
r. 7.. 177, 368,269,406.
1. 8..177, 368, 369.
r. 9 . . 180.
r. 10.. 180, 351, 788.
1. 11.. 1121, 1784.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Rules and Orders.
cccxxxi
ORDER
XLI. (Entry of Judgment), 186, 773.
r. 1.. 186, 2001.
r. 3.. 186, 187,406,511.
r. 4..172, 186,406.
r. 5. .98, 208, 272, 408, 410, 423,
434, 435, 443, 448, 466, 511,
769, 1077, 1826.
r. 6.. 186.
r. 7.. 186, 386.
XLII. (Execution), 183, 306.
r. 1.. 416, 438.
r. 3.. 344, 408.
1. 4. .339, 340, 349, 409, 443, 761.
r. 5.. 344, 409.
r. 6. .340, 410, 424, 425, 443.
r. 7..272, 344, 410, 424, 425,
429, 430, 437, 443, 521, 769,
773.
r. 8..413, 414, 671.
r. 9.-413,414.
r. 11.. 413.
1. 12.. 413.
1. 13.. 413.
r. 14.. 413.
r. 15.. 418.
1. 16.. 413, 419.
1. 17.. 129, 299, 410, 416, 418.
r. 18.. 413.
r. 20.. 413.
r. 21.. 413.
X. 22..413, 414, 482.
1. 23..119, 413, 414, 472.
r. 24. .272, 408, 483, 521, 2000.
r. 26.. 408, 437, 769.
r. 28.. 414, 438.
i. 31..412, 434, 443.
r. 32.. 63, 414, 415, 435, 477.
r. 33.. 63, 415.
r. 33 (a).. 487.
r. 34.. 63, 415, 819.
XLIII. (Writs of Fieri Facias, Elegit,
and Sequestration), . . 183.
r. 1..418.
r. 2.. 408, 418.
1. 3.. 408, 418,440.
r. 4.. 440.
r. 5.. 408, 418.
r. 6.. 409, 410, 413, 442, 443,
448, 2217.
r. 7.. 411, 413, 443.
rr. 8— 15.. 422.
XLIV. (Attachment), 183, 410.
r. 1..430, 463.
r. 2. .98, 306, 377, 409, 414, 425,
430, 433, 434, 2217.
XLV. (Attachment of Debts), 183, 408,
478.
r. 1..478, 479, 480, 856.
I. 2.. 478, 479.
r. 3.. 483, 2001.
r. 7.. 478, 481.
1. 8.. 478.
r. 9.. 478.
OBDEK
XLVI. (Charging Orders, Distringas,
and Stop Orders). .716.
r. 1.. 47 1,472.
r. 1 (a).. 412, 474.
r. 1 (b).. 412, 474.
r. 2.. 472, 716.
r. 3.. 472, 473.
r. 3 (a).. 472.
1.4.. 472, 716.
r. 5.. 472, 716.
r. 6.. 472, 716.
1. 7.. 472, 716.
r. 8.. 472, 716.
r. 9.. 472.
r. 10.. 472, 716.
1. 11.. 472.
r. 12.. 486, 489.
r. 13.. 486.
XLVIl. (Writ of Possession), 344.
r. 1.. 409, 423, 1826.
r. 2.. 409, 417, 423, 768, 1826.
XLVIII. (Writ of Delivery),
r. 2.. 410, 424.
XLVIIIa. (Actions against Firms), 12,
412, 427.
1. 1..12, 39, 98,412.
r. 2..12, 61, 131.
r. 3.. 412.
r. 4.. 11, 411.
1. 5.. 11, 411.
r. 6.. 11, 173,411.
r. 7.. 11, 23, 173.
r. 8.. 173, 177,411,412.
1. 9.. 183, 478.
1. 10.. 411.
r. 11.. 11, 12.
XLIX. (Transfers and Consolidation),
792.
1. 1..790, 792,793, 2409.
r. 2.. 1051, 2409.
r. 3.. 790, 792, 2409.
r. 5.. 791— 792, 798.
1. 6.. 791, 792.
1-. 7.. 792.
r. 8.. 792.
L. (Interlocutory Orders as to Manda-
mus, Injunctions, or Interim
Preservations of Property,
&c.),
r. 1..513.
1. 2.. 326, 329, 377, 511, 513.
r. 3..76, 99, 377, 513, 572, 640.
r. 4..99, 572, 625.
r. 5.. 365, 572.
r. 6..99, 377, 512, 513, 516, 737,
738.
r. 9.. 1444.
1. 10-. .331.
r. 11.. 511.
r. 12.. 512.
r. 15 (a).. 759.
1. 16.. 725, 726, 741.
r. 16 (a).. 741.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
cccxxxu
Table of Rules and Orders.
OBDEB L. — contimied.
I. 17..725, 726, 741.
l: 18.. 725, 773, 774.
r. 19.. 773.
r. 20.. 773.
r. 21 :773.
r. 22.. 773.
LI. (Sale by the Court),
r. 1.. 328, 344, 1371, 1970.
r. 1 (a).. 324, 333, 1797, 1802,
1806, 1843, 1844, 1846.
r. 1 (b)..328, 333, 1970.
1. 2.. 329, 1371.
r. 2 (a).. 798.
r. 3.. 324, 329, 1371.
r. 3 (a).. 335, 339, 341, 342.
1. 4.. 330.
r. 5.. 330.
r. 6.. 334.
1. 6 (a).. 334.
1. 7.. 320, 329.
r. 8.. 320.
r. 9.. 329, 371.
r. 10.. 329.
1. 11.. 329.
r. 12.. 329.
r. 13.. 329.
LII. (Motions and other Applications)
..825.
1-. 1.. 376, 397.
r. 2.. 377, 437, 513.
r. 3.. 377, 513, 844.
r. 4.. 379, 434, 435, 443.
1. 5.. 147, 378, 820.
r. 6.. 377.
r. 7.. 377.
r. 8.. 373, 378, 511.
I. 9.. 378, 511.
r. 11.. 409, 437.
r. 13.. 511.
r. 14.. 1,2, 6,44, 98.
r. 15.. 187.
1. 16.. 373.
1. 17.. 373.
r. 18.. 2363.
r. 24.. 1071.
r. 25.. 273.
r. 26.-271,287.
LIIIa. (Procedure in Actions for In-
fringements of Patents),
r. 11.. 2323.
r. 12.. 2323.
r. 13.. 643.
i. 14 et seq.. .641.
r. 18.. 642, 643.
r. 22.. 643, 650, 652, 653.
r. 23 (b)..2322.
LIV. (Applications and Proceedings in
Chambers).. 309. "
r. 1..309.
r. 2.. 309.
r. 3.. 309, 316.
b..316.
C..316.
OKDBK LIV, r. 3. — continued,
d..316.
e..316.
f..316.
r. 5.. 309.
r. 6.. 309.
r. 7..309, 106L
1. 8.. 309.
1. 9.. 309, 313.
r. 9 (a).. 309, 313.
r. 12.. 313, 362, 473, 513, 786,
793, 896.
r. 23.. 820.
1. 28.. 376.
LIVa. (Declaration on Originating
Summons), 312.
r. 1..164, 1483, 1855.
LIVb. (Proceedings under Trustee Act,
1893).. 310, 1150, 1151.
r. 1 . . 1214.
r. 2.. 1214, 1215.
r. 4.. 950, 1152, 1153.
(l)(a^-d)..H53.
(2) (a— c).. 1153.
r. 4a.. 1173, 1215.
r. 6.. 310, 311.
LIVc. (Life Assurance Companies (Pay-
ment into Court) Act, 1896). .
206, 1161.
r. 1..1161.
r. 2.. 1161.
i. 3.. 1161.
r. 7.. 1161.
LV. (Chambers in the Chancery Divi-
sion).. 309, 769, 1214, 1349,
1350, 1421.
r. 1 . . 1, 1309.
1. 1 (a).. 292, 309, 320.
r. 2..1, 309, 889, 1156, 2381.
(1).. 309, 310.
(2).. 310, 2361, 2381,2382.
(3).. 310.
(4).. 310.
(5).. 310.
(6)..310, 2413, 2420.
(7).. 310, 2360, 2362, 2367,
2382, 2458.
(8).. 310, 2218.
(9).. 311, 985, 988.
(10).. 311, 1016.
(11).. 311, 2448, 2449, 2450,
2453.
(12).. 311, 964.
(13).. 311, 951.
(14).. 311, 332.
(15).. 260, 272, 275, 278,
280, 311.
(16).. 311, 353.
(17).. 311, 357.
(18).. 311.
r. 3..1, 270, 311, 312, 313, 315,
791, 792, 828, 1121, 1150,
1151, 1155, 1347, 1359,
1362, 1420, 1422, 1423.
Vol. I. end.i with p. 846 j Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Rules and Orders.
cccxxxui
OEDEE LV. r. 3. — continued.
(a).. 311, 1420.
(b)..311, 1420.
(c)..311, 1420.
(d).. 206, 311, 1083, 1421.
(e)..311, 1150, 1151, 1421.
(f)..311, 1421.
(g)..311, 1151,4121.
r. 4.. 270, 312, 313, 791, 792,
1121, 1360, 1362, 1420,
1421, 1422, 1423.
(a).. 312, 1421.
(b)..312, 1421.
(o)..312, 1421.
r. 4a.. 1362, 1422.
r. 5.. 313, 1359, 1362, 1423.
(a)..l, 313, 329, 1836.
(b)..313, 329, 1836.
r. 9 (b)..758, 1993,2003.
r. 10.. 1350, 1418.
1. 10 (a).. 1413, 1418.
I. 11.. 792.
r. 13.. 313, 1264, 1278.
r. 13 (a)..l, 310, 311, 312, 344,
1151, 1156, 1163, 1191,
1214.
r. 14.. 313, 1278.
r. 15.. 13, 314, 1360.
r. 15 (a).. 1660.
1. 16..96, 315, 896.
r. 17.. 315.
r. 19.. 315, 557, 1316.
I. 25.. 951.
1. 26.. 1016.
r. 27.. 1423.
r. 29.. 314, 375.
r. 32.. 318, 1316.
1. 33.. 319, 1316, 1508, 1515.
1. 34.. 319, 344.
r. 35.. 319, 1515, 1808.
r. 36.. 319.
L. 37.. 319.
r. 40. .296, 317, 319, 1029, 1425,
1455.
r. 41.. 296, 319.
1. 44.. 1350, 1379,1595.
rr. 44^59. .320.
r. 45.. 1352, 1375.
r. 46.. 1375.
X. 46 (a).. 1375.
r. 48 . . 1375.
r. 49.. 1375.
r. 50.. 1375.
1. 61.. 1375.
r. 52.. 1375.
r. 53.. 1375.
1. 54.. 1375.
r. 55.. 1375.
r. 56.. 1375.
i. 57.. 1375, 1379, 1595.
r. 58.. 320, 1375, 1380.
r. 59.. 1376.
1. 62.. 1345, 1350, 1369.
r. 63.. 1345, 1369.
OBDEE LV. — continued.
I. 64.. 1345, 1445.
r 65.. 321, 334
r. 66.. 321.
r. 66 (a).. 321, 334.
1. 67.. 334.
r. 68.. 321, 1317.
r. 69.. 315, 321.
1. 70..206, 321, 322, 334.
r. 71..321, 322, 334.
r. 72.-314,353.
r. 73. .320.
LVII. (interpleader).. 492.
r. 1.. 316, 493, 500.
r. 2.. 494, 495.
1. 3.. 495.
r. 4..496.
r. 5.. 496, 500.
r. 6.. 490, 496.
r. 7.. 490, 496.
1. 8..490, 496, 497, 499.
r. 9.. 496, 497.
r. 10.. 491, 496.
r. 11.. 497.
1. 12.. 420, 500,501, 1946.
r. 13.. 496, 497.
r. 14.. 497.
r. 15.. 498.
1. 16.. 494, 501.
r. 16 (a).. 501.
r. 17.. 503.
LVIII. (Appeals to the Court of
Appeal), 812, 825, 827, 829.
1. 1..376, 816, 825, 826.
r. 2.. 826, 827.
r. 3.. 826, 827, 829, 830, 833.
r. 4..150, 372, 827, 829, 830,
835, 836.
1. 5.. 819, 838.
r. 6..812, 826, 837, 838.
r. 7.. 826, 837.
r. 8.. 832, 833.
1. 9..1, 829, 830.
r. 10.. 826.
r. 11.. 299, 834.
r. 11 (6).. 295.
1. 12.. 295, 834.
r. 13.. 835.
r. 15. .30, 31, 320, 813, 822, 823,
827, 829, 830, 831, 832, 838.
1. 15 (a).. 830.
r. 16.. 133, 839, 842.
r. 17.. 372, 825, 839.
r. 18.. 376, 825,839.
LIX. (Divisional Courts),
r. 8 (a).. 787.
LX. (Officers),
1.3.. 207.
r. 4.. 742, 781.
LXI. (Central Office), 2002.
r. 1..2002.
1'. 1 (a).. 2002.
r. 7.. 152.
r. 8.. 190.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
CCCXXXIV
Table of Rules and Orders.
ORDEB LXI. — continued.
r. 10.. 2408, 2411.
1. 11.. 2408.
1. 14.. 741, 775.
r. 16.. 162, 163, 372.
r. 17.. 372.
r. 18.. 264.
r. 19.. 372.
r. 22.. 2002.
1. 27.. 316.
1. 28.. 57.
r. 29.. 56.
r. 30.. 56, 80,200, 207,485.
r. 33.. 465.
LXII. (Registrars of the Chancery
Division), 184.
r. 2.. 125, 172, 186, 187,435.
1.4.. 511.
r. 5.. 511.
r. 6.. 511.
r. 11.. 188.
1. 12.. 184.
r. 14 (b) . . 140, 141, 149.
{c)..141, 149.
(d)..141, 149.
1. 15..288, 289, 297.
1. 16.. 202.
r. 18.. 372, 373.
LXIII. (Sittings and Vacations),
r. 13.. 322.
1'. 14.. 322.
LXIV. (Time),
r. 1..208.
r. 2.-208,373,378, 830.
r. 3.. 208, 373.
1. 5.. 46.
r. 7. .1, 2, 46, 104, 145, 397, 820,
830, 832.
r. 8.. 46, 391.
r. 11.. 11.
I. 13.. 170, 413, 1920.
r. 14.. 397.
r. 14a.. 396.
LXV. (Costs), 287.
r. 1 . . 135, 240, 242, 246, 247,
364, 436, 517, 838, 1878,
2407.
r. 2.. 251, 273.
i: 5.. 148, 1061.
r. 6.. 26, 28.
1. 6 (a).. 28.
I. 7.. 26, 28.
1. 8.. 246.
r. 9.. 246, 287, 820.
r. 10.. 246.
r. 11.. 237, 248, 1061, 1455.
1'. 12..247, 248, 291, 400.
1. 13.. 969.
r. 14.. 235, 252, 1049.
(a).. 1380, 1452, 1810.
(b)..1159, 1160, 1450, 1515,
(c)..1450, 1454.
(d)..1361, 1454.
r. 18.. 270.
oiiDBE LXV. — continued.
I. 19(b).. 187, 270.
(c).. 269, 270.
(d)..270.
(h)..270.
r. 20.. 321.
r. 21.. 321.
r. 22.. 293, 330.
i.. 23.. 245.
1. 24.. 1278.
r. 25.. 1278.
r. 26a.. 273.
r. 27.. 246.
(1).. 289, 295.
(2).. 295.
(3).. 289.
(4).. 289, 298.
(5).. 289.
(6).. 295.
(8).. 249, 296.
(9).. 293.
(10)..288, 289, 294.
(11).. 289, 297.
(12).. 289, 320.
(13).. 320.
(15).. 289.
(16).. 292, 320.
(17).. 79, 293.
(18).. 55, 60, 61,79,81,290.
(19)..374, 1160,2362, 2393,
2401.
(20).. 109, 161, 236, 248,
249, 293, 653.
(21)..235, 249, 252, 653.
(22).. 249.
(23)..298, 320, 374, 379.
(24).. 293, 320.
(25).. 270.
(26).. 285.
(27).. 270, 289.
(29)..246, 290, 291.
(29a).. 269.
(31).. 47, 289.
(32).. 47, 289.
(33).. 242.
(34).. 242, 271.
(35).. 242, 271.
(36)..289, 290, 293, 296.
(37).. 242, 246,271.
(38).. 271, 288.
(38a).. 249, 288, 293.
(38b).. 269.
(39).. 286, 287.
(40).. 286.
(41)..174, 243, 285, 286.
(42).. 286.
(43).. 242.
(44).. 292.
(45).. 289, 290.
(46).. 291.
(47).. 290, 291.
(48).. 295.
(60).. 52.
(51).. 289.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Rules and Orders.
cccxxxv
OEDEE LXV. r. 27 — continued
(52).. 292.
(55).. 269.
(57).. 271.
(58).. 270.
LXVI. (Notices : Printing, Paper,
Copies, Office Copies,
Minutes, &c.),
1. 5.. 295.
r. 6.. 295.
r. 7.. 295.
(o)..290.
(e)..290.
(j).. 506, 514.
(k)..109.
LXVII. (Service of Orders, &e.),
1. 2.. 10.
r. 4..45, 178, 378,434,738.
r. 5..19, 416, 444.
r. 6.. 4, 5, 9, 10.
1. 8.. 352, 379.
r. 9.. 19, 173.
LXVIII. (Crown, Revenue and Matri-
monial Cases),
r. 2.. 356.
LXIX. (Arrest under the Debtors' Act,
1869).. 505.
LXX. (Effect of Non-compliance),
r. 1 . . 18, 20, 260.
r. 2.. 18, 20.
LXXI. (Interpretation of Terms). .413.
r. 1..408.
LXXII. (General Rules),
r. 2.. 151, 360,363,423.
BOARD OF TRADE RULES,
TRAMWAYS ACT, 1870.
r. 20.. 2424.
r. 22.. 2419, 2424, 2425.
1. 23.. 2424.
r. 24.. 2425.
r. 26.. 2425.
CHANCERY FUNDS RULES, 1872
..1154.
CHANCERY FUNDS AMENDED
ORDERS, 1874.
SETTLED ESTATES ACT ORDERS,
1878.. 1719 et segi.
r.
4..
1721, 1722, 1726.
1.
5..
1719, 1720.
r.
6..
1719, 1720.
r.
7..
1720.
1.
8..
1719, 1720.
r.
9..
1719, 1720.
r.
10
.1719,
1720.
r.
11
.1720.
r.
12
.1719,
1720.
r
13
.1722.
I
14
.1722.
r
15
.1722.
r
17
.1723.
r
19
.1721,
1722,
1725
r
23
. 1725.
r
24
.1723,
1725.
r
25
.1725,
1727,
1729
r. 16.. 207.
CHANCERY FUNDS LUNACY
ORDERS, 1874.
RULES UNDER THE SETTLED
LAND ACT, 1882.
r. 2.. 1747.
r. 4.. 1747.
r. 5.. 1747.
r. 6.. 1747.
r. 8.. 1767.
r. 10.. 1770.
r. 11.. 1770.
1. 12.. 1770.
r. 13.. 1767, 1770.
rr. 14^17.. 1748.
BANKRUPTCY RULES, 1883.
rr. 9 et seg. . . 1839.
r. 58.. 1409.
1. 265.. 409.
RULES UNDER GUARDIANSHIP
OF INFANTS ACT, 1880.
rr. 2— 6.. 955.
r. 9.. 955.
1.. 10.. 956.
CROWN OFFICE RULES, 1886.
r. 7.. 785.
I. 629.. 787.
rr. 230— 232.. 787.
RULES UNDER SOLICITORS
ACT, 1888.
rt. 4, 5, 6.. 204.
rr. 5, 6.. 1069.
r. 8.. 1069, 1070.
1. 10.. 1069.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
cccxxxvi TaUe of Rules and Orders.
RULES IN LUNACY, 1890.
r. 2.. 204.
1. 59.. 204.
1. 116.. 204.
r. 121.. 204.
RULES UNDER THE CHARITABLE
TRUSTS (RECOVERY) ACT, 1891.
rr. 1—5.. 1284.
RULES IN LUNACY, 1892
..1189, 1219.
RULES IN LUNACY, 1893
..1219.
JUDICIAL TRUSTEE RULES, 1897.
r. 2.. 1234, 1238.
1'. 3.. 1234, 1238.
t. 3 (3).. 1235.
r. 4.. 1234, 1235, 1238.
r. 5.. 1234, 1240.
r. 6.. 1234, 1235, 1240.
1. 7.. 1235, 1237, 1238.
1. 8..124L
r. 9.. 1235, 1239.
r. 9 (8).. 1240.
r. 10.. 1241.
r. 10 ((1)— (8)).. 1241.
r. 10a.. 1241.
r. 11.. 1123, 1241.
r. 12.. 1238.
r. 13.. 1239.
1. 14.. 1239.
1. 17.. 1242.
r. 17 ((1)— (6)).. 1242.
r. 18.. 1242.
r. 20.. 1240.
r. 21.. 1240.
1. 22.. 1240.
r. 23.. 1240.
r. 24.. 1240.
r. 24(1).. 1243.
r. 25.. 1240.
r. 25 (2).. 1235.
r. 27 . . 1239.
I. 28.. 1243.
r. 29.. 1235, 1237, 1238.
r. 30.. 1235, 1237, 1238.
r. 31. .1235, 1237, 1238, 1239.
r. 33.. 1239.
LAND TRANSFER ACT RULES,
1898.
r. 83.. 2049.
r. 108.. 2049.
r. 110.. 1920.
1. 234.. 1353.
JUDICIAL TRUSTEE RULE (APRIL)
1900, TREASURY REGULATIONS
1236—1241.
IT. 3— 5.. 1236.
LAND TRANSFER RULES, 1903.
r. 130.. 2050.
r. 301.. 2029.
SUPREME COURT FUNDS RULES
1905.
S.C.F.R. . .205, 224, 226, 1153, 1443,
2356, 2414.
1. 2.. 202.
r. 3.. 200, 202, 204, 209, 213,
1153.
r. 5..196, 202, 203, 224, 342.
1. 6.. 202, 224.
r. 6 (3).. 2429.
r. 7.. 224.
r. 9.. 224.
I. 10.. 202, 224.
1. 12.. 224.
rr. 13— 16.. 224.
r. 16.. 1392.
r. 17.. 224.
r. 18..220, 224, 901.
r. 19.. 212, 224.
L. 20.. 224, 233.
1.21.. 224.
1.22.. 202.
r. 23.. 186, 202.
r. 24.. 186, 187,202.
r. 25.. 203.
r. 26.. 203.
1. 27.. 187, 203.
r. 29.. 196, 205.
r. 30.. 205, 1154.
r. 31. .200, 201, 205, 2428, 2429.
1. 35.. 205.
1. 36.. 205, 208.
r. 38.. 205.
r. 39.. 205, 2359.
r. 40.. 205, 2449, 2452.
r. 41.. 205, 206, 227, 1154, 1158.
1. 41 ((a)— (e)).. 1154.
1.41 (B)..1152.
r. 41 (C)..116L
r. 48.. 225, 229.
r. 52.. 216, 225.
rr. 55— 60.. 225.
1. 61.. 225, 899.
r. 62.. 225, 898, 1444, 1445.
r. 63.. 898.
r. 63 (a).. 225.
1. 63 (b)..210.
rr. 64, 65.. 225.
r. 66.. 224.
r. 67(a)..214, 233, 244.
1. 69.-196,226.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
Table of Rules and Orders. cccxxxvii
EME COURT FUNDS RULES,
PATENT RULES, 1908.
1905. — continued.
..2314,2321.
I. 70.. 226, 227.
1.9.. 2320.
r. 71.. 207.
rr. 60, 67.. 2316.
r. 72 (a).. 220, 226.
rr. 68— 74.. 2317.
r. 73.. 227, 1154.
rr. 75— 77.. 2323.
1.74.. 1154.
rr. 78— 81.. 2324.
r. 75.. 226.
rr. 82— 94.. 2318.
r. 76.. 207, 227.
Sched. IL..2312.
1. 77 . .227, 2359, 2419, 2425, 2453.
1-. 78.. 227, 228.
r. 79.. 201, 227.
TRADE MARK RULES, 1908
r. 80.. 227.
2328.
rr. 81— 85.-227,228.
r. 87.. 231.
r. 12.. 2328.
r. 96.. 203, 1402.
rr. 51— 61.. 2329.
r. 99..203, 469, 474, 762.
1-. 100.. 203.
r. 101.. 203, 220.
WINDING-UP RULES, 1909.
r. 102.. 203.
r. 103.. 232.
r. 6.. 2426.
TRADE MARK RULES, 1906.
rr. 17— 50.. 2328.
LAND TRANSFER RULES, 1908.
r. 301 (a).. 2029.
(b)..2029.
(c)..2029.
1. 16.. 2426.
r. 19.. 2426, 2427.
r. 23.. 2426.
r. 42.. 798.
RULES UNDER THE ASSURANCE
COMPANIES ACT, 1909.
1. 4 ((a)— ("))•• 2425.
Vol. I. ends with p. 846 ; Vol. II. with p. 1824.
VOL. I.
( cccxxxix )
INTKODUCTION.
OP JUDGMENTS AND OEDEES GENEEALLY.
• Under the concurrent but to some extent conflicting systems of
Law and Equity, as administered previously to the Judicature
Acts, the forms of judgments at Common Law and of decrees in
Chancery differed widely. Judgments at Common Law were
uniform, simple, and invariable, and being hmited by the form of
the writ in the action to the recovery of land, goods, or money,
could not conveniently be moulded so as to meet cases in which
conditions were to be imposed or various interests dealt with.
Decrees in Chancery, from the more comprehensive nature of the
reUef given, the number of the parties interested, the various
claims asserted, circumstances to be dealt with, and questions to
be finally determined, were, as a rule, necessarily more compli-
cated. But notwithstanding the greater pliability of equitable
jurisdiction and procedure, the forms of the decrees and orders by
which the Court gave effect to its determinations were generally
well established and, for the most part, uniform.
The great utility of consulting them, and the advantages of
adhering to the settled and well understood forms and language of
decrees, have been repeatedly adverted to by some of the most
eminent Judges in Equity : see Marriott v. The Anchor Beversion-
ary Co., 3 D. P. & J. 177 ; Sherwin v. Shakspear, 5 D. M. & G. 534 ;
Mills V. Slater, 8 Ves. 303 ; Cricket v. Dolby, 3 Ves. 13 ; Willan v.
Willan, 19 Ves. 592; Holland v. Prior, 1 M. & K. 246 ; Blackford
v. Davis, 4 Ch. 804, at p. 308 ; Bees v. Metropolitan Board oj
Works, 14 Ch. D. 372, 374 ; Be New Zealand Trust and Loan Co.,
[1898] 1 Ch. 804 ; Be Gregson, [1893] 3 Ch. 233, at p. 237.
Under the Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66 ;
38 & 89 Vict. c. 77), the same jurisdiction to pronounce judgments
and orders — ^in which terms, unless there is anything in the subject
or context repugnant thereto, are to be included decrees and rules
cccxl Introduction.
(36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 100) — ^in such form as may be required for
doing justice between the parties, and determining all questions
raised, has been conferred upon every branch of the Supreme
Court ; the result being that although, for the more convenient
despatch of business, some kinds of Utigation are assigned to par-
ticular divisions, law and equity are now administered in every
branch of the Court. And having regard to the direction that in
all cases of conflict or variance between the rules of Equity and of
Common Law, the rules of Equity shall prevail — Judicature Act,
1873, s. 25 (11) — ^it is apprehended that the Eorms contained in
this work have lost no portion of their value and importance, but
have rather become more generally appUcable than heretofore.
Since the Judicature Acts, the expression " decree," having lost
its distinctive meaning, has been superseded in use by the more
comprehensive word " judgment '" ; but is still properly and use-
fully retained in reference to the pre-existing procedure.
The following classes of business have been assigned to the
Chancery Division of the High Court by the Judicature Act, 1878,
s. 34, viz. : —
(1.) All causes and matters pending in the Court of Chancery at
the commencement of the Acts.
(2.) All causes and matters to be commenced after the com-
mencement of the Acts, under any Act of Parliament by which
exclusive jurisdiction in respect to such causes, &c., has been given
to the Court of Chancery, or to any Judge thereof, except County
Court appeals. Under this head are included proceedings under
the Lunacy Acts, the jurisdiction in respect of lunatics of the
Lords Justices of Appeal in Chancery at the commencement of the
Acts being reserved to them by the Judicature Act, 1875, s. 7,
which latter section, however, was repealed by the Lunacy Act,
1890 (53 Vict. c. 5), s. 342, but with a provision that that repeal
should not affect any jurisdiction estabUshed, confirmed, or trans-
ferred by any enactment repealed by that Act (a), and under the
Solicitors Acts, the Trustee Acts, the Settled Land Acts, the Lands
(a) By the Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 Vict. c. 5), s. 108, the jurisdiction of the Judge
in Lunacy under that Act is to be exercised either by the Lord Chancellor alone or
jointly with any one or more of such Judges of the Supreme Court as may for the
time being be entrusted by Sign Manual with the care and commitment of the
custody of the persons and estates of lunatics, or by any one or more of such Judges
as aforesaid. The Judges so entrusted are the ordinary Lords Justices of Appeal,
who take lunacy work by rotation. By the Lunacy Act, 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. V. c. 40),
the powers of the Judge in Lunacy to make such vesting and other orders as are
in ss. 135 — 143 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, mentioned, except so far as they relate to
lunatic mortgagees not being also trustees, are transferred to the High Court.
Introduction. cccxli
Clauses Acts, and the various Acts more particularly noticed in
the course of this -work.
(3.) All causes and matters for the administration of the estates
of deceased persons ; dissolution of partnerships, or taking partner-
ship or other accounts ; redemption or foreclosure of mortgages ;
raising portions or other charges on land ; sale and distribution of
the proceeds of property subject to any hen or charge ; execution
of trusts, charitable or private ; rectification, or setting aside, or
cancelling of deeds or other written instruments ; specific perform-
ance of contracts between vendors and purchasers of real estates,
including contracts for leases ; partition and sale of real estates ;
wardship of infants and the care of infants' estates.
By the Judicature Act, 1873, s. 100, " cause " includes any
action, suit, or other original proceeding between a plaintiff and a
defendant, and any criminal proceedings by the Crown (which;
by s. 34, are assigned to the Queen's Bench Division) ; " smt "
includes action ; " action " means a civil proceeding commenced
by writ or in such other manner as may be prescribed by Rules of
Court, but not a criminal proceeding by the Crown ; and " matter "
includes every proceeding in the Court not in a cause. An
originatmg summons under 0. LV, 3, has been held to be an
action : In re Fawsitt, Galland v. Burton, 30 Ch. D. 231 ; Gee v.
Bell, 35 Ch. D. 160.
In judgments in Equity, the final working out of the particular
question to be determined, or further consideration generally, is
frequently adjourned. It is in many cases necessary, before the
rights of the parties can be finally determined, to make inqmries as
to facts, or parties, to take accounts between the parties, or take
the accounts of the estate to be administered, or to get in the per-
sonal estate, and seU the real estate. In such cases the usual
course has been to direct that the further consideration of the cause
be adjourned ; and when the inquiries have been answered, or the
accounts taken, and the Master's certificate showing the result of
such inquiries or accounts has been filed, the action is brought on
again. The further hearing was formerly termed the hearing upon
further directions, or, after proceedings directed at law, the hearing
upon the equity reserved. Now the direction is, " that the further
consideration of the action be adjourned." And 0. xxxvi, 21,
directs that the cause when set down again be set down tor
further consideration."
The Judicature Act, 1875, distinguishes between final and inter-
locutory judgments by providing (s. 12) that where the subject-
matter of an appeal is a final order, decree, or judgment, the
cccxlii Introduction.
appeal shall be heard before not less than three Judges of the Court
of Appeal, and when it is an interlocutory order, &c., before not
less than two Judges of such Court ; any doubt as to what judg-
ments, &c., are final, and what interlocutory, to be determined by
the Court of Appeal. The effect of this enactment is considered in
Chap. XXXVI., " Appeals,"
EBFERBNCB TO EBCOED.
By 0. Lxi, 19, every judgment, order, certificate, petition; or
document made, presented or used in any cause or matter, shall be
distinguished by having plainly written or stamped on the first
page thereof the year, the letter, and the number by which the
cause or matter is distinguished in the books kept at the Central
Office, or a note indicating that the cause was commenced prior to
2nd November, 1852, and the correctness of such reference to the
record may be required to be authenticated by the seal of the
Central Office. In the case of actions removed from the District
Registry the London reference number is written over the District
Registry number.
The year referred to is the year of the issue of the writ or
originating summons ; the letter is the initial letter of the first
plaintiff's surname ; and the number is the consecutive number in
the Central Office books for the year.
EBFERBNCB TO EEGISTEAES' BOOKS.
The references lettered A. and B., followed by a numeral, which
occur constantly in the following pages after the names of cases
referred to, apply to the entries or filings in the Registrars'
Books A. and B., kept in the Record Department of the Central
Office. Separate books are kept for printed and written orders
respectively. Judgments and orders are entered or filed accord-
ing to the names of the plaintiffs or the titles of the matters.
The books marked A. contain the entries or filings from A. to K.
inclusive, and those marked B. contain the rest. The legal
year began with Michaelmas Term, so that in decrees and orders
previous to the change of style in the year 1752, down to which
time the year commenced on the 25th of March (see the 24
Geo. II. c. 23), the date of the year of our Lord in the decree or
order does not correspond with that of the book, except in Michael-
mas and Hilary Terms. Since the change of style in that year;
down to the year 1860, the date does not so correspond, except
from the 2nd November to the 31st December, and from the 1st
Introduction. cccxliii
January to the 1st November the date of the book is one year
earlier than that of the decree or order.
By a letter from the L. C. to the senior Eegistrar, dated 19th
November, 1859, Eeg. Lib. 1859, B. 1, his Lordship authorized " a
supplementary book to be made, marked 1859, to contain the
orders made from the 2nd November up to the 31st December,
1859, and that from and after the 1st January, 1860, all orders
dated during the current year should be entered in a book or books
to be marked with that year." Since then the dates of the decrees;
judgments and orders correspond with the dates of the books in
which they are entered or filed.
The Eegistrars' Books and Court Minute Books, prior to the
year 1891, have been transferred to the PubUc Eecord Office, EoUs
House ; those of later date are kept at the Central Office and the
Eegistrars' Offices.
Provision is made by 0. xli, 1 — 3, for the entry of judgments
by the proper officer in a book to be kept for the purpose, and that
the entry of the judgment shall be dated as on the day on which
it is pronounced, unless the Court or Judge shall otherwise order,
and the judgment shall take effect from that date, provided that
by special leave of the Court or a Judge a judgment may be ante-
dated or post-dated : v. inf. Chap. XV., " Entey of Judgment."
Li the Chancery Division the particular Eegistrar is the proper
officer. By 0. lxii, 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) and (7), provision is
made for the filing under the direction of the senior Eegistrar
of every order which, according to the practice at the time when
that rule came into operation, would require to be entered in the
office of the Chancery Eegistrars. Provision is also made by the
same order for entry of the filing thereof in books to be kept
for that purpose, and that every order so filed shall be deemed to be
duly entered, and that the date of such filing shall be deemed
the date of entry, and for the supply of a dupHcate of every order
to the soUcitor or person having the carriage of the order. The
effect of this rule is that the original order will be on the files of
the Court instead of an entry of it, and that the duphcate order
takes the place of the original order for all purposes of production
or service. The entry of orders and judgments, final or interlocu-
tory, in the District Eegistries established by the Judicature Act;
1873, ss. 60—66, is regulated by 0. xxxv.
cccxliv Introduction.
GENERAL FORM AND ARRANGEMENT OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS.
In point of form, a judgment or order of the Court, as ultimately
drawn up, consists usually of two parts : one, preliminary or intro-
ductory, and the other containing the actual adjudication or pro-
nouncement of the Court.
The function of the first or preliminary part of the order is to
show the circumstances attending the making of it. Accordingly,
in this part is stated briefly the form of the application to the Court;
who are the parties appearing, and any consents, waivers or
undertakings given by them (&), and reference is made to the
evidence adduced before the Court upon which the order is based :
V. inf. Chap. XV. These are matters with which the Eegistrars
of the Court are specially conversant, and this part of the order
(in the preparation of which care and accuracy are of the utmost
importance) is under their special supervision.
Judgments and orders in the Chancery Division are, in their
second or substantive part, of so varied and often complex a
character that no specific rules as to the arrangement of them can
be given. There is, however, a generally defined natural order of
clauses which is usefully adopted. Thus, any declarations made
by the Court as to the rights of the parties naturally precede the
accounts and inquiries which are directed in order to ascertain the
nature or extent of such rights, or to give effect to them, and these
again are followed by consequential directions or specific adjudica-
tions inter partes, as for the recovery of money or land, delivery of
property, directing the performance of or abstention from any act,
any sale, conveyance or other deahng with property, or the lodg-
ment in Court or dealing with funds, and taxation and payment
of costs. "Where accounts or inquiries are directed, the order con-
cludes by making provision for the further consideration by the
Court of any part of the subject-matter which may, on the result
of such accounts or inquiries, require such consideration.
Formerly the decree contained statements of the pleadings ;
anciently they were interwoven with the directions ; more recently
the entire statement was placed first, and the ordering part after-
wards. At the present time the practice of reciting in judgments
(6) It is, however, to be observed that where a consent, waiver, undertaking,
or admission relates only to a particular part of the judgment or order, it should be
inserted so as immediately to precede that part, as otherwise it might be considered
that the entire judgment or order was grounded on such consent, &c. : v. inf.
Chap. XII. p. 1G2.
Introduction. cccxlv
or orders facts proved in the evidence has fallen into disuse as
unnecessary, except in cases of contempt of Court, or in a limited
class of circumstances in which it is found to be expedient.
Judgments and orders are drawn up without regard to punctua-
tion, the separate classes being indicated by the use of capital
letters (c), and it must be understood that the punctuation in the
forms given in this work has no official significance, but is intro-
duced merely for the assistance of the reader.
As the names of the parties to an action or other proceeding
sufficiently appear in the title of the judgment or order, it is usual
in the body of the order to refer to them simply as plaintiff,
defendant, or otherwise, as the case may be, without naming
them.
In their preUminary stage, judgments or orders (or rather the
second or substantive part of them) are ordinarily drawn up in
" minutes," i.e., in a compendious form, eschewing details, and in-
dicating the nature of the directions given by the Court. These
minutes are subsequently expanded, under the supervision of the
Registrar [v. inf. Chap. XV.), into the complete order.
All orders dealing with funds in Court which are to be acted on
by the Paymaster and which are technically designated " money "
orders are printed. All other orders are written. The " money "
orders contain a Schedule or Schedules exhibiting the several
transactions which the Paymaster is to carry out. The specimen
forms of directions' which are commonly inserted in Lodgment
and Payment Schedules, and which are given in Chap. XVI., and
elsewhere where necessary throughout the present Edition, afford
illustrations of the requirements of " money " orders.
(c) The advantage of this praotiae is, that it necessitates careful wording of the
clauses, and tends to prevent ambiguity and mistake, or the possibility of the order
being tampered with. K punctuation were permitted, a looser style of drafting
.would probably prevail, and though the duties of the Registrars might be simplified,
their utility would be diminished.
FOBMS
JUDGMENTS AND OEDERS.
CHAPTER I.
INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS.
By the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 100, action is defined to mean " a civil proceedinc; Action,
commenced by writ or in such other manner as mav be prescribed by rules meaning of.
of Court."
By O. n, 1, every action in the High Court is to be commenced by writ
of summons ; but bj' 0. LV, 3, 5a, provision is made for the commencement
of certain proceedings {as to which v. inf. Chap. XVIII., " Ciiambees ") by
originating summons, and such proceedings have been held to be " actions "
for the purposes of motions : Oee v. Bell, 35 Ch. D. 160 ; and appeals : Be
Fawsitt, 30 Ch. D. 231, C. A. ; and see Dan. 44, 45.
Asummons under O. LV, 1, 2, 13, and 13a, or otherwise under anystatutory Summons,
jurisdiction (though in fact a summons originating proceedings), is, for the meaning of.
purposes of appealing, not an action, but a summons in " a matter not being
an action " within the meaning of O. Lvni. 9 : Be. Baillie, 4 Ch. D. 785 ; Be
Blyfh, 13 Ch. D. 416 ; Be Arbenz, 35 Ch. D. 257.
O. LH, 14, specifies certain orders which it shall not be necessary to draw Orders which
up unless the Court or a Judge shall otherwise direct, hut the production need not be
of a note or memorandum of such order signed by a Judge, Registrar, drawn up.
Master, Chief Clerk, or District Registrar shall be sufficient.
1. Order to renew Writ. — 0. viii, 1 ; lxiv, 7.
Oeder that the writ issued in this action on the — day of — Tje, on
or before &c., renewed against the Defts for (six) months from
the date of such renewal ; And the costs of this application are to
be costs in this action. — Bateman v. Kenrich, M. E., at Chambers,
3 May, 1877, A. 913.
The order may be obtained in Chambers ex parte, and need not be drawn
VOL. I. B
Institution of Proceedings.
[chap. I.
up unless other directions made at the same time render it necessary, see
O. Lii, 14.
An original writ of summons, notwithstanding expiration of the twelve
months limited by O. viii, 1, continues effectual for all purposes except
service, e.g., for the purpose of an undertaking by Dft's solicitor to enter
an appearance : Re Kerly, Son & Verden, [1901] 1 Ch. 467, C. A.
The issue of a writ of summons not being a judicial act, the Court will
inquire at what period of the day the writ was issued : Clarke v Bradlaugh,
8 Q. B. D. 63, C. A. ; and see Warm v. Lawrence, 34 W. R. 452.
As to the computation of time generally, see In re Railway Sleepers Supply
Co., 29 Ch. D. 204.
As to renewal of writs, see Dan. 274 ; D. C. F. 135. As to amendment
of writ, Dan. 275 et seq. As to concurrent writs, see 0. vi ; Dan. 273.
The Court or a Judge is empowered by 0. lxiv, 7, to enlarge the time for
renewing a writ of summons : Re Jones, Eyre v. Cox, 25 W. R. 303 ; 46
L. J. Ch. 316 ; but enlargement will not be granted so as to revive a claim
barred by the Statutes of Limitation : Doyle v. Kaufman, 3 Q. B. D. 7 ;
Hewett V. Barr, [1891] 1 Q. B. 98, C. A. ; unless, perhaps, under exceptional
circumstances: /S. C, perKay, L. J. ; but where the original writ had been
renewed, time for issue of a concurrent writ was enlarged, though the opera-
tion of the statutes might be thereby affected : Smalpage v. Tonge. 17
Q. B. D. 644, 0. A.
2. Joinder of other Claims with Claim for Recovery of Land —
0. xviii, 2.
Upon motion [or upon the application] &c., who alleged that the
Pits have a cause of action in respect of the conveyance of certain
trust property of &c., vested in the Deft, and a cause of action in
respect of the delivery up of possession of &c., This Court doth order
that the Pits be at liberty to join the said causes of action. — Manisty
v. Kenealy, V.-C. H., 11 Jan. 1876, B. 25 ; 24 W. E. 918 ; Leach v.
Jay, M. E. at Chambers, 16 Feb. 1877, B. 308.
NOTES.
As to joicider of other claims with claims for recovery of land, see 0.
xvin, 2.
Counter- The rule applies to a counter-claim for the recovery of land :
claim. Compton v. Preston, 21 Ch. D. 138 ; and see Clark v. Wray, 31 Ch. D. 68.
An action for foreclosure or redemption, and delivery of possession, is
not to be deemed an action for the recovery of land.
Recovery of By " action for the recovery of land " is meant an action to recover pos-
land, mean- session of land, not an action merely to establish title : Oledhill v. Hunter,
ing of. 14 Ch. D. 492 ; not following Whetstone v. Dewis, 1 Ch. D. 99 ; but where
possession is claimed, a claim for a declaration of title, not involving a new
cause of action, may be joined without leave : Ihid. Claims for declara-
tion of title, that a lease was granted by mistake, for recovery of rents
and profits, a receiver and possession, were held to be one action for recovery
of land : Ihid.
Leave when Leave has been granted to join a claim for delivery of a title deed : Cooh
required. v. Enchmarch, 2 Ch. D. Ill ; and, under special circumstances, a claim for
admon ; ICitching v. K., 24 W. R. 901.
Claims for recovery of possession for breach of covenant, and for in-
junction to restrain future breaches, cannot be joined without leave :
HamUing v. Wallani, 1889, W. N. 133.
Institution of Proceedings.
A writ olaiming quiet possession and an injunction restraining inter-
ference with such possession is not within the rule : Kendrick v. Roberts,
30 W. R. 365. And a claim for an interlocutory injunction, as a substitute
for damages, between writ and trial may be joined without leave : Read v.
Wotton, [1893] 2 Ch. 171.
And where the Pit alleged a mortgage to be invalid, he was held entitled
without leave to ask for possession of the land in the alternative, imme-
diate possession if the mortgage was invalid, and possession on payment
of what should be found due if the mortgage was valid : Hunt v. Worsfold,
[1896] 2 Ch. 224.
Leave to join causes of action should be obtained before the writ is xime to
issued : Pikher v. Hinds, 11 Ch. D. 905, C. A. ; Clark v. Wray, 31 Ch. D. apply.
68 ; but see W'dmott v. Freehold House, dkc. Co., 51 L. T. 552 ; Rushbrooke
V. Farley, 64 L. J. Ch. 1079 ; 52 L. T. 572 ; 33 W. R. 557. Where the
Deft has entered an appearance to the writ, it is not too late for him to take
the objection to the irregularity : Hunt v. Worsfold, [1896] 2 Ch. 224,
treating Mulckern v. Doerks, 53 L. J. Q. B. 526 ; 51 L. T. 429 ; as over-
ruled by Wilmott v. Freehold House Property Co., 51 L. T. 552 ; and Smurth-
waite V. Hannay, [1894] A. C. 494.
The proposed writ and an affidavit of facts are left with the Master,
who marks a fiat on the writ : see D. C. F. p. 134. The discretion ought
only to be exercised on proper evidence, and the Master ought not to act
on counsel certifying that leave ought to be granted : Moore v. Ullcoat's
Minirvg Co. Limited. 1908, W. N. 35.
( 4 ) [chap. II.
CHAPTEE II.
SERVICE OF WRIT AND PROCEEDINGS.
1. Order for substituted Service of Writ — 0. ix, 2 ; x ; lxvii, 6.
Order tliat service of the writ of summons issued in tliis action on
the — day of — , by leaving a copy thereof, together with a copy of
this order, at the place of business of the Deft, situate at &c. [and,
if so, at his place of residence situate at &c.], be deemed good service
of the said writ upon the Deft.
For orders for substituted service in the case of an absconding Deft
within the jurisdiction, see Cooh v. Dey, V.-C. H., 16 Feb. 1876, A. 227,
2 Ch. D. 218 ; by advertisement exjur., Hartley v. Dilke, V.-C. M., 19 Dec.
1876, A. 2081 ; 35 L. T. 706 ; Wolverhampton, &c. Banking Co. v. Bond, 29
W. R. 599 ; 43 L. T. 721. For forms of summons, &c. see D. C. F. 147—149.
A Deft, failing to appear after substituted service, cannot claim as of
right to be allowed to defend : Watt v. Barnett, 3 Q. B. D. 363.
2. The like — at each of several Leasehold Houses.
Order that service of the writ of summons issued in this action on
the — day of — , by leaving a copy thereof, together with a copy of
this order, at each of the said leasehold houses, be deemed good service
of the said writ on the Deft, and the Pit is within fourteen days from
the date of this order to cause a copy of this order to be inserted in the
London Gazette and the Times newspaper. — See Crane v. Jullion, V.-C.
Hall, 17 Feb. 1876, A. 260 ; ;S. C, 2 Ch. D. 220.
This order first directs a proper person to be appointed to receive rents,
&c. of certain leasehold houses (describing them), and then proceeds as
above.
As to service of writ for recovery of land in case of vacant possession,
see 0. IX, 9.
3. The like — on Defendant's Solicitors in a former Matter.
Order that service of the writ of summons issued in this action
on &c., together with a copy of this order, on A. and B., of the firm of
Messrs. — & Co., of — , solicitors, or one of them, be deemed good
service of the said writ of summons upon the Deft.
For like order for service on Deft's wife, see Palmer v. P., V.-C. H. at
Chambers, 7 Dec. 1878, B. 2076 ; and for like order for service upon the
Service of Writ and Proceedings.
managing clerk and upon the solicitors of a Deft in India, with six weeks for
appearance, see Armitage v, Fitzwilliam, 1875, W. N. 238.
4. Order for Substituted Service of Writ by Means of Advertisements
and through the Post — 0. ix, 2.
Order that service of the writ of summons issued in this action on
&c. by the publication by advertisement, in the form set forth in the
Schedule hereto, of the said writ, and of this order, twice in the — and
once in the — newspapers, and the sending a copy of the said writ,
and a copy of this order, through the post-office prepaid, in a regis-
tered envelope addressed to each of the Defts, to the following
addresses, that is to say, as to the Deft A. to &c., and as to the Defts
B. and C. to &c., be deemed good service of the said writ on the said
Defts respectively.
Schedule. •
To A. of &c., B. of &c., and C. of &c.
Take notice that on the — day of — a writ of summons was
issued in the action of &c., which claimed [set out indorsement of writ] ;
And take notice that by an order dated &c.. It was ordered that the
publication by advertisement in this form of the said writ of summons
and of the said order twice in the — and once in the — newspapers,
and the sending a copy of the said writ of summons and a copy of
the said order, through the post-office prepaid, in a registered envelope
addressed to each of you the said A., B. and C, to the following
addresses, that is to say, as to the said A. to &c., and as to the said
B. and C. to &c., should be deemed good service of the said writ of
summons upon you ; And take notice that in default of your causing
an appearance to be entered for you at the Central Office, Royal
Courts of Justice, London, within eight days after the last of such
advertisements, the Pit may proceed in the said action, and judgment
may be given in your absence.
5. The like — of Originating Summons by Service on Solicitors and by
Means of Advertisements and through the Post — 0. lxvii, 6.
Order that service of the originating summons issued in this action
on &c. [and amended on &c. and re-amended on &c.],by leaving a copy
of the same, together with a copy of this order at the office of Messrs.
G., solicitors, situate at &c., and by sending a copy of the said
[re-amended] originating summons and a copy of this order in a regis-
tered letter addressed to the Deft to the care of Messrs. G. &c.,
an I by inserting once in the London Gazette, and once in each of the
following newspapers, namely, the Times and the Daily News, an
advertisement in the form set forth in the Schedule hereto be deemed
Service of Writ and Proceedings, [chap, ii,
good service of the said [re-amended] originating summons upon the
Deft.
Form of Advertisement of Originating Summons.
Schedule.
To
Take notice that on the — day of — an originating summons was
issued in the action of &c. [amended on &c. and re-amended on &c.]
That by such summons [as amended or re-amended] you were re-
quired to attend at the Chambers of the Judge upon the application
of the Pit, That {set out summons).
And take notice that by an order of Mr. Justice S., dated &c., It
was ordered that the service of the said [amended or re-amended]
summons by leaving a copy of the same, together with a copy of the
said order, at the office of Messrs. G., solrs, situate at &o., and by
sending a copy of the said [amended or re-amended] originating
summons and a copy of the said order in a registered letter addressed
to you to the care of &c., at &c., and by publication of this notice once
in the London Gazette, and once in each of the following newspapers,
namely, the Times and the Daily News, should be deemed good
service of the said [amended or re-amended] originating summons
upon you.
And take notice that Mr. Justice S., the Judge to whom the said
action is assigned, has fixed Tuesday, the — day of — , at 11.30, as
the time at which you are to attend at his Chambers in the Royal
Courts of Justice upon such application ; And that if you do not
then attend either in person or by your solr such order will be made
and proceedings taken as the Judge may think just and expedient ;
And before you can be heard in Chambers you will have to enter an
appearance at the Central Office in the Royal Courts of Justice,
London, and give notice of such appearance. — Bowman v. Pleydell,
Stirling, J., 29 July, 1887, A. 1221.
6. Leave to Issue and Serve Concurrent Writ out of the Jurisdiction
—O. II, 4, 5 ; 0. VI, 1, 2 ; 0. xi, 5 ; 0. lii, 14.
Monday the — day of — , 1900.
Let a concurrent writ be issued with liberty to serve it, or if not
a British subject and not within the British Dominions, notice of it on
the Deft at — in the kingdom of — . The time for the Deft to enter
an appearance is to be — days after service.
In the C. D. it is unnecessary to draw up any order, the above note being
endorsed on the original writ or on the concurrent writ to be issued, and a
fee of 5s. paid. Any necessary directions are at the same time inscribed
on the writ: iStigand v. S., 19 Ch. D. 460 ; D. C.F. 150, 151 ; Dan. 292.
For form of order to issue and serve an original writ, see R. S. C. App,
K. 20.
Where the application for leave to issue is made at the same time as the
Service of Writ and Proceed ings.
application for leave to serve, an affidavit is necessary (0. xi, 2, 4), and it
is to be entitled as follows : " In the matter of the Judicature Acts, 1873 —
1894, In the matter of an intended action between A. B. Pit, and C. D.
and others Defts." See Young v. Brassey, 1 Ch. D. 278 ; D. C. F. 150.
7. Leave to serve Writ or Notice out of the Jurisdiction — 0. xi, 1, 4, 6.
Upon the application of &c. and it appearing by an aiiidavit of
&c. filed &c. that pursuant to leave granted on &c., the Pit has
issued a writ of sunanaons against the Deft and that he has a
good cause of action against the Deft in respect of certain
premises at &c. (if so and that the Deft is not a British subject
and is resident or may probably be found at &c. in the kingdom of
&c.) and upon, reading the said affidavit, It is ordered that the
Pit be at liberty to serve the said writ {or if not a British subject
and not loithin the British Dominions notice of the said writ) together
with a copy of this order, on the Deft — , at — or elsewhere in the
said kingdom of — ; and the time within which the Deft is to cause
an appearance to be entered to the said writ is to be — days from such
service. — See Paltison v. Stock-well, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 15 June,
1878, B. 1202.
Por table, as settled by the Registrars, of times to be limited for entering
appearance after service out of the jurisdiction of writ or notice of writ,
see Ann. Prac. ii. Part IX.
As a general rule double the time ordinarily taken to reach the Deft's
place of residence is allowed for appearing.
For order where Deft, ex jur. had been added in the District Registry,
see Re Chambers, Hutchinson v. Town, 19 Jan. 1883, A. 382.
8. Leave to serve Writ in Scotland or Ireland- — 0. xi, 2, 4, 5.
Upon the application of &c. and it appearing by an affidavit of &o.
filed &c. that pursuant to leave granted on &c. .the Pit has issued
a writ of summons against the Deft and that the Pit has a good cause
of action against the Deft in respect of &c. and that the Deft is a
British subject and resident in Scotland {or Ireland), and it appearing
to the Judge that there is no convenient remedy in Scotland {or
Ireland) [or that although there is a concurrent remedy in Scotland
{or Ireland), yet having regard to the comparative cost and conveni-
ence of proceedings in England or in Scotland {or Ireland) (under the
provisions of the statutes establishing or regulating the Sheriflts'
Courts or Small Debts Courts in Scotland or in Ireland under the
Civil Bill Courts), it will be for the benefit of all parties that this
action should proceed in this Court], It is ordered that the Pit be
at liberty to serve tlie said writ, together with a copy of this order,
on the Deft at &c. ; And the time within which the Deft is to cause an
appearance to be entered to the said writ is to be — days from such
service.
The words in the last round brackets are to be used only in actions for
small demands.
Service of Writ and Proceedings, [chap. il.
9. Notice of Proceedings to be served Abroad.
Upon motion &o. by counsel for A. B. & Co., who alleged that C. D.,
who is to be served with notice of motion for an order directing the
Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, to proceed
in due course with the above-mentioned application for registration
&c., is resident at &c.. This Court doth order that notice of the pro-
ceedings for registration of the trade mark. No. &c., be sent by post
in a registered letter to the said C. D. at &c., And the said motion
is to stand over until &c., in order that C. D. may appear and
apply to be heard on the said motion should he think fit. — Re
Bancroft, &c. Trade Mark, Stirling, J., 16 Dec. 1887, A. 1809.
10. Service effected on Infant Defendant to be deemed good Service—
0. IX, 4.
And it appearing by the affidavit of &c. that a copy of the writ of
Summons in this action was, on the — day of — , delivered to the
Deft, who is an infant of the age of — years and upwards. Order
that the service of the said writ so effected be deemed good service
on the Deft, and that a copy of this order be forthwith served on the
Deft, and the time for entering an appearance is to be eight days
after service of such order.
11. Order for Service on Infant Defendant — 0. ix, 4.
Order that service of the writ of summons in this action by
delivering a copy thereof, together with a copy of this order, to the
Deft B., who is an infant of the age of — years and upwards, be
deemed good service on the said infant.
For forms of summons, &c. see D. C. F, 53, 54.
12. Leave to issue Third-party Notice of Claim to he indemnified —
0. XVI, 48.
Order that the Defts be at liberty to issue a notice claiming to be
indemnified by T. and E., pursuant to 0. xvi, 48, of the Rules of the
Supreme Court. — Fothergill v. Hanlcey, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 17 Dec.
1877, A. 2133.
For further forms, v. inf. Vol. III. pp. 2071, 2072.
For order giving leave to a third party to serve notice on other persons,
see Witham v. Vane, Fry, J., 28 W. R. 276, 812 ; and that Pit will not he
ordered to pay the costs of third and fourth parties, 8. C, H. L. 32 W. R.
617.
Service of Writ and Proceedings.
13. Substituted Service of Petition — 0. Lxvii, 6.
Order that service of the petition on the — day of — , preferred
unto this Court by the said — , having the order of this Court thereon,
that all parties should attend the Court on the said petition, on the
— day of — , by delivering a copy thereof, together with a copy of
this order, to &c., at &c. [state mode of service to he adopted], be deemed
good service of the said petition on C. &c. [respondents] in the petition
named.
14. Petition to stand over, tcith Leave to amend by adding Respondent
and to effect substituted Service on liim.
The petition of A. &c. standing this day in the paper for hearing,
and the Petr by his counsel applying for leave to amend the said
petition by adding B. as a respondent thereto, and upon reading
an affidavit of &c. [grounds of application for substituted service]. This
Court doth order that the said petition be amended accordingly : And
it is ordered that the said petition do stand over till the — day of — ;
And it is ordered that service of the said petition as so amended, by
leaving a copy thereof, together with a copy of this order, with &c., at
&c., be deemed good service of the said petition upon the said B.
And the said petition is to stand over until after &c.
15. The like, adding Respondent out of Jurisdiction, with leave
to serve.
The petition of A. &c. standing this day in the paper for hearing
and the Petr by his counsel applyiag for leave to amend the said
petition by adding B. as a respondent thereto, and alleging that the
said B. is now resident at &c. in (the kiagdom) of &c. as by an
affidavit of &c. filed &c. appears and upon reading the said affidavit.
This Court doth order that the said petition be amended accordingly ;
And it is ordered that A. be at liberty to serve the said petition at &c.
And the said petition is to stand over untU &c.
An order in similar form was made in Colls v. EMns, 55 L. T. 479, but
having regard to O. xi, 8 (a), it is doubtful whether such an order could
now be made.
16. Leave to serve Writ issued in the Chancery of the County Palatine
of Lancaster out of the Jurisdiction of that Court — 17 cfc
18 V. c. 82, s. 8.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for the Pit, who alleged that the
Pit, on the — day of — , pursuant to leave granted, issued a writ
of summons out of the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine
of Lancaster agaiast the Defts A., B., and C, and that the said
Defts A. and B. reside at — in the county of • — , and that the said
Deft C. resides at — in the county of — , both of which places are
10 Service of Writ and Proceedings, [chap. ii.
out of the jurisdiction of the said Court, as by the affidavit &c.
appears, and upon reading the said affidavit. This Court doth order
that the Pits be at liberty to serve a copy of the- said writ, together
with a copy of this order, upon the said Defts A. and B. at — afore-
said, and upon the said Deft C. at — aforesaid, or elsewhere in
England ; and the time within which the said Defts are to appear
to the said writ is to be eight days after service on them respectively.
—See Bostock v. Pearson, C. A., 29 Jan. 1879, B. 177 ; Thorn v.
Taylor, C. A., 9 Nov. 1888, B. 1324.
Leave must first be obtained from the Vioe-Chancellor of the Palatine
Court to issue the writ for service exjur. : Walker v. Dodda, 37 Ch. D. 188,
C. A.
17. Service of Order of Palatine Court out of the Jurisdiction of that
Court.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for the Pit, who alleged that, by an
order dated &c., made in the Chancery of the County Palatine of
Lancaster, It was ordered &c., and that the said A. B. resides at &c.
out of the jurisdiction of the said Court, This Court doth order that
the Pit be at liberty to serve the said order dated &c., together with
a copy of this order, upon the said A. B., at &c. — Re Grant, Wales v.
Jeffreys, C. A., 23 Dec. 1886, A. 1763.
The orders as in Forms 16 and 17, are obtained from the Court of Appeal
under Jud. Act, 1873, s. 18 (2), by which all jurisdiction and powers of the
Court of Appeal in Chancery of the County Palatine are transferred to the
Court of Appeal.
18. Substituted Service ofSubpcena to name a New Solicitor in place
of one Struck off the Rolls — 0. lxvii, 2, 6.
Obdee that service of a writ of subpoena to name a solr in the room
of W. of &c., formerly solr to the Deft, but who was struck ofE the
roll of solrs of the Supreme Court on &c. by an order dated &c., by
leaving a copy of the said writ of subpojna, and of notice to the effect
that in default of the Deft naming a solr in the room of the said W.
the Pits wUl, without further notice, move for judgment in accordance
with such notice, together with a copy of this order, with the Deft's
wife at his residence at &c., and also by sending another copy of the
said writ of subpoena, of the said notice, and of this order, through
the post in a prepaid letter addressed to the Deft at &c., be deemed
good service of the said writ of subpoena, and of the said notice of
motion for judgment respectively upon the Deft. — Re Freeman,
Hamilton v. Thomas, Chitty, J., 20 February, 1883, A. 266 ; 1883,
W. N. 31.
Service of Writ and Proceedings. H
NOTES.
SERVICE GENERALLY.
Under 0. ix, 1, service of writ is not required wlien the Deft, by his solr, Solicitor
undertakes in writing to accept service, and enters an appearance. The undertaking
undertaldng is unconditional and must be performed forthwith. It differs to accept
from an ordinary contract only in that it may be enforced against the solr s^^i^^"^^-
himself, in the matter of the solr, by virtue of the jurisdiction of the
Court over its officers, by attachment at any time within six years,
provided the action continues effective : In re Kerly, Son & Verden, [1901]
1 Ch. 467.
Service must be personal, unless substituted or other service has been Service, how
ordered under 0. IX, 2, except in the cases mentioned in rr. 3, 8, and 9 of effected,
that order, and 0. XLvniA, 6, 7 ; and see Dan. 39, 40, 280 et seq.
The original writ need not be produced unless demanded, but if not
shown on demand, the proceedings under it may be set aside : Phillipson
Y. Emanuel, 56 L. T. 858.
The mere handing of a writ in an envelope to a person who is not informed
as to the nature of the document is not good personal service : Banque Russe
V. Clarke, 1894, W. N. 203 ; Dan. 281.
A writ of summons, though specially indorsed, is not a pleading within
0. Lxiv, 11, and may be served at any hour of the dav : Murray v. Stephen-
sail, 19 Q. B. D. 60.
The Court will not dispense altogether with service, but will direct service
by advertisement. See Whitley v. Hcmeywell, 24 W. R. 851 ; 35 L, T. 517.
Under r. 3, " when husband and wife are both defendants to the action Husband and
they shall both be served, unless the Court or a Judge shall otherwise wife,
order."
As to service on infant Deft, see O. ix, 4. Infant.
As to service on lunatic or non compos, see 0. ix, 5. Rules 4, 5 apply Lunatic,
to proceedings commenced by originating summons : Re Pepper, 32
W. R. 765.
As to service by filing in default of appearance, see inf. Chap. Xll. By filing.
p. 172.
In the case of change of solicitors, 0. vn, 3, provides that until notice of On change of
the change is filed, and a copy served and left in Chambers, the former soli- solicitor,
citor shall be considered the solicitor of the party until the final conclusion
of the cause or matter, whether in the High Court or the Court of Appeal.
As to whether the authority of the solicitor on the record continues until
the time for appealing has expired, quaere t see De la Pole v. Dich, 29 Ch. D.
351, C. A. ; followed in Re Evans, E. v. AToton, [1893] 1 Ch. 252, C. A.
Where a Deft changes his solicitor, but files no notice of the change at
the Central Office, he is not necessarily to be restricted to such costs as a
litigant in person would be entitled to : Norris v. Bailey, 62 L. J . Q. B.
338 ; and see Mason v. Grigg, [1909] 2 K. B. 341.
When, as in urgent cases, it is desired to serve notice of motion on a Before
Deft before appearance, the leave of the Court must be obtained. No appearance,
order need be drawn up giving this leave, but the initials of the registrar
in Court to the indorsement on the brief will be sufficient to show that leave
has been obtained.
SERVICE ON PARTNERS, CORPORATIONS, &C.
As to persons sued as partners in the name of their firm, see 0. XLVniA, 5. Partners.
As to any person carrying on business in a name or style other than his
own, see 0. xlvuta, 11.
Where judgment by default against a firm was duly signed, a partner
who had appeared subsequently, but within eight days after separate
service of the writ on him, was entitled to have the judgment set aside :
Alden v. Bechley, 25 Q. B, D. 543.
12 Service of Writ and Proceedings, [chap. ii.
And generally as to actions by and against firms, see O. XLvniA.
Where an action is brought in the name of a firm and the names of the
partners are disclosed under 0. xlvhia, 1, 2, there is no jurisdiction to
directcross-examination on an affidavit disclosing the names: Abrahams &
Co. V. Dunlop Pneuinatic Tyre Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 46.
The rules apply to all partnerships carrying on business within the juris-
diction, e.g., a foreign or colonial firm the members of which are resident
oxit of the jurisdiction : Worcester, die. Banking Co. v. Firhank, Pauling &
Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 784, C. A. ; but they do not affect the principle in
Russell Y. Cambefort, 23 Q. B. D. 526, C. A., nor apply to a firm carrying
on business, and the members of which are domiciled and resident, in
Scotland, and having no place of business within the jurisdiction : Grant
V. Anderson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 108 ; nor to a foreign subject resident out of
the jurisdiction who carries on business within the jurisdiction in a name
or style other than his own : St. Onhain, (kc. Co. v. Hoyermann's Agency,
[1893] 2 Q. B. 96, C. A. ; e.g., the proprietor of a newspaper oarrj'ing on
business under the title of the newspaper : De Bernales v. New York Herald,
68 L. T. 685 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 385 ; [1893] 2 Q. B. 97, n. As to what
amounts to an agreement to submit to foreign jurisdiction, see Emanuel &
others v. Symon, [1908] 1 K. B. 302.
Rule 11 does not apply so as to authorize service upon a domiciled
Scotchman carrying on business in England under a firm name, the writ
in the action having no reference to such business : Maclver v. Burns, [1 895]
2 Ch. 630, C. A., where itwaa said that the object of the rule is to facilitate
proceedings against a person who is concealing his own name, and not to
enlarge the jurisdiction of the Court against foreigners, but this rule being
applicable to service of process issuing from an English Court, it is not
excluded by a statutory provision relating to a foreign or Scottish
corporation : Logan v. Bank of Scotland, [1904] 2 K. B. 495.
Under O. ix, 8, where statutory provision is made for service on any
Corp. or body corporate or incorporate, the writ is to be served as provided
by the statute.
Corporation. As to service on a corporation aggregate or the inhabitants of a hundred
or other like district, see 0. xi, 8, and see Companies (Consolidation) Act,
1908 (8 Edw. VTI. c. 69), ss. 62, 116.
As to service on a company established outside the United Kingdom
with a place of business within the United Kingdom, see 8 Edw. VII. c. 69,
s. 274, which provides that the names and addresses shall be filed of some
one or more persons resident in the United Kingdom authorized to accept
on behalf of the company, service of process and any notice required to
be served on the company, and any such process or notice shall be suffi-
ciently served, if addressed to any person whose name has been so filed
and left at or sent by post to the address which has been so filed.
A foreign corp. carrjdng on business in tliis country, has (as distinguished
from a private partnership, see Russell v. Cambefort, 23 Q. B. D. 526, C. A.)
a legal existence here, and may be served in the same manner as an English
corporation aggregate : Hoggin v. Comptoir d^Escompte de Paris, 23
Q. B. D. 519, C. A. ; Newhy v. Von Oppen, L. R. 7 Q. B. 293 ; La Com-
pagnie Oenerale Transatlantique v. Law d> Co., La Burgoyne, [1899] A. C.
131, H I;.; Saccharin Corpn, Ld. v. Chemische Fahrik von Hay den
Ahiiengesellschaft [1911], 2 K. B. 516 (Agent's office -svith jurisdiction, service
on agent) ; and if resident out of the jurisdiction, it may be served under
O. XI, with notice of the writ : Scott v. Royal Wax Candle Co., 1 Q. B. D.
404 ; Dan. 283. Service on the head officer at the English place of business
of such a Corp., where a principal part of their business is carried on, is
good within the rule : Ibid. ; Badcock v. Cumberland Gap Park Co., [1893]
1 Ch. 362 ; secus, where the corporation has no office in this country, but
merely an agent : Nutter v. Messageries Maritimes, 54 L. J. Q. B. 527 ; and
see The Princesse Clementine, [1897] P. 18 ; or an office in which, for con-
venience of English shareholders, dealings with shares are recorded :
Service of Writ and Proceedings. 13
Badcock v. Cumberland Oap Park Co., sup. ; and see Jones v. Scottish Acci-
dent Insurance Co., 17 Q. B. D. 421 ; Grant v. Anderson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 108,
C. A. ; where, however, the Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 V. o. 89), now
substituted by the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII. c. 69),
applied.as in the case of a limited oo. having itsregistered ofBoe in Scotland,
service at the registered office was necessary : Watkins v. Scottish Imperial
Insurance Co., 23 Q. B. D. 285; and see Wood v. Anderston Foundry Co., 36
W. R. 918. As to service at the principal office of a railway oo. under
sect. 135 of the Companies Clauses Act, 1845, and that service at the prin-
cipal office of the English portion of a Scotch railway is not sufficient, see
Palmer v. Caledonian Ry. Co., [1892] 1 Q- B. 607, 823.
Where a special contract was entered into between an English and a
foreign co., whereby an agent in London was specially appointed to accept
service of any process arising under the contract, service according to the
contract, though not a service within the rules, was held good : Tharsis
Sulphur, <fec. Co. V. Societi des Metaux, 58 L. J. Q. B. 435 ; 60 L. T. 924 ;
38 W. R. 78; but in view of the express prohibition contained inO. xi, 1(e)
(see post, p. 15), an agreement by a Scotchman that a writ for breach of
contract arising within the jurisdiction may be served on him in Scotland,
will not authorize the Court to direct service of such a writ in Scotland :
British Wagon Co. v. Gray, [1896] 1 Q. B. 35, C. A. ; Montgomery, Jones S
Co. V. Liebenthal, [1898] 1 Q. B. 287, C. A. ; and generally as to a contract
to accept service of a writ, see S. C, and Copin v. Adamson, 1 Ex. D. 17, 19,
C. A. ; Vallee v. Dumergue, 4 Exch. Rep. 290.
A foreign Sovereign or State cannot be served with a writ or other Foreign
process of our Courts : Strousherg v. Republic of Costa Rica, 29 W. R. 125 ; Sovereign or
44 L. T. 199 ; and see Sloman v. Oovernmenl of New Zealand, 1 C. P. D. State.
563, C. A. ; South African Republic v. La Compagnie Franco-Beige du
Chemin de Per du Nord, [1897] 2 Ch. 487, C. A. ; Mighell v. Sultan of
Johore, [1894] 1 Q. B. 149. As to the period during which the immunity
of an ambassador of a foreign State from process in the Courts of this
country subsists, see Musurus Bey v. Oadban, [1894] 1 Q. B. 533 ; [1894]
2 Q. B. 352, C. A.
SUBSTITUTED SERVICE.
By 0. IX, 2, if it appear to the Court or a Judge that the Pit is from any
cause unable to effect prompt personal service, the Court may make such
order for substituted or other service, or for the substitution for service of
notice by advertisement or otherwise, as may seem just. Every application
for such substituted service must be supported by an affidavit setting forth
the grounds upon which the application is made : 0. x. Such applications
are to be brought before the Judge in person : 0. lv, 15.
When substituted service is effected, the order for such service must be
produced. If service is by post, the copy writ and order are (unless the
order otherwise direct) to be deemed to be served on the day following the
day on which a prepaid letter containing the copies shall have been posted :
P. M. R. 17.
O. IX, 2, must not be resorted to as a mode of evading the rules as to ser-
vice out of the jurisdiction : Re Urquhart, 24 Q. B. D. 723, C. A. ; Fry v.
Moore, 23 Q. B. D. 395, C. A. ; and in general substituted service will not
be ordered on a person who is out of the jurisdiction unless it can be shown
that he has gone out of the jurisdiction for the very purpose of evading
service : Be Urquhart, sup. ; but where the writ was issued against a Deft
who was within the jurisdiction, and, after it had come to his knowledge,
he went out of the jurisdiction, substituted service could be ordered,
although it was not shown that he had gone out of the jurisdiction for the
purpose of evading service : Jay v. Budd, [1898] 1 Q. B. 12, C. A. An
order for substituted service of a writ issued in general form without leave
against a person who was out of the jurisdiction was held not a nullity, but
an irregularity which might be waived by conduct of Deft : Wilding v.
14
Service of Writ and Proceedings, [chap., ii.
Bean, [189]] 1 Q. B. 100, C. A., following Fry v. Moore, 23 Q. B. D. 395,
C. A. ; citing Field v. Bennett, 56 L. J. Q. B. 89, and Hillyard v. Smyth,
36 W. R. 7.
Substituted service will not be ordered unless reasonable ground is shown
for supposing that it will come to the notice of the person to be served :
Furber v. King, 29 W. R. 535 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 496 ; Re Slade, 8. v. Hulme,
30 W. R. 28 ; 45 L. T. 726 ; and see Re McLaughlin, [1905] A. C. at p.
347, per Lord Davey ; and can only be directed when there is some person
or body corporate on whom there could be original service : Sloman v.
New Zealand Government, 1 C. P. D. 563, C. A.
The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to order substituted service of a
notice o£ appeal : Exp: Warburg, In re Whalley, 24 Ch. D. 364, C. A.
Substituted service of a subpoena to name a soHcitor has been ordered :
Hamilton v. Thomas, 1883, W. N. 31 ; see ante, p. 10.
In ordering substituted service on a person out of the jurisdiction, the
kind of service ordered is not restricted to service out of the jurisdiction,
but may be by substitution effected within the jurisdiction : Ann. Prac.
note to 0. X approved; Western Suburban cfc Notting Hill Permanent.
Benefit Building Society v. Rncklidge, [1905] 2 Ch. 472.
And see Dan. 285 ei seq, ; D. C. F. 147, 148.
SBBVICE OTJT OT THE JURISDICTION.
Writ of Summons.
0. xi. r. 1. O. XI, 1, specifies (under seven heads (a) to (g) : v. inf. p. 15) the cases in
wliich service out of tlie jurisdiction of a writ of summons or notice thereof
may be allowed, and such specification is exhaustive : Re Eager, Eager v.
Johnstone, 22 Ch. D. 86, C. A.
The order forms a complete code, applicable to all cases when anything
like jurisdiction over the person is sought to be exercised, and indicates
when service out of the jurisdiction can, and cannot be effected : Re
Busfield, Whaley v. Bus-field, 32 Ch. D. 123, C. A. ; and see In re Anolo-
African Steamship Co., 32 Ch. D. 348, C. A.
Practice. A writ against Defts, one or some of whom appear to be out of the juris-
diction,may be issued witliout an order for service having been first obtained,
but must be specially sealed with a notification on (and as part of) the writ,
that it is not for service out of the jurisdiction without order : P. M. R. 6.
The appUcation for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction is made in
Chambers, but must be brought before the Judge in person : 0. i.v, 15.
Where the order has been made ex parte by the Court of Appeal, an appli-
cation to discharge the order, ought to be made to the Judge of first instance
in Chambers : Balfour v. Wylie, 1904, W. N. 72.
The Court will exercise discretion as to allowing the service, and will
consider evidence as to the merits : Societe Oenerale de Paris v. Dreyfus,
29 Ch. D. 239 ; Watson <fc Sons v. Daily Record {Glasgow) Ltd., [1907] 1
K. B. 853 ; and see The Hagen, [1908] P. at p. 201, per Farwell, L. J., as
to the principles applicable in exercising jurisdiction.
As to the form of the writ, or notice of writ, see O. ii, 5, and R. S. C,
App. A., Part I., Forms 5 — 10.
A copy of a writ issued for service out of the jurisdiction has been ordered
to be served by substitution on a person within the jurisdiction : Ford v.
Shephard, 34 W- R. 63 ; 53 L. T. 564.
Concurrent Leave for issue of a concurrent writ under 0. VI, 1, 2, for service out of
writ. the jurisdiction may be ordered, although the original writ was issued for
service within the jurisdiction, and has been renewed, and although there is
only one Deft to the action : Smalpage v. Tonge, 17 Q. B. D. 644, C. A.
The copy of writ served ought to be marked " concurrent," and if this is
not done the service is irregular : Collins v. N. British and Mercantile Ins.
Co., [1894] 3 Ch. 228.
Service of Writ and Proceedings. 15
For a history of the changes in the law as to service out of the juris- Where service
diction, see Lenders v. Anderson, 12 Q. B. D. 56. °?* °f J""^'
The cases specified in 0. xi, 1, are whenever — alTowed
" (a) The whole subject-matter of the action is land situate within the
jurisdiction (with or without rents or profits) ; or
(b) Any act, deed, will, contract, obligation, or liability affecting land or
hereditaments situate within the jurisdiction, is sought to be con-
strued, rectified, set aside, or enforced in the action ; or
(o) Any relief is sought against any person domiciled or ordinarily resi-
dent within the jurisdiction ; or
(d) The action is for the admon of the personal estate of any deceased
person, who at the time of his death was domiciled within the
jurisdiction, or for the execution (as to property situate within
the jurisdiction) of the trusts of any written instrument, of wliich
the person to be served is a trustee, which ought to be executed
according to the law of England ; or
(e) The action is founded on any breach or alleged breach within the
jurisdiction of any contract wherever made, which, according to
the terms thereof, ought to be performed within the jurisdiction,
unless the defendant is domiciled or ordinarily resident in Scotland
or Ireland ; or
(f) Any injunction is sought as to anything to be done within the juris-
diction, or any nuisance within the jurisdiction is sought to be pre-
vented or removed, whether damages are or are not also sought in
respect thereof ; or
(g) Any person out of the jurisdiction is a necessary or proper party to any
action properly brought against some other person duly served
within the jurisdiction."
Leave cannot be given under this rule in an action to enforce a charging
order obtained under 1 & 2 V. c. 110 : Kolchmann v. Meurice, [1903] 1
K. B. 534.
An action for non-payment of rent under a lease was held not to be for Cases on r.
enforcement of a contract " affecting land " within r. 1 (b), but rather to 1 (b).
fall within (e) : Agnew v. Usher, 14 Q. B. D. 78 ; secus, an action by out-
going tenant to recover compensation for tenant right according to the
custom of the country : Kaye v. Sutherland, 20 Q. B. D. 147 ; or to recover
damages for breach of covenant to repair : Tassell v. Hallen, [1892] 1
Q. B. 321 ; and, semble, the clause is not to he limited to cases where
specific performance of some contract, &c. is sought : Ibid.
An insurance CO., whose registered office was in Scotland, but which had Cases on r.
agencies and an office within the jurisdiction, was held not to be domiciled 1 (o).
or ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction within r. 1 (c) : Jones v.
Scottish Accident Insurance Co., 17 Q. B. D. 421 ; but see Hoggin v. Comp-
toir d'Escompte de Paris, 23 Q. B. D. 519, C. A. ; and Russell v. Cambefort,
23 Q. B. D. 526, 528, C. A. ; sup. p. 12.
In order to bring a case within r. 1 (e), the contract must be one which Cases on r.
must be performed within the jurisdiction, and not one which may be per- 1 (e).
formed either within or without ; and where the whole contract was capable
of being performed without the jurisdiction by remission of proceeds of
sale by bills, no writ could be issued here for service abroad : Comber v.
Leyland, [1898] A. C. 524 ; but it is sufficient if the principal part of the
duties are to be performed within the jurisdiction, although capable of being
partly performed elsewhere : Muizenbecher v. La Aseguradora Espanola,
[1906] 1 K. B. 254.
Moreover, the Court in granting leave will have regard to its jurisdiction
to adjudicate where the title or right to possession of immoveable property
out of the jurisdiction is in question : Duder v. Amsterdamsch Trustees
Kantsor, [1902] 2 Ch. 132 ; Deschamps v. Miller, [1908] 1 Ch. 856.
Where the alleged breach of contract took place out of the jurisdiction,
the case does not fall within the rule : Holland v. Bennett, [1902] 1 K. B. 867.
16 Service of Writ and Proceedings, [chap. ii.
A contract by English engine makers for sale of machinery, to be erected
in the Isle of Man for a co. carrying on business there, was held a contract
to be performed by payment in this country, so that non-payment by the
00. was a breach within the jurisdiction within r. 1 (e) : Bobey <fc Oo. v.
Snaefell Mining Oo., 20 Q. B. D. 152 ; Charles Duval iSi Co., Ltd. v. Qans,
[1904] 2 K. B. 685, 0. A. ; and for converse case of c i. f. contract : Crazier,
Stephens & Co. v. Auerhach, [19081 2 K. B. 161 ; but see Bell v. Antwerp
Line, [1891] 1 Q. B. 103, C. A. ; and so where the Pit was employed in con-
nection with works in Spain, but the contract contemplated payment in
this country : Thompsony. Palmer, [1893] 2 Q. B. 80, C. A. Where the contract
was by a foreigner to ship goods to a foreign port, and the goods when
shipped were at the buyer's risk, a breach by the seller was not a breach
within the jurisdiction : Wancke v. Wingren, 58 L. J. Q. B. 519 ; and cf.
Bree v. Marescaux, 7 Q- B. D. 434, C. A. A contract may be within the
clause though it does not expressly state that it is to be performed within
the jurisdiction : Reynolds v. Coleman, 36 Ch. D. 453, C. A. ; provided
there is, by necessarj' implication, an indication to that effect : Bell v.
Antwerp Line, sup. ; and see Bein v. Stein, [1892] 1 Q. B. 753 ; The Eider,
[1893] P. 119 ; Thompson v. Palmer, [1893] 2 Q. B. 80, C. A. ; and for a
case in which a contract for through carriage of live stock by steamship
and rail was held to be separable as to the English railway companies, see
M'Geitigan v. N. E. By., [1899] 2 I. R. 375.
An action by equitable mortgagees to foreclose persons entitled to a sub-
sequent charge is not founded on any breach of contract within the clause :
Deutsche National Bank v. Paul, [1898] 1 Ch. 283 ; and see British Wagon
Co. V. Gray, [1896] 1 Q. B. 35, C. A. ; sup. p. 13.
The concluding words of clause (e) constitute an express exception, and
are not merely referential to r. 2. There is, therefore, no power to allow
service out of the jurisdiction, where the Deft is domiciled or ordinarily
resident in Scotland or Ireland : Lenders v. Anderson, 12 Q. B. D. 50.
Cases on r. In reference to service under r. 1 (f ), the practicabilitj' of enforcing the
1 (f). injunction if granted, is to be considered. In an action for an injunction to
restrain Deft from sending libels to Pit, order for service out of the jurisdic-
tion was upheld, Deft not showing that he never came within the jurisdic-
tion : Tozier v. Hawkins, 15 Q. B. D. 680, C. A. In an action to restrain
infringement of trade mark, where Deft was resident in Scotland, and it
would be inconvenient to enforc^ the injunction merely against his agents,
the leave was refused : Marshall v. M., 38 Ch. D. 330, C. A. ; and see
Kinahan v. K., 45 Ch. D. 78 ; secus, where Defts were a co. having a regis-
tered office in Scotland, but branches in this country, and an injunction
could be enforced by sequestration against their property : Be Burland's
Trade Mark, Burland v. Broxburn Oil Co., 41 Ch. D. 542. In Badische
Anilin und Soda Fahrik v. Johnson & Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 25, C. A., foreign
manufacturerswhohad addressed goods to a traderin England and delivered
them to the foreign post office, were allowed to be joined as co-Defts under
(f ) in an action for infringement of an English patent by a sale in England,
but the action was ultimately dismissed with costs, see [1897] 2 Ch. 322,
C. A., affirmed [1898] A. C. 200, H. L. In order to bring a case within the
clause, it is not necessary that an injunction should be the only relief
sought : Lisbon-Berlin Gold Fields, Limited v. Heddle, 52 L. T. 796.
Where the Scotch Courts had already to some extent seisin of the case, an
order for service on exeoutrices there was discharged : Be De Penny, De
P. V. Christie, [1891] 2 Ch. 63.
Where an injunction was sought to restrain dealing with a fund, and a
French Court, in an action between the parties, had decided that the Deft
was entitled to control of the fund, the Court refused the leave to serve,
regarding the judgment as evidence that the Pit had not a probable cause
of action : Sociki', Ohicrale de Paris v. Dreyfus, 37 Ch. D. 215, C. A.
In an action to enforce the trusts of a deed against real estate in Trinidad,
the Court, acting on the opinion of a barrister practising there that the real
Service of Writ and Proceedings. 17
estate was bound by the deed, gave leave to serve the writ on one of the
legal owners who was resident there : Jenney v. Mackintosh, 33 Ch. D. 595.
The question whether a person out o£ the jurisdiction is a " necessary or Cases on r.
proper " party within clause (g) must depend on the consideration whether, 1 (g).
supposing he and the person duly served within the jurisdiction had been
within the jurisdiction, they would both have been proper parties : Massey
v. Heynes, 21 Q. B. D. 330, C. A. Thus, in an action against London
agents of foreign principals for breach of warranty of authority, the foreign
principals are proper parties : Ibid. ; and so the English maiuifacturers
of cycles which infringed a patent, and alleged to be supplied by them to
an agent in Ireland for sale were properly joined as co-Defts to an action
brought in Ireland : Joynt v. McGrum, [1899] 1 I. R. 217. In order to
bring a case within the clause, the Pit must have an apparent cause of action
against the person served within the jurisdiction, and must not merely have
joined such person in order to be able to sue, within the jurisdiction, a
person who is out of the jurisdiction : Witted v. Galbrailh, [1893] 1 Q. B.
577, C. A. ; and Pits cannot properly join as co-Defts with a person out of
the jurisdiction persons who are trustees for the Pits, who might be joined
as co-Pits, and against whom no relief is sought : Deutsche National Bank
V. Paul, [1898] 1 Ch. 283 ; and the relief sought against the Deft out of the
jurisdiction must be connected with that sought against the Deft within
the jurisdiction. Thus the trustee of a will who was out of the jurisdiction
could not be joined as co-Deft with the mortgagees of the interest of a
bankrupt beneficiary under the will in property situate out of the juris-
diction : Collins v. North British and Mercantile Insurance Co., [1894] 3
Ch. 228 ; and for a case in which it was held upon the evidence that solrs
in India, who had acted for trustees making an investment, were not proper
parties to an action against the represve of the surviving trustee for breach
of trust : see PlasMtt v. Mdis, 79 L. T. 136.
It must {semble) be shown that there is a substantial Deft within the
jurisdiction : Yorkshire Tannery v. Eglinton Chemical Co., 54 L. J. Ch. 81 ;
as the Court must see that British subjects are not unreasonably and maid
fide sued in order to make a case against foreigners : Massey v. Heynes,
sup. ; and that the Deft within the jurisdiction, against whom the relief
is sought, has previously to such application been duly served with the writ :
Collins v. North British and Mercantile Insurance Co., [1894] 3 Ch. 228 ;
following Yorkshire Tannery and Boot Manufactory v. Eglinton Chemical
Co., 54 L. J. Ch 81 ; 33 W. R. 162 ; notmthstanding observations thereon
in Tassell v. Hallen, [1892] 1 Q. B. 321. Service under clause (g) may be
allowed in an action of tort ; Croft v. King, [1893] 1 Q. B. 419 ; but the
jurisdiction is discretionary : Williams v Carlwright, [1895] 1 Q. B. 142, C. A.
For a case in which order for service exjur. was discharged on the ground
that the Spanish Court was the proper tribunal, see Lopez v. Chavarri,
1901, W. N. 115.
By 0. XI, 2, if it appears that there may be a, noncurrent remedy in Comparative
Scotland or Ireland, the Court or Judge is to have regard to the compara- cost and
tive cost and convenience of proceeding in England, or in the place of convenience,
residence of the Deft or person sought to be served.
" Comparative cost and convenience " has reference to the parties gene-
rally, and not merely to the person sought to be served : Williams v. Cart-
mright, [1895] 1 Q. B. 142, C. A. In an action of deceit against three
jointly of whom one was resident in Scotland, service on him out of the
jurisdiction was allowed under clause (g) : Ibid.
Where an action is transferred from the county court to the High Court,
the procedure is governed by the High Court Rules, and an order for
service which would have been good in the county court may be open to
objection by the defendant in the High Court : Wood v. Middleton, [1897]
1 Ch. 151. An administration action having been so transferred, the de-
fendant, who had been served in Scotland and objected, was held entitled
to have an opportunity of filing evidence as to the domicil of the testator,
VOL. I. C
18
Service of Writ and Proceedings, [chap. ii.
and as to the existence of an adequate concurrent jurisdiction in Scotland :
Ibid.
Wliere an action was brought against Scotch trustees of a Scotch pro-
perty, held upon the trusts of a Scotch settlement, for improjjerly with-
holding maintenance, leave was refused on grounds of convenience : Cress-
well V. Parker, 11 Ch. D. 601, C. A. ; and as to the principles on which the
Court acts in considering the question of convenience, see Exp. McPhail,
12 Ch. D. 632.
Leave to issue a writ and serve in Ireland was refused when the com-
parative cost and convenience were in favour of proceeding there : Totten-
ham V. Barry, 12 Ch. T>. 797 ; and see Harvey v. Dcmgherty, 56 L. T. 322 ;
Kinahan v. K., 45 Ch. D. 78, where the Judge in Court discharged an order,
made in Chambers ex-p., for service exjur.
The Court will stay an action, brought within the jurisdiction in respect
of a cause of action arising out of the jurisdiction, if satisfied that no injustice
will be done thereby to the Pit, and that by compelling the Deft to defend
here, instead of in another and accessible Court where the cause of action
arose, would be vexatious and oppressive : Logan v. Sank of Scotland
(No. 2), [1906] 1 K. B. 141 ; and see also Egbert v. Short, [1907] 2 Ch. 205 ;
Re Norton's Settlement, Norton v. Norton, [1908] 1 Ch. 471.
Affidavit in By O. XI, 4, the application for leave to serve a Deft is to be supported
support. by affidavit or other evidence, stating that in the belief of the deponent the
Pit has a good cause of action, and showing in what place or country the
Deft " is, or probably may be found " (see Seagrove v. Parks, [1891] 1 Q. B.
551 ), and whether he is a British subject or not, and the grounds upon which
the application is made ; and no such leave shall be granted unless it shall
be made sufficiently to appear to the Court or Judge that the ca.=e is a
proper one for service out of the jurisdiction under this order.
It must be shown that there is a good cause of action within the order :
Fowler v. Barstow, 20 Ch. D. 240, C. A. ; Great Australian, dsc. Co. v.
Martin, 5 Ch. D. 1 ; and for service in Scotland or Ireland there must be
evidence for enabling the Judge to exercise his discretion : Tottenham v.
Barry, 12 Ch. D. 797.
The omission to make the affidavit is an irregularity which may be dealt
with under 0. Lxx, 1 : Dickson v. Law, [1895] 2 Ch. 62.
By O. XI, 5, any order giving leave to effect such service, or give such
notice, shall limit a time (as to which v. sup. p. 7) after such service or
notice within which the Deft is to enter an appearance, such time to depend
on the place or country where or within which the writ is to be served, or
the notice given.
By 0. XI, 6, when the Deft is neither a British subject, nor in British
dominions, notice of the writ, and not the writ itself, is to be served upon
him. The requirement is imperative : see Fowler v. Barstow, 20 Ch. D.
240, 245, C. A. Therefore, where the writ, instead of notice of it, was
served, the order for service and judgment in default of appearance
grounded on it were set aside on the application of the Deft : Hewiison v.
Fabre, 21 Q. B. D. 6. Whether, however, such an irregularity might not
under O. lxx, 2, be cured by appearance of Deft, qucere : Ibid. (Wills, J.).
The rule applies to foreign corporations as well as individuals : Scott v.
Royal Wax, <fcc. Co., 1 Q. B. D. 404. For form of notice, see R. S. C, App,
A., Part I., Form 9.
Palatine Where sole Deft in Palatine Court is resident out of the jurisdiction of
Court. that Court, leave to serve the writ upoii him out of the jurisdiction will
only be granted, it at all, under very special circumstances : Re Watmough,
Sergenson v. Beloe, 24 Ch. D, 280, C. A.
Having regard to Chancery of Lancaster Rules, 1884, 0. II, 4 ; O. xil,
1, 7, leave of the Palatine Court must be obtained for issue of writ out of
jurisdiction before application to Court of Appeal, under 17 & 18 V. c. 82,
s. 8, for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction of the Palatine and within
that of the High Court : Walker v, Dodds, 37 Ch. D. 188, C. A.
Time for
appearance.
Service on
foreigner.
Service of Writ and Proceed iru/.'^ 19
On application to set aside service against one Deft, an order for transfer
to the High Court was made, but the other Defts were held necessary parties
to the application : PMpps v. Tod, C. A., 10 Nov. 1886.
The right of a Pit under 4 & 5 Anne, o. 16, to bring his action after the
Deft's return from beyond the seas within the time limited by 21 Jac, 1,
e. 16, is not taken away by O. xi : Musurus Bey v. Oadban, [1894] 1 Q. B.
533 ; [1894] 2 Q. B. 352, C. A.
Other Proceedings.
By O. XI, 8a (R. S. C, August, 1909), the Court or a Judge may direct,
that any summons, order or notice shall be served on any party or person in
a foreign country, and the procedure prescribed by 0. xi, 8, with reference
to service of notice of a writ of summons shall apply to the service of
any summons, order or notice so directed to be served. Previously
there was no jurisdiction to serve out of the jurisdiction an originating
summons or a notice intended to be the foundation of proceedings
substituted for an action (Re Busfield, 32 Ch. D. 123, C. A.). Therefore
the Court had no jurisdiction to give leave to serve notices of orders
and other proceedings in the winding up of a company on persons
residing out of the jurisdiction : Me Anglo-African Steamship Co., [1886J
32 Ch. D. 348 ; but a notice under the general order of Nov. 11, 1862, r. 30,
of an appointment to settle a list of contributories of a, company might
be so served, as it is of a different nature : Be Nathan, Newman ct' Co.,
(1887) 35 Ch. D. 1 ; and see Rasch & Co. v. Walfert, [1904] 1 K. B. 118,
as to a summons for leave to enforce an award ; and generally prior to
the new rule, see Seton, 6th ed., p. 18.
There is no jurisdiction under the new order to grant leave for service
out of the jurisdiction, except in the circumstances in which there is juris-
diction under O. xi, 1, to grant leave for service of a writ of summons out
of the jurisdiction : Re Aktitholaget Robertsfors, <i:c., [1910] 2 K. B. 727.
As to procedure applicable to new rule, see 8. C.
A third party notice might be served out of the jurisdiction under O. xi,
1, by virtue of the provision in 0. xvi, 48, that a copy of such notice shall
be " served according to the rules relating to the service of writs of sum-
mons : " Duhout V. Macpherson, 23 Q. B. D. 340, citing Swansea Shipping
Co. V. Duncan, 1 Q. B. D. 644, C. A. The question for consideration is not
the claim of the Pit in the action, but the claim of the Deft against the
third party. The claim against the third party is to be treated as if it were
a claim on a writ of summons, and if the claim is within O. xi, 1, leave
can be given ; if not, leave cannot be given : McCheane v. Cyles, [1902]
1 Ch. 287.
O. XI, 1 (g), has no application to a tliird party notice for contribution
(unless, semble, there were at least two contributors, one of whom was
within the jurisdiction) : Ibid.
By O. Lxvii, 5, where personal service of any writ, notice, pleading,
order, summons, warrant, or other document, proceeding, or written com-
munication is required by the rules, or otherwise, the service shall be
effected as nearly as may be in the manner prescribed for the personal
service of a writ of summons.
And see Dan. 288—294 ; D, C. F. 149—159.
AFFIDAVIT 01' SERVICE.
The affidavit of service of the writ must state when, where, and hos^^, and
by whom service was effected : O. LXvn, 9. It must show the day of the
month and week on which the indorsement of service was made on the writ,
and that such indorsement was made within three days at most after
service : 0. ix, 15 ; O. Xiil, 1.
Non-compliance with O. ix, 15, disentitles a Pit on proceeding by default
.and is not an irregularity which can be waived: Hamp-Adams v. Hall,
'[1911] 2 K. B. 942.
20 Service of Writ and Proceedings, [chap. if.
The affidavit of service cannot be dispensed with, even though tlie process
server by foreign law cannot make the affidavit required by 0. xiii, 2 : Ford
V. Mies'che, 16 Q. B. D. 57. In Hastings v. Hurley, 16 Ch. D. 734, the
Court extended the time for indorsing a writ which had been served abroad,
but required a fresh affidavit of service.
DISCHARGE OE OEDER FOR SERVICE.
By O. XII, 30, a Deft before appearing is to be at liberty, without obtain-
ing an order to enter or entering a cohditional appearance, to serve notice
of motion to set aside the service, or to discharge the order authorizing such
service.
Where a Deft who objected to service, instead of moving to discharge
the order, appeared by counsel on a motion for injunction, filed affidavits,
and argued the case on the merits, he was precluded from taking such
objection : Botjle v. Sacher, 39 Ch. D. 249, 0. A. ; 0. lxx, 2.
An order for service out of jurisdiction, made upon untrue affidavits, will
be discharged, as uberrima fides ought to be observed by the party applying
for such service : Bepublic of Peru v. Dreyfus, 65 L. T. 802.
The application imder r. 30 must be promptly made. After lapse of a
year it was held too late to raise objection to an order, on the ground that
the affidavit did not fairly state the case : Reynolds v. Coleman, 36 Ch. D
453, C. A.
On moving to discharge. Deft is entitled to go into evidence to show that
the case is not within O. XI, but should not go into merits unnecessarily :
Fowler v. Barstow, 20 Ch. D. 240, C. A.
The omission of the indorsement prescribed by App. A., Form No. 5,
on the writ served out of the jurisdiction is a mere irregularity wiiich may
be disregarded under O. liXX, 1 ; Dickson v. Law, [1895] 2 Ch. 62.
By answering interrogatories in a county court action, Deft does not
waive his right to object, on transfer of the action to the High Court, to
the order for service on him out of the jurisdiction : Wood v. Middleton,
[1897] 1 Ch. 151.
THIRD PARTY PROCEDURE.
When a Deft claims to be entitled to contribution or indemnity over
against any person not a party to the action, he may by leave issue a notice
to that effect, sealed as a writ of summons, .stating the nature of the claim.
A copy of the notice is to be filed, and the notice is to be served within the
time limited for delivering his defence : O. xvi, 48. By 0. xvi, 55, the
procedure is made applicable between co-Defts. It is not applicable to
proceedings by originating summons : Be Wilson, A. 0. v. WoodaU, 45
Ch. D. 266,
Form of third party notice is given, R. S. C, App. B., No. 1 ; D. C. F. 82.
The application for leave must be made promptly ; in general within
time for delivering defence, but, at latest, before pleadings closed : Bir-
mingliam and District Land Co. v. L. <Si N. W. Bail. Co., 1887, W. N. 102 ;
56 L. T. 702 ; but application before defence delivered is premature : In
re Gilsm, G. v. C, [1894] 2 Ch. 92.
The application need not be served on the Pit in the first instance, but may
be made ex parte : Furness, Withy dh Co., Ltd. v. Pickering, [1908] 2 Ch. 224.
As to whether a third party can bring in a fourth, seeWitham v. Vane, 49
L. J. Ch. 242 ; Walker v. Balfour, 25 W. R. 511 ; Dan. 236, 237.
The leave will not be given where the effect would be to materially
embarrass the Pit : Wye Valley Bail. Co. v. Hawes, 16 Ch. D. 489, C. A.
In giving the leave the Court will not consider whether the claim to
contribution or indemnity is valid, but only whether it is bona fide, and if
established, will result in contribution or indemnity : Carshore v. N. E.
Bail. Co., 29 Ch. D. 344, C. A. ; Edison and Swan Electric Co. v. Holland,
33 Ch. D. 497.
By r. 52 application is to be made to the Judge by the Deft giving the
notice for directions as to the mode of trial.
Service of Writ and Proceedings. 21
As between co-Defts, the question whether there is a case for contribu-
tion or indemnity should be raised on this application, and not by an appli-
cation to set aside the service of the notice : Baxter v. France, [1895] 1
Q. B. 455, C. A. ; and see Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. v. Pickering, [1908]
2 Ch. 224.
Where all the matters in dispute between the Deft and the co-Deft as
third party could not be determined in the action, and the right to tho
indemnity claimed was very doubtful, the Court refused to give directions :
Baxter y" France (No. 2), [1895] 1 Q. B. 691, C. A.
The procedvire under the Rules of 1883 is strictly limited to claims to Rule to what
" contribution or indemnity." A right to indemnity, arising as it does applicable,
from contract, express or implied, is quite distinct from a right to damages,
which arises in consequence of a breach of contract previously made : see
Birmingham, &c. Land Co. v. L. & N. W. Bail Co., 34 Ch. D. 261, C. A.
Thus a covenant by sub-lessee to repair, though following terms of covenant
by lessee with original lessor, does not confer on the lessee a right to " con-
tribution or indemnity " within 0. xvi, 48, in respect of breaches of the
covenant by Mm with the lessor : Pontifex v. Foord, 12 Q. B. D. 151 :
nor is the rule applicable to a claim by sub-lessee that he was induced
by lessee to commit breach of covenant, and that lessee had given him a
covenant for qmet en]'o3rment : Tritton v. Bankart, 56 L. J. Ch. 629 ;
35 W. R. 474 ; 56 L. T. 306 ; nor to a claim by trustees, who are sued
for breach of trust, to indemnity against the estate of a deceased beneficiary,
whose exors are one of the Pits, one of the Deft trustees and a person
who is not a party to the action : In re Oilson, 0. v. 0., [1894] 2 Ch. 92 ;
and the right of a trustee to recover from the surviving partners of the
firm of solrs who acted for the trustees and received trust monej's which
were misapplied by a deceased trustee and co-partner, is an independent
right, and not one depending on the liability of the trustee to replace the
money : Wynne v. Tempest, [1897] 1 Ch. 110. But, on the other hand, a
contract by a sub-lessee to perform the covenants in the original lease is a
contract of indemnity : Hornby v. Cardwell, 8 Q. B. D. 329, C. A. And so
is a covenant by an assignee to indemnify the assignor against past breaches :
Oooch V. ClvUerbuck, [1899] 2 Q. B. 148, C. A. ; and for further instances
of the distinction, see Constantine & Co.m. Warden, 1895, W. N. 143, C. A. ;
73 L. T. 450 ; 44 W. R. 313 ; The Jacob Christiensen, [1895] P. D. 281.
A claim by a purchaser that he was induced to buy by misrepresentation
of auctioneer, that purchase-money might remain on mortgage, is not a
claim to indemnity : Catton v. Bennett, 26 Ch. D. 161 ; nor can a warranty
of seaworthiness be treated as a contract to indemnify against loss arising
from unseaworthiness : Speller v. Bristol Steam Navigation Co., 13 Q. B. D.
96, C. A.
Under the usual suing and labouring clause in a marine policy, being a
contract to pay the assured expenses which he might incur, but not to
indemnify him against claims by others against him, the underwriters
could not be brought in as third parties : Johnston v. Salvage Association,
19 Q. B. D. 458, C. A. ; nor is the procedure applicable in an action on a
policy of marine insurance to bring in as a tiiird party the underwriter of
a policy of reinsurance: Nelson v. Empress Assurance Corpn., Ltd., [1905]
2 K. B. 281.
In an action against a railway co. to reinstate name of Pit as owner of
stock transferred on a forged transfer, the co. were entitled to serve a third
party notice upon the transferee : Carshore v. N. E. Rail. Co., 29 Ch. D.
344, C. A.
The procedure applies where the indemnity is given after action brought:
Edison and Swan Electric Co. v. Holland, 33 Ch. D. 497.
And as to third party procedure, see Dan. 230 et scq. ; D. C. F. 80 — 86.
( 22 ) [chap. III.
CHAPTER III.
APPEAR AN CE AND DIRECTIONS.
Section I. — Appearance.
1. Appearance set aside on ground that Address is Illusory or
Fictitious — 0. xii, 12.
Order that the appearance entered by the Deft be set aside, on
the ground that the address for service contained in the memorandum
of appearance is illusory or fictitious ; And it is ordered that notice
of this order be given to the Deft by sending a copy of this order in
a registered letter to such address.^See Edell v. Gave, V.-C. Bacon,
12 Deo. 1884, A. 1716 ; S. C, 54 L. J. Ch. 308 ; and Goulter v. Pearce,
Chitty, J., at Chambers, 4 May, 1872, A. 1017.
2. Leave to a person in Possession, not being a Deft, to appear and
defend an Action for Recovery of Land — 0. xii, 25.
Upon the application &c. and upon hearing &c., and upon reading
an affidavit of &c., filed &c., whereby it appears that the applicants
are in possession of the land and premises sought to be recovered in
this action by themselves or their tenants. It is ordered that the
applicants be at liberty to appear and defend this action. — Hartley
V. Blachmore, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 7 March, 1876, A. 358.
By 0. xn, 25, a person not named as a Deft in a writ of summons for
the recovery of land may by leave appear and defend on filing an affidavit
showing that lie is in possession of the land either by himself or his tenant.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 171.
3. Third Party served Kith Notice of Claim for Indemnity — Direc-
tions under 0. xvi, 52 and 53.
The application of the Deft H. for directions consequent upon S.,
the person served with a third party notice, filed &c., pursuant to
the order dated &c., having appeared to such notice, which upon
hearing &c., was adjourned to be heard in Court, coming on this day
to be heard accordingly, and upon hearing counsel for the applicant,
and for the Pits, and for the said S., and upon reading the said notice
and order, and the said S. by his counsel not admitting any liability
to indemnify the Deft in respect of the Pits' Claim, This Court doth
order that the said S. be at liberty to appear at the trial of this action,
and take such part as the Judge shall direct, and be bound by the
23
SECT. I.J Appearance.
result of the trial ; And it is ordered that the question of the liability
of the said S. to indemnify the Deft be tried at the trial of this action,
but subsequent thereto. Costs of application reserved.— CoZes v.
Civil Service Supply Assoc, 26 Ch. D. 529 ; Barton v. L. & N. W.
Ry. Co., 38 CK. D. 144.
See Chap. II., Form 12, for previous order for leave to issue the notice.
For form of application, see D. 0. F. 86.
i. Leave to defend on paying a Sum into Court or on giving Security
—0. XIV, 6.
Order that the Deft be at liberty on or before &e. to lodge the
sum of £— in Court as directed in the schedule hereto, or within
the like period to procure some sufficient person on his behalf to give
security by Bond to the satisfaction of the Judge in case the parties
differ to the Pit in the said sum of £— or give security for such sum
of £— to the satisfaction of the Pit ; And it is ordered that upon
such lodgment beiag made or such security being given the Deft be
at liberty to defend this action : But in default of the Deft making
such lodgment or giving such security as aforesaid, It is ordered that
the Pit be at liberty to sign judgment for £ — and his costs of this
action to be taxed. [Add lodgment schedule to credit of action.]
5. Deft allowed to defend, after Judgment by Default, on payment
of Costs.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for the Deft, and upon hearing counsel
for the Pit : This Court doth order that the judgment dated &c. be
discharged. And it is ordered that the Deft do pay to the Pit his
costs of this action subsequent to the delivery of the statement of
claim, and up to and including his costs of this motion, such costs to
be taxed &c. And it is ordered that the Deft do on or before &c.
deliver his defence. — Williams v. Brisco, Hall, V.-C, 19 May, 1881,
B. 1003.
NOTES.
APPEARANCE GENERALLY.
O. xn, 8, prescribes the mode of entering an appearance.
If a Deft wishes to take advantage of an irregularity in the issue of the
writ, he should not appear, but should move on notice to Pit to set aside
the writ ; but appearance under protest or with notice of objection to Pit
does not preclude the Deft from objecting to the jurisdiction : O. xn, 30 ;
Dan. 301 ; Firih v. De las Rivas, [1893] 1 Q. B. 768.
As to the validity and effect of appearance under protest, see Firth v. Appearance
De las Rivas, [1893] 1 Q. B, 768, where a foreigner, appearing under protest, under protest.
was held not to have lost his right to object to the jurisdiction.
The Court refused to set aside writ on the ground that Deft, who had
entered a conditional appearance, was not the person really intended to be
sued : Zuccato v. Young, 1890, W. N. 55 ; 38 W. R. 474.
By O. XLViiiA, 7, a person sued as a partner may enter an appearance,
under protest, denying that he is a partner, but such appearance shall not
preclude the Pit from otherwise serving the firm and obtaining judgment
24
Appearance and Directions. [chap. hi.
against the firm in default of appearance, if no partner has entered an
appearance in the ordinary form. As to the effect of appearance by " R.,
sued as R. & Co.," and subsequent proceedings against R. only, see Munster
V. Oox, 10 App. Cas. 680 ; S. C, 11 Q. B. D. 435, C. A.
A solr employed by the managing partner of a business firm to defend
an action brought against the firm in the firm name, has authority to enter
an appearance in the names of each of the parties individually : Tomlinson
V. Broadsmifh, [1896] 1 Q. B. 386, C. A.
^mT^^"^ ^^^^^ ^ P^''^°° lias been informed that he has been made Deft, he may
6 • before actual service appear " gratis " : and see Dan. 299. But a person,
not originally a party, named as Deft to a counter-claim, cannot so appear,
but must wait until he is served with defence, under 0. xxi, 12 : Fraser v.
Cooper, Hall <fc Co., 23 Ch. D. 685.
As to the mode of entering appearance in particular cases, see Annual
Practice.
APPEABANCB BY THIKD PARTY.
By O. XVI, 49, a third party who desires to dispute the Pit's claim against
the Deft is to enter an appearance within eight days, and in default of his
doing so shall be deemed to admit the validity of the judgment obtained
against the Deft, whether by consent or otherwise, and his own liability to
contribute or indemnify, as the case may be, as claimed by the notice.
After eight days he may apply for leave to appear, and leave may be given
upon terms.
Rules 52 and 53 provide as to the procedure if a third party appears
pursuant to the third party notice.
APPEARANCE AFTER JUDGMENT.
A Deft against whom judgment in default and on substituted service had
been obtained, was allowed to defend on payment of all costs subsequent to
the statement of claim : Williams v. Brisco, 29 W. B. 713. Form 5, sup.
As to appearance after judgment, see Dan. 299, 300 ; D. C. F. 168, 169.
LEAVE TO DEFEND.
Where there is a question of account (ex. gr., action by mortgagee in
possession for mortgage debt), Deft ought, except under very special cir-
cumstances, to have leave to defend without any payment into Court :
Walling ford v. The Mutual Society, 5 App. Cas. 685. In such case judgment
should be signed as security only for what should be found due on the
account, without power to issue execution except by leave of Court. Deft
being required as a condition to consent to the immediate taking of such
account.
Where leave to defend is given on giving security to the satisfaction of
a Master there is no appeal from the decision of the Master with regard to
the sufficiency of the security tendered : Hoare cfc Co. v. Moorshead, [1903]
2 K. B. 359; C. A.
Section II. — Summons for Directions.
For tbe official forms of these orders, see Annual Practice,
Appendix K., No. dB (for ordinary actions), and Nos. 4e and 4f
(for thirii party summons and order for directions).
NOTES.
O. XXX provides that except in certain cases specified the Pit in every
action shall take out a summons for directions returnable in not less than
four days. This rule, however, does not apply to proceedings by origi-
nating summons.
SECT. II. J Summons for Directions. 25
By R. 2. " Upon the hearing of the summons the Court or a Judge shall,
so far as practicable, make such order as may be just with respect to all the
interlocutory proceedings to be taken in the action before the trial, and as
to the costs thereof, and more particularly with respect to the following
matters: — Pleading, particulars, admissions, discovery, interrogatories, in-
spection of documents, inspection of real or personal property, commissions,
examination of witnesses, place and mode of trial.
The filing of a statement of claim under 0. xiii, 12, as against a Deft not
appearing cannot be dispensed with : Re Norman, 1900, W. N. 159 ; and as
to effect of dispensing with it in case of appearance, see Milbank v. Francis,
1901, W.N. 91.
Whether there is jurisdiction to make the usual order for accounts and
inquiries, foreclosure or sale, on summons for directions, quwre : Horton v.
Bosson, 80 L. T. 435.
R. 5. " Any application subsequently to the original summons for any
directions as to any interlocutory matter or thing by any party shall be
made under the summons by two clear days' notice to the other party
stating the grounds of the application." The expression " application in
Chambers " accordingly includes a notice under this rule. The notice is
issued at Chambers without fee. An ordinary summons in lieu of such
notice is irregular : Dan. 312 ; and see Pepperell v. Hird, [1902] 1 Ch. 477.
R. 7. " On the hearing of the summons, the Court or a Judge may order
that evidence of any particular fact, to be specified in the order, shall be
given by statement on oath of information and belief, or by production of
documents or entries in books, or by copies of documents or entries or other-
wise as the Court or Judge may direct."
On summons for directions in a debenture holder's action, where the
Master orders that the action be set down for hearing without pleadings and
as a short cause, it is convenient that the order made should contain a
direction that evidence be taken by affidavit : In re Qutta Percha Corp.,
Ld., 1899, W. N. 251. The affidavit made on the motion for receiver is often
sufficient.
R. 8. " In any action to which r. 1 of this Order applies, if the Pit does
not within fourteen days from the entry of the Deft's appearance take out
a summons for directions under this Order, or for summary judgment
under 0. xiv, the Deft shall be at liberty to apply for an order to dis-
miss the action, and upon such application the Judge may either dismiss
the action on such terms as may be just, or may deal with such application
in all respects as if it were a summons for directions under this Order."
And as to summons for directions, see further Dan. 311 et seq.
And as to the proper fees to be allowed on an ordinary application for
further directions, see MacGiiare v. Milligan, [1903] 1 Ch. 145.
( 26 ) [chap. IV.
CHAPTER IV.
SECURITY FOE COSTS.
1. Pit to give Security for Costs hy Bond or Lodgment in Court —
0. Lxv, 6, 7.
Oedee that the Pit &c. on or before &c. procure some sufficient
person on his behalf to give security by bond to the satisfaction of
the Judge in case the parties differ to the Deft, in the sum of £100,
conditioned to answer costs in case any costs shall be awarded to be
paid by the Pit to the Deft ; But the Pit is to be at liberty instead
of giving such security as aforesaid to make the lodgment in Court
directed in the schedule hereto ; And until such security shall have
been given or such lodgment made and notice thereof given to the
solr for the Deft, the Pit is not to take any further proceedings in
this action (if more than one Deft add) as against the Deft A. [Add
schedule directing lodgment in Court to account of " security for
costs of Deft."]
Where the action is commenced by writ, and a summons for directions
has been taken out in due course, the application by Deft after appearance
will be by notice under 0. xxx, 5, ante, p. 25.
For like order for security for past and future costs, see Massey v. Allen,
12 Ch. D. 807 ; 28 W. R. 243 ; V.-O. H., 3 July, 1879, B. 1524.
For forms of application, &c., see D. C. F. 1010 et seq.
2. Pit to state Residence in Writ, and if Abroad to give Security for
Costs, either hy Bond, or hy Payment into Court.
Oedee that the Pit do amend his writ of summons issued in this
action by inserting the actual place of residence of the Pit ; And if
such amendment shall not be made on or before &c.. It is ordered
that the Pit do not take any further proceedings in this action until
such amendment shall have been made ; And if on such amendment
being made it shall appear that the Pit's actual residence is out of
the jurisdiction of this Court, It is ordered that the Pit do on or before
&c. procure (Form 1, ante). — See Kenny v. Hollings, V.-C. M. at
Chambers, 16 Feb. 1877, A. 308.
For order for fresh security in the place of a bankrupt, see Transatl. Co. v.
Pielroni, V.-C. W., 2 Nov. 1861, B. 2115.
For order for Pit within ten days to give security in room of, or in addition
to, proposed sureties, not solvent, or the suit to be dismissed, see Cliffe v.
Wilkinson, V.-C, 13 Deo. 1830, A. 257.
Security for Costs. 27
For order for Pits, a limited co., to give security for costs under 25 & 26
V. 0. 89, s. 69, now substituted by 8 Edw. VII. c. 69, s. 278, see Northampton
Coal, &c. Co. V. Midland Waggon Co., C. A., 16 Jan. 1878, B. 87, 7 Ch. D- 500;
and on appeal by company in liquidation : Ee Consolidated South Sand
Mines Deep, Limited, 1909, W. N. 66, C. A. ; and see Buckley, 555.
An order for security to be given by a Pit out of the jurisdiction was dis-
charged on his coming within the jurisdiction : Mathews v. Chichester, 30
Beav. 135.
For order to put bond in suit, see Bainbrigge v. Moss, V.-C, W.. 9 Jan,
1857, A, 283 ; S. C, 3 Jur, (N.S.) 107 ; 3 Kay & J, 62. *
3. Petitioiier to give Security for Costs.
The petition of A. of [description from petition], on the — day of —
preferred &c., coming on this day to be heard before this Court in the
presence of counsel for the Petr, and upon hearuig counsel for B.
[respondent], This Court doth order that the Petr do on or before &c.
procure (Form 1, ante) ; And it is ordered that the said petition do
stand over until such security shall have been given. — Re Dolman, 15
Jur. 1095 ; see Knierim v. Schmauss, V.-C. S., 6 June, 1862, A. 1100.
For an order for an applicant by summons to give security, see Be Croclc-
ford's, &c. Co., 12 Nov. 1875, A. 2857.
A shareholder out of the jurisdiction opposing a winding-up petition will
not be required to give security for costs : Re Percy, <S;c. Iron Mining Co., 2
Ch. D 531 ; but a petitioner abroad may be ordered to give security : Ee
Home Assurance Co., 1871, W. N. 137 ; 25 L. T. 199 ; Ee Alabama Portland
Cement Co., 1909, W. N. 157. So also a creditor abroad claiming to be
entitled to prove in the winding up : In re Pretoria Pietersburg Eailway Co.
(No. 2), [19041 2 Ch. 359 ; or a Petr becoming bankrupt : Be Carta Para
Co., 19 Ch. D. 457.
4. Appellant to give Security for Costs of Appeal.
Order that A. {appellant) do on or before &c. {fourteen days from
date of order) procure some sufficient person on his behalf to give
security to the satisfaction of the Judge in Chambers in case the
parties differ by bond to B. {respondent) in the sum of £ — condi-
tioned to answer costs in case any shall be awarded to be paid by
the said A. on his appeal against the oider of Mr. Justice — dated
&c. But the said A. is to be at liberty instead of giving such
security as aforesaid to lodge within the same period the sum of
£ — in Court, as directed in the Lodgment Schedule hereto. And
it is ordered that until such security shall have been given or such
lodgment made, and notice thereof given to the Solicitor for the
said B., all proceedings in the said appeal be stayed. And it is
ordered that in default of the said A. giving such security or making
such lodgment as aforesaid within the time aforesaid, the said
appeal do stand dismissed out of this Court without further order.
And it is ordered that in that case the said A. do pay to the said
B. his costs occasioned by the said appeal, such costs to be taxed
28
Security for Costs.
[chap. IV.
by the Taxing Master. {Add Lodgment Schedule directing lodgment
in Court to account o/" Security for costs of Appeal of A."]
NOTES.
Amount. By O. Lxv, 6, in any cause or matter in which security for costs is
required, the security shall be of such amount, and be given at such times
and in such manner and form, as the Court or a Judge shall direct.
In every case the security may be allowed to be given by payment of a
sum of money into Court.
A petitioner in an action to which he was not a party {Atkins v. Coolce,
3 Drew. 694 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 353 ; .5 W. R. 381), was ordered to give security
to the extent of £40.
Where insolvent Pit was suing on behalf of his solicitor, and past costs
were estimated at £70 and future at £50, security to the amount of £200
was ordered, but reduced by Court of Appeal to £100 : Wilmott v. Freehold
House Property Co., 52 L. T. 742 ; 33 W. R. 554. But in special oases a
larger amount than £100 has been ordered; ex. gr., where Pits were a
foreign republic having no property in this country : Republic of Costa Rica
V. Erlanger, 3 Ch. D. 62, C- A. The jurisdiction being discretionary, the
Court of Appeal is reluctant to interfere : Wilmott v. Freehold House Pro-
perty Co., Slip.
By r. 6 (a) (overruling Redondo v. Chayfor, 4 Q. B. D. 453, C. A. ; and
Ebrard v. Gassinr, 28 Ch. D. 232, C. A.), a Pit ordinarily resident out of the
jurisdiction may be ordered to give security for costs", though he may be
temporarily resident within the jurisdiction. As to the meaning of this
expression, see Mechiels v. Empire Palace, 66 L. T. 132 ; and Dan. 84.
Bond. By r. 7, where a bond is to be given as security for costs, it shall, unless
the Court or a Judge shall otherwise direct, be given to the party or person
requiring the security, and not to an officer of the Court. For form of bond,
seeD. C. F. 1012.
The bond of an officer in the army is sufficient security though he is abroad
on service : Miller v. Hales, 17 Eq. 430 ; and there is no general rule that
the bond of a foreign company will never be regarded as a sufficient security
for costs : Aldrich v. British Griffin Chilled Iron & Steel Co., [1904] 2 K. B.
850.
Application. Where there is a summons for directions under 0. xxx, the application
for security should be made thereunder ; except on appUcatiou to the Court
of Appeal ; and where the Pit, having failed, moves for a new trial, appli-
cation for increased security may be made at Chambers, with appeal direct
to the Court of Appeal : Bentsen v. Taylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 193.
Time to '^^^ Court has discretion to direct security for costs to be given at any
apply. stage of the action : Mariano v. Mann, 14 Ch. D. 419, C. A. ; as, ex. gr.,
after defence : Re Smith, Bain v. B., 1896, W. N. 88 ; 75 L. T. 46 ; and in a
proper case will do so even after notice of trial : Lydney Iron Co. v. Bird,
23 Ch. D. 358 ; or after judgment, but the application must then be by
separate summons and not on notice under 0. xxx, 5 : Broun v. Haig,
[1905] 74 L. J. Ch. 591. The security is not necessarily confined to future
costs : Massey v. Allen, 12 Ch. D. 807 ; Brochlebank v. Lynn Steamship
Co., 3 C. P. D. 365.
Money paid Where money paid into Court for security for costs was paid out to Deft's
out to solr on dismissal of action with costs, the Court of Appeal, on reversing
solicitor. the dismissal, could not order the solr to refund : Lydney and Wigpool Iron
Co. V. Bird, 33 Ch. D. 85, C. A.
Waiver. Entry of appearance requiring a statement of claim has been held not a
waiver of Deft's right to security from Pit out of jurisdiction : Tellett v.
Lalor, 8 L. R. Jr. 8 ; Charlesworth v. Clayton, 10 L. R. Ir. 357 ; Heil v.
Lazenby, 12 L. R. Ir. 75.
Defendant. Defts, if in position of Pits (Smith v. Hammond, 6 Sim. 10), may be
ordered to give security, but not a Pit in a cross-suit : Morg. & W. 18 ;
Security for Costs. 29
Dan. 83, 84 ; but see now New Fenix Compa'jide Anonyme D' Assurances de
Madrid v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Gcrrpn., Ld., [1911]
2 K. B. 619, to the effect that there is no hard-and-fast rule in oases of this
kind and where security for costs was ordered.
In interpleader the rule that Deft cannot be compelled to give security for
co?ts does not apply : Tomlinson v. Land and Finance. Co., 14 Q. B. D. 539,
C. A. ; but the question whether a party is to be regarded as a Pit must be
determined by the merits, not by the form of the issue : Rhodes v. Dawson,
16 Q. B. D. 548, C. A. A foreigner made Pit in an interpleader issue merely
for convenience will not be ordered to give security : Belmonte v. Avnard,
4:C.P.D.221.
Deft who counter-claimed was treated as Pit, and ordered to give
security for costi of counter-claim : Sykes v. Sacerdoti, 15 Q. B. D. 423,
C. A. ; secus, where claim and counter-claim arose out of same transaction :
Mapleson v. Masini, 5 Q. B. D. 144 ; or the counter-claim amounted
substantially, though not technically, to a defence to the action : Neck v.
Taylor, (1893) 1 Q. B. 560, 0. A. And where Pit was a foreigner residing
out of the jurisdiction. Deft, admitting the cause of action and setting up
counter-claim founded on a distinct claim, was not entitled to security :
Winterfield v. Bradnum, 3 Q. B. D. 324, C. A.
A person who seeks to intervene and be made Deft, in order to claim Intervener,
property in dispute, is an a/:tor who may be ordered to give security :
ApoUinaris Co. v. Wilson, 31 Ch. D. 632, C. A. ; In re Pretoria Pietersburg
Railway Co. (No. 2), [1904] 2 Ch. 359 ; but a foreigner who is respondent
to a petition for revocation of his patent, and has the right to begin, is
not thereby made an " actor " within this principle : Re Miller's Patent,
1894, W. N. 4 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 324 ; 70 L. T. 270 ; and a foreign oo. submitting
to the jurisdiction were entitled to be added as respondents to a motion
to expunge a trade mark registered by them, without giving security : Re
La Societe Anonyme des Verreries, <Ssc., 1893, W. N. 118.
A claimant under a general inquiry cannot, as a rule, be required to give Claimant
security for costs, but if the inquiry is equivalent to an interpleader issue on general
(as, ex. gr., where a solr is ordered to pay into Court a sum subject to inquiries,
claims), a foreigner claiming may be ordered to give security : Be Milward,
[1900] 1 Ch. 405, C. A.
Security will not be required from a foreigner having substantial pro- Foreigner,
perty in this country : Redondo v. Chaytor, 4 Q. B. D. 453, 457, C. A. ;
Hamburgher v. Poettinq, 30 W. R. 769 ; Re ApoUinaris Co., 63 L. T. 502 ;
39 W. R. 309 ; and see Re Howe Machine Co., 41 Ch. D. 118 ; but the fact
that the action is brought on a foreign judgment against the Deft (who
appeared in the foreign proceedings) is no ground for excusing the foreign
Pit from giving the usual security for costs : Crozal v. Brogden, [1894] 2
Q. B. 30, C. A. As to what is suificient evidence of the existence of such
property, see Ebrard v. Gassier, 28 Ch. D. 232, C. A.
Co-pit residing abroad was not ordered to give security, the liability to Co-pit.
costs in a joint action not being limited by the separate interests of the
co-pits : D'Hormusgee v. Orey, 10 Q. B. D. 13 ; citing Umfreville v. John-
son, L. R. 10 Ch. 580.
And see Dan. 1640 et seq.
INSOLVENCY OE POVERTY.
As a general rule, poverty is no bar to a litigant except where an insolvent Nominal Pit.
person sues as a " nominal Pit," i.e., one who, not himself having good
cause of action, allows his name to be used for the benefit of someone else:
Cornell V. Taylor, 31 Ch. D. 34, C. A. ; Re Carta Para Oold Mining Co.,
19 Ch. D. 457 ; Denston v. Ashton, L. R. 4 Q. B. 590 ; and see Mayor of
Hastings v. Ivall, 9 Ch. 785.
A trustee in bankruptcy, though suing in his official name, and in in-
solvent circumstances, is not a " nominal Pit " •- Pooley's Trustee v. Whet-
ham, 28 Ch. D. 37, C. A. ; Cornell v. Taylor, sup. ; and it is not the practice to
30
Security for Costs.
[chap. IV.
require a liquidator on the ground of poverty to give security for the costs
of a misfeasance summons : Be Strand WoodGo.,Ltd.,[\^0^ 2 Ch. 1,0. A.
But tlie trustee of a deed of assignment of the property of another,
upon trust for the creditors of the assignor is not, if shown to be insolvent,
exempt from liability to give security for costs of action brought to carry
out the trusts of the deed : Greener v. E. Kahn dh Co., Ltd., [1906] 2 K. B.
374, secus, trustees of a separation deed suing for arrears of wife's annuity
thereunder : White v. Butt, [1909] 1 K. B. 50> 0. A.
And insolvency coupled with the appointment of a receiver of assets is
not a sufficient ground for ordering security : Bhodes v. Dawson, 16 Q. B. D.
548, C. A. ; Dartmouth Harbour Commrs. v. Mayor of Dartmouth, 34 W. R.
774 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 483. And an undischarged bankrupt suing for arrears
of rent of premises demised by him subsequently to the bankruptcy, was
not a nominal Pit, as he would be benefited even though the money were
assets : Cook v. Whelloch, 24 Q. B. D. 658, 0. A.
A petitioner for winding-up, who had given a business address at which he
could not be found, and whose solr was unable to state his private address,
was ordered to give security : Be Sturgis Syndicate, 53 L. T. 715 ; 34 W. R
163.
Solrs of im- A motion by Pit to stay payment of taxed costs out of fund in Court to
soirs of an impecunious Deft, pending a summons by Deft to review taxa-
tion, was refused as being an unprecedented attempt to extend the practice
as to security for costs : Be Barber, Burgess v. Vinnicome, 55 L. J. Ch. 624 ;
64L. T. 728; 34 W. R. 578.
A married woman suing alone cannot be required to give security for
costs, even though she has no separate property : Be Isaac, Jacobs v,
Isaac, 30 Ch. D. 418, C. A. ; Threlfall v. Wilson, 8 P. D. 18 ; secus, if she
chooses to sue by a next friend, because then he alone is liable to Deft for
costs : Be Thompson, Stevens v. T., 38 Ch. D. 317, C. A.
As to requiring security for costs from a Pit co. in liquidation, see Com-
panies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 278 ; Pure Spirit Oo. v. Fowler, 25
Q. B. D. 235 ; Buckley, 555 ; and from a Deft oo. counter-claiming against
Pits (debenture holders) and afterwards going into liquidation, see Strong v.
Carlyle Press (No. 2), 1893, W. N. 51.
As to security for costs of discovery, see inf. Chap. VII. p. 63.
peounious
Deft.
Married
woman.
Pit. CO. in
liquidation.
SECURITY rOE COSTS OF APPEAL.
When re- By 0. LVIli, 15, such deposit or other security for the costs to be occasioned
quired. by any appeal shall be made or given as may be directed under special cir-
cumstances by tha Court of Appeal.
The rule includes bankruptcy appeals : Exp. Isaacs, 9 Ch. D. 271, C. A. ;
and appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (60 & 61 V. c.
37) : Hall v. Snowdon, Hubbard & Co., [1899] 1 Q. B. 593, C. A.
An order may be made for security for the costs of an application for
a new trial : Wightwick v. Pope, [1902] 2 K. B. 99, C. A., overruling
Heckster v. Crosbey, [1891] 1 Q. B. 224.
Poverty, The poverty of the appellant is a special circumstance within the meaning
insolvency. of the rule : Harlock v. Ashberry, 19 Ch. D. 84, C. A. ; and insolvency is
prima facie reason for requiring security for costs : see per Brett, L. J., in
Exp. Isaacs, 9 Ch. D. 271, 273. 0. A. ; per Cotton, L. J., in Be Ivory, Hankin
v. Turner, 10 Ch. D. 372, C. A.
Poverty, even though it amounts to insolvency, may not by itself be a
sufficient ground for maldng the order ; the nature of the action, and the
manner in which it is prosecuted, are to be considered : Usil v. Brearley, 3
C. P. D. 206, C. A. But mere want of means is not a sufficient ground for
dispensing with security from a bankrupt wishing to appeal : Exp. Orepe,
Be Crepe, 1887, W. N. 83.
Non-compliance with a bankruptcy notice is evidence of insolvency :
Nixon V. Sheldon, 53 L. J. Ch. 624 ; 50 L. T. 245.
The mere fact that a novel question of law is involved is not a ground for
Security for Costs. 31
refusing to require security from an insolvent appellant : Farrer v. Lacy,
Hartland di Co., 28 Cli. D. 482, C. A. ; explaining JRourke v. White Moss
Colliery Co., 1 C. P. D. 556, where the insolvency arose from the alleged
wrong complained of.
Where bankrupt Defts appealed against an injunction which interfered
with their future power of gaining a liveliliood, an order was made dis-
missing the appeal, unless within a certain time they gave security, or the
trustee in bankruptcy made himself a party : United Telephone Co. v.
Bassano, 31 Ch. D. 630, C. A.
In Wilson v. Smith, 2 Ch. D. 67, C. A., which has been cited as an
authority for the proposition that the poverty of an appellant is alone a
ground for requiring security for costs, the evidence was of an enormous
length : see S. C, 24 W. R. 421 ; Stock v. Hooper's Telegraph Works, 1876,
W. N. 230 ; but see Harlock v. AsKberry, 19 Ch. D. 84, C. A., where Jessel,
M. R., said that the practice before the Jud. Acts should not be lost sight
of, and ordered security to the extent of £30 ; and see also Whittaker v.
Kershaw, 44 Ch. D. 296, C. A.
Where a pauper appellant has failed, or will probably fail, to pay the costs Failure to
in the Court below, sufficient security for the costs of au appeal will be pay costs
directed : Exp. Isaacs, 9 Ch. D. 271, C. A. below.
And non-payment of such costs is, it seems, a special circumstance
within the meaning of r. 15 : Re Tees Bottle Co., 20 (S. J. 584 ; Clarke v.
iJoc^ie, 25 W. R. 309 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 372 ; 36 L. T. 78.
A married woman having no separate property which she was not re- Married
strained from anticipating and appealing without a next friend, was woman,
ordered to give security : Whittaker v. Kershaw, 44 Ch. D. 296, C. A. ;
and see Weldhen v. Scattergood, 1887, W. N. 69.
As to costs of husband's appeal from an order under the Summary Appellant
Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, 1895: Sirrellv. S., [1911] P. 38. resident
The fact that an appellant is resident abroad is not of itself a sufficient abroad,
ground for requiring security, and though the property of an appellant co.
was of a fluctuating character and easily removable, security was not
required, there being no reasonable doubt that if the appeal was dismissed
there would be ample goods of theirs on which execution might be levied :
Be Apollinaris Co.'s Trade Mark, [1891] 1 Ch. 1, C. A. But security was
required when the appellant was a foreigner domiciled abroad and had no
assets in England : Orant v. Banque Franco-Egyptienne, 2 C. P. D. 430,
C. A. ; and see Re Katheen Mavoureen, &c., 1875, W. N. 215; Wegmann v.
Corcoran, 19 Mar. 1879, Reg. Min. fo. 250.
Security was required where an insolvent appellant alleged that letters Other
of admon had been wrongfully granted to the respondent, and sought to reasons,
restrain the admon of the estate, but took no steps to try the question in
the Probate Division : Re Ivory, Hankin v. Turner, 10 C. D. 372, C. A.,
where an irregular and vexatious appeal had been brought, even though
a substantial (but not novel) question was to be tried : Waddell v. Blockey,
10 C. D. 416, C. A., where three appeals were brought when one would
have been sufficient : Usil v. Brearly, 3 C. P. D. 206, C. A., and where the
appellant was an insolvent solicitor appealing from an order to strike him
off the rolls, and directing an account against him : Be Strong, 31 C. D.
273, C. A. {qnccre, whether so, if the order were simply to strike off the
rolls, S. C.) ; or a co. appealing alone from a winding-up order :
Re Photographic Artists' Co-operative Co., 23 C. D. 370, C. A. ; Re Diamond
Fuel Co., 13 C. D. 400, C. A.
An exor, made a party by revivor, is entitled to security for costs of an
appeal, though his testator (to whom costs were due) would not have been
so entitled : Be Knight, K. v. Gardner, 38 Ch. D. 108, C. A.
In a salvage case, the fact that the appellants have obtained a stay of
execution and the release of their ship on a bail-bond, not including the
costs of an appeal, is not sufficient ground for requiring security for such
costs : The Victoria, 1 P. D. 280.
32 Security for Costs, [chap. iv.
As to abuse, actual or threatened, of the process of the Court being
ground for ordering security, see Weldon v. Maples, Teesdale tfc Co., 20
Q. B. D. 331, C. A.
Where the appeal was from refusal of an order in the nature of a man-
damus against a County Court Judge, the nature of the appeal was material
in favour of the application for security: Clarke v. Eoche, 46 L. J. Ch. 372 ;
25 W. R. 309 ; 36 L. T. 78.
Where Defts are prejudiced by an appeal being brought by one of several
Pits, their remedy is to apply for security : Beckett v. Attwood, 18 Ch. D. 54,
C. A.
Amount. The amount of the security is proportionate to the probable costs of the
appeal, not the value of the property at stake : see Morecroft v. Evans,
1882, W. N. 189 ; nor such as will cover all the costs of appeal, but a reason-
able sum : see Aberdare Co. v. Hanhey, 32 S. J. 644.
For cases in which security for costs beyond the amount of £20 was
required before the Jud. Acts, see Mayor, <fcc. of Hastings v. Ivall, 9 Ch.
758.
In all oases where the Court of Appeal directs security for costs to the
amount of £20 or under, the amount must be deposited in Court ; if the
amount is larger the appellant has the option of giving security.
The former practice under which a deposit of £20 was required in all
cases where a petition of rehearing or appeal petition was presented, is thus
abrogated : see Wilson v. Smith, 2 Ch. D. 67 ; 24 W. R. 421 .
PBOCEDUEE IN EEFEEENCB TO SECURITY.
The respondent should first apply to the appellant for security, and, it
no reasonable offer is made, may then apply to the Court to order security
to be given : The Consiantini, 4 P. D. 156, C. A.
The application for an order for security is to be made by original motion
before the Court of Appeal, on notice to the appellant, which may be given
without leave of the Court : Orills v. Dillon, 2 Ch. D. 235, C. A. ; Exp.
Isaacs, 9 Ch. D. 271, C. A. ; Clarice v. Boche, 25 W. R. 309 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
372 ; 36 L. T. 78.
The application must be made promptly: Be Indian Kingston Gold Mines;
22 Ch. D. 83, C. A. ; Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham, 33 Ch. D. 76, C. A. ; and
in general before a time is actually fixed for the hearing of the appeal :
Orant v. Banque Franco-Egyplienne, 1 C. P. D. 143, C. A. ; but even though
the appeal was in the day's paper, the application was granted on satis-
factory explanation given : Ellis v. Stewart, 35 Ch. D. 459, C. A. ; and see
Be Clough, Bradford Bank v. Cure, 35 Ch. D. 7.
If the deposit is not made or security given within a reasonable time
after the date of the order, the appeal will be peremptorily dismissed :
Washitcrn and Moen Co. v. Patterson, 29 Ch. D. 48, C. A. ; Jiidd v. Green, 4
Ch. D. 784, C. A. ; Be Ivory, Hankin v. Tiirner, 2 Nov. 1878, A. 3243 ;
10 Ch. D. 372. Thus appeals have been dismissed after a period of nine
months from the order for security : Jndd v. Green, sup. ; or after four
months : Vale v. Oppert, 5 Ch. I). 633, C. A. ; Kanitz v. Scarborough,
1878, W. N. 216 ; and in general three months is more than a reasonable
time : Washburn, dr.. Co. v. Patterson, sup.
But the Court will not, in the first instance, order the security to be
given within a specified time, and in default the appeal to be dismissed :
Wilson V. Smith, 2 Ch. D. 67, C. A. ; United Telephone Co. v. Bassano, 31
Ch. D. 730, C. A. ; Polini v. Gray, 11 Ch. D. 74, C. A. ; though proceedings
may be stayed until the security is given : Vale v. Oppert, 5 Ch. D. 633,
C.A.
Where the required security was given after service of notice of motion
to dismiss for want of prosecution, but before the hearing of the motion.
Security for Costs. S3
the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the motion before the appeal
was heard : Exp. Isaacs, 10 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
Where money paid into Court for security for costs was paid out to the Refunding,
successful appellant, who was a receiver appointed in a debenture holder's
action, the Court of Appeal, on their judgment being reversed by the House
of Lords, refused to order the receiver to refund : Be Griffiths Cycle Cor-
■poration, 1902, W. N. 9 ; 85 L. T, 776, C. A,
VOL. T.
( 34 ) [chap. v.
CHAPTER V.
PLEADINGS.
1. Statement of Claim struck out — 0. xix, 27.
Order that the statement of claim delivered by the Pit on &c. be
struck out on the ground that the same tends to (prejudice, embarrass,
or delay unfair trial of this action or is unnecessary or scandalous).
Per like order, with liberty to deliver another statement of claim within
one month, see Davy v. Garrdt, C. A. 12 Jan. 1878, A. 87 ; 7 Ch. D. 473.
For order after reply, joinder of issue, and day fixed for the hearing
giving leave to amend the statement of claim within one week, on payment
by the Pits of the costs of the application, see Chesterfidd Co. v. Black,
V.-C. B., 8 March, 1877, A. 488 ; 26 W. R. 409.
The application should usually be made in Chambers : v. inf. p. 38.
For forms, see D. C. F. 219.
2. Striking out part of Defence for Scandal — 0. xix. 27.
Order that the following part of the defence be struck out, namely
&c. on the ground that the same is scandalous and such as tends to
prejudice and embarrass the fair trial of this action. Costs to be
costs in the action. — Jackson v. Haigh, V.-C. H. at Chambers, 17
March, 1880, A. 701.
For a case in which a summons under the Vendor and Purchaser Act,
1870, was ordered to be struck out as frivolous and vexatious, see Be Bart-
lett and Berry, 76 L. T. 751.
3. Statement of Claim skuck out and Action dismissed — 0. xxv, 4.
Order that the statement of claim in this action be struck out,
on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, and that
this action do stand dismissed out of this Court with costs &c. —
Johnston v. J., Pearson, .J., 1 Aug. 1884, A. 1272 ; 32 W. R. 1016 ;
33 W. R. 239, C. A.
4. To take Pkadings, ttr. off the File.
Order that the pleadings and all other documents filed in this
action be taken ofE the file of the Court and delivered up to the
parties on whose behalf the same respectively were filed, or to their
solrs.
Pleadings. 35
5. To take Affidavit off the File.
Order that the affidavit of A. filed &c. be taken ofi the file of the
Court.
For like order in proceedings relating to an infant, see Vol. II. Form 12,
p. 932.
6. Leave to plead further Grounds of Defence arising after Delivery
of Defence — 0. xxiv, 2.
Upon reading an affidavit of &c. filed &c. whereby it appears that
since the Deft delivered his defence {or if no defence delivered, that
since the time limited for delivery of defence) [further] grounds of
defence have arisen, It is ordered that the Deft be at liberty on or
before &c. to deliver a [further] defence setting forth the same.
For form of summons or notioe, see D. C. F. 210.
7. Order for Delivery of further and better Statement of Particulars
of Counter-claim — 0. xix, 7.
Order that the Deft do within &c. after service of this order,
deliver to the Pit, or to her solrs, particulars in writing stating the
dates and items of (the various loans) referred to in the — paragraph
of the Deft's counter-claim, and also (lilie particulars of the services,
fees, and disbursements amounting to £ — ) referred to in the — para-
graph of the said counter-claim. — Milner v. Peters, V.-C. M. at
Chambers, 22 Nov. 1878, B. 2023.
For forms of orders for particulars under O. xix, 7, see R. S. C, App. K ,
Forms 11 — 13. For form of summons or notice, see D. C. F. 221.
8. Deft refused Permission to avail himself of his Counter-chim- -
0. XIX, 3.
This Court (or the Judge) being of opinion that the counter-claim
of the Deft cannot be conveniently disposed of in this action [or
ought not to be allowed], doth refuse the Deft permission to avail
himself of his said counter-claim. — Powell v. Burney, M. E., 24 May.
1878, B. 1059.
9. Order to exclude Counter-claim — 0. xxt, 15.
And it appearing that the Deft in his defence delivered on Sec,
sets up a counter-claim, and that the time for the Pit to deliver his
reply to the said defence has not yet expired, and the Pit by his solr
contending that the claim so raised ought not to be disposed of by
way of counter-claim, but in an independent action. It is ordered
that the said counter-claim of the Deft be excluded at the trial of
this action. — Rees v. Fisk, M. R. at Chambers, 15 Jan. 1878, B. 167 ;
Gray v. Webb, Kay, J., 24 Ch. D. 802 ; Compton v. Preston, Fry, J., 21
Ch. D. 138.
36
Pleadi?igs.
[chap. v.
For like order on motion, see Padmck v. Scott, V.-C. H., 9 March, 1876,
B. 406; 2Ch. D. 736.
For order refusing like motion, see Dear v. Sworder, V.-C. H., 14 Deo.
1876, A. 2044 ; 4 Ch. D. 476 ; and see Huggons v. Tweed, 10 Cli. D. 359,
C. A.
10. Leave to Plead [other than joinder of Issue) subsequently to
Re-ply — 0. XXIII, 3.
Order that the Deft be at liberty to deliver a further plead-
ing notwithstanding the Pit has delivered his reply, but the
Pit is to be at liberty to deliver a further pleading in rejoinder
thereto.
Tor form of summons or notice, see D. C. F. 266.
Scandalous
matter.
Embar-
rassing.
NOTES.
SCANDALOUS OB EMBAKEASSIKG MATTES.
By O. XIX, 27, " the Court or a Judge may, at any stage of the proceed-
ings, order to be struck out or amended, any matter in any indorsement
or pleading which may be unnecessary or scandalous, or which may tend
to prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action ; and may, in
any such case, order the costs of the application to be paid as between sok
and client."
Scandalous matter in a pleading is that which contains offensive allega-
tions not material to the relief claimed : Rubery v. Grant, 13 Eq. 443,
447 ; Christie v. G., 8 Ch. 499. Allegations which, though offensive,
state facts which may be proved in evidence at the trial {ex. gr., allegations
in aggravation of damages in actions for seduction or libel), are material
within 0. xix, 4, and therefore not scandalous nor unnecessary: Millington
V. Loring, 6 Q. B. D. 190, C. A. ; Whitney v. Moignard, 24 Q, B. D. 630 ;
secus, where allegations of fraudulent concealment are made in the state-
ment of claim and withdrawn in the reply : Brooking v. Maudslay, 55
L. T. 343.
A pleading is embarrassing within the meaning of this rule when it con-
tains allegations which the party is not entitled to make use of : Heugh v.
Chamberlain, 25 W. R. 742 ; or raises by way of defence an issue which the
Deft is not entitled to raise : Liardet v. Hammond Electric Light, dc. Go.,
31 W. R. 710 ; or contains statements of unnecessary facts : Davy v.
Oarrett, 7 Ch. D. 473, C. A. ; or alleges matters of law which ought to be
raised otherwise, or are merely conditional : Stokes v. Grant, 4 C. P. D. 27 ;
and see Evelyn v. E., 31 Ch. D. 138 ; 28 W. R. 531 ; or does not state the
facts which are material for enabling the Deft to go to trial knowing what
the issue which he has to meet is : Phillipps v. P., 4 Q. B. D. 127, C. A. ;
and see Davis v. James, inf. ; or introduces embarrassing issues, as by
allegations tending to re-litigate questions disposed of by a former com-
promise : Knowles v. Roberts, 38 Ch. D. 263, C. A. ; and see United Telephone
Co. V. Tasker, 59 L. T. 852 ; or irrelevant statements as to members of a
local board being influenced by private considerations : Murray v. Epsom
Local Board, [1897] 1 Ch. 35 ; or joins distinct causes of action by separate
Pits : Smith v. Richardson, 4 C. P. D. 112 ; or several causes of action,
not sufficiently connected, by the same Pit : Saccharin Corporation, Ltd. v.
Wild, [1903] 1 Ch. 410 ; or claims a right of way over land, without setting
out the termini and general course: Harris v. Jenkins, 22 Ch. D. 481 ;
and see Spedding v. Fiizpatrick, 38 Ch. D. 411, C. A. ; or claims recovery
of land with a mere gsneral allegation of title : Phillipps v. P., sup. ; or
Pleadings. 37
sats up a claim by assignee of reversion without showing how reversion
was created and became vested in Pit : Davis v. Jamas, 26 Ch. D. 778 ;
but where the origin of the Pit's title is shown, it may be unnecessary to
set out in detail the devolution of title to the Pit : Pledge <Ss Sons v. Pomfret,
74 L. J. Ch. 357 ; further, a lost grant may be pleaded without stating
dates or parties : Palmer v. Ouadagni, [1906] 2 Ch. 494 ; or sets up a
counter-claim for damages for libel, in an action for protection of a
trust fund and appointment of a new trustee : South African Republic v.
La Gompagnie Franco-Beige, tbc, [1897] 2 Ch. 487, C. A. ; or a counter-
claim for damages for breaches of a contract in such an action brought by a
foreign State : S. C, No. 2, [1898] 1 Ch. 190 ; or claims damages for libel
without setting out the defamatory words : Harris v. Warre, 4 C. P. D.
125 ; or justifies u, libel, but leaves it doubtful what is justified and what
is not : Fleming v. Dollar, 23 Q. B. D. 388 ; and see Sassam v. Budge,
[1893] 1 Q. B. 571 ; or pleads the Statute of Frauds without showing the
facts which make the statute applicable : Pullen v. Snelus, 48 L. J. C. P.
394 ; 40 L. T. 363 ; 27 W. R. 534.
But a pleading is not embarrassing merely because it claims alternative
relief : Bagot v. Easton, 7 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; or sets up inconsistent grounds
of rehef or defences : Be Smith, Bigg v. Hughes, 9 P. D. 68, C. A. ; Be
Morgan, Owen v. Morgan, 35 Ch. D. 492, C. A., where Deft so pleading was
called upon to amend or give particulars within fourteen days after dis-
covery of documents. Reasonable latitude ought to be permitted : Tom-
kinson v. 8. E. By. Co., 1887, W. N. 174.
As a general rule the defence of payment into Court is not embarrassing
merely on the ground that it is combined with alternative grounds of
defence : Hawkesley v. Bradshaw, 5 Q. B. D. 302 ; Berdan v. Greenwood,
3 Ex. D. 251, C. A. ; Goote v. Ford, [1899] 2 Ch. 93, C. A. ; see Harper v.
Davis, 19 Q. B. D. 170 ; Emden v. Carte, 19 Ch. D. 311 ; Spurr v. Hall,
2 Q. B. D. 615 ; and see Critchell v. L. & S. W. By. Co., [1907] 1 K. B. 860
(sham defence).
For instances of the exercise of the power conferred on the Court of Instances
striking out the whole or part of a pleading containing scandalous, irrele- under rule.
vant, or embarrassing matter, or mere evidence, see Davy v. Garrett, 7 Ch.
D. 473, C. A. ; Phillipps v. P., 4 Q. B. D. 127, C. A. ; Harhord v. Monk,
9 Ch. D. 616 ; 38 L. T. 411 ; Cashin v. Gradock, 3 Ch. D. 376, C. A.; Blake
v. Albion, &c. Soc, 45 L. J. C. P. 663 ; Knowles v. Boberts, 38 Ch. D. 263,
C. A. ; see also Harris v. Gamble, 6 Ch. D. 748 ; Heap v. Marris, 2 Q. B. D.
630 ; Herring v. Bischoffsheim, 1876, W. N. 77 ; Askew v. N. E. By. Co.,
1875, W. N. 238 ; Preston v. Lamont, 1 Ex. D. 361 ; Be Bartlett and Berry,
76 L. T. 751 (where a vendor and purchaser summons was struck out) ; or
by simple amendment of prolix or informal statements : 1876, W. N. 24 ;
Boots' Gash Chemists v. Grundy, 1900, W. N. 142 (trade combination, but
see 6 Edw. VII. c. 47, and Smithies v. National Association of Operative
Plasterers, [1909] 1 K. B. 310).
Statements by husband, in answer to wife's bill, that she had been guilty
of adultery were expunged with costs as between solr and client : Pearce v.
P., 22 W. R. 69 ; so also were allegations as to frauds unconnected with the
suit : Christie v. Ovington, 8 Ch. 499 ; or which had been condoned long
before : Atwool v. Ferrier, 14 W. R. 1014.
The Court has an inherent power to prevent its records from being made Prolixity,
the instruments of oppression, and this power will be exercised as to plead-
ings or affidavits which are unduly prolix : Hill v. Hart-Davis, 26 Ch. D.
470, C. A. ; and scandalous matter in a bill of costs lodged with the taxing
master will be struck out : Be Miller and Miller ; Be French ; Love v.
Hills, 54 L. J. Ch. 205 ; 33 W. R. 210 ; 51 L. T. 853 ; following Erskine v.
Garthshore, 18 Ves. 114.
In Williamson v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 12 Ch. D. 787, the whole of a reply
which was prolix and in other respects faulty was struck out as embarrass-
ing.
.38
Pleadings.
[chap. v.
Mode of Applications under the rule may be made either in chambers or by
application, motion ; but if made by motion, the costs of an application in chambers
only may be allowed : Marriott v. M., 26 W. R. 416.
Appeal. The C. A. in a fit case, will review the discretion of the Court below : see
Knowles v. Roberts, 38 Ch. D. 263, C. A., explaining Watson v. Bodwell, 3
Ch. D. 380, C. A.
As to the effect of delay, see Cross v. Earl Howe, 62 L. J. Ch. 342,
As to scandal generally, see Dan. 336 et seq,
PROCEEDINGS IN LIEU OF DEMUREER.
O. XXV abolishes demurrers (see r. 1), but substitutes three modes of
procedure by which the objects of a demurrer in obtaining a speedy decision
may be attained, viz., (1) by raising a question of law ; (2) by the striking
but of pleadings which disclose no reasonable ground of action ; and (3) by
the stay or dismissal of frivolous or vexatious actions : see Burslall v.
Beyfits, 26 Ch. D. 35.
Point of law. By O. xxv, 2, any party may raise by his pleading any point of law,
which is to be disposed of by the Judge at or after the trial, but by consent,
or by order on the appH cation of either party, may be set down for hearing
and disposed of at any time before the trial. By r. 3, if the decision of such
point of law substantially disposes of the whole action, or of any distinct
cause of action, ground of defence, set-off, counter-claim or reply therein,
the Court or Judge may thereupon dismiss the action, or make such other
order therein as may be just.
As to the practice in reference to setting down points of law for hearing,
see L. C. & D. Ry. Co. v. S. E. Ry. Co., 53 L. T. 104 ; and that an action set
down on a point of law is not entitled to precedence over other non-witness
actions : see Re Thorniley, Woolley v. TJiomiley, 53 L. J. Ch. 499 ; 32
W. R. 539.
Under these rules, the analogy of the old practice on demurrer will be
followed as to dismissal of action : see Percival v. Dunn, 29 Ch. D. 128 ;
O'Brien v. Tyssen, 28 Ch. D. 372 ; and, as under the old practice, the party
raising the point of law has the right to begin : Stevens v. Chown, [1901]
1 Ch. 894 ; and trial of issues of fact will not in general be stayed pending
appeal : Re Palmer's Application, 22 Ch. D. 88, C. A.
Striking out By O. xxv, 4, " the Court or a Judge may order any pleading to be struck
pleadings. out, on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer,
and in any suoli case or in case of the action or defence being shown by the
pleadings to be frivolous or vexatious, the Court or a Judge may order the
action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be entered accordingly,
as may be just."
Under this rule, the Court is not bound to look to the statements in the
pleadings with the same strictness as on demurrer under the old practice :
per Cotton, L. J., Dadswell v. Jacobs, 34 Ch. D. 278, 281, C. A. ; and an
apphoation under the rule is not the equivalent of a demurrer, and will not
be entertained if the pleading raises a question of general importance or
a serious question of law: A. G, of Lancaster v. L. ds N. W. Ry. Co.,
[1892] 3 Ch. 274, C. A. ; Dysm v. A. G., [1911] 1 K. B. 410, C. A. It may
be made by Deft before defence : A. G. of Lancaster v. L. c& N. W. Ry. Co.,
sup. ; and that the Court has jurisdiction to order the points of law to be
set down for hearing, and to postpone inspection of documents until they
are disposed of, see Lever v. Land Sees. Co., 70 L. T. 323 ; 42 W. R. 104.
Reasonable As to the meaning of the expression " reasonable cause," see Republic of
cause. Peru v. Peruvian Guano Co., 36 Ch. D. 489 ; Boaler v. Holder, 54 L. T. 298 :
Machellar v. Hornsey, 49 W. R. 301 ; and see South Hetton Coal Co. v.
Haswell, tbc. Coal Co., [1898] 1 Ch. 465, C. A., where a statement of claim
founded on an improper tender was struck out. Where a pleading presents
a substantial ease, it will not be struck out merely because the Pit is not
likely to succeed on it at the trial : Republic of Peru v. Peruvian Gnano
Co., sup. The question whether, without allegation of special damage,
Pleadingly. 39
an action will lie for maliciously presenting a bankruptcy petition will
not be determined on an application under this part of the rule : Wyatl v.
Palmer, [1899] 2 Q. B. 106, 0. A. As to the principles on which the Court
ought to act in staying frivolous and vexatious proceedings, see Kellawaij
V. Bury, 66 L. T. 599.
An order under the first branch of this rule will be made on a considera-
tion of the pleadings only, and evidence will not be received : Repuhlic of
Peru V. Peruvian Gmmo Co., 36 Ch. D. 489 ; Willis v. E. Beauchamp, 11
P. D. 60, C. A. ; and see Lawrance v. Lord Norreys, 39 Ch. D. 213, C. A. ;
A. G. of Lancaster v. L. & N. W. By. Co., [1892] 3 Ch. 274, C. A. ; Willis
V. E. Howe, [1893] 2 Ch. 545, C. A. (where the action was clearly statute
barred, unless an unfounded allegation of concealed fraud was established) ;
Vinson v. The Prior Fibres Consolidated, Limited, 1906, W. N. 209.
A statement of claim praying discovery in aid of proceedings in a foreign
Court was struck out under the rule, on the ground that no such action
would lie : Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co., 41 Ch. D. 151.
It is vexatious witliin the rule to make solrs or others parties, without "Vexatious,
seeking any relief against them, except payment of costs or discovery :
Burslall v. Beyfus, 26 Ch. D. 35, C. A. ; and where an architect was made a
party but no cause of action against him appeared, his name was struck out
with costs, including the costs of an affidavit by him upon the application
for the order : Amos v. Heme Bay Pavilion Co., 54 L. T. 264 ; and a sham
defence setting up no case, but denying material statements which the
party had admitted on oath in previous proceedings, was struck out :
Remmington v. Scales, [1897] 2 Ch. 1, C. A. But in an action by copy-
holders for an injunction to restrain the working of coal by lessees of the
lords of the manor, the lords authorizing and justifying the alleged wrongful
working could be joined as Defts : Shafto v. Bolchow, Vaughan & Co., 34
Ch. D. 725.
As to dismissal of action or stay of proceedings under the inherent general General
jurisdiction which the Court has to prevent abuse of its procedure, and also jurisdiction,
under the statutory jurisdiction conferred by the Vexatious Actions Act,
1896 (59 & 60 V. u. 51), s. 1, u. inf. p. 132 ; and as to proceedings in lieu of
demurrer, see Dan. 454 et seq.
PBOCEDTTEB GENERALLY.
By O. XIX, 21, wherever the contents of any document are material it is Pleading,
sufficient in any pleading to state the effect thereof as briefly as possible
without setting out the whole or any part thereof, unless the precise words
of the document or any part thereof are material. Under this rule it is
sufficient to state the effect of limitations, although a question of con-
struction arises : Darhyshire v. Leigh, [1896] 1 Q. B. 554, C. A.
In an action against co-partners in the firm name (see 0. xlvhia, 1) the Co-partnera.
surviving partner is not entitled to put in a personal defence but must
defend in the firm name : Ellis v. Wadeson, [1899] 1 Q. B. 714, C. A.
As to any ground of defence arising after delivery of statement of defence New ground
or reply, or after the time Hmited has expired, see O. xxiv, 2. of defence.
As to a set-off or counter-claim, see 0. xix, 3 ; but this is a rule of pro- Set-off.
oedure only, and does not confer any new rights of set-off or otherwise :
Mersey Steel and Iron Co. v. Naylor, 9 Q. B. D. 648, C. A. ; S. C.,9 App.
Ca. 434 ; Bellas v. Neptune Marine Insurance Co., 5 C. P. D. 34, C. A.
As to set-off generally, see inf. Vol. II. Chap. XLIII., " Accotjnt,"
pp. 1318, et seq.
A counter-claim, though not a cross action, has the effect of one, and if Coanter-
the action is discontinued the counter-claim is not thereby put an end to : claim.
0. XXI, 16.
It has been held that relief can be given on a counter-claim in respect of
a cause of action accruing after the issue of the writ ; Beddall v. Maitland,
17 Ch. D. 180 ; not following Original Hartlepool Collieries Co. v. Oibb, 5
Ch. D. 712 ; and see ToJce v. Andrews, 8 Q. B. D. 428 ; Ellis v. Munson,
40 Pleadings. [chap. v.
35 L. T. 585 ; and if a Deft counter-claims in respect of such a matter the
Pit may counter-claim in reply in respect of the same transaction : Tolce v.
Andrews, sup. ; and where Deft by counter-claim sets up a contract as
binding on the Pit and the Pit denies it, but alleges that, if binding, it
has been broken by the Deft, a counter-claim in reply is allowable : Benton
Gibbs & Co. V. Neville, [1900] 2 Q. B. 181, C. A. Relief will not be given
by counter-claim in respect of a matter totally distinct from the original
subject-matter of the action : Barber v. Blaiberg, 19 Ch. D. 473 ; ex. gr.,
damages for libel in an action to protect a trust fund : S. African RejmbUc
V. La Compagnie Franco-Beige, tfcc, [1897] 2 Ch. 487, C. A.
A person brought in as Deft to a counter-claim cannot counter-claim
against the original Pit and Deft : Ahoy and Oandia By. Co. v. Oreenhill,
[1896] 1 Ch. 19, C. A. ; following Street v. Cover, 2 Q. B. D. 498 ; and dis-
tinguishing Tolce V. Andrews, sup. ; nor can a Deft counter-claim in respect
of a joint cause of action against the Pits bringing in the person jointly
interested as co-Deft to the counter-claim : Pender v. Taddei, [1898] 1
Q. B. 798, C. A.
But the Pit in an action against whom a counter-claim is raised by the
defence may issue a third party notice : Levi v. The Anglo-Continental
Gold Beefs ofBhodesia, Ltd., [1902] 2 K. B. 481.
A counter-claim in an action by a foreign sovereign must be limited to
claims in mitigation of the relief claimed, for to such only does his sub-
mission to the jurisdiction extend : S. African Bepublic v. Compagnie
Franco-Beige, d-c, [1898] 1 Ch. 190.
A third party cannot counter-claim against the Pit : Eden v. Weardale
Iron and Coal Co., 28 Ch. D. 333, C. A. ; where it was doubted whether a
third party is a " party " within the definition in Jud. Act, 1873, s. 100.
An application by an underlessee for a vesting order under s. 4 of the
Conv. Act, 1892 (55 & 56 V. c. 13), by way of relief against forfeiture may
be made by defence and counter-claim in the lessor's action for possession ;
Cholmeky's School v. Sewell, [1893] 2 Q. B. 254.
A Deft cannot counter-claim to enforce a judgment obtained in another
Division : Birmingham Estates Co. v. Smith, 13 Ch. D. 506.
O. xvni, 5, permitting claims by an exor or admor as such to be joined
with claims by or against him personally, does not apply to counter-claims :
Macdonald v. Carington, 4 0. P. D. 28 ; and see further as to counter-claim,
Dan. 438, et seq.
By O. XXI, 15, where a Deft sets up a counter-claim, if the Pit or any
other person named as party to such counter-claim contends that the claim
thereby raised ought not to be disposed of by way of counter-claim, but in
an independent action, he may at any time before reply apply to the Court
or a Judge for an order that such counter-claim may be excluded, and the
Court or a Judge may, on the hearing of such application, make such order
as shall be just. The rule is to be read in connection with 0. xix, 3, and
delay of the trial may be a ground for excluding the oounter-olaim : Oi'ay
V. Webb, 21 Ch. D. 802.
Where the Pit (a solr) brought an action for the amount of his bill of
costs, and the Deft counter-claimed, denjdng retainer, and for damages for
negligence, but did not appear at the trial, the Pit on proving his case was
entitled to have the counter-claim dismissed and to judgment for the amount
which should be found due on taxation : Lumley v. Brooks, 41 Ch. D.
323, C. A.
Closing By 0. xxm, 3, " no pleading subsequent to reply other than a joinder of
pleadings. issue shall be pleaded without leave of the Court or a Judge, and then shall
be pleaded only upon such terms as the Court or Judge shall think fit."
By O. xxvii, 13, " if the Pit does not deliver a reply, or any party does
not deliver any subsequent pleading, within the period allowed for that
purpose, the pleadings shall be deemed to be closed at the expiration of
that period, and all the material statements of fact in the pleading last
delivered shall be deemed to have been denied and put in issue."
Pieadings. 41
By O. XXIII, 5, " as soon as any party has joined issue upon the pre-
ceding pleading of the opposite party simply, without adding any further
or other pleading thereto, or has made default as mentioned in O. xxvii,
13, the pleadings as between such parties shall be deemed to be closed."
The pleadings are not closed until the last of the defences has been
delivered: Ambroise v. Evelyn, 11 Ch. D. 759.
As to the Pit withdrawing the record or discontinuing the action, see Discontinu-
0. XXVI, 1, and Chap. XI., post. ""§•
A Pit cannot now elect to be non-suited, and if he offers no evidence at
the trial , the Deft is entitled to a verdict : Fox v. Star Newspaper (7o. , [ 1 900]
A, C. 19, H. L. ; [1898] 1 Q. B. 636, C. A.
A Deft to an action for recovery of land was allowed to withdraw his
defence after the action had been in the paper, upon terms of payment of
balance of rent due into Court, and payment of costs occasioned by the
defence and of the application : Beal and Personal Advance Co. v. McCarthy,
14 Ch. D. 188.
PAETICULARS^
By 0. XIX, 6, in all cases in which the party pleading relies on misrepre-
sentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in
certain other cases, particulars are to be stated in the pleadinjis ; and, by
0. XIX, 7, " a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or
defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any
pleading, notice, or written proceeding requiring particulars, may in all
cases be ordered, upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be
just."
The object of particulars is to enable a party to know what case he has
to meet, and thus prevent surprise at the trial and save expense : Crompton
V. Anglo-American Brush Electric Light Corporation, 35 Ch. D. 283, C. A. ;
Spedding v. Fitzpatrick, 38 Ch. D. 410, C. A. ; Thompson v. Birkley, 31
W. R. 230 ; 47 L. T. 700 ; and see Dan. 332 et seq.
R. 6 is a rule of pleading only, and the omission to comply with it ought
not to be scanned too narrowly on a question as to discovery : per Bowen,
L. J., Leitch v. Abbott, 31 Ch. D. 374, C. A. Where, in an action by principal
against agent for fraud, the general nature of the fraud was indicated, but
no particulars given, the Pit was held entitled (even though a settled
account was pleaded) to discovery to enable him to give details of the
fraud, before giving particulars : Whyte v. Ahrens, 26 Ch. D. 717, C. A.;
Leitch v, Abbott, svp. ; Sachs v. Speilman, 37 Ch. D. 295. And a Deft,
by delivering statement of defence, does not waive his right to particulars :
Sachs V. Speilman, 37 Ch. D. 295, where Deft's application tor particulars
was ordered to stand over till a statement of defence had been put in.
And generally where the Deft has means of knowledge which the Pit has
not, the Deft is not entitled to particulars until after he has given dis-
covery : Millar v. Harper, 38 Ch. D. 110, C. A. ; and see Union Electrical
Light Co. v. Electrical Storage Co., 38 Ch. D. 325, C. A.
Whether particulars shall precede discovery or discovery precede par-
ticulars is a matter for the discretion of the Court. Where Defts' books
gave them special means of ascertaining whether alleged frauds had been
committed, the Defts were held not entitled to particulars before giving
discovery : Waynes Merthyr Co. v. Radford, [1896] 1 Ch. 29 ; and see as to
general principle, Zierenberg v. Labouchere, [1893] 2 Q. B. 183, 189, per
Kay, L. J.
The right to particulars is distinct from the right to production, and a
Deft cannot refuse to give particulars of a transaction, because the docu-
ments by which the transaction was carried out are privileged : Milbnnh
V. M., [1900] 1 Ch. 376, C. A.
Pit was ordered to give particulars of items which, in his claim, were Wilful
placed to the credit of the Deft : Oodden v. Corsten, 5 C. P. D. 17. General default
42
Pleadings.
[chap. v.
Breach of
trust.
Slander.
Directors'
Liability Act.
Fraud.
Undue
influence.
Account.
Pedigree.
Further
order.
Further time
for pleading.
allegations of wilful default were to be struck out unless Pit furnished
particulars within a week : Re Anstice, A. v. Hibbell, 54 L. J. Ch. 1104 •
52L. T. 572; 33 W. R. 557.
In oases of active breach of trust particulars must be alleged in the
pleadings, and the Pit is not entitled to relief at the trial except in regard
to that which is alleged in the pleadings and proved at the trial. In the
case of wilful default which is quite distinct from active breach of trust,
if wilful default is pleaded, and if a case is established, then the accounts are
directed on that footing : In re Wrightson, [1908] 1 Ch. 789.
In an action for slander Deft was held entitled to particulars of the names
of the persons to whom the slanderous words were uttered, as being part
of the facts on which the Pit relied : Bradbury v. Cooper, 12 Q. B. D. 94,
citing Eade v. Jacobs, 3 Ex. D. 335, C. A. i and before delivery of defence :
Roaelle v. Buchanan, 16 Q. B. D. 656.
As to particulars to be given in action to restrain trespass on a road by
Deft who alleges dedication by the Pit and his predecessors to the public,
see Spedding v. Fitzpatrick, 38 Ch. D. 410, C. A.
As to particulars of reasonable grounds of belief in truth of prospectus
in action under Directors' Liability Act, 1890, now substituted by the
Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 84, see Alman v. Oppert, 70 L. J.
K. B. 745, C. A.
As to fraud, it must be the fraud of the person against whom the claim
is made or of some one through whom he claims : In re McCaUum,
McGaUum v. McCallum, [1901] 1 Ch. 143.
In an action alleging fraudulent sale of inferior goods in Pit's name
itwas sufficent for the Pit to give times and places of sales, and not names
and addresses of purchasers : Duhe v. Wisden, 77 L. T. 67, C. A. The
names of witnesses need not be disclosed, unless the names are part of the
gist of the case : Bishop v. Bishop, [1901] P. 325, 327.
Where particulars were ordered of alleged false entries in books of
account, it was not sufficient to specify the entries, but the general nature
of the objections to the several items was to be indicated : Neivport Slipway
Dry Dock Co. v. Paynter, 34 Ch. D. 88, C. A.
In the Probate Division a person alleging undue influence was not
required to give particulars of acts of undue influence, but only the names
of the persons charged : Lord Salisbury v. Nugent, 9 P. D. 23 ; and see
Cave V. Torre, 54 L. T. 615 ; 32 W. R. 324 ; Hankinson v. Barningham,
9 P. D. 62 ; and particulars will not be ordered of allegations which are
not material : Cave v. Torre, sup.
Where the action is for an account, particulars, not being required to
enable Deft to frame defence, will not in general be ordered : Auguslinus
V. Nerinckx, 16 Ch. D. 13, C. A. ; secus, where the claim is for a specified
sum made up of a number of items : Blackie v. Osmaston, 28 Ch. D. 119,
C. A. ; and the fact that an account is also asked for is not a sufficient
ground for refusing particulars : Kemp v. Goldberg, 36 Ch. D. 505.
As to the proper order to be made for particulars of pedigree by a Pit
claiming as heir-at-law, see Blacklidge v. Anderton, 1893, W. N. 112; and
as to the right to particulars in such a case, see Palmer v. P., [1892] 1 Q. B.
319 ; Evelyn v. E., 28 W. R. 531 ; 42 L. T. 248 ; Phillipps v. P., 4 Q. B. D.
at p. 134 ; Dan. 353, 822, 823 ; Pledge dk Sons v. Pomfret, 74 L. J. Ch. 357.
For forms, see D. C. F. 847 et seq.
Where an order for particulars is not complied with, a further order may
direct that the action shall be dismised unless the particulars are delivered
^¥ithin a certain time : Davey v, Bentinch, [1893] 1 Q. B. 185, C. A.
By O. XIX, 8, " the party at whose instance particulars have been
delivered under a Judge's order shall, unless the order otherwise provides,
have the same length of time for pleading after the delivery of the par-
ticulars that he had at the return of the summons." This rule does not
apply where the party has been previously ordered to deliver defence
within a month " peremptory " : Falck v. Axthelm, 24 Q. B. D. 174, C. A.
Pleadings. 43
The application for particulars is made at chambers (under 0. xxx, v. Procedure.
sup. p. 25), and notice thereof must be served on the Pit. For form of
summons or notice, see D. C. T. 221.
For forms of orders for particulars, see R. S. C, App. K., Forms 11, 12,
12a, and 13.
PROCEEDING TO TKIAL WITHOTJT PLEADING.
By O. xvmA, provisions are made under which a Pit is enabled to proceed
to trial without pleadings by a writ containing an indorsement stating that
if the Deft appears the Pit intends to proceed to trial without pleadings.
The efieot of the indorsement is that no pleadings can be required or
delivered except by order of the Judge. For the order and practice there-
under, see Dan. 469.
( 44 ) [chap. VI.
CHAPTER VI.
AMENDMENT.
Section I. — Pleadings.
1. Amendment of Pleading disallowed — 0. xxviii, 4.
Order that the amendment in the — paragraph of the Pit's
(Deft's) statement of claim (defence) be disallowed, and be struck
out of the same accordingly.
For forms of summons or notice to disallow amendments, see D. C. P. 217.
2. Amendment at the Trial for the Purpose of opening Settled
Accounts — 0. XXVIII, 1, 6.
This action coming on &c. — Declare that the monthly cash accounts
rendered &c. are to be treated as settled accounts. — " And this Court
doth order that the Pits be at liberty on or before &c. to amend
their statement of claim in such manner as they may be advised,
by insertiag therein specific allegations relevant to the relief asked
by them for opening the accounts alleged by the Def ts to have been
stated and settled." — Pits to pay to Deft the costs of the day, to
be taxed. — Reserve further costs. — Adjourn further hearing. — ^And
in default of amendment within the time limited the action to be
dismissed with costs [if so, without further order]. — See Mozley v.
Cowie, Fry, J., 15 Dec. 1877, B. 2110 ; 26 W. R. 854.
NOTES.
It is not now in general necessary to draw up an order for amendment of
a writ or pleadings : see 0. lit, 14.
The rules as to amendment generally are contained in 0. xxvm and
P. M. R. (13).
Writ and By O. XX, 4, " whenever a statement of claim is delivered the Pit may
statement therein alter, modify, or extend his claim without any amendment of the
of claim. indorsement of the writ."
An amendment changing the character of the action is not within the
rule, as, ex. gr., where the writ was for ordinary partnership accounts, and
the statement of claim alleged misrepresentation and claimed return of
premium : Cave v. Carew, 1893, W. N. 42 ; 41 W. R. 359 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 530 ;
68 L. T. 254 (statement of claim struck out with liberty to deliver another
in accordance with the writ). But in some recent oases greater latitude
has been allowed.
Amendment of writ, as to indorsement, is under the above rules ; as to
parties, under 0. xvi, inf. p. 48. As to amendment of writ, see Dan. 276
SECT. I.] Pleadings. 45
et seq. ; D. C. F. 137 et seq. Where the writ has been amended after
the statement of claim has been filed, the Pit must file another statement
of claim : Southdll Development Syndicate, Limited v. Dimsdon, 1907,
W. N. 16.
Tlie provisions of 0. xxviii as to amendment, apply to writs issued for
service out of the jurisdiction, and the indorsement of claim on such a writ
may accordingly be amended, if the amendment does not introduce a
cause of action, in respect of which leave for service out of the jurisdiction
could not be given under O. xi : Holland v. Leslie, [1894] 2 Q. B. 450, C. A.
The rules make no provision for personal service of an amended writ, Service,
and therefore r. 4 of O. lxvii applies, and the amended writ may be served
by filing, but the Court in its discretion may impose the condition of
personal service in giving leave to amend : Jamaica By. Co. v. Colonial
Bank, [1905] 1 Ch. 677.
R. 9 provides that an amended indorsement or pleading is to be marked Marking,
witli the dates of the order for amendment and of the amendment, and the
amended document is to be delivered to the opposite party within the time
allowed for amendment (r. 10), but it is not necessary that the copy of the
amended indorsement or pleading delivered to the opposite party should
be marked : Hanmer v. Clifton, [1894] 1 Q. B. 238.
By r. 12, the Court or a Judge may, at any time, and on such terms as Amendments
to costs or otherwise as may be thought just, amend any defect or error generally,
in any proceedings, and all necessary amendments shall be made for the
purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending
on the proceedings.
The discretionary powers of allowing amendments, given to the Courts
by O. xxvin, have been widely exercised. Tlie general rule is that amend-
ments ought always to be allowed, except when the other party cannot be
placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct,
but an injury would be occasioned to liim by the amendment which cannot
be compensated by costs : Steward v. N. Metropolitan Tram. Co. , 16 Q. B. D.
556, C. A. ; Weldon v. Neal, 19 Q. B. D. 394, C. A. ; Clarapede v. Commercial
Union Association, 32 W. R. 262 ; Tildesley v. Harper, 10 Ch. D. 393, C. A.
Leave to amend by raising a new case has been granted, after a day has
been fixed for the hearing : Boe v. Davis, 2 Ch. D. 729 ; and also at the
hearing : Budding v. Murdoch, 1 Ch. D. 43 ; by inserting allegations for
the purpose of opening settled accounts : Mozley v. Cowie, 26 W. R. 854 ;
47 L. J. Ch. 271 ; 38 L. T. 908, Form 2, sup. p. 44 ; of setting aside a sale
of shares : Ashley v. Taylor, 10 Ch. D. 768 ; 27 W. R. 228 ; of charging
wilful default on terms that Pit should enter into no new evidence, and
pay costs of the hearing : King v. CorJce, 1 Ch. D. 57 ; and, where necessary,
in order to settle the real question in dispute, a pleading may be amended
even after the verdict, to give effect to the finding of the jury : Noad v.
Murrow, 40 L. T. 100, 103.
Amendment of reply after issue joined was allowed on motion on terms
of Pits paying the costs which might turn out to have been thrown away
by reason of the amendment, and the costs of the motion : Preston Corp.
V. Fulwood L. B., 34 W. R. 200 ; 53 L. T. 718.
And in an action for the recovery of land leave was given to amend by
adding an alternative cause of action arising out of the defence : Bush-
brooke v. Farley, 33 W. R. 557 ; 52 L. T. 572 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1079.
If necessary the Court may order allegations to be re-inserted which had
previously been ordered to be struck out : Mansel v. A. ©.,4 P. D. 232.
But a Pit was not allowed to amend by setting up a claim which, since
the issue of the writ, had become barred by the Statute of Limitations :
Weldon v. Neal, 19 Q. B. D. 394, C. A. ; nor a Deft, after close of pleadings,
to set up a defence transferring liability to a vestry, the statutory period
of limitation for suing whom had in the interval expired : Steward v. N.
Metropolitan Tram. Co., 16 Q. B. D. 556, C. A.
For a case in which amendment was allowed by withdrawal of an
46
Amendment.
[chap. VI.
Delay.
Time limit.
At the
hearing.
After time
for appeal
admission as to the recoipt of money, but on terms of the money being
brought into Court, see Hollis v. BwUm, [1892] 3 Ch. 226, C. A.
An affidavit stating the nature, or showing the materiality, of the pro-
posed amendments is no longer required : Cargill v. Bower, 4 Ch. D. 78 ;
Chesterfield Co. v. Black, 25 W. E. 409. If such an affidavit is made, it
is improper to cross-examine upon it : Conyheare v. Lewis, 29 W. R. 391 :
44 L. T. 242.
Leave will not in general be granted to raise an entirely new case of
fraud : Hendrilcs v. Montagu, 50 L. J. Ch. 456.
Leave to amend three months after joinder of issue, by raising a new
case wholly inconsistent with the previous pleading, was refused : Clark
V. Wray, 31 Ch. D. 68.
Delay may be a ground for refusing the leave : Clark v. Wray, sup. ; or
for allowing it, with imposition of special terms, ex. gr., payment of the costs
of the apphcation as between solr and client ; Kurtz v. Spence, 36 Ch. D.
770, C. A.
If the amendment be not made within the time limited for that purpose
by the order giving leave to amend, or, if no time be limited, within fourteen
days from the date of the order, the order to amend shall on the expiration
of the time limited, or of fourteen days, as the case may be, become ipso
facto void, unless the time be extended : O. xxvm, 7 ; and see 0. lxiv, 7.
By 0. lxiv, 5 (with a partial exception as to certain causes to be tried
at assizes), the time of the Long Vacation is not to be reckoned in the
computation of the times allowed for filing, amending or delivering any
pleading, unless otherwise directed by the Court or a Judge.
By O. LXIV, 8, the time for delivering or amending any pleading may be
enlarged by consent in writing without application to the Court or Judge.
A Deft whose statement of defence has been held to be an insufficient
denial under O. xix, 19, will not, as a general rule, be refused leave to amend
at the hearing : Re Truefort, Trafford v. Blanc, 34 W. R. 56, following
Tildesley v. Harper, 10 Ch. D. 393, C. A. ; but he will not be allowed to
amend so as to raise merely technical points : Collette v. Ooode, 7 Ch. D.
842 ; and see Byrd v. Nunn, 7 Ch. D. 284, C. A. ; Thorp v. Holdsworth, 3
Ch. D. 637 ; Edevain v. Cohen, 43 Ch. D. 187, C. A.
Amendment at the hearing of a foreclosure action was allowed on pay-
ment of costs, where a denial by Deft was not sufficiently specific, and the
case came on upon admissions : Butter v. Tregent, 12 Ch. D. 758 ; but was
refused where the Deft had omitted to deny a material fact which must
have been within his knowledge : Lowther v. Heaver, 41 Ch. D. 248, C. A.
In an action for trespass, where the Deft claimed a prescriptive right,
the Court of Appeal, reversing Fry, J,, allowed an amendment at the
hearing, bv which the title of the Pit would be denied : Laird v. Briggs, 19
Ch. D. 22,-C. A.
And where a case of fraud, after Pit's case was closed, arose on the cross-
examination of the Defts, leave to amend was granted, but the evidence was
to be confined to matters arising upon the cross-examination : Biding v.
Hawkins, 14 P. D. 56.
In one case, where Pit sued as riparian proprietor to restrain trespass on
a river, and at the hearing it appeared that the bed of the river was vested
in the Crown, whose rights he had purchased since action brought, he was
permitted to issue a new writ, and the hearing of the two actions was, by
consent, then proceeded with : Bourke v. Davis, 44 Ch. D. 110.
But Defts were not allowed, after evidence closed, to amend by pleading
merger of cause of action in a previous judgment against joint tort feasors :
Edevain v. Cohen, 41 Ch. D. 563 ; 43 Ch. D. 187, C. A.
As to amendment at hearing by adding parties, see inf. p. 60.
Liberty to amend after time for appealing had long expired was granted
under special circumstances on special terms, in order that the other parties
might not suffer any loss by the applicant's not having taken the proper
course of appealing in due time : Kurtz v. Spence, 36 Ch. D. 770, C. A.
SECT, i.j Pleadings. 47
The jurisdiction being discretionary, tlie Court of Appeal is reluctant to Appeal,
interfere : Byrd v. Nunn, 7 Ch. D. 284, C. A. ; Edevain v. Cohen, sup. ;
but has done so, where the amendment was necessary in order to try the
real question between the parties ; Laird v. Briggs, sup.
As to amendment of judgments and orders of Court, see inf. Chap XV.,
" Passing and Entering."
As to costs of amendments, see 0. Lxv, 27 (31, 32), and inf. Chap. XVII.,
" Costs."
And as to amendment of pleadings generally, see Dan. 341 et seq.
Section II. — Amendment as to Parties.
1. Adding Pit — Amendment of Writ and Statement of Claim by
naming the A. G. as Pit — 0. xvi, 2.
Order that the Pits be at liberty, upon obtaining the allowance
of His Majesty's A. G. (and without prejudice to the pending motion
for an injunction &c.), to amend the writ of summons issued by them
in this action on &c., and statement of claim, by adding in the said
writ and statement of claim respectively His Majesty's A. G. as Pit
in this action at the relation of the existing Pits, and by inserting
the names of Messrs. A., of &c., as solrs for the Pit and relators, and
the names of Messrs. B., of &c., as agents for the said Messrs. A., and
otherwise to amend as the Pits may be advised. — See Caldwell v.
Pagham Harbour Reclaination Co., V.-C. H., 17 Feb. 1876, A. 243 ;
2 Ch. D. 221. As to joining the A. G. as Pit, see A. G. and
Spalding Rural Council v. Garner, [1907] 2 K. B. 480.
2. Pit undertaking to amend and make A. G. a Party, Order
discharged.
And the Pits by their coimsel undertaking to amend the writ of
summons and their statement of claim in this action by adding His
Majesty's A. G. as a Deft, This Court doth order that the Pits be at
liberty to amend the said writ of summons and statement of claim
accordingly, and also to amend the said statement of claim as they
may be advised ; And it is ordered that the said order, dated &c., be
discharged. — Costs of Pits of appeal, and of the said order to be their
costs in the action. — See Ellis v. Duke of Bedford, C. A., 14 Feb. 1899,
A. 1085 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 494, C. A.
3. Order Nisi to add Defts in Consolidated Action — 0. xvi, 11.
Order that A. and B. be added as Defts hereto, unless they shall,
within — days after service of this order, show unto this Court good
cause to the contrary.— See Re Worthy, Culley v. Wortley, M. R.,
8 Dec. 1876, B. 2007 ; 4 Ch. D. 180.
48 Amendment. [chap. VI.
4. Action defective for want of Parties — Trial to stand over —
0. XVI, 11.
This action coming on for trial this day &c., And the Pits A. and B.
by their counsel admitting that the Pit C. is dead asking leave to
amend, And upon hearing &c., This Court doth order that this action
do stand over until the — day of — , to give time {or with liberty) to
the Pits to remedy the defect caused by the death of the Pit C. as
they may be advised ; And it is ordered that the Pits A. and B. do
pay to the Defts their costs occasioned by this action having been
placed in the paper for trial on the — day of — and the — day of — ;
such costs to be taxed by the Taxing Master. — Lydall v. Martinson,
Fry, J., 12 June, 1877, B. 1125 ; 5 Ch. D. 780.
5. Order in a Supplemental Action where Mortgagees who were not
parties to the original Action claim to be interested after
Judgment therein passed and entered.
Order that the originating summons in the second action be taken
as supplemental to the originating summons in the first action, and
that the two actions be prosecuted together and the account directed
by the said order be taken in both actions but not including in such
account the costs of the second action ; And the total amount due to
the Pits is to be certified. — Usual directions as to redemption and
foreclosure as to all Defts. — Poiversv. White, North, J., at Chambers,
11 Aug. 1891, B. 1346.
The order is intituled in both actions, reads order in first action, and
states that the Defts in the second action claim to be interested in the
equity of redemption.
6. Order striking out Co- Pit who had withdrawn his Retainer and
adding him as a Deft.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for the Pit A. who alleged that the
Pit B. has withdrawn his retainer of the solrs for the Pits, and
upon hearing counsel for the Pit B. who admitted that the said Pit
had withdrawn such retainer and expressed his desire to be struck
out as a Pit and for the Deft, This Court doth order that the Pits
A. and B. do pay to the Deft his costs incurred by reason of the action
having been brought on for trial on &c., and all other costs thrown
away by reason of the amendment hereinafter authorized and his
costs of this application, including the costs reserved on &c., such
costs to be taxed by the Taxing Master when the action has been
disposed of ; And it is ordered that the writ and pleadings in this
action be amended by striking out the name of the said B. as Pit
and adding him as a Deft with all consequential amendments ; And
this order is to be without prejudice to any questions as to costs
between the Pits themselves. — Parr v. Tompson, Byrne, J., 24 Feb.
1898, B. 711.
SECT. II.] ^.s to Parties. 49
NOTES.
ADDING OK STRIKING OUT PARTIES.
By 0. XVI, 1, " All persons may be joined in one action as Pits, in whom Joining
any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same transaction or parties,
series of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the
alternative, where if such persons brought separate actions any common
question of law or fact would arise ; provided that, if upon the application
of any defendant it shall appear that such joinder may embarrass or delay
the trial of the action, the Court or a Judge may order separate trials, or
make such other order as may be expedient," and judgment may be given
for such one or more of the Pits as may be found to be entitled to relief,
for such relief as he or they may be entitled to, without any amendment.
But the Deft, though unsuccessful, is to be entitled to his costs occasioned
by so joining any person who shall not be found entitled to relief unless
the Court or a Judge in disposing of the costs shall otherwise direct."
Under this rule a Pit will not be permitted to join a personal action Same
by himself against directors, as shareholder, for relief on the ground of series of
fraud, with a representative action, claiming relief on the ground of the transactions,
commission of acts ultra vires, as such causes of action do not arise out of
the same transaction, or series of transactions : Stroud v. Lawson, [1898]
2 Q. B. 44, C. A.
But where Def ts published a series of books bearing the titles the " Oxford
and Cambridge Publications " or the " Oxford and Cambridge edition," it
was held that the two Universities were entitled to join as co-Pits in one
action for an injunction in respect of the improper use of the words " Oxford
and Cambridge ", as the action arose out of the same series of transactions,
and common questions of fact would arise : Universities of Oxford and Cam-
bridge V. QUI, [1899] 1 Ch. 5.5 ; see also Bedford v. Ellis, [1901] A. C. (Covent
Garden Market case).
And on a similar principle, several persons who separately took deben-
tures in a company on the faith of statements in a prospectus and covering
letter issued by the directors, were held entitled to sue the directors in one
action for damages for misrepresentation ; Drincqbier v. Wood, [1899]
I Ch. 393.
And an action against co. and directors in respect of a fraudulent pro-
spectus is maintainable, although the relief against the several Defts differs
in detail, and although the represve of a deceased director is joined as a
Deft: Frankenburg v. Oreat Horseless Carriage Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 504,
C. A. ; and see Compania Sausinena, &c. v. Houlder Bros., [1910] 2 K. B.
354.
And an action under s. 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property
Act, 1875 (38 & 39 V. c. 86), was held to be maintainable against officials
of various trade unions, who conspired to beset workmen and prevent
them from serving the Pit in time of strike : Walters v. Green, [1899] 2
Ch. 696.
By 0. XVI, 2, ■' where an action has been commenced in the name of the Adding or
wrong person as Pit, or where it is doubtful whether it has been commenced substituting
In the name of the right Pit, the Court or a Judge may, if satisfied that it parties,
has been so commenced through a bond fide mistake, and that it is neces-
sary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any
other person to be substituted or added as Pit upon such terms as may be
just."
The rule applies to mistakes of law as well as of fact : Duchetl v. Cover,
6 Oh. D. 82 ; Vol de Travers Co. v. London Tramways Co., 40 L. T. 133 ;
48 L. J. C. P. 312 ; 1879, W. N. 46 ; and see Long v. Crossley, 13 Ch. D. 388.
The rule was held not to apply where, after consideration, it was decided
that the original Pits had no sufficient interest in law to entitle them to
sue : Clowes v. Hilliard, 4 Ch. D. 413 ; and see Luke v. S. Kensington Hotel
Co., 7 Ch. D. 789.
VOL. I. E
50
Amendment.
[chap. VI.
Jurisdiction
of Court
or Judge.
Consent.
Service.
Want of
parties.
Instances of
jurisdiction
exercised.
But an order may be made notwithstanding that on a preliminary point
of law it has been decided that the original Pit has no right of action :
Hughes v. The Pump House Hotel Co., Ltd., [1902] 2 K. B. 485, C. A.
The order cannot be made on ex parte motion : Tildesley v. Harper, 3
Ch. D. 277 ; Re Colbech, Hall v. C, 36 W. R. 259.
The rule is to be read together with r. 11 (stated inf.) : Tryon v. National
Provident Institution, 16 Q. B. D. 678 ; and the provision in that rule as to
written consent would seen to be applicable also to r, 2 : 8. C. ; but see
Sanders v. Peek, 32 W. R. 462.
For case in which the Court of Appeal under this rule directed an appeal
to stand over with liberty to amend by adding Pits, on consent being
obtained, and stayed proceedings under an order on further consideration
made subsequently to service of notice of the appeal, see Gandy v. 0.. 30
Ch. D. 57, 71, C. A.
As to adding the trustee of a bankrupt Pit as a co-Pit, see Emden v.
Carte, 17 Oh. D. 768, C. A. ; 29 W. R. 600 ; Bailey v. Thurston <Ss Co.,
[1903] 1 K. B. 137, C. A. ; and further, as to adding, striking out, or sub-
stituting parties, see Dan. 221, ei seq.
By O. XVI, 11, after a provision that no action shall be defeated by reason
of misjoinder, the Court or a Judge is empowered, at any stage of the pro-
ceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on
such terms as may seem just, to order the name of any party, whether Pit
or Deft, to be struck out, and the name of any party, whether Pit or Deft,
who ought to have been joined, or whose presence is necessary to enable
the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all
questions in the cause or matter; to be added. No person shall be added
as a Pit suing without a next friend, or as the next friend of a Pit under
any disability, without his own consent in writing thereto.
The provision that the consent must be in writing practically overrules
Cox V. James, 19 Ch. D. 55, and renders obsolete Turquand v. Fearon, 4
Q. B. D. 280.
The written consent must be obtained though the person sought to be
joined is indemnified against costs : Tryon v. National Provident Institu-
tion, 16 Q. B. D. 678 ; and even though he be trustee for the original Pit :
Besley v. B., 37 Ch. D. 648.
The amended writ must be personally served on the added parties and
delivered like a pleading to the others : Dan. 284.
An action ought not to be dismissed for want of parties : Fairclough v.
Marshall, 4 Ex. D. 37, C. A. ; Van Oelder <i> Co. v. Sowerhy Bridge Flour
Society, 44 Ch. D, 374, C. A.
For instances of the exercise of this jurisdiction by making a co-Pit Deft
at the hearing, see Roberts v. Evans, 7 Ch. D. 830 ; by adding a Deft, Hon-
duras Rail Co. V. Tucker, 2 Ex. D. 301, C. A. ; Day v. Radcliffe, 24 W. R.
844 ; after joinder of issue, Edward v. Lowther, 45 L. J. C. P. 417 ; 34 L. T.
255 ; 24 W. R. 434 ; by striking out a Deft improperly joined, Wilsrni v.
Church, 9 Ch. D. 552 ; after the Deft struck out had delivered his state-
ment of defence, Vallance v. Birm. <Ssc. Land Corp., 2 Ch. D. 369 ; by adding
alleged principal as co-Deft in an action against a broker for the breach of
warranty of authority, Bennets & Co. v. Mclhmaith, [1896] 2 Q. B. 464,
C. A. ; and in action by shipowner against consignees who had no property
in the cargo, by adding the shippers as Defts, in order that they might
counter-claim against the Pit for short delivery and injury to cargo : Mont-
gomery V. Foy, [1895] 2 Q. B. 321, C. A.
A third party has no right to object to the addition of new Defts unless
he can show that he will be thereby injured : Byrne v. Brown, 22 Q, B. D.
657, C. A.
It is common practice to allow a person entitled to take out admon to
be added as a party, and then, if the estate proves to be interested, the order
will not go until admon is taken out : Re Bicherson, Scales v. Heyhoe, 1893,
W. N. 103 ; 41 W. R. 583.
SECT. II.] As to Parties. 51
For cases in which the jurisdiction was not exercised, see Harry v. Davey, Jurisdiction
2 Ch. D. 721 ; Norris v. Beazhy, 2 C. P. D. 80 ; Mills v. Griffiths, 45 not exercised.
L. J. Q. B. 771 ; New Westminster Go. v. Hannah, 24 W. R. 899 ; De Hart
V. Stevenson, 1 Q. B. D. 313 ; Showell v. Winkup, 60 L. T. 389.
On an application for relief by a mortgagee in an ejectment action, if there
is sufficient reason for not making the lessee and assignee parties, the relief
will be granted, although they are not parties : Humphreys v. Morten,
[1905] 1 Ch. 739.
There is no jurisdiction under 0. xvi, 11, to add a party as Deft who is
not directly interested in the issues between the existing parties to the
action : Moser v. Marsden, [1892] 1 Ch. 487, C. A.
A Pit who has no right to sue will not be permitted to amend by joining
as co-Pit a person who has such right : Walcott v. Lyons, 29 Ch. D. 584,
C. A. ; and see Glowes v. Hilliard, 4 Ch. D. 415 ; but in Ayscough v. Bullar,
41 Ch. D. 341, C. A., where it was doubtful whether the existing Pit could
sue alone, she was allowed to add a co-Pit on terms of paying costs of
action up to amendment if, on the trial, it appeared that she was not entitled
to sue.
In an action of nuisance by owners and tenant of leasehold houses,
tenant declining to go on, two new tenants were added as co-Pits : House
Property and Investment Co. v. H. P. Horse Nail Go., 29 Ch. D. 190 ; dis-
tinguishing Dalton V. Guardians of St. Mary Abbotts, 47 L. T. 349, on the
ground that there the person proposed to be added was owner of a distinct
property ; and in an action by one of several covenantees for specific per-
formance of a covenant to make a road, the other covenantees were ordered
to be joined : Dix v. 0. W. By. Go., 55 L. J. Ch. 797 ; 54 L. T. 830 ; 34
W. R. 712.
That the improbability of the success of the action is not, perse, a ground
for refusing leave to amend by adding Pits, see Long v. Crossley, 13 Ch.
D. 388.
It is not right to give a party " leave to intervene " in an action, but ^
he should be added as a Deft : Samuel v. 8., 12 Ch. D. 152. Tor an U^
instance of adding a Deft, on his own application, to represent a class,
where there was already a Deft of that class, but not in a representative
character, see Fraser v. Cooper, 21 Ch. D. 718.
The discretion given by O. xvi, 11, ought to be exercised in accordance
with the principles upon which, before the Jud. Acts, pleas in abatement
would have been held good or bad : Wilson v. Balcarres, <Soc. Co., [1893]
1 Q. B. 422, C. A. ; and see Bdberts v. Holland, [1893] 1 Q. B. 665, 669.
As a consequence of the decisions in King v. Hoare, 13 M. & W. 494, and Joint
Kendall v. Hamilton, 4 App. Ca. 504, that a judgment against one of two contractor,
joint debtors is a bar to proceedings against the other, where an action is
brought against one only of several joint contractors, he is entitled as of
right, to have his co-contractors joined as Defts : Pilley v. Bobinson, 20
Q. B. D. 155 ; secus, where the co-contractor is a foreigner resident out of
the jurisdiction : Wilson v. Balcarres, cfcc. Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 422, C. A. ;
and see McCheane v. Gyles (No. 2), [1902] 1 Ch. 915 ; and where all the
joint contractors are within the jurisdiction, but one has not been served,
though the Pit has done his best to serve him, the action will not be stayed :
Robinscm v. Geisel, [1894] 2 Q. B. 685, 0. A.
Where one Deft submits to judgment and pays part of the debt, the Pit
may obtain judgment and execution against the co-Deft for the remainder :
Weall V. James, 68 L. T. 515.
One of two joint promisees can maintain an action on the contract,
making the other joint promisee a co-Deft if, after tender of an indemnity
against costs, he refuses to be. joined as a co-Pit : Cullen v. Knowles, [1898]
2 Q. B. 380.
The rule in Kiyig v. Hoare, sup., applies where both joint debtors are
parties, and judgment by consent is obtained against one only : McLcod v.
Power, [1898] 2 Ch. 295 ; secus, where the caiis^ of action is different, as,
52
Amendment.
[chap. VI.
Costs.
Delay.
After
judgment.
Petition.
Special case.
ex. gr., where one joint contractor is sued, a cheque given by him for the
joint debt : Wegg-Prosser v. Evans, [1895] 1 Q. B. 108, 0. A. ; [1894] 2
Q. B. 101.
Where one joint debtor has consented to judgment, the other, if he wishes
to avail himself of the judgment as a defence, should plead it. A debtor
not so pleading was ordered to pay costs up to the time of the consent
judgment : McLeod v. Power, [1898] 2 Ch. 295 ; and see Re Hodgsm, 31
Ch. D. 177, 188.
Where the right of action can only be in the alternative against one or
other of two Defts, judgment against one is an election not to proceed
against the other : Morel Brothers <fc Co., Ltd. v. Westmorland (Earl of),
[1904] A. C. 11 ; and cf. French v. Howie, [1905] 2 K. B. 580 ; [1906] 2
K. B. 674.
Under the former practice, on defect of parties, it was held discretionary
either to dismiss the bill without prejudice to filing another, or to give
leave to amend on payment of the costs of the day : see Stafford v. City of
London, 1 P. W. 429 ; and the cause was usually ordered to stand over
on payment by the Pit of the costs of the day : Jones v. /., 3 Atk. 110 ;
Hill V. Kirwan, Jac. 164 ; and by Cons. Ord. 40, r. 22, such costs were
fixed at £10.
This order being annulled, the costs of the day are not now a fixed amount.
Under an order to amend by striking out the name of Deft A. as party to
an action, the name of Deft B. cannot be struck out without providing for
his costs of the action : Wymer v. Dodds, 27 W. R. 675 ; 11 Ch. D. 436.
By 0. Lxv, 27 (50), where a cause or matter coming on for trial cannot
be decided for want of parties or other defect on the part of the Pit, and is
struck out and again set down, the Deft shall be allowed his taxed costs
oooasioned by the first setting down, although he does not obtain the costs
of the cause or matter.
Where a second amendment of the bill was allowed, it was on payment
of all the costs of both hearings : Bierdermann v. Seymour, 1 Beav. 594.
An objection for non-joinder of Pits ought to be taken promptly, and
not unnecessarily postponed to the trial : Sheehan v. 0. E. By. Co., 16
Ch. D. 59 ; and see RobeHs v. Evans, 7 Ch. D. 830.
Parties can be added at any time before final judgment : Hurst v. H., 21
Ch. D. 289, C. A. In a foreclosure action puisne mortgagees were added
as Defts after judgment had been pronounced but not drawn up and
entered : Keith v. Butcher, 25 Ch. D. 750 ; but in general there can be no
amendment after final judgment, unless there is something which remains
to be done in the action, ex gr., assessment of damages: DuheofBuccleuch,
[1892] P. 201, C. A. Therefore where decree had been made against a
Corp. for a perpetual injunction, but the operation was suspended for five
years, an amendment could not be made by adding, as co-Pits, a local
board who had, in the interval, succeeded to the rights and liabilities of
the Corp. : A. G. v. Corp. of Birmingham, 15 Ch. D. 423, C. A.
As to adding or substituting Pit after judgment, see Duke of Buccleuch,
[1892] A. 201 (P. C).
For case in which, after an order had been made on petition, an amend-
ment was made by striking out names of co-Petrs, who had been joined
without authority, and treating them as not having been served with the
petition, see Re Savage, 15 Cli. D. 557 ; and as to tlie power of the Court
to amend judgments and orders, see inf. Chap. XV., " Passing and
Entering," p. 187.
A special case might be amended by adding parties after it was set down :
Thisllethwaite v. Gamier, 5 D. & S. 73 ; Ainsworth v. Alman, 14 Beav. 576 ;
or at the hearing, the case being again set down : Barnaby v. Tassell, 11
Eq. 363 ; and, on the marriage of a female Doft, without again setting
down the case : Johnston v. Brown, 8 Eq. 584 ; and see inf. Chap. XXI.,
" Speciai, Case,"
SEQT. II.] As to Parties. 53
FORM OF APPLICATION.
By 0. XVI, 12, applications to add, or strike out, or substitute a Pit or
Deft may be made to the Court or a Judge at any time before trial by motion
or at Chambers, or at the trial in a summary manner. For form, see
D. C. P. 77.
If the amendment is only to add parties, the formal order to amend is
usually made at the hearing, and judgment is then given subject to the
amendment, with leave to the registrar to post-date the judgment if neces-
sary.
By O. XVI, 49, provision is made for such amendments, if any, as the
Court may think fit on third parties being admitted to defend the action.
( 54 ) [chap. VII.
CHAPTER VII.
DISCOVERY.
1. Leave to deliver Interrogatories after close of the Pleadings —
0. XXXI, 1 .
Oedee that the Deft be at liberty to deliver interrogatories in
writing for the examination of the Pit.
For forms of interrogatories and affidavit in answer, see R. S. C. App. B.
e, 7 ; D. C. F. 957, 959.
For forms of application for leave, see D. C. F. 956, 957.
2. Order to answer Interrogatories — 0. xxxi, 11.
Oedee that the Pits do, within &c., file an affidavit [or further and
better affidavit] in answer to the interrogatories for their examination
set forth in the schedule hereto.
The schedule should set forth iierJaMm the interrogatories to be answered,
A body corporate, or joint stock co., may be ordered to answer inter-
rogatories by a member or officer ; 0. xxxi, 5.
An order to strike out interrogatories or scandalous matter therefrom
would appear to be unnecessary having regard to 0. xxxi, 2.
3. Order objecting to Sufficiency of Answer to Interrogatories —
0. XXXI, 10.
Upon reading an affidavit of &c., filed &c., in answer to the interro-
gatories delivered by the Pits for the examination of the Deft, This
Court {or the Judge) being of opinion that the answer of the Deft to
the first of such interrogatories is insufficient \ifso, add and that the
objections taken to such interrogatory by such affidavit cannot be
sustained], doth order that the Deft do within fourteen days after
service of this order file a further affidavit in further answer to the
said first interrogatory. — See Chesterfield Colliery Co. v. Black,
V.-C. H., 13 June, 1876, A. 1143.
i. Order to make Affidavit of Documents, and for Inspection at'
Solr's Office and Sealing up — 0. xxxi, 12, 13, 14.
Oedee that the Deft [or Pit] do, within (seven) days after service
of this order, make and file a full and sufficient affidavit [if party to
Discovery. ^^
make affidavit is a public body, to be made by their Clerk or Secretary]
stating whether he has or has had in his possession or power any,
and (if any) what documents relating to the matters in question in
this action and accounting for the same ; And it is ordered that the
Deft [or Pit] do, at all seasonable times, upon reasonable notice,
produce at the office of Mr. — , his solr, situate at &c., the documents
which by such affidavit shall appear to be in his possession or power,
except such of the same (if any) as he may by such affidavit object
to produce ; and the applicant, his solrs and agents, are to be at
liberty to inspect and peruse the documents so produced, and to make
notes of their contents and to be entitled to be supplied with copies
thereof and extracts therefrom as the applicant shall be advised upon
payment therefor at the rate prescribed by 0. Lxv, 27 (18) [if ordered,
add] : But previously to the said inspection the Deft [or Pit] is to be
at liberty to seal up or otherwise cover up such parts of the said
documents as according to an affidavit to be made by him do
not relate to the matters in question in this action ; And it is
ordered that the said Deft [or Pit] do produce the same upon any
examination of witnesses in this action, and at the trial thereof, as
the applicant shall require ; And the applicant is to be at liberty
to make such further application as to all or any of the documents
mentioned in such affidavit as he may be advised.
The affidavit must go to documents which the deponent has had in his
possession or power, and not only those he has : see Lethbridge v. Cronk, 23
W. R. 703 ; Anon., 1876, W. N. 38, and inf. p. 74. For form of affidavit,
see R. S. C. App. B. 8 ; D. C. F. 967 et seq. For forms of appUcation, see
D. C. F. 965, 971.
For order to produce documents at the offices of numerous solrs, named
in a schedule to the order, see Moss v. Bainbrigge, M. R., 1st May, 1860,
B. 895.
For order to produce municipal documents at the place where they are
kept, see Preslney v. Corp. of Colchester, 23 Feb. 1883, B. 346 ; and 24 Ch.
D. 376, C. A., where the form is correctly given.
5. The Like — Mviual Discovery and Non-Disclosure of Clients'
Names.
Okdek that the Pit, and the Defts S. E. Co., the latter by their
proper officer, do respectively on or before &c., make and file a full
and sufficient affidavit or full and sufficient affidavits stating whether
each of them, the Pit or Defts, has or has had, or have or have had,
in his or their possession or power any, &c. ; And it is ordered that
the Pit and the Defts do, on &c., and subsequently at all seasonable
times, upon reasonable notice, produce, as regards the Pit, at the
office of Messrs. — , his solrs, situate at — ■, and as regards the Defts,
at the office of Messrs. — , their solrs, situate at — , the documents
which by such affidavit or affidavits respectively shall appear &c. ;
Liberty to both parties to inspect &c. [Form i, sup.] ; But it is ordered
^^ Discovery. [chap. vil.
that on sucli production and inspection the names of the Pit's clients
appearing in the Pit's books need not be disclosed.— See Burdett v.
Standard Exploration Co., Stirling, 3., 8 Dec. 1899, A. 4246.
6. Order as to Inspection, not requiring sealing up.
Order that, notwithstanding the said order, dated &c., as to sealing
up, the Defts be at liberty on the inspection under the said order to
cover up from time to time such parts of the books therein mentioned
as do not contain any entries relating to any matter in question in
the account directed by the said order, and to produce on such
inspection from time to time such entries only as relate to the matters
in question in such account, without on each occasion sealing up the
entries which do not so relate ; But at the conclusion of such inspec-
tion an affidavit is to be made by &c., on behalf of the Defts, that no
parts of the books which have during such inspection been so covered
up contain entries which do so relate. — See Graham v. Sutton Garden
& Co., C. A. 12 March, 1897, A. 1170 ; [1897] 1 Ch. 761, C. A. ; and
as to sealing up entries in partnership books, see Re Pickering, P.Y.P.,
25 C. D. 247.
7. Order for Affidavit — and for Deposit of Documents in Court —
0. Lxi, 30.
Order to make and file affidavit [Form 4, ante] ; And it is ordered,
that the said Deft [or Pit] do, within (seven) days after filing such
affidavit, produce and leave at the Central Office the documents
which, by such affidavit, shall appear to be in his possession or power,
except such of the same (if any) as he may by such affidavit object to
produce ; And the applicant, his solrs and agents, are to be at liberty
to inspect and peruse the documents so produced and left, and to
make notes of their contents and to be entitled to be supplied with
copies thereof and extracts therefrom, as the applicant shall be
advised, at his expense ; And the proper officer is to produce the
same upon any examination of witnesses in this action, and at the
trial thereof, as the applicant shall require ; And the applicant is to
be at liberty to make such further application as to all or any of the
documents mentioned in such affidavit as he may be advised.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 66, production may be ordered in the office of any
district registrar.
For order for committee of a lunatic's estate to make an affidavit of
documents, see Holmes y. Sayer-Milward, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 11 April,
1876, A. 673.
As to production by the proper officer, see O. lxi, 29.
For an order specifying certain entries in accounts which alone were to
be inspected, see Firhins v, Lowe, 13 Pri. 193.
Discovery. 57
8. Delivery of Documents out of Court to a Party's Solr, to be pro-
duced in Evidence.
Order that the documents deposited by the Defts in the Central
Oifice, pursuant &c., be delivered out to Mr. — , the Defts' solr, for the
purpose of producing the same before &c., on examination of witnesses
before examiner, the said Mr. — undertaking to re-deposit the same
within a week after the examination is closed. — Pit to be at liberty to
inspect the documents meanwhile. — See Clarke v. Brown, V.-C. S. in
Chambers, 13 Dec. 1854, A. 152.
The Court refused to allow original documents in the custody of the Court
to be taken abroad for the examination of witnesses, no special case being
made : Lafone v. Falkland Isl. Co., 4 K. & J. 40 ; Re Stephens, L. R. 9 C. P.
187.
As to depositing court rolls of a manor, and that the possession of the
Court is that of the depositor, see Garew v. Davis, 21 Beav. 213 ; and see
Copyhold Act, 1894 (57 & 58 V. c. 46), s. 64.
When deeds have been left in Court under an order for production for
the purpose of discovery, on that purpose being satisfied the party who
left the deeds has a right to have them back : Dunn v. £>., 3 Drew. 17 ;
affd. 7 D. M. & G. 25 ; but not where the order was for deposit, or the
rights as to the deeds have been declared : Ibid. Nor in an action to
raise portions will the Court, without the consent of the mortgagees,
deliver back the deeds to the tenant for life : Jenner v. Morris, 1 Ch. 603.
By 0. LXi, 28, " no affidavit or record of the Court shall be taken out of
the Central Office without the order of a Judge or Master, and no subpoena
for the production of any such document shall be issued." As to the
practice under the rule, see Dan. 513 ; and generally for the practice
respecting the delivery out of documents, see " Pkactice Masters' Rules,"
Dan. 1575 ; and for forms, see D. C. F. 979 et seq.
9. Order for Affidavit and Inspection against Republican Foreign
Government.
Order that the Pits, the Republic of L — , do on or before &c.,
file a full and sufiicient affidavit, or full and suflB.cient affidavits, to
be made by one or more of its officers or ministers, stating whether
the said Republic has or has had in its possession or power any
and (if any) what documents relating to the matters in question in this
action, and accounting for the same, unless the said Republic shall on
or before the said — day of — satisfy the Court by sufficient evidence
that it is unable to procure such affidavit or affidavits to be made ;
and it is ordered that the Pits, the Republic of L — , do at all
seasonable times upon reasonable notice produce at the office of
Messrs. — , their solrs, situate at &c., the documents which by such
affidavit or affidavits shall appear to be in the possession or power
of the said Republic, except such of the same (if any) as the said
Republic may by such affidavit or affidavits object to produce, and
the applicant, his solr, and agent are to be at liberty to inspect &c.
Usual direction [Form 4, ante]. — Republic of Liberia v. Imperial
Bank, V.-C. M., 31 May, 1873, B. 1327 ; 16 Eq. 179.
^8 Discovery. [chap. vii.
For the further order in this case, fixing a time at which, in default of a
sufficient affidavit by the Repubho, their bill should stand dismissed and
the money in Court be repaid to Deft, see S. C, 9 Ch, 569 ; affd. 1 App.
Ca. 139, ei v. inf. p. 72.
10. Order for Production and Inspection of Documents referred to
in an Affidavit or Pleading — 0. xxxi, 15, 18.
Order that the Pit [or Deft] do at all seasonable times and on
reasonable notice produce at the office of Messrs. B., his solrs, situate
at • — , the several documents referred to in his affidavit filed the — day
of — [or in the Pit's statement of claim, or Deft's defence, &c.
Mention the pleading or affidavit in which the documents are referred to,
and specify any particular documents required, and the paragraphs that
refer to them, or except any documents not required to be produced] ;
And the applicant, his solr and agent, are to be at liberty to inspect
&c. [Form i, ante] ; And it is ordered that the Pit [or Deft] do
produce the same upon any examination of witnesses in this action
and at the trial thereof, as the applicant shall require.
For form of notice to produce, v. R. S. C. App. B., Part II, 9 ; D. C. F.
970 ; and for application for order, lb. 973.
11. Order for further and better Inspection of Documents.
This Court being of opinion that the affidavit filed by the Deft on
the — day of — , is insufficient in the following respects, viz. &c.,
that more specific answers ought to be given as to, &c., and that the
Deft shoidd answer further, having regard to the affidavit of &c. as
to &c., Doth order that the Deft do on or before &c., make and file
a further and better affidavit in accordance with the aforesaid
directions. Liberty to Pit to inspect and for production &c. [Form 4,
ante].— See Ehrmann v. E., Stirling, J., 7 Aug. 1896, A. 3495, [1896]
2 Ch. 826.
12. For Inspection of Documents held not privileged.
The Judge being of opinion that the documents referred to in the
schedules to the affidavits of C, filed &c., are not privileged, except
such as are hereinafter mentioned. It is ordered, that C, the secretary
of the Pits, the N. E. Ry. Co., do at all seasonable times, upon reason-
able notice, produce at the office of the said co. at — the several
documents specified in the first and second parts of the schedule to
the said affidavit, except &c. [state documents held privileged] referred
to in the said schedule ; And it is ordered that the applicant, his sobs
or agents, be at liberty to inspect &c. [Form 4, ante]. — N. E. Ry. Co.
V. Jonassohn, V.-C. W. in Chambers, 20 Mar. 1860, B. 302.
For order directing certain documents, privileged and others, to be pro-
duced, and a further affidavit as to others to be filed, seeMacfarlan v. Bolt,
14 Eq. 580.
Discovery. 59
13. Order for further Affidavit as to particular Documents —
against one Deft.
Order that P. do within &c., make and file a further full and
sufficient affidavit stating whether he has, or has had, in his possession
or power any, and, if any, which of the following documents relating
to the H — Mills, being the matters referred to in the summons taken
out by the Pits on the — day of — , and accounting for the same, that
is to say, any letters or copies of letters from or to R. C. and B. or
either of them, or from or to any other person or persons, or any other
documents relating to the said mills.^ — ^Usual directions. — Fenton v. F.,
M.R., 4 May, 1876, A. 1031 ; and see Warden v. Peddinglon, 32 Beav.
639.
Tor forms of application, see D. C. P. 969, 970.
For order for Defts to make affidavit specifying books in use in the con-
duct of their business at Ldverpool, with special directions as to the mode
of inspection there and as to sealing up, see Mertens v, Haigh, Joh. 739 ;
affd. 3 D. J. & S. 528.
14. Order for Production, on prepayment of Expenses, of Documents
from India set forth in Deft's Affidavit.
Order that upon the Pit prepaying the expense of conveyance by a
ship or ships of the class known as Class A 1 at Lloyd's, the Defts G.
&c., do within (six) weeks after receipt of notice from the Pit at the
offices of the said Defts at Calcutta, and within (six) weeks after the
receipt of the like notice at the office of the said Defts at Rangoon,
by any such ship or ships as aforesaid, transmit to the office of the
Defts, situate at — , in the City of London, such of the books, papers,
and documents set forth in the said affidavit of the said Defts filed
&c., as are at their said offices at Calcutta and Rangoon respectively,
and as shall be specified in such notices ; And the applicant, his solrs
or agents, are to be at liberty to inspect &c., all the said books,
papers, and documents so to be transmitted as aforesaid [Form 4,
ante].— Lindsay v. Gladstone, V.-C. G., 23 Nov. 1868, B. 3038;
9 Eq. 132.
15. Inspection of Letters from Third Party marked Private, on
undertaking not to use them for any Collateral Purpose.
And the Pit, by his counsel, undertaking not to use or give in
evidence, or cause or wilfully suffer to be used or given in evidence,
the letters or writings hereinafter referred to, or any copies or copy,
abstracts or abstract, extracts or extract, thereof or therefrom, or
from any or either of them, or parol evidence of the contents thereof,
or any or either of them, in any action or actions already commenced
or hereafter to be commenced against the Defts, or any or either of
them, or against them or any or either of them jointly with any other
60 Discovery. [chap. vii.
person or persons, or against the writer of the said letters, either
alone or jointly with any other person or persons, for any other
purpose or purposes whatsoever collateral to this action ; Defts to
produce the letters referred to in the affidavit of &c., and usual
directions [Form 4, ante\. — HopMnson v. Lord Burghley, L. JJ., 14
March, 1867, A. 789 ; S. C, 2 Ch. 447, following the language of
Richardson v. Hastings, M. E. 31 July, 1844, B. 1599 ; 7 Beav. 354.
16. Order overruling Objections, and for Production.
Order that notwithstanding the objection raised by the Defts, by
their said affidavit, to produce the documents set forth in the second
part of the schedule to their said affidavit, and admitted to be in their
or his possession or power, the Defts do produce [Form 4, ante]. —
Re Deivson, M. E. in Chambers, 23 Nov. 1875, A. 2029.
17. Claimant against Testator's Assets to deposit at Judge's
Chambers suspected Documents used by him as Evidence —
and for Inspection of them by Witnesses — and of other
Documents admitted.
Order that notwithstanding the order in — v. — , dated &c.,
the claimant P., do within (four) days after service hereof, produce
and leave until further order with the Master such of the several docu-
ments as are mentioned in the said order, and as the claimant has
used as his evidence in support of his claim ; And it is ordered that
the claimant do, within (four) days after service hereof, produce
and leave at the office of Mr. H., at — , his solr, the several other docu-
ments, letters, papers, and writings, except the briefs and opinions of
counsel, admitted by the said P., by his said affidavit, filed on the
— day of — , and the schedules thereto, to be in his possession,
custody, or power, and also an alleged letter of the — day of ,
since admitted to be in his possession ; And it is ordered that the
Pit and the Deft and the said P., and their solrs, agents, and witnesses,
prior to their examination, be at liberty from time to time to inspect
and peruse such of the said documents as shall be so left with the
Master ; but such inspection by the Pit and the Deft, their solrs,
agents, and witnesses, is to be made in the presence of the Master
and the solr for the said P., the Pit or Deft first giving the names and
addresses of such witnesses to the Master ; And it is ordered that the
Pit and the Deft, and their respective solrs, be at liberty to inspect and
peruse from time to time such of the said several other documents,
letters, papers, and writings as shall be so left with the Master as afore-
said ; and the Pit and the Deft are to be at liberty to make notes of
their contents and to be entitled to be supplied with copies thereof and
extracts therefrom as the applicant shall be advised upon payment
therefor at the rate prescribed by 0. lxv. 27 (18) ; And it is ordered
Discovery. 61
that tte proper officer do produce the same to the Pit's solrs, agents,
and witnesses, before the Judge, and at the trial of this action. — See
Groves v. G., V.-C. Wood, 13 Dec. 1853, A. 585 ; Kay, xix.
For form of application, see D. C. P. 977.
18. Ex parte Order under Bankers' Booh Evidence Act, 42 & 43 F.
c. 11, s. 7, to inspect Boohs.
Order that the appHcant, her solr and agent, be at liberty, at all,
seasonable times upon reasonable notice, to inspect and take copies
of any entries in the books of the — Bank, Limited, situate at &c.,
and at their branches elsewhere in London, relating to dealings and
transactions by and between the said bank and the firm of &c., who
kept an account or accounts with the said bank commencing in or
about the year 18 — , such inspection and copies being necessary to
the applicant for the proceedings in this action. — Re Pickering, P. v.
P., Chitty, J., at Chambers, 2 Dec. 1884, B. 1454 ; Neate v. Busby,
Kay, J., at Chambers, 13 June, 1884, B. 756 ; Re Luckie, Nixon v.
Luckie, Kay, J., at Chambers, 8 March, 1883, B. 354.
For form of summons or notice, see D. C. F. 298.
19. The like Order — Bank appearing and not objecting.
Order that the E. E. Bank, Ld. do at all seasonable times on
reasonable notice produce at their head office, situate at No. — , —
Street, in the City of London, their books containing the accounts of
the Deft co., the A. B. F., Ld., and the Deft E. B. respectively, as to
the Deft E. B., from the 25 Oct. 1884, and as to the Deft co. from the
27 Oct. 1884, the date of the registration of the said co. ; And that
the applicant be at liberty to inspect and peruse the entries in the
said books relative to such accounts, and to make notes of their
contents and to be entitled to be supplied with copies thereof and
extracts therefrom upon payment therefor at the rate prescribed by
0. Lxv. 27 (18), the R. E. Bank, Ld., by their counsel, not objecting
to this order. — Arnott v. Hayes, Kekewich, J., 13 June, 1887, A.
894 ; as altered by S. C, 28 June, 1887, A. 1047 ; affirmed by C. A.,
29 July, 1887 ; 36 Ch. D. 731.
20. Order for Names of Parties constituting a Firm carrying on
Business within the Jurisdiction — 0. xlviiia, 2.
Order that the Pits A. & Co. do on or before &c., furnish the
Defts with a statement in writing setting forth the names and
addresses of the persons constituting the members or co-partners of
their firm.
The application should be made in Chambers. For form, see D. C. F. 36.
As to form of order in patent case as to sale by Deft of pirated machines.
"" Discovery. [chap. vii.
giving names and addresses of purchasers, but not of his agents for sale,
Bee Murray v. Clayton, 21 W. R. 118.
NOTES.
DISCOVEEY AND PEODTTCTION GENBKALLY.
For the rules of the Court of Chancery as to discovery and production of
documents, and that every party to a suit in equity is entitled for the proof
of his own case, to the benefit of all the evidence, personal and documen-
tary, which can be obtained from his opponents, material to the questions
coming on for trial, see Wigram, Hare, and Kerr on Discovery ; and see
Dan. 1534 et seq., and Bowen, L. J., in Leitch v. Abbott, 31 Ch. D. 374, C. A.
The general right to discovery is not affected by the Jud. Acts, which
relate only to procedure : A. O. v. OasUll, 20 Ch. D. 519, C. A. ; Hunnings
V. Williamson, 10 Q. B. D. 470 ; Ind, Coope <fe Co. v. Emmerson, 12 App.
Ca. 300 ; Lyell v. Kennedy, 20 Ch. D. 489, 491, C. A. ; 8 App. Ca. 217, 223 ;
Kearsley v. Phillips, 10 Q. B. D. 466, C. A. It is not in principle more ex-
tensive than it formerly was in the Court of Chancery : Lyell v. Kennedy,
sup. ; and discovery will not be allowed where the Court of Chancery
before the Acts would not have allowed it ; e.g., when the subject of the
action is a penalty : Hunnings v. Williamson, sup. ; and as to discovery
in actions for penalties, v. inf. p. 96.
A Pit is entitled to discovery of the facts upon which the Deft relies to
estabUsh his case, but not of the evidence which it is proposed to adduce :
Made v. Jacobs, 3 Ex. D. 335, C. A. ; for illustrations of the effect of this
principle, see inf., " Resistance to DiscovBBy," pp. 85 — 87.
Now that by virtue of the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 24 (2), Courts of equity and
common law have concurrent jurisdiction, a plea of purchase for valuable
consideration is no longer available as a bar to discovery in an action to
recover possession of land : Ind, Coope & Co. v. Emmerson, 12 App. Ca.
300 ; and the ordinary rules of discovery apply to patent actions, not-
withstanding the statutory provision for delivery of particulars : Birch v.
Mather, 22 Ch. D. 629.
The rules of equity as to discovery are to prevail : Bolchow, Vaughan &
Co. v. Fisher, 10 Q. B. D. 166, C. A. ; Anderson v. Bank of Columbia, 2
Ch. D. 654, 668, C. A. ; Bustros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 426, C. A. ; and see
Kearsley v. Phillips, 10 Q. B. D. 466, C. A. ; regard being had to the different
natures of Chancery and common law actions : A. O. v. Gashill, 20 Ch. D.
530, 0. A. ; Mercier v. Cotton, 1 Q. B. D. 442, C. A.
ACTIONS rOR DISCOVERY ONLY,
Now that every Division of the High Court has equal power of compelling
discovery, no action for discovery need be brought in one Division in aid of
an action in another : Orr v. Diaper, 4 Ch. D. 92 ; and actions for discovery
only can rarely now be necessary.
It has now been decided that an action for discovery only in aid of pro-
ceedings in a foreign Court will not lie : Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co., 41
Ch. D. 151 ; following Bent v. Young, 9 Sim. 180 ; and observing upon
Crowe V. Del Rio, 9 Sim. 185, n.
The Court will not compel discovery in favour either of an inferior Court
or a Court which has power, in itself, to compel a discovery : Bent v. Young,
9 Sim. 191 ; Earl of Derby v. Duke of Athol, 1 Ves. sen. 202.
For cases in which discovery has been granted in aid of arbitrations, see
Brit. Empire Shipping Co. v. Somes, 3 K. & J. 433 ; Ainsumrlh v. Starkie,
1876, W. N. 8 ; and semble,it would not now be granted having regard to
0. XXXVI, 50, 55c ; and see inf. Chap. XXVI., " Arbitrations."
In Orr v. Diaper, 4 Ch. D. 92, an action lay against shippers of goods
bearing counterfeits of Pit's trade mark for discovery of names of consignors.
Discovery. 63
For action in aid of proceedings to recover land in India, see Reiner v.
Marquis of Salisbury, 2 Ch. D. 378.
As to whether an action will lie by principal against agent for the sole
purpose of enforcing production of documents to a particular person, see
Dadswdl v. Jac(As, 34 Ch. D. 278, 0. A.
Solrs or agents ought not to be made parties for discovery only r Bur-
st-all V. Beyfus, 26 Ch. D. 35, C. A.
PKOCEDtTRE TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY,
The rules of procedure as to discovery and inspection are contained in
0. XXXI, of which rr. 1 — 11 and r. 24 regulate discovery by interrogatories ;
rr. 12 and 13 refer to affidavit of documents ; rr. 14 — 18 to production and
inspection of documents ; and rr. 19 — 22, both to discovery and inspection.
The leave of the Court for the delivery of interrogatories is now neces-
sary in all cases : O. xxxi, 1, 2.
As to discovery in aid of execution, see 0. xi.n, 32—34, and inf. Chap.
XXVII. ; Irwdl v. Eden, 18 Q. B. D. 588, C. A.
SECURITY FOR COSTS OF DISCOVERY.
Any party seeking discovery may be required to pay a sum of money
into Court to a separate account in the action, to be called " Security for
Costs Account," to abide further order : O. xxxi, 26. In the case of in-
terrogatories, the payment is to be made before delivery of them, and the
amount is £5, and if the number of folios exceed five, the further sum of
10s. for every additional folio. In other cases the payment is to be made
before the application for discovery, and the amount is £5, but the Court
or Judge may direct payment of an additional sum. The party seeking
discovery must, with his interrogatories or order for discovery, serve a copy
of the receipt for the payment into Court, and the time for answering or
making discovery is to commence from the date of such service. The
party from whom discovery is sought is not to be required to answer or
make discovery unless and until the payment has been made ; Ihid. For
forms of request, &c., see D. C. F. 953, 954.
The rule does not apply to an appUcation for production of a document in
which both parties have a common interest : Brown v. Liell, 16 Q. B. D.
229.
Where one set of interrogatories was delivered to several Defts, each of
whom was required to answer particular interrogatories, only one sum of
£5 was required to be paid : Eder v. Attevhorough, 23 Q. B. D. 130 ; secus,
semble, where separate sets are delivered : Ibid. ; and Campbell v. Lord
Pcndett, 1884, W. N. 48.
Where several Defts appeared by different solrs and severed in their
defences, on application for discovery of documents and leave to interro-
gate, the Pits were required to pay two separate sums of £5 in respect of
each Deft: Liverpool tSk Manchester Bread Go. v. Firth, [1891] 1 Ch. 367,
following Smith v. Beed, 1883, W. N. 196. But where the application was
for discovery of documents only, the fact of Defts severing was not a ground
for ordering more than one deposit, and the test was rather considered to
be whether there were separate grounds of action : Joyce v. BeaU, [1891J
1 Q. B. 459.
In the event of non-payment, the party from whom discovery is sought
is relieved from answering, but is not entitled to apply for an order to
strike out the interrogatories : Eder v. Attenborough, 23 Q. B. D. 130.
The object of requiring the deposit is to check unnecessary applications
for discovery. It is intended for the benefit of the clients themselves,
not solely of the party from whom discovery is sought : Aste v. Stumore,
13 Q. B. D. 326, C. A, The Court has discretion to dispense with the
64 Discovery. [chap. vii.
deposit : Newman v. L. cfc S. W. By. Co., 24 Q. B. D. 454 ; distinguishing
Boarder v. Lindsay, 34 W. R. 473 ; but is not bound to do so simply because
the parties have so agreed : Aste v. Stumore, sup.
As to poverty being a ground for dispensing with the deposit, see Smith
V. Went, 50 L. T. 382 ; 32 W. R. 612 ; Compagnie Pacifique v. Ouano Co.,
1883, W. N. 166.
The power to order additional security in the case of discovery of docu-
ments is not coniined to the occasion when the order is made, but may be
exercised at any subsequent time if circumstances so require : Coolce v.
Smith, [1891] 1 Ch. 509, C. A.
After the cause or matter has been finally disposed of, the amount
deposited is, unless otherwise ordered, to be paid out to the party who
paid it in, in the event of costs being adjudged to him, but, if he is ordered
to pay costs, is to be subject to a lien for such costs : O. xxxi, 27. Where
no taxation of costs is required, the taxing officer or master may grant a
certificate which will operate as an order for paj'ment : O. xxxi, 28.
LEAVE OF THE COURT.
By O. XXXI, 2, " On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories,
the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted
to the Court or Judge. In deciding upon such application the Court or
Judge shall take into account any offer which may be made by the party
sought to be interrogated, to deliver particulars, or to make admissions,
or to produce documents relating to the matter in question, or any of them,
and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted
as the Court or Judge shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly
of the cause or matter or for saving costs."
A copy of the proposed interrogatories should be served on the party
to be interrogated before the application is made : D. C. F. 956 ; and the
particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered must be submitted :
O. XXXI, 2 ; but the Court will not settle the interrogatories, or decide as
to their relevancy in particular : see Martin v. Spicer, 32 Ch. D. 592 ;
SwabeyY. Dovey, 32 Ch. D. 352; Hall v. Liadert, 1883, W. N. 165;
D. C. P. 956.
The allowance by a Judge of interrogatories to be administered to a party
does not amount to a decision that the party is bound to answer them, but
leaves him at liberty to take any objection to answering, which he might
otherwise have taken : Peek v. Ray, [1894] 3 Ch. 282, C. A. An appeal
from the allowance of interrogatories by a Judge will not be allowed, unless
the Judge has gone on a wrong principle, or done substantial injustice :
S. C.
Time to In general discovery will not be allowed till after defence, as until then
^'PPly- it is usually impossible to say what the matters in question are : Sachs v.
Speilman, 37 Ch. D. 303 ; Merxier v. Cotton, 1 Q. B. D. 442, C. A. ; Hancock
V. Ouerin, 4 Ex. D. 3 ; Welster v. Whewall, 15 Ch. D. 120 ; Republic of Costa
Rica V. Strousberg, 11 Ch. D. 323, C. A. ; Davies v. Williams, 13 Ch. J). 550 ;
but there is no absolute rule of practice to that effect, at all events in the
Chancery Division : Harbord v. Monk, 9 Ch. D. 617.
In a, redemption action against a mortgagee in possession, production
was ordered before defence, without any special case being made : Union
Bank of London v. Manby, 13 Ch. D. 239, C. A. ; and in Harbord v. Monk,
9 Ch. D. 616, in an action by a stockbroker to open accounts, and alleging
fraud, both parties were to deliver interrogatories, the defence not to be
put in until the Pit had answered the Deft's interrogatories.
A Deft will not in general be allowed to exhibit interrogatories before he
has put in his defence : Disney v. Longbourne, 2 Ch. D. 704 ; and see Egre-
mont v.Egremonl. Co., 14 Ch. D. 158 ; unless the discovery is in the nature
of particulars which are necessary to enable him to prove his defence ;
Augustinus v. Nerinckx, 16 Ch. D. 13, C. A. ; or to decide whether to defend ':
Discover I/. Go
Bawleyv. Reade, 1876, W. N. 64 ; or how much to pay into Court : Megaw
V. Diarmid, L. R. Ir. 10 0. L. 376 ; Home v. Hough, L. R. 9 C. P. 135 ;
Frost V. Brook, 23 W. R. 260 ; 32 L. T. 312 ; Clarke v. Bennett, 32 W. R.
550.
Documents referred to in a pleading must be produced as soon as the
pleading is delivered, unless some special reason is shown : Quiller v.
Hcatley, 23 Ch. D. 42, C. A. ; and qucere, whether there is any general rule
of practice that the Pit cannot obtain an order for production before he has
delivered his statement of claim : Republic of Costa Rica v. Stroiisberg, 11
Ch. D. 323, C. A. ; but general discovery of documents will not be allowed
unless essential to the statement of the Pit's claim : Cashin v. Craddock,
2 Ch. D. 140, 147 ; and see Davis v. Williams, 13 Ch. D. 550 ; Phillips v.
P., 40 L. T. 815, 822 ; 27 W. R. 940 ; British and Foreign, &c. Co. v. Wright,
32 W. R. 413 ; and, although particulars have been applied for by the Deft,
the Pit will be allowed discovery, if it is necessary to enable him to give
details, and the Deft, from the nature of the case, has means of knowledge
which the Pit has not : Leitch v. Abbott, 31 Ch. D. 374, C. A. ; Millar v.
Harper, 38 Ch. D. 110, C. A. ; Waynes Merthyr Co. v. Radford & Co., [1896]
1 Ch. 29 ; even though the object of the action is to open settled accounts :
Whyte V. Ahrens, 26 Ch. D. 717, C. A. ; Sachs v. Speilman, 37 Ch. D. 295 ;
and see sup. Chap. V., " Pleadings."
As to refusal of discovery as not being sufficiently material at a parti-
cular stage of the action, see inf. " PEEMATtTBE Disoovbey," pp. 88, 89.
INTERKOaATORIES.
By O. XXXI, 1, "in any cause or matter the Pit or Deft, by leave of the
Court or a Judge, may deliver interrogatories in writing for the examina-
tion of the opposite parties, or any one or more of such parties, and such
interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at the foot thereof stating
which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer ;
provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories
to the same party without an order for that purpose ; provided also that
interrogatories which do not relate to any matters in question in the cause
or matter shall be deemed irielevant, notwithstanding that they might
be admissible on the oral cross-examination of a witness."
An " opposite party " is one between whom and the party seeking dis- Opposite
covery there is an issue joined : Molloy v. Kilby, 15 Ch. D. 164, C. A. ; and P'rty.
see Shaw v. Smith, 18 Q. B. D. 193, C. A. Thus, Defts to counter-claim,
not being Defts in the original action, cannot interrogate Pit : Molloy v>
Kilby, sup. ; But see Alcoy & Oandia Ry. Co. v. Oreenhill, 74 L. T. 345,
where discovery of documents as between co-Defts to a counter-claim was
ordered.
Third parties having liberty to appear at the trial and oppose the Pit's
claim are opposite parties liable to be interrogated : Eden v. Weardale Iron
Co., 34 Ch. D. 233, C. A. ; MacAlister v. Bishop of Rochester, 5 C. P. D. 194 ;
and, being in the position of Defts, can interrogate : Eden v. Weardale
Iron Co., 35 Ch. D. 287, C. A. ; but a Deft is not in general an opposite
party to his co-Deft : Broiim v. Watkins, 16 Q. B. D. 125. An infant Pit
or Deft could not be compelled to answer interrogatories : Mayor v. Collins,
24 Q. B. D. 361 ; or make discovery of documents : Curtis v. Mundy,
[1892] 2 Q. B. 178 ; but as to proceedings for divorce, qumre : Redfern v.
R., [1891] P. 139, C. A. ; nor a guardian ad litem, as he could not mako
admissions against the infant's interest : Ingram v. Little, 11 Q. B. D. 251 ;
and a next friend is not a " party " to the action : Re Corsellis, Lawton v.
Elwes, 52 L. J. Ch. 399 ; Dyke v. Stephens, 30 Ch. D. 189 ; 48 L. T. 425 ;
31 W. R. 414 ; but now, by r. 29, 0. xxxi is made applicable to infant Pits
and Defts, and to their next friends and guardians ad litem.
By O. XXXI, 5, " if any party to a cau'-e or matter be a body corporate Body
or a joint stock co., whether incorporated or not, or any other body of corporate
vor. I. F
66 Discovery. [chap. vii.
persons empowered by law to sue or be sued, whether in its own name or
in the name of any officer or other person, any opposite party may apply
for an order allowing him to deliver interrogatories to any member or
officer of such corporation, oo. or body, and an order may be made
accordingly."
This rule does away with the former practice in equity of making the
secretary or some other officer, against whom no relief was claimed, a party
for the purposes of discovery only : Wilson v. Church, 9 Ch. D. 552 ; and
the answer now is that of the corp. and can be read against them : Wdsbach
Incandescent, &c. Oo. v. New Sunlight, dac. Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 1, C. A.
A similar provision was made by C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 51, as to which
see Bechervaise v. O. W. Ry., L. R. 6 C. P. 36 ; and directors had to answer
interrogatories after the commencement of a winding-up : Madrid Bank
V. Bayley, L. R. 2 Q. B. 37.
The person requiring the discovery cannot select any person he thinks
fit, but the oorp. must name a proper person : Bep. of Costa Bica v. Erlanger,
1 Ch. D. 171, C. A. ; and see Manchester, &c. Co. v. Slagg, 1882, W. N. 127.
The duty of the officer in answer is limited to knowledge obtained in the
course of his emplojrment by the co., or from other officers and agents
similarly employed : WelsbiKh Incandescent, dhc. Co. v. New Sunlight, dbc.
Co., sup.
Where a corp. elected to answer by their town clerk, who was a solr, he
could not decline to answer questions on the ground of professional privi-
lege : Swansea Corp. v. Quirk, 5 C. P. D. 106 ; secus, where by the terms
of the order the corp. were required so to answer : Salford Corp. v. Lever,
24 Q. B. D. 695.
In an action against a municipal oorp. for malicious arrest, the town clerk
was interrogated : McFadzen v. Liverpool Corp., L. R. 3 Ex. 279.
The secretary of a co. is usually the proper person to answer : Berkeley
V. Standard Discount Co., 13 Ch. D. 97, 99, C. A., under a winding-up as
well as in an action ; Be Alexandra Palace Co., 16 Ch. D. 58. Where the
apphcation is for delivery of interrogatories to a member of the co., notice
of the application ought in general to be served upon him : Chaddock v.
British South Africa Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 153, C. A. If a member of the co.
is examined, he cannot refuse to file his affidavit in answer until he has
been paid his taxed costs of making it : Berkeley v. Standard Discount Co. , sup.
Liquidator of The liquidator of a oo. being wound up is subject to discovery as an
a company, ordinary litigant in proceedings against strangers or alleged contributories :
Be Burned^s Banking Co., 2 Ch. 350 ; but in questions between creditors,
contributories, and officers of the oo., it is the duty of the liquidator to give
them every opportunity of becoming acquainted with anything material,
but he can act only under the direction of the Court as to production of
books, &c. : Oooch's Case, 7 Ch. 207 ; and cannot be required to make an
affidavit of documents, except under special circumstances : Be Mutual
Society, 22 Ch. D. 714, C. A.
The ordinary practice is for the co.'s solr to act for the person interro-
gated, who should not incur separate costs : Berkeley v. Standard Discount
Co., sup.
And as to production of documents by officers of corps. &c., see inf.
p. 71.
Sheriff, As to discovery in any action against or by a sheriff in respect of any
matters connected with the execution of his office, see 0. xxxi, 28.
Petition The suppliant in a petition of right is not entitled to discovery or pro-
of right. duction against the Crown : inf. Chap. XXV. ; and see Lane v. Gray, 16
Eq. 552 ; secus, the Crown as against the suppUant : Tomline v. The Queen,
4 Ex. D. 282 ; Bray, 70.
Foreign A foreign sovereign suing in the Courts of this country must be taken
sovereign or so far to submit to the jurisdiction that he must give discovery : South
government. African BepuUic v. La Compagnie Franco-Beige du Chemin de Fer du Nord,
[1898] 1 Ch. 190 ; and see Prioleau v. V. S., 2 Eq. 659.
Discovery. 67
A recognised foreign government Buing in an English Court was not
required to name any oo-Plt for purposes of discovery : U. 8. v. Wagner,
2 Ch. 582 ; but could only obtain relief by complying with the rules as to
discovery : Prioleau v. U. S., 2 Eq. 659 ; and the proceedings could be
stayed until some person had been named who could be made Deft 1o a
cross bill for discovery : Bep. of Peru v. Weguelin, 20 Eq. 140 ; but the
English Deft could not himself choose a person for that purpose : Bep. of
Costa Bica v. Erlanger, 19 Eq. 33 ; 1 Ch. D. 171, 0. A. ; and that the pre-
sident of a republic should not be made a party for discovery, see Prioleau
V. U. S. ; Bep. of Costa Bica v. Erlanger, sup.
Where the agent of a foreign principal sues in his own name on a contract
with him as agent, the Deft is entitled to the same discovery as if the prin-
cipal were a party, and to a stay of proceedings until such discovery is
made : Willis v. Badddey, [1892] 2 Q. B. 324, 0. A.
The object of interrogatories is not merely to give to the interrogating Object of
party information as to that of which he is ignorant, but to enable him to interroga-
obtain admissions : A. 6. v. Oaskill, 20 Ch. D. 519, C. A. ; and the fact tones,
that the information may be obtained on examination and cross-examina-
tion at the trial is no bar to the discovery : Ihid. ; but (semble) interro-
gatories should not be made use of where the required admissions can
equally well be obtained by particulars or otherwise : Clarice v. C, 1899,
W. N. 130, per Kekewich, J.
A Pit in an ejectment action has the same right to interrogate (in support
of his own title) as aPlt in any other action: Lyellv. Kennedy, 8 App.Ca,. 217,
Where Defts in ejectment alleged possession by their tenants, the Pits
were entitled to interrogate as to the dates, but not as to the nature, of the
tenancies : Eyre v. Badgers, 40 W. R. 137.
But in general a Pit in an action for a penalty will not be allowed to
administer interrogatories : Hunnings v. Williamson, 10 Q. B. D. 459 ;
JtfariJTiv. rreoc/ier, 1 6 Q.B.D. 507; and u. iw/. pp. 96, 97; Saundersr. Wiel,
[1892] 2 Q. B. 18, 321 ; Mexborough (E.) v. Whiiwood Dist. Council, [1897]
2 Q. B. Ill, C. A. ; secus, where the action, though in form for a penalty,
is in substance for damages : Adams v. Batley, 18 Q. B. D. 625, C. A. ;
V. inf., p. 97.
For form of interrogatories, see R. S. C, App. B. 6 ; D. C. P. 957; Cawley
V. Burtcm, 32 W. R. 33.
Pits (exors) were allowed to interrogate as to the circumstances of an
alleged payment to their testator of the sum claimed by them : Hills v.
Wates, L. R. 9 C. P. 688.
A Deft may ask by interrogatories any questions tending to destroy the
Pit's claim : Hoffmann v. Postill, 4 Ch. 673.
As to Deft interrogating Pit in action for breach of contract, see Jourdain
V. Palmer, L. R. 1 Ex. 102 ; and that he can do so as to the amount of
damage or Pit's expenses, when he bond fide desires to know what to pay
into Court, Home v. Hough, L. R. 9 C. P. 135 ; Frost v. Brooh, 23 W. R.
260 ; 32 L. T. 312 ; Megaw v. Diarmid, L. R. Ir. 10 C. L. 376 ; but not as
to witnesses : S. C. ; nor so as to deter from giving evidence at all : Stock
V. Ellis, 22 W. R. 17.
As the proper mode of obtaining discovery of documents is by an order Interrogatory
for an affidavit of documents, an interrogatory as to documents was always "^s to docn-
discouraged, and no exceptions to the answer to it were allowed : Piffard ™6n*s-
V. Beeby, 1 Eq. 623 ; Barnard v. Hunter, 19 Jur. 165 ; 4 W. R. 34 ; though
if it was answered at all, it was to be answered fully : Piffard v. Beeby,
sup. ; and now a general roving interrogatory, in the naturo of iv cross-
examination on the affidavit of documents, will not be perniilteds Hall
V. Truman, Hanbury dk Co., 29 Ch. D. 307, C. A. ; Morris v. Edwards, 23
Q. B. D. 287, C. A. ; S.C, 15 App. Ca. 309 ; Nicholl v. Wheeler, 17 Q- B. D.
101 ; Edism Co. v. Holland Co., 1888, W. N. 31 ; Jacobs v. 6. W. By. Co.,
1884, W. N. 33 ; secus, perhaps, an interrogatory as to specified relevant
doeument.i, where a special ground for requiring discov^^y is shown :
68
Discovery.
[chap. VII
Fishing inter-
rogatories.
Vexatious
interroga-
tories.
Costs.
Hall V. Truman, Hanbwry di Co., sup. ; Morris v. Edwards, 15 App. Ca.
314 ; and see Newall v. Telegraph, ibc. Go., 2 Eq. 756.
And a party cannot be required to set out his imperfect reoolleotion of a
document not produced for his inspection, and not suggested to be lost or
beyond the jurisdiction : Dalrymple v. Leslie, 8 Q. B. D. 5.
And, generally, as to the matters in respect of which an answer to interro-
gatories may be required, v. inf. " Resistance to Discovery."
A fishing interrogatory intended to ascertain the names of witnesses
will not be allowed : Hooton v. Dalby, [1907] 2 K. B. 18 ; and see post, p. 85.
By o. XXXI, 7, any interrogatories may be set aside on the ground that
they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or struck out on
the ground that they are prolix, oppressive, unnecessary, or scandalous ;
and any application for this purpose may be made within seven daj's after
service of the interrogatories.
In a libel action against a trade protection society, an interrogatory
was held admissible asking what inquiries they made as to the truth of the
statements complained of, before publishing them, and from whom they
obtained the information ; but an interrogatory requiring the Defts by
reference to their books or otherwise, to give the names of the companies,
firms,and persons to whom the Dfts' publication had beensupplied or shown
by or through the Defts or their agents was disallowed as oppressive :
White & Go. v. CTedit Reform Assn. <fc Gredit Index, Ltd., [1905] 1 K. B.
653 ; Plymouth Mutual Go-operative <& Industrial Society, Ltd. v. Traders'
Publishing Assn., Ltd., [1906) 1 K. B. 403 ; and on the question of motive,
see also Elliott v. Oarrett, [1902] 1 K. B. 870. But in the absence of special
circumstances, the Court will not compel discovery of the names of the
persons from whom the information on which the Defts acted in publishing
the alleged libel was derived : Edmondson v. Birch & Go., Ltd., [1905] 2
K. B. 523 ; Plymouth Mutual Go-operative & Industrial Society, Ltd. v.
Traders' Publishing Assn., Ltd., sup.
In an action for libel a Pit may not interrogate as to whether the Deft
used the words complained of in the sense attributed to them by an innuendo
in the statement of claim ; Heaton v. Ooldney, [1910] 1 K. B. (C. A.) 754.
For Pit's interrogatories disallowed in an action for malicious prosecution,
see Maass v. Gas Light & Coke Co., [1911] 2 K. B. 543.
For Pit's interrogatories struck out in an action against the publisher of
a newspaper for libel, see Wilton v. Brignell, 1875, W. N. 239 ; 20 S. J. 121 ;
Garter v. Leeds Daily News Co., 1876, W. N. 11 ; and v. inf pp. 85, 96, 97.
The rule applies to interrogatories generally, and under it all or any of a
set of interrogatories may be set aside or struck out ; or the whole, though
some are per se unobjectionable : Oppenheim v. Sheffield, [1893] 1 Q. B.
6, C. A. (disapproving Summons v. Bailey, 24 Q. B. D. 727) ; Cowley v.
£artow, 32 W. R. 33. But the rule is now of rare application : seeD. G.F.
958 ; and sup. p. 64.
By 0. XXXI, 3, in adjusting the costs of the cause or matter, inquiry
shall at the instance of any party be made into the propriety of exhibiting
interrogatories, and if it is the opinion of the taxing officer, or of the Court
or Judge, either with or without an application for inquiry, that interroga-
tories have been exhibited unreasonably, vexatiously, or at improper
length, the costs occasioned by the interrogatories and the answers thereto
shall be paid in any event by the party in fault.
AFFIDAVIT IN ANSWER.
The affidavit in answer to interrogatories is to be filed within ten days,
or such other time as a Judge may allow (r. 8), and, unless it is otherwise
ordered, is, if exceeding ten folios, to be printed (r, 9). The form is given
in R. S. C, App. B. 7.
On the trial of the action it is the duty of the party on whose behalf an
affidavit in answer to interrogatories is filed, to produce the office copy :
Levi V. Taylor, 1903, W. N- 183,
Discovery. 69
A foreigner will be allowed a reasonable time for answering : The Emma,
24 W. R. (Adm.) 587 ; 34 L. T. 742 ; and see O. xi, 4.
By r. 6, any objection to answering any one or more of several inter- Objections,
rogatories may be taken in the affidavit in answer.
This course should always be taken where particular interrogatories are
objected to : Sammons v. Bailey, 24 Q. B. D. 727 ; Qay v. Labouchere,
4 Q. B. D. 206 ; Spokea v. Orosvenor Hotel Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. D. 124, C. A. ;
and see Harvey v. Lovekin, 10 P. D. 122, 130, C. A.
As to the oases in which discovery may be resisted, v. inf. p. 83 et seq.
By r. 10, " no exceptions shall be taken to any affidavit in answer, but
the sufficiency or otherwise of any such affidavit objected to as insufficient
shall be determined by the Court or a Judge on motion or summons " : see
D. C. V. 961.
Under r. 11, an order may be made requiring the person interrogated
to answer or answer further, either by affidavit, or by viva voce examination,
as the Judge may direct.
A Deft answering must answer fully : see Saull v. Browne, 9 Ch. 364 ; Sufficiency,
although his case depends on a variety of circumstances, and though he
denies the Pit's case in toto, unless he can show that the discovery is sought
vexatiously or oppressively. A full answer is one which answers all in-
terrogatories which are material to the points to be decided at the trial,
and as to which no valid claim of privilege is set up. But in considering
the question of sufficiency, the Court regards the substance and not the
form of the answer : Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 16, C. A. ; Parker v.
Wells, 18 Ch. D. 487, C. A. ; Bolckow, Vaughan <fc Co. v. Fisher, 10 Q. B. D.
166, 170, C. A.
No answer can be required as to conclusions of law or inference from
facts or construction of instruments ; and a party cannot be required to
admit on oath that which he has already admitted in liis statement of
defence : A. Q. v. Oaskill, 20 Ch. D. 519, C. A. But a question of fact
must be answered, though it refer to written documents : Hoffmann v,
Poslill, 4 Ch. 673.
Where particular questions are asked as to the contents of certain letters
which are required to be set out, an answer simply that they contain no
such matter, or that if any such letters were written or received, they have
not been preserved, is insufficient : Bishton v. Orissell, 14 W. R. 578, 789 ;
but in the case of a letter of which the writer (Deft in a libel action) has not
preserved a copy, it is a sufficient answer that he does not recollect the
contents with exactness : Dalrymple v. Leslie, 8 Q. B. D. 5.
As to referring to books instead of setting out the contents in an answer,
see Drake v. Symes, Joh. 647 ; Telford v. Buskin, 1 Drew. & S. 148.
An answer stating that the Deft had already answered precisely similar
interrogatories filed in an action at law by the same Pit, touching the same
subject, was held insufficient: Hudson v. Grenfell,3 GiS.SSS; 5 L. T. 417.
Pit in a copyright action is entitled to particular discovery as to the
original sources from which Deft alleges he derived his information : Kelly
V. Wyman, 17 W. R. 399 ; 20 L. T. 300.
The summons for further answer ought in general to specify the inter- Further
rogatories or parts of interrogatories to which a further answer is required : answer.
Anstey v. N. dk S. Woolwich Subway Co., 11 Ch. D. 439 ; Chesterfield Colliery
Co. V. Black, 24 W. R. 783 ; but where all the answers are objected to, a
summons for further answer may be in general terms : Furher v. King, 50
L. J. Ch. 496 ; 29 W. R. 536.
On a question of sufficiency, the party may refer to the whole of his
answer, but must not endeavour to import into an admission matter un-
connected with it : Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 1, C. A. and see O. xxi,
24 ; and inf p. 99.
As a party is bound to answer to the best of his knowledge, information
and belief, he must make reasonable endeavours to procure information
from his agents (such as bankers or solrs) or servants, and an answer
70 Discovery. [cuAi-. vii.
simply denying knowledge may be insufficient, if it does not show that
he has made such endeavours : Bohkow, VaugJmn dh Co, v. Fisher, 10
Q. B. D. 161, C. A. ; Anderson v. Bank of Columbia, 2 Ch. D. 644, 657, 659 ;
Alliott V. Smith, [1895] 2 Ch. Ill ; and see Welsbach Incandescent, dkc. Co.
V. New Sunlight, (be. Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 1, C. A. ; secus, where there is nothing
to show that the acts as to which he is interrogated were done in the pre-
sence of his servants or agents : Basbotham v. Shropshire Union, iSsc. Co.,
24 Ch. D. 110 ; and see A. 0. v. Bees, 12 Beav. 50 ; Hall v. L. <fc N. W.
By., 35 L; T. 848 ; Hennessy v. Wright, 36 W. R. 879 ; 24 Q. B. D. 445, n. ;
London, Tilbury <Sa Southend By. Co. v. Kirk & Bandall, 51 L. T. 599.
But an exor cannot be interrogated as to whether trust funds alleged to
have been received by his testator, had been paid by the latter to his bankers
or solrs, at a period so remote as twenty years prior to his death : Alliott
Y. Smith, \\%^6]2Ch. 111.
A party cannot be required to answer as to his information and belief
with regard to facts, when such information and belief are derived solely
from communications privileged on ground of professional confidence :
Kennedy v. Lyell, 9 App. Ca. 81 ; and v. inf. p. 90.
Where a claim of privilege is set up, a further answer will not be required,
unless it is clear the claim cannot be substantiated ; reasonable suspicion
is not sufficient : Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
It is only in cases of insufficiency, that a further answer can be required ;
the duty of the Court being to consider sufficiency or insufficiency, not
truth or falsity : Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; but (per Bowen,
L. J.) an embarrassing answer may be dealt with as insufficient : Ibid.
An evasive answer in an extreme case has been taken off the file : Furber
V. King, 50 L. J. Ch. 496 ; 29 W. R. 536 ; Bead v. Barton, 3 K. & J. 166 ;
3 Jur. N. S. 263 ; and see Hill v. HaH-Davis, 26 Ch. D. 470, C. A. ; but in
general a further answer will be ordered : Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 28,
C. A. ; and see Hunter y.Nockolds, 2 Ph. 540 ; MarshY. Hunter, 3 Madd.
437.
Where a further answer viva voce is directed, it may be made a term of
the order that the costs of and occasioned by the appHcation shall be borne
by the party interrogated in any event, but in general the costs should
be reserved : Vicary v. 0. N. By. Co., 9 Q. B. D. 168.
Such answer only can be required viva voce as would have been sufficient
in the affidavit, and any examination exceeding these limits must be at
the cost of the party examining : Litchfield v. Jones, 54 L. J. Ch. 207 ;
51 L. T. 572 ; 33 W. R. 251.
Where a full answer had been given to the Pit, a voluntary liquidator, a
strong case was required to induce the Court to allow a further examination
under the Companies Act, 1862, s. 115, now substituted by the Companies
(Consohdation) Act, 1908, s. 174 : Be Metropolitan Bank, Heiron^s Case,
15 Ch. D. 139, C. A.
An answer must not be so complicated, informal, and uncertain, that
were an assignment of perjury laid, it would be impossible to define the issue
for the jury : Walker v. Daniell, 22 W. R. 595 ; 30 L. T. 357.
DISCOVERY OF DOCUMENTS.
0. XXXI, 12, makes provision for any party, without filing any affidavit,
to apply to the Court or a Judge for an order directing any other party
to any cause or matter to make discovery on oath of the documents which
are or have been in his possession or power, relating to any matter in
question therein.
The rule does not alter principles, but gives the Court discretion to
refuse discovery where there is no reasonable prospect of its being of use :
Downing v. Falmouth Sewerage Board, 37 Ch. D. 234, C. A.
Evidence. On an application for an affidavit of documents, special evidence should
not be adduced, but the Court will look at all the proceedings in the action,
Discovery. 71
pleadings as well as evidence : Dovming v. Falmouth Sewerage Board, sup'.
Where there is a mass of affidavits, notice should be given of the particular
portions relied on : Ihid,
After reference of an action by consent to an arbitrator, no order for
discovery can be made, as nothing remains but for the Court to record
judgment according to the award : Penrice v. Williams, 23 Ch. D. 353 ;
but under O. xxxvi, 50, an order may be made by the referee.
As to the stage of the action at which application for discovery should be Time to
made, v. inf. p. 88 ; and for oases in which discovery or inspection may apply,
be ordered to await the decision of an issue or question, which ought to
be decided first, or on which the right to it depends, v. r. 20.
The expression "any other party," in r. 12, is confined to opposite "Any other
parties (as to meaning of which, v. sup. p. 65) : Brown v. Watkins, 16 party."
Q. B. D. 125 ; Shaw v. Smith, 18 Q. B. D. 193, C. A. ; and therefore a
Deft cannot in general obtain discovery of documents from his co-Deft :
Brown v. Watlcins, sup.
A person consenting to be treated as a party to an action may have pro-
duction from the parties who obtained the consent order : Dent v. D.,
1 Eq. 186.
O. xxxvn, 7, under which the Court has power " at any stage of the
proceedings," to order attendance of any person for producing documents
which he could be compelled to produce at the hearing, does not confer
any new right of discovery against non-parties : Straher v. Reynolds, 22
Q. B. D. 357. The object of the rule was to remove the difficulty which
existed in compelling production at any other stage than the hearing, and
the Court has no jurisdiction to order a non-party to produce a document
unless the parties are entitled to the production of it for the purpose of
justice at the moment the order is made : Elder v. Carter, 25 Q. B. D. 194,
C. A. ; Re Smith, Williams v. Frere, [1891] 1 Ch. 323 ; and see Parnell v.
Wood, [1892] P. 137, C. A. ; Zumleck v. Biggs, 82 L. T. 654 ; 48 W. R. 507 ;
and as to the effect of an order under the rule (which is equivalent to a
subpoena duces tecum), and that it may be made ex parte on a non-party,
see Re Smith, Williams v, Frere, sup.
It was at one time doubted (Law v. Indisputable, tSsc. Co., 10 Ha. xx.). Body
but afterwards settled, that where production of documents was required corporate,
from a co., the secretary or some other officer should make an affidavit :
see Ranger v. O. W. By., 4 D. & J. 74 ; and as to delivering interrogatories
to members or officers of corporations, v. sup. pp. 65, 66. The clerk of a co.
making affidavit that the documents were in the custody of the warden
and court of assistants, and that without their leave he had not access
to them, but not stating that he had asked leave and been refused, had
to make a further affidavit : A. G. v. Mercers' Co., 9 W. R. 83 ; 3 L. T. 438 ;
and after an affidavit by directors that they had no documents in their
possession, other than those in the possession of the co., a further affidavit
by them that they had no documents whatever in their possession or power,
was held insufficient : Clinch v. Financial Corp., 2 Eq. 271.
Affidavit of documents on behalf of a municipal corp. has been ordered
to be made by the town clerk : Corp. of Hastings v. Ivall, 8 Ch. 1017 ; and
as to claim of privilege in such a case, v. sup. p. 66.
Defts who stated in their answer that they had been, but were no longer,
treasurers and trustees of the society, could not be ordered to produce
documents in the society's possession : Penney v. Ooode, 1 Drew. 474 ;
and where the officers have been changed since the transaction, see Moline
V. Tasmanian By., 32 L. T. 828 ? and that they cannot evade giving dis-
covery by resigning : Acomb v. Landed Est. Co., 14 W. R. 387 ; 14 L. T.
57. The solr of a co. is not an " officer " of it : Broum v. Thames, <fcc,
Co., 43 L. J. C. P. 112.
As to production of a co.'s books by the secretary on his cross-examina-
tion, under a subpoena duces tecum, see In re Emma Mine, 10 Ch. 194 ; and
as to examining officers of the co. and other persons in a winding-up, and
72
Discovery.
[chap. vn.
Inquiring production of documents, see Companies (Consolidation) Act,
1908, s. 174, and Buckley, 402 et seq. ; N. Australian Co. v. Ooldshorough,
[1893] 2 Ch. 381 ; Re London & Northern Bank, Ltd., [1902] 2 Ch. 73 ; as
to production to inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade, s. 109.
Liquidator of The liquidator of a co., being an officer of the Court acting under its
company. direction as to production of books, &o., will not, as of course, be ordered
to make an affidavit of documents : Be Mutual Society, 22 Ch. D. 720, C. A. ;
QoocKs Case, 7 Ch. 207 ; and as to discovery by liquidators, v, sup. p. 66.
And that a trustee in bankruptcy, Pit in an action, will not be allowed to
avail himself of s. 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, so as to obtain discovery
from a stranger, see Be Franks, Exp. Oittins, [1892] 1 Q. B. 646.
The Crown in proceedings against a corp. to establish rights to foreshore
has the same right to discovery as a subject has against a subject in an
ordinary action, not only of the documents relating to the parts of the river
claimed, but also of acts of ownership and other things which tend to show
that the Defts are not absolute owners of the foreshore : A. 6. v, New-
castle-upon-Tyne Corp., [1897] 2 Q. B. 384, C. A.
Foreign As to discovery by a foreign go vernment, «. sa^. pp. 66,67. Where Pits,
government, a foreign republic, persisted in not filing a sufficient affidavit, a day was
fixed for dismissal of bill and repayment to Deft of money paid into Court,
unless sufficient affidavit then filed : Bep. of Liberia v. Imperial Bank,
9 Ch. 569 ; affirmed in D. P. sub nom. Bep. of Liberia v. Boye, 1 App. Ca.
139. An affidavit by the consul in England as to documents abroad, that
" to the best of his knowledge, remembrance, information and belief "
there were no such documents, was insufficient : S. C.
Lunacy. As to the right to inspect documents in the custody of the Court in
Lunacy, see Be Strachan, [1895] 1 Ch. 439, C. A.
Libel. And as to discovery of documents in actions for libel, see Hope v. Brash,
[1897] 2 Q. B. 188 ; Yorkshire Provident Company v. QilbeH, [1895] 2 Q. B.
148, C. A. ; Kelly v. Colhoun, [1899] 2 I. R. 199.
AEFIDAVIT AS TO DOCtTMBNTS.
The affidavit to be made by the party against whom an order for pro-
duction is made, is to be in the Form 8 in App. B. to R. S. C. ; D. C. F. 967 ;
and is to specify those documents which the deponent objects to produce :
r. 13.
As to examination of witnesses and production of documents in Scotland,
see 22 V. c. 20 ; 48 & 49 V. c. 74, s. 2 ; Campbell v. A. 6., 2 Ch. 571.
Conclusive- The applicant is obliged to accept the oath of the adverse party as to the
ness. description, relevancy, and possession of the documents : Wright v. Pitt,
3 Ch. 809 ; Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 19, C. A. ; Wiedeman v. Walpole,
24 Q. B. D. 537 ; and the affidavit is therefore conclusive against the party
seeking discovery, unless, either from the affidavit itself or from the docu-
ments therein referred to, or from the pleadings, it can be shown to be
insufficient or inaccurate : Jones v. Monte Video Gas Co., 5 Q. B. D. 556,
C. A. ; Hall v. Truman, 29 Ch. D. 319, C. A. ; Comp. Financiere v. Peru-
vian Quano Co., 11 Q. B. D. 55, C. A. ; Morris v. Edwards, 15 App. Ca.
309 ; and see Kent Coal Concessions, Ltd. v. Duguid, [1910] A. C. 452 ;
although it merely goes to knowledge, information and belief : Adams v.
Fisher, 3 My. & C. 526 ; or belief on advice : Peile v. Stoddart, 1 Mac. & G.
192 ; Chart. Bank of India v. Bich, 4 B. & S. 73 ; 11 W. R. 830 ; unless
there is something to show that the statement is untrue : Mansell v.
Feeney, 2 J. & H. 313 ; 9 W. R. 532 ; Combe v. Corp. of Land., 1 Y. & 0. C.
651 ; Luscombe v. Steer, 37 L. J. Ch. 119 ; Greenwood v. G., 6 W. R. 119
(in which case the order should be for a further affidavit, and not for pro-
duction at once : Corp. of Hastings v. Ivall, 8 Ch. 1017) ; or that the party
has not examined the documents sufficiently to know their contents:
Manby v. Bewicke, 8 D. M. & G. 476 ; 4 W. R. 757.
And see Gresley v. Mousley, 2 K. & J. 288 ; Commrs, of Sewers v. Glasse,
15 Eq. 302 ; Sutherland v, S., 17 Beav. 209.
Discovery. 73
The untruth may be shown by contradictory statements, by a discre-
pancy between the affidavit and other documents already produced, or
by the nature of the case : Bowes v. Fernie, 3 M. & C. 632 ; Oreenwood v. 6.,
6 W. R. 119 ; or by anything which, appearing on the face of the pleadings,
is " enough to raise a reasonable suspicion that the Deft has further
documents which may help the Pits to make out their case : " Turner,
L. J., in Noel v. N., 1 D. J. & S. 473 ; Wright v. Pitt, 3 Ch. 809 ; Comp.
Financiere v. Peruvian Guano Co., 11 Q. B. D. 55, C. A. ; ex. gr., where a
number of customers' names were given, but no books relating to the
business : Saull v. Browne, 17 Eq. 402 ; and see Macfarlan v. Bolt, 14 Eq.
580 ; West. &c. Go. v. Clayton, 12 W. R. 123 ; 9 L. T. 534 ; Imp. Land Co.
ofM. V. Maslerman, 22 W. R. 66 ; 29 L. T. 559.
And the rule as to the conclusiveness of the affidavit applies when the
claim is for privilege on the ground that the documents relate exclusively
to the party's own case : Bewiche v. Oraham, 7 Q. B. D. 400, C A. ; A. O. v.
Emerson, 10 Q. B. D. 191, C. A. ; Boherts v. Oppenheim, 26 Ch. D. 724,
C. A. ; unless the Court can see with reasonable certainty that the nature
of the documents has been misrepresented or misconceived : A. 0. v.
Emerson, sup. ; and see Boherts v. Oppenheim, sup.
And where the description of some of the documents in the schedule to
the affidavit appeared not to agree with a claim of professional privilege, a
further affidavit was ordered : Lyell v. Kennedy, 8 App. Ca. 217, 229.
As to whether the affidavit can be regarded as conclusive in respect of
specific documents of which inspection is sought under rr. 17, 18, see Wiede-
man v. Walpole, 24 Q. B. D. 537 ; S. C, 24 Q. B. D. 626, C. A.
An affidavit prima facie sufficient cannot be impeached by a contentious
affidavit: J ones -v. Monte Video Gas Co., 5 Q. B. D. 556, C. A. ; Morris y.
Edwards, 23 Q. B. D. 287, C. A. ; 15 App. Ca. 309 ; and se^BichardsY.
Watkins, 6 Jur. N. S. 168 ; Beynellv. Sprye, 1 D. M. & G. 656, 712 ; or
questioned by interrogatories : NichollY. Wheeler, 17 Q. B. D. 101, C. A. ;
Hall V. Truman, 29 Ch. D. 307, C. A. ; except as to specified relevant
documents upon a prima facie case being shown : Ibid. ; and see Newall
V. Telegraph, &c. Co., 2 Eq. 756 ; and Bray, 214, 505.
In one case the Court inspected one of the documents, and finding the Inspection
affidavit was manifestly inaccurate as to it, ordered inspection of all : by the Court.
Ponsonby v. Hartley, 1883, W. N. 13, 44 ; but the propriety of such a practice
has been questioned : see Leslie v. Cave, 56 L. T. 332 ; 35 W. R. 515 ; and
Be Holloway, 12 P. D. 169.
The inaccuracy of the affidavit as to one document does not of itself
destroy privilege as to others : Leslie v. Cave, 56 L. T. 332 ; 35 W. R. 515.
When the documents have been inspected by the Court by consent of the
parties, no appeal will lie : Busiros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 423, C. A.
The documents must be described with sufficient distinctness to enable Description
the Court to enforce its order : Taylor v. Batten, 4 Q. B. D. 85, C. A. ; of documents.
Bewick v. Graham, 7 Q. B. D. 400, 410, C. A. ; and see Fortescue v. F., 24
W. R. 945 ; Bovill v. Cmcan, 5 Ch. 495 ; Hamilton v. Nott, 16 Eq. 112, 117 ;
Budden v. Wilkinson, [1893] 2 Q. B. 432, C. A. ; and possession must be
admitted clearly. It has been held sufficient if the relevancy can be in-
ferred from the description in the schedule, though no express admission
of it appear in the body of the affidavit : Storey v. Lennox, 1 My. & C. 525.
A party must examine his documents before answering or making affidavit
as to their. relevancy, to enable himself to schedule them correctly : Qabbett
V. Cavendish, 3 Swa, 267, n. ; and must show that he has tried to obtain
the information required from his agents : Glengall v. Eraser, 2 Ha. 99 ;
MIntosh V. G. W. By., 4 D. & S. 544 ; and v. sup. pp. 69, 70.
A statement that the documents did not " relate to or evidence " the title
of the Pit was too ambiguous : Felkin v. Herbert, 30 L. J. Ch. 798 ; 9 W. R.
756 ; and see McLean v. Jones, 66 L. T. 653 ; and inf. pp. 85, 86.
As to the identification of letters, where numerous, by tying them up in
bundles, and numbering or otherwise distinguishing them, so that they
74
Discovery.
[chap. VII.
Possession or
power.
may be readily called for, see Coolce v. 8mith, [1891] 1 Ch. 509, C. A. ; Hill
V. Hart-Davis, 26 Ch. D. 740, C. A. ; Bewicke v. Qrdham, 7 Q. B. D. 400,
C. A. ; Taylor v. Batten, sup. ; Mayor of Bristol v. Cox, 256 Ch. D. 681 ;
Walker v. Poole, 21 Ch. D. 836 ; Budden v. Wilkinson, [1893] 2 Q. B. 432,
C. A. ; but the practice must not be too freely used : see Milhanh v. M.,
[1900] 1 Ch. 376, C. A. ; and as to the description of documents or letters
for which privilege is claimed, see Taylor y. Batten, 4 Q. B. D. 88 ; Bewicke
V. Oraham, sup. ; Gardner v. Irvin, 4 Ex. D. 53, C. A.
It seems that documents for which privilege is claimed as relating to
the party's own title only, are sufficiently described by giving their dates :
Taylor v. Oliver, 45 L. J. Ch. 774 ; 34 L. T. 902.
The affidavit must not be confined to documents for which an order for
production could be made under r. 14, as being in the possession or power
of the deponent : v. inf. ; but all documents must be included of which
the party has any possession or property jointly with others, or even in
which he has no property at all, provided they are in his corporeal possession
(see Form 4, sup. p. 54) : and see Price v. P., 48 L. J. Ch. 215 ; Vpse r.
Foster, 13 Eq. 602 ; Swanston v. Lishman, 45 L. T. 360 ; Bray, 225.
Books of a solr employed by a trustee to receive rent of trust property
were not required to be mentioned in the trustee's affidavit of documents :
Eglinton v. Lamb, 35 L. J. Ch. 113 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 45 ; 13 L. T. 698 ; 14
W. R. 170 ; Colyer v. C, 30 L. J. Ch. 408 ; 4 L. T. 134 ; 9 W. R. 452.
Production was ordered, at the instance of a purchaser under a decree, of
documents relating to the property : Dent v. D., 35 L. J. Ch. 112.
An affidavit by husband and wife should state what documents they or
either of them have or have had in the possession or power of them or either
of them. It is not sufficient to state what documents are in their joint pos-
session, as that might enable them to keep back documents of which one of
them had separate possession : Fendall v. O'Connell, 29 Ch. D. 899, C. A.
Where underwriters were suing in the names of a foreign firm, they could
not relieve themselves from making a further affidavit on the ground that
they had done all they could to comply with the order, but the case was to be
treated as if the nominal Pits were suing for their own benefit : Wilson v.
Baffalovich, 7 Q. B. D. 553, C. A. ; but cf. James Nelson cfc Sons, Ltd. v.
Nelson Line {Liverpool), Ltd., [1906] 2 K. B. 217.
A party must make the affidavit though there is nothing to show that there
are any documents : The Minnehaha, L. R. 3 A. & E. 148 ; and though he
has good grounds against producing the documents. It is not sufficient for
the deponent to state that documents are privileged ; he should set forth
the facts upon which the privilege is grounded : Gardner v. Irvin, 4 Ex. D.
49, C. A. ; Taylor v. Batten, 4 Q. B. D. 85, C. A.
An affidavit unnecessarily proUx was ordered on motion to be taken oil
the file : Walker v. Poole, 21 Ch. D. 835.
The Deft's time for filing the affidavit ought not to be extended until he
has received from the Pits particulars of claims for damages : Maxim-
Nordenfelt, &c. Co. v. Nordenfdt, [1893] 3 Ch. 122, C. A.
Siibpcena d. t. As to what documents must be produced under a subpoena duces tecum
by a solr not a party, see Lee v. Angas, 2 Bq. 59 ; by a partner in a bank of
the bank's books, A. G.y. Wilson, 9 Sim. 526 ; by the secretary of a co. on
a petition to wind up. Be Emma Mine, 10 Ch. 194 ; as to allowing inspection
by intended witnesses, v. inf. p. 82.
Obedience to a svhpcena duces tecum, though the disobedience is not
wilful, may be enforced by attachment : Rex v. Daye, [1908] 2 K. B. 333.
PEODUOa?ION OF DOCUMENTS.
O. XXXI, 14, which reproduces in a somewhat different form the Chancery
Procedure Act, 1852 (15 & 16 V. c. 86), ss. 18, 20, now repealed, provides for
orders for production, during the pendency of any cause or matter, by
any party thereto, of such of the documents in his possession or power,
relating to any matter in question, as the Judge shall think right.
Husband
and wife.
Nominal Pits.
Privilege.
Prolixity.
Extension of
time.
Discovery. 75
Orders for production are not made on the solrs of the parties : Oashin v,
Craddoch, 2 Ch. D. 140.
The right to production is not more extensive as against a Pit than a
Deft : Minet v. Morgan, 8 Ch. 361 ; 21 W. R. 467 ; but see Boyd v. Pelrie,
17 W. R. 903, and Hoffmann v. Postill, 4 Ch. 673.
Production cannot be ordered when no proceeding has been commenced :
Re Burton, tfcc. Co., 31 L. J. Q. B. 62 ; but may be wlien only an appeal is
pending : Re Nat. Funds Ass. Co., 24 W. R. 774.
Production was ordered on a Pit's application after rephcation : Lafonsv. Pit's applica-
Falkland Isl. Co., 4 K. & J. 38 ; 6 W. R- 4 ; Parkinson v. Chambers, 1 K. & tion.
J. 72.
The Deft had no right to production until he had put in his answer : Dft's applica-
Smith V. Lay, 18 W. R. 915 ; Halliday v. Temple, 8 D. M. & G. 96 ; but see tion.
P. of W. V. Liverpool, 1 Sw. 114 ; 3 Sw. 570 ; but had though he had not
filed an affidavit : Haldane v. Eckford, 7 Eq. 425 ; or a further affidavit of
documents after an order to do so : Noel -v.N.,! D. J. & S. 468.
A Deft can obtain inspection of documents contained in Pit's affidavit
made on the application of a co-Deft : Pardy's Mozambique Syndicate, Ltd.
V. Alexander, [1903] 1 Ch. 191.
Notice may be given, at any time, to any party to produce any document Notice to
referred to in his pleadings or affidavits, and if the notice be not complied produce,
with (except for such cause as the Court shall consider sufficient), such docu-
ment cannot be used in evidence : O. xxxi, 15- For form of such notice,
see R. S. C, App. B. No. 9.
An affidavit not filed, but of which a copy has been furnished to the
opposite party, is an affidavit within this rule, and under r. 18 an order may
be made for inspection of documents referred to in such an affidavit : Re
Fenner and Lord, [1897] 1 Q. B. 667, C. A.
The rule extends to the contract sued on, referred to by the Pit in an
affidavit in answer to interrogatories : Morse v. Peachey, 39 W. R. 592.
Notice must be given (see the form R. S. C, App. B. No. 10) by the
party required to produce of willingness to produce such documents for
inspection at the office of his solr, at a time named (within two or four days,
according as the documents have or have not been set out by him in his
affidavit of documents), or in the case of bankers' books, or other books of
account, or books in constant use in trade or business, at their usual place of
custody, and any objection to production must then be stated : r. 17 ; and
in default an order for inspection founded on an affidavit may be made by a
Judge : r. 18.
The object of rr. 15 to 18 is to give parties the same advantage as if the
documents had been fully set out in the pleadings, and immediate produc-
tion of such documents must be given, unless special reason to the contrary
can be shown : Quilter v. Heatley, 23 Ch. D. 42, C. A.
Production of books or documents in a district registry may be ordered
in any action : Jud. Act, 1873, s. 66.
In lunacy, inspection of documents in the custody of the Court is allowed In lunacy,
only on an order of a Master or Judge in lunacy. Inspection of reports
made to the Court by its own medical adviser is never allowed, but with this
exception, liberty to inspect will be given to any person who wants it for a
reasonable and proper purpose, provided that the lunatic, if living, is not
injured thereby : Re Strachan, [1896] 1 Ch. 439, C. A. ; and see Re Smyth,
15 Ch. D. 286, C. A.
As to discovery by an infant party to an action, v. sup. p. 65.
To obtain production of a document as to which there is any dispute (and Applicant
title deeds are subject to the same rule), the applicant must show that he has must show
an interest in the document, i.e., that he requires its production for the interest,
legitimate purposes of the action ; and that it is, or may be, evidence which
may prove, or lead or assist him to prove, hia case ; and these points must
be admitted by the affidavit of the other party : A. O.y. Thompson,, 8 Ha.
112 ; and that it is not privileged for any of the reasons given inf. pp. 89
76
Discovery.
[chap. VII.
et seq. Where the Defts admitted that the Pit had had an interest under
a settlement, but alleged that by subsequent deeds that interest had deter-
mined, they had to produce the settlement : Bugden v-. South, 3 Jur. N. S.
783 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 425 ; 5 W. R. 128.
Discretion I" general, and unless the case falls within the concluding proviso of r. 12,
of Court. the Court does not assume discretion to refuse to order production of
documents not protected by privilege : Bustros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 423,
C. A. ; Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Ch. D. 654, C. A. ; but
would not order it at the suit of a person claiming as next of kin against the
Solr to the Treasury, to whom admon had been granted, until the Pit had
made a prima facie case : Lane v. Gray, 16 Bq. 552 ; and see Wynne v.
Humberston, 27 Beav. 421 ; 30 L. T. 306 ; nor where the cause had been set
down for hearing : Waters v. Shaftesbury, 12 Jur. N. S. 3 ; 13 L. T. 558 ; 14
W. R. 259 ; nor where the production was wanted for a criminal prose-
cution : S. C. As to what documents the Pit in an action on a marine policy
can have produced, see Kellock v. Home, dhc. Co., 12 Jur. N. S. 653 ; China
Steamship Co. v. Commercial Union Ass. Co., 8 Q. B. D. 142, C. A. ; W. of
England Bank v. Canton Co., 2 Ex. D. 472 ; Henderson v. Underwriting Asso-
ciation, [1891] 1 Q. B. 557.
In an action to restrain sewage nuisance, a general order as to documents
in possession of the Deft board was refused, but an order was made limited
to certain resolutions and correspondence with the Local Government Board :
Douming v. Falmouth United Sewerage Board, 37 Ch. D. 234, C. A.
Privilege claimed for documents is not lost by their being referred to in
the pleadings ; the penalty for non-production being that they cannot
afterwards be used in evidence : Roberts v. Oppenheim, 26 Ch. D. 724, C. A.
Vexatious or In all cases where documents are produced there is an implied under-
improper use. taking, which may be enforced by injunction, not to divulge the contents :
Wms. V. P. of W. Ins. Co., 23 Beav. 338. And the Court will take care that
no vexatious or improper use be made of documents ordered to be produced ;
Mansell v. Feeney, 9 W. R. 610 ; and will be cautious where the party pro-
ducing might be prejudiced thereby outside the case ; Carver v. Pinto Leite,
7 Ch. 90 ; Heugh v. Garrett, 44 L. J. Ch. 305 ; and as to inspection under
the Bankers' Books Evidence Act (42 & 43 V. c. 11), s. 7, see Re Marshfield,
M. V. Hutchings, 32 Ch. D. 499, 502 ; and v. inf p. 82.
On ordering production of letters marked " private and confidential,"
against the wish of the writer, an undertaking not to use them for any
collateral object^ was required : Hopkinson v. Burghley, 2 Ch. 447 ; sup.
p. 59, J?orm 15. And as to a creditor obtaining production after admon
judgment in support of his claim, see In re M^Veagh, 1 D. J. & S. 399,
where the exors were Defts. After judgment the summons must specify
the points on which discovery is sought : Haldane v. Fckford, 7 Eq.
425.
Under 0. xxxi, 14, 0. l, 3, and its general powers, the Court can order
that photographs of documents be taken : Lewis v. E. of Londesborough,
[1893] 2 Q. B. 191.
Exhibits to Irrespective of any question as to discovery, property, or privileges, if a
affidavits. document is made an exhibit to an affidavit, any person who has the right to
inspect and take copies of the affidavit has a similar right as to the exhibit
also : In re Hinchcliffe, [1895] 1 Ch. 117, C. A. Secus, where the exhibit is
only for the information of the Judge, as ex. gr. the case laid by a pauper
before counsel : Shane v. Britain Steamship Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 185,
C. A.
PRODtrCTION or DOCUMENTS — POSSESSION OE POWEE.
Possession Possession of an agent is the possession of the principal, so that a party to
of agent. an action must produce documents which are with his agents : Morrice v.
Swaby, 2 Beav. 500 ; and all that he has a right to inspect are in his power,
though wrongfully withheld : Taylor v. Bund ell, 1 Ph. 222 ; unless they are
held by the agents as agents for others also : Edmonds v. Foley, 30 Beav.
Discovery. 77
282 ; 10 W. R. 210 (e« inf.) ; or are their own property : Colyer v. C, 9 W. R.
452 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 408 ; and see Bovlton v. Houlder Brothers & Co., [1904]
1 K. B. 784, and Harding v. Bv^sett, [1905] 2 K. B. 83 (cases of Marine
Insurance). But in bankruptcy proceedings a clerk of the debtors, who
wore abroad, could not before adjudication be made to produce their
documents : Exp. Byrne, 35 L. J. Bkcy. 43. They must be produced,
though in the hands of agents abroad : Oabbett v. Cavendish, 3 Sw. 267, n. ;
time being allowed ; Mortice v. Swaby, sup. ; Farqwharson v. Balfour, T. &
R. 184 ; Mertens v. Haigh, 3 D. J. & S. 528.
Representatives of a deceased deputy steward of a manor, Defts to a bill
by the lord, had to produce memoranda made by the deceased for his own
use : Bp. of Winchester v. Bowker, 9 W. R. 404 ; 29 Beav. 479. But an
executor had not to produce cheques drawn by his testator and in the hands
of the bankers : Bayley v. Cass, 10 W. R. 370.
A party to an action is not bound to produce documents deposited by Documents
him as a security for money lent before the institution of the suit, if too poor pledged,
to redeem them : North v. Huber, 7 Jur. N. S. 767 ; 29 Beav. 437, following
Be Williams, 7 Jur. N. S. 323 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 610 ; 4 L. T. 103 ; 9 W. R. 393 ;
nor letters pawned by him with other goods before the suit commenced :
Liddell v. Norton, Kay, xi.
But documents must be produced, although subject to a solr's lien, and Solr's lien.
he must be paid off if necessary : Exp. Shaw, Jac. 270 ; Rodick V. Oanddl,
10 Beav. 270 ; this only refers, however, to a party's own solr : Palmer v.
Wright, 10 Beav. 234 ; or his former solr, though the bill is disputed ; but
with hberty to apply in case the party really cannot obtain the documents :
Lewis V. Powell, [1897] 1 Ch. 678 ; and the same rule holds good against a
bankrupt, unless he really cannot get the documents produced : Vale v.
Oppert, 10 Ch. 340 ; and a bankrupt must state what documents have passed
to his trustee : Arum., 1876, W. N. 38.
As to how far a solr's lien may be a valid excuse for non-production, or a
ground for production upon terms of paying money into Court or otherwise,
see inf. Chap. XL., " Solicitoes."
The order for production will not go uijess the party has the sole posses- Joint pos-
sion of the documents : Kearsley v. Phillips, 10 Q. B. D. 465, C. A. ; accord- session.
ingly, one of the trustees of a mortgage could not be ordered to produce the
documents relating to the mortgaged property in the absence of the other :
Kearsley v. Phillips, sup.
Documents in the joint possession of a Deft and others, not parties to the
action, are protected : Reid v. Langlois, 1 M. & G. 627 ; Kettlewell v. Barstow,
7 Ch. 686 ; Murray v. Walter, C. & P. 114 ; Kearsley v. Phillips, 10 Q. B. D.
465, C. A. ; and an order to produce a deed, admitted to be in the joint pos-
session of two Defts, was after the death of one refused in the absence of
his represves : Robertson v. Shewell, 15 Beav. 277. An application that a
Deft should produce documents in the possession of an agent for himself and
his co-tenant in common, not a party to the suit, was refused with costs :
Edmonds v. Foley, 30 Beav. 282 ; 10 W. R. 210 ; Murray v. Walter, C. & P.
114 ; but see Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 M. & K. 61.
Where joint possession is shown, it is not necessary that the deponent
should state that the co-owner will not consent to the production : Kearsley
v. Phillips, 10 Q. B. D. 466, C. A. ; but the nature of the joint possession
ought to be shown : Bomll v. Cowan, 5 Ch. 495.
In Warmck v. Q. Coll. Ox., 4 Ex. 254, it was held that a party could not
be ordered to produce documents relating to a compromise between him and
non-parties: andseeBag'MaMv. Cartoji, 1876, W. N. 215 : hut in Huichinson
v. Olover, 1 Q. B. D. 138, in an action against shipowners for damage to
cargo by a collision, compromises of other suits relating to the ooUision had
to be produced, it not appearing that the other parties to the compromises
objected. And a Pit in a patent suit was bound to answer as to compro-
mises of other suits by him with reference to the same patent : Betts v.
Neilson, 1866, W. N. 170. Where private accounts between the Pit and Deft
78
Discovery.
[chap. vii.
had been entered in books of a partnership between Deft and his father, who
refused to allow production, an order against the father was refused :
HadUy v. MacdowgaM, 7 Ch. 312 ; and as to producing partnership books on
a svbp. duces tecum, see A. O. v. Wilson, 9 Sim. 526 ; and see Zumheck v.
Biggs, 82 L. T. 654 ; 48 W. R. 507 ; Richards v. WatUns, 6 Jur. N. S. 168.
Production was refused against a Deft in the absence of a co-Deft with
whom he had deposited the document : Burhidge v. Robinson, 2 M. & G.
244 ; but possible injury to the mortgagor did not entitle a mortgagee to
resist production of the mortgage deeds to persons interested in the mort-
gage money : Oough v. Offley, 5 D. & S. 653. And after the dissolution
of a CO., the Uquidator having the absolute control over documents in his
possession was bound to produce them : London & Yorkshire Bank v.
Cooper, 15 Q. B. D. 473, 0. A. ; but no order could be made against the
committee of a lunatic for inspection of documents which were in the
custody of the Court, as the Pit should apply in the lunacy : Vivian v.
Little, 11 Q. B. D. 370.
Others It is no ground for resisting production that other persons have an interest
interested. in the documents : Kettlewell v. Barstow, 7 Ch. 686 ; Re Turner, 24 W. R.
54 ; Blenkinsopp v. B., 2 Ph. 607 ; Plant v. Kendrick, L. R. 10 C. P. 692 ;
nor that it will disclose names of customers : Howe v. M'Kernan, 30 Beav.
547 ; as to documents of a partnership in possession of the Defts (share-
holders), see Glyn v. Caulfield, 3 Mac. & G. 463.
A motion for production of documents in the hands of trustees was
refused in the absence of the cs. q. t. : Ford v. Dolphin, 1 Drew. 222 ; and
of documents in hands of Deft and a co-exor not a party : MorreU v. Wootten,
15 Jur. 319 ; Cridland v. De Mauley, 13 Jur. 442 ; Lazarus v. Mozley, 5 Jur.
N. S. 1119 ; 1 L. T. 3.
Several Defts. Where Pit had obtained production of a document from a Deft, a motion
by another Deft, that Pit produce it to him, was refused in the absence of the
first : Reynolds v. Oodlee, 4 K. ,& J. 88. But where one of several Defts has
obtained discovery against the Pit, the Court may order the Pit to produce
for the inspection of another Deft the documents referred to in the affidavit :
Pardy's Mozambique Syndicate, Ltd. v. Alexander, [1903] 1 Ch. 191.
An allegation that deeds are in the possession of the Defts, or some
of them, wiU not sustain the action against one of them who has no
interest : Weise v. Wardle, 19 Eq. 171 ; and see M. of London v. Levy, 8
Ves. 398.
PRODTJCTION OF DOCUMENTS — MOBTGAOEBS, ETC.
Under sect. 16 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, a mortgagee is bound to
produce his deeds to the mortgagor at all reasonable times. In cases not
within the section, a mortgagee is not in general ordered to produce the
deeds until he is paid off : Chichester v. Donegal, 5 Ch. 497 ; Bank of New
South Wales v. O'Connor, 14 App. Ca. 273, 283 ; nor to state their contents ;
S. C. ; Bridgwater v. De Winton, 33 L. J. Ch. 238 ; 9 L. T. 568 ; 12 W. R.
40 ; and see Beavan v. Cook, 17 W. R. 872 ; 20 L. T. 689 ; Freeman v.
Butler, 33 Beav. 289.
Although the Pit has no absolute right to discovery of documents before
the Deft has delivered his defence, it may properly be allowed in a redemp-
tion action on the footing of wilful default against a mortgagee in possession :
Union Bank of London v. Manby, 13 Ch. D. 239, C. A.
A mortgagee taking a release of the equity of redemption from a trustee
thereof with notice of the trust, cannot refuse production of the conveyance
in a suit by the cs. q. t. to redeem on payment of the amount paid : Smith v.
Barnes, 1 Eq. 65.
Tenants in common, as between themselves, must produce ; but where A.
has mortgaged his share to B. {Edmonds v. Foley, 30 Beav. 283), B. cannot
be made to do so ; and where one had sold his share subject to a mortgage
to himself, he could not be called on to show the deed in the absence of his
mortgagor : Lambert v. Rogers, 2 Mer. 489.
Discovery. 79
A mortgagee admitting himself redeemable must set out the accounts :
Elmer v. Creasy, 9 Ch. 69 ; and a Deft cannot refuse to produce documents
because he has a lien on them for literary labour : Brortgham v. Gauvin,
37 L. J. Ch. 691 ; 16 W. R. 688 ; 18 L. T. 281.
On payment of what is found due, the mortgagor (Deft) is entitled to
delivery of the security and all documents on oath : Weeks v. Stourton;
13W. R. 489; although other persons claim an interest in them : Ee Turner,
24 W. R. 54.
As to production by Deft in a suit to establish the mortgage, see Hunt v.
Elmes, 27 Beav. 62.
IMPEACHBD DOCUMENTS.
In a suit to impeach a deed, the Court refused to order production of it
on motion : Tyler v. Drayton, 2 S. & S. 309 ; secus, where it was charged
and not denied that the alleged fraud appeared on the deed : Kennedy v.
Oreen, 6 Sim. 6 ; and in a suit to set aside as fraudulent a bill of sale, or to
redeem it if valid, the bill of sale was on motion ordered to be produced :
Neate v. Latimer, 2 Y. & C. 257 ; 11 Bli. N. S. 149 ; 4 CI. & F. 570 ; and
where the production of the original deed can be required, all subsequent
documents which depend upon and proceed from it must be produced :
Jones V. J., Kay, vi. ; Cannock v. Jauncey, 1 Drew. 497 ; and the Court
ordered a mortgagee, who had been solr to the mortgagor, to produce the
mortgage deed which was impeached : Davis v. Parry, 4 Jur. N. S. 431 ; 27
L. J. Ch. 294 ; 6 W. R. 174. Where the answer stated a release not antici-
pated by the bill, without volunteering to produce it, the Deft was not to
produce it until the hearing : Atkyns v. Wright, 14 Ves. 211.
A mere allegation that a mortgage is invalid will not protect it from pro-
duction : Crisp v. Platel, 9 Beav. 62.
Where an exor (Deft) alleged that the testator's signature to a receipt
relied on by the Pit was a forgery, he produced numerous cheques signed
by the testator ; but was not bound to produce others which he alleged to
be forgeries : Wilson v. Thornbury, 17 Eq. 517 ; but see Graves v. Q., Kay,
xix., et sup. p. 60 ; Boyd v. Petrie, 3 Ch. 818.
INSPECTION,
As to orders relating to the place and manner of inspection, see O. xxxi,
18.
By O. XXXI, 19a — (1) the Judge may, instead of ordering inspection of
original books, order a copy of any entries therein to be furnished and
verified by affidavit ; and (2) where privilege is claimed for any document,
the Judge may inspect the document for the purpose of deciding as to the
vaUdity of the claim of privilege ; and (3) whether an affidavit of documents
shall or shall not have already been ordered or made, he may make an order
requiring any party to state by affidavit whether any one or more specific
documents, to be specified in the application, is or are, or has or have at
any time been in his possession or power ; and, if not then in his possession,
when he parted with the same, and what has become thereof.
The word " privilege " in (2) is not to be construed in a narrow sense, so Privilege,
as to exclude the case of an objection to discovery based on the ground of
irrelevancy, but includes any ground upon which inspection is sought to be
resisted : Ehrmann v. E., [1896] 2 Ch. 826 ; and as to the practice generally,
see Williams v. Quebrada By., Id., & Copper Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 751.
The applicant must specify the particular documents so that they can be
identified : White v. Spafford, [1901] 2 K. B. 241, C. A.
No allowance is to be made for costs of inspection of documents, under Cost of
O. XXXI, 15, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the taxing officer that inspection,
there were good and sufficient reasons for such inspection : 0. lxv, 27 (17) ;
and as to pajnnent and allowance of costs of copies or extracts, see 0. lxv,
27 (18).
80
Discovery.
[chap. VII.
Court rolls.
Place of
inapection.
Notes and
copies.
Where an order has been made under 0. xxxi, 19, upon the lord of a manor
to allow limited inspection of court rolls, such inspection would be at the
office of the steward : Oarew t. Davis, 21 Beav. 213.
Under the old practice the strict rule was that the inspecting party was
entitled to have the documents deposited at the Record and Writ Clerk's
Office, and it afterwards grew to be the practice, as a matter of indulgence
and convenience to the producing party, to allow them to be produced at
the office of his solrs : Brown v. Sewell, 16 Ch. D. 518, C. A. ; but as this is
a departure from strict principle, the costs of such production and inspection
will not be allowed the successful party on a party and party taxation :
Brown v. Sewell, 16 Ch. D. 517, C. A. ; Woodroffe v. Daniel, 10 Sim. 126 ;
Flochton V. Peake, 12 W. R. 1023 ; 4 N. R. 456 ; and where the party
inspecting had been, by an arrangement, furnished with copies, he had to
pay the stationer's charge only : Kennedy v. Oeorge, 6 W. R. 218.
Generally where inspection will suffice, and deposit in Court will be an
injury to the Deft, the latter is not ordered : M. of Berwick v. Murray, 1
M. & G. 530.
By O. LXi, 30, " where any deeds or other documents are ordered to be
left or deposited, whether for safe custody or for the purpose of any inquiry
in Chambers, or otherwise, the same shall be left or deposited in the Central
Office, and shall be subject to such directions as may be given for the pro-
duction thereof." As to mode of deposit, see Dan. 1374.
If a party state that documents in his possession are in daily use at his
place of business, the order has been that the applicant be at liberty to
inspect them there : seeO. xxxi, 17,ands«?). p. 75 ; and if he cannot obtain
a satisfactory inspection there, he may apply for a further order : Grane v.
Cooper, 4 M. & C. 263 ; and see Maund v. Allies, lb., 508 ; Mornington v.
Keane, 4 W. R. 793 ; Gardner v. Dangerfield, 5 Beav. 389 ; Mertens v.
Haigh, Job. 735 ; 11 W. R. 792 ; 3 D. J. & S. 528.
The Judge has a discretion (with which the C. A. will not readily interfere)
as to the place of production and inspection, and having made the common
order for inspection at the solr's office in London, may make a fresh order
for inspection elsewhere : Prestney v. Corp. of Colchester, 24 Ch. D. 376,
C. A. ; Lloyd's Bank v. Luck, 1901, W. N. 130.
A local board, as they were not carrying on a trade, had to send documents
and minute book to London : A. G. v. Whitwood L. B., 19 W. R. 1107 ; 40
L. J. Ch. 592 ; but where the documents consisted principally of ancient
charters and account books of a corp. kept at Colchester, inspection there
was allowed as an indulgence, but with liberty to the Pit to apply for in-
spection of particular documents in London : Prestney v. Corp. of Colchester,
24 Ch. D. 376, C. A.
Where the documents were voluminous, and in Dublin, and were of con-
sequence to the business there. Deft was to deliver a list, and Pit to have
copies of all such as he pleased : Gabhett v. Cavendish, 3 Swa. 267, n. ; failing
agreement as to making copies the documents were to be deposited : Prentice
V. Phillips, 2 Ha. 152.
In Wiedeman v. Walpole, 24 Q. B. D. 637 (8. C, 24 Q. B. D. 626, C. A.,
reversed on other grounds), it was held that the Court might order inspection
of a specific document under 0. xxxi, 18, notwithstanding that it was not
disclosed by the affidavit of documents (which contained the usual averment
negativing the existence of relevant documents other than those specified),
and it was said that rr. 17 and 18 both contemplated the possibility of a
party obtaining inspection of documents as to which the other party had
made no admission at all. And see now O. xxxi, 19a, sup. p. 79.
Jud. Act, 1873, s. 66, provides that the Court or any Judge of the division
to which any cause or matter is assigned may order any books or documents
to be produced in the office of any district registrar.
Under the common order to inspect, a party inay take notes and make
copies of any part not sealed up : Coleman v. W. Hartlepool By. , 5 L. T. 266 ;
Form 4, ante, p. 54 ; Pratt v. P., 51 L. J. Ch. 838 ; 30 W. R. 837 ; 47 L. T.
Discove)"i), 81
249 ; and, in general, a right to take copies is always treated as incidental
to a right to inspect : Mutter v. Eastern and Midland By. Go., 38 Ch. D.
92, 105, C. A. O. Lxv, 27 (18), has not taken away the right of a litigant
who obtains such ah order to make copies himself of the documents produced :
Ormerod, Qrierson dh Co. v. St. George's Ironworks, Ltd., [1905] 1 Ch. 505.
Tlie statutory right of inspecting the registers of a co. given to holders of Registers of
stock and debentures by the Companies Clauses Acts, 1845, ss. 45, 63, and company.
1863, s. 28, may be exercised at all reasonable times without reason assigned :
Holland v. Dickson, 37 Ch. D. 669 ; and includes a right to take copies :
Mutter V. Eastern and Midland By. Go., 38 Ch. D. 92, 105, C. A. (and see
Dailies v. Oas Light <fc Coke Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 248, 708, as to appropriate
remedy for enforcing such right) ; as also does the right of a creditor or
member of a co. to inspect the register of mortgages under s. 101 of the
Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII. o. 69) : Nelson v. Anglo-
American Land Mortgage Agency Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 130 ; secus, the register
of members under s. 30 of the same Act : Be Balaghdt Gold Mining Co. , [1901 ]
2 K. B. 665, C. A., overruling Board v. African Land Go., [1898] 1 Ch. 596.
As to inspection of documents in possession of a co., see Be North Brazilian
Sugar Factories, 37 Ch. D. 83 ; and as to inspection of books of co. by mem-
ber dissenting from reconstruction of CO., see In re Glamorganshire Bank,
Morgan's Case, 28 Ch. D. 620, and Buckley, 514 et sej. ; and as to the
right of every contributory and every admitted creditor in the winding-up of
a CO. to inspect and take copies of depositions taken at a private examina-
tion, whether the evidence was given by himself or by others, see In re
Standard Gold Mining Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 545.
Pending an appeal from an order to deposit documents in Court, inspection
was deferred : Kelly v. Hutton, 15 W. R. 916 ; secus, where the appeal was
as to the relief : Gardner v. L. G. D. By., 15 W. R. 137.
Although the common order for inspection under O. xxxi, r. 20 {v. inf.
p. 88), has been made, the Court has jurisdiction to make a subsequent order
that questions of law shall be determined before the actual inspection is
given : Lever v. Land Sees. Co., Ld. ; De Carteret v. Land Sees, Co., Ld.,
70 L. T. 323 : 42 W. R. 104.
As to inspection in patent suits, v. inf. Chap. LII. " Patents."
The order directs production to the party, his solrs and agents : see Solr and
Forms 4 — 9, pp. 54 — 57 ; an undertaking to produce to a party implies pro- agents
duction to his solr and agents, though not named : Williams v. P. of W. Ins.
Co., 23 Beav. 338. The terms of the order are strictly adhered to : Dan.
1575.
The term " agent " does not include other Defts : Barfley v. B., 1 Drew.
233 ; nor a relative, though the only person conversant with the accounts :
Summerfield v. Prichard, 17 Beav. 9 ; nor a professional accountant ap-
pointed pro re nata, unless by special order which will be made if circum-
stances require it : Bonnardet v. Taylor, 1 J. & H. 383 (followed in Gibney
V. Clayton, 27 L. R. Ir. 75) ; and see Swansea Vale By. v. Budd, 2 Eq. 274,
where the Deft's surveyor was allowed to see plans, &o., on which the issue
mainly depended. And on the application of a bankrupt's assignee, the
accounts being extensive and kept in Indian currency, an accountant
was allowed, the bankrupt himself being employed as such accountant,
and the inspection could be made in the presence of any duly authorized
clerk of the assignee's solrs : Lindsay v. Gladstone, 9 Eq. 132 ; and in
a complicated case inspection was to be allowed to any number of
persons, not exceeding twelve, whose names and addresses Pit was to give,
and to liire a large room for the purpose : Bep. of Peru v. Weguelin, 41
L. J. Ch. 165. In Blair v. Massey, Ir. Rep. 5 Eq. 623, inspection by Pit's
counsel was allowed ; and see Draper v. Manchester, dke. By., 7 Jur. N. S.
86 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 236 ; 3 L. T. 685 ; 9 W. R. 215, where it was suggested
that " solr " meant solr in the cause, and " agent " some person connected
with the suit or a general agent ; and as to persons being personally dis-
qualified from inspection by interest, see S. C.
VOL. I. G
82 Discovery. [chap. vii.
A special order is required for inspection by intended witnesses, and will
only be made on special grounds : Boyd v. Pelrie, 3 Ch. 818 ; as where the
genuineness of signatures is disputed : Oroves v. O., Kay, App. xix. et sup.
pp. 60, 74, et seq.
As to inspection for verifying copy by witnesses, see Phelps v. Prew, 3
E. & B. 430 ; 18 Jur. 245.
Bankers' By the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 & 43 V. o. 11), s. 7, " on
books. the application of any party to a legal proceeding, a Court or Judge may
order that such party be at liberty to inspect and take copies of any entries
in a banker's book for any of the purposes of such proceedings. An order
made under this section may be made either with or without summoning
the bank or any other party, and shall be served on the bank three clear
days before the same is to be obeyed, unless the Court or Judge otherwise
directs."
As to the mode of proof of entries in bankers' books, see Chap. VIII.
" EVTPBNCB."
Under the above section the Court has jurisdiction to permit any party to
a proceeding in England to inspect and take copies of any entries in a
banker's book in Scotland or Ireland : Kissam v. Link, [1896] 1 Q. B.
574, C. A.
The object of the Act is not merely to relieve bankers, but to facilitate
proof of transactions recorded in their books : Arnott v. Hayes, 36 Oh. D.
731, C. A. ; and see Fitzpatrick v. McDonald, 30 L. R. Ir. 249 ; Parnell v.
Wood, [1892] P. 137, C. A., where an alternative application under the Act,
or for a subpoena, was refused, the question whether the subpoena should
be granted being a matter for the determination of the Judge at the trial.
Liberty was given to a residuary legatee. Pit in an admon action, to inspect
at testator's bankers, books for four years, containing entries of accounts of
testator's business : Re Marshfield, M. v. Hutchings, 32 Ch. D. 499.
The procedure being in substitution for subpcena dtices tecum, there is
jurisdiction to make the order ex parte, but such jurisdiction will be cau-
tiously exercised,and evidence of bona fides and materiality of the proposed
inspection may be required : Arnott v. Hayes, sup. See form of order,
sup. p. 61.
The jurisdiction under the section is subject to the general law as to dis-
covery, so that where' Deft states on affidavit that entries in his banking
account are irrelevant, an order for inspection of them ought not to be
made : ;S. Staffordshire Trams. Co. v. Ebhsmith, [1895] 2 Q. B. 669, C. A.
The fact that the Pit has made an affidavit of documents to which he has
scheduled his bankers' pass books does not debar the Deft from inspection,
under sect. 7, of the entries in the bankers' books : Perry v. Phosphor Bronze
Co., 11 L. T. 854, C. A. ; distinguishing Parnell v. Wood, 92 P. 137.
The Court has, it seems, jurisdiction to order inspection of entries relating
to banking accounts kept in names of persons other than parties to the
action, if kept on their behalf : Howard v. Beall, 23 Q. B. D. 1 ; but this
jurisdiction will be exercised with the greatest caution : Pollock v. Garle,
[1898] 1 Ch. 1, C. A. i and the order will in general be made only where
there are entries in an account which is in form or substance the account of
one of the parties to the litigation : Pollock v. Garle, sup. ; and the Court
must be satisfied that those entries will be admissible in evidence against a
party to the action at the trial ; and that there are very strong grounds for
thinking that there are entries in the account which are material to the case
of the party askingforinspection: S.StaffordshireTrams.Co.Y.Ebbsmith,sup.
Thus, where the Pit sued for rescission of a contract for the purchase of
shares in a co. from the Deft, on the ground of misrepresentation by the
Deft {inter alia) as to the balance of the co. at its bankers, the Court declined
to order inspection of the co.'s banking account : Pollock v. Oarle, [1898]
1 Ch. 1, C. A.
As to Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, see post, p. 113.
As to inspection of property, v. inf. p. 99.
Discovery. 83
SEALING UP PART.
A party swearing that parts of documents were immaterial was allowed
to seal them up, producing the rest : Qerard v. Penswich, 1 Swa. 533 ;
Manselly.Feeney,dW.^. 610; 2Jo. &H. 320; Form 4, s«tp. p. 54. Part
of a pedigree may be sealed up by a Deft on the ground that it does not
relate to the Pit's case : Ketthwell v. Barstow, 7 Ch. 686 ; but not part
of court rolls in a suit by a freehold tenant : Warwick v. Q. Coll., 36 L. J.
Ch. 505.
Under the usual order giving leave to seal up parts, actual sealing cannot
be insisted upon if it would interfere with the conduct of the opponent's
business or be oppressive, but the covering up upon oath of the irrelevant
parts of such books is a sufficient compliance with the order : Qraham, v.
Sutton Garden & Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 761, C.A. ; Form 5, sup. p. 56.
As to what portion of their books, and of letters relating to sales, the
Defts in a trade-mark case could seal up, see Carver v. Pinto Leite, 7 Ch. 90.
The question of materiality is more strictly sifted, where the discovery is
such that it might be used to prejudice the party making it independently
of the suit : 8. C, and see Heiujh v. Oarrelt, 44 L. J. Ch. 305 ; L. R. 3 Eq.
683.
An answer admitting possession of documents without claiming privilege
was allowed to be qualified by an affidavit (at Deft's cost : Smith v. Massie,
4 Beav. 417), so as to protect portions or the whole of them : Curd v. C,
1 Ha. 274, affirmed on appeal ; and see Blenkinsopp v. B., 10 Beav. 277 ;
liberty to seal up or not to deposit might be given after affidavit admitting
possession : Talbot v. Marshfield, 1 Eq. 6 ; on a motion for production of
documents sealed up by the Deft, the M. R. himself examined them, and,
having satisfied himself that they might possibly serve the Pit, allowed
him to inspect them : Caton v. Lewis, 22 L. J. Ch. 946 ; 1 W. R. 118 ; and
so Wood, V.-C, where the affidavit was not explicit : Lafone v. Falkland
Islands Co., 4 K. & J. 34 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 6 W. R. 4 ; and see The Mac-
gregor Laird, L. R. 1 Ad. & E. 307 ; Bustros v. While, 1 Q. B. D. 423, C. A. ;
and generally as to the practice where a right to seal up is desired or claimed,
see Bray, 233 ; Dan. 1568. And for form of affidavit, see D. C. P. 972.
Where a few unimportant portions had been improperly sealed up, the
Pit was not entitled to a general unsealing : Jones v. Andrews, 58 L. T.
601.
In the case of partnership books, in an action by residuary legatees for
accounts, surviving partner and exor of testator was not entitled to seal up
such entries as he might swear to be irrelevant, but only such as related to
specified private matters : Re Pickering, P. v. P., 25 Ch. D. 247, C. A.
As to allowing inspection of certain entries only in books, see Firkins v.
Lowe, 13 Pr. 193 ; Ooodall v. Little, 1 Sim. N. S. 155.
On a question of identity of land, all parts of deeds which did not relate
to parcels were sealed up : Earp v. Lloyd, 3 K. & J. 549 ; Luscombe v.
Steer, 37 L. .1. Ch. 119. ■
The books of a railway co. were produced, with liberty to seal up parts
irrelevant or otherwise privileged: Wilson v. Northampton, &c. By., 14
Eq. 477.
RESISTANCE TO DISCO VEKY — (1) IREBI.EVANCY.
0. XXXI, 1, provides that interrogatories which do not relate to any
matters in question in the cause or matter shall be deemed irrelevant, not-
withstanding that they might be admissible on the oral cross-examination
of a witness.
No discovery can be compelled which is not directly or indirectly material Relevancy,
to the issue to be tried at the hearing : see Wigram, 158 ; Bray, 16 e< seg. ;
Bleckley v. Rymer, 4 Drew. 248 ; Keltlewell v. Barstow, 7 Ch. 686 ; Adams v.
Lloyd, 3 H. & N. 351 ; Re Morgan, Owen v. M., 39 Ch. D. 316, C. A. ; Coid
V. Delap d; others, 1906, W. N. 67, 78. But the right to discovery is not
84 Piscovery. [chap. vil.
confined to facts directly put in issue, but extends to any facts the existence
or nonexistence of which is relevant to the existence or non-existence of
the facts directly in issue : Marriotts. Chamberlain, 17 Q. B. D. 163, C. A. ;
Nash V. Layton, [1911] 2 Ch. 71. Thus, the alleged writer of a libellous
letter may be asked whether he did not write another letter addressed to
a third person : Jones r. Rkkards, 15 Q. B. D. 439 ; and an interrogatory,
the answer to which will enable the Court to make an immediate judgment,
is relevant : Re Morgan, Owen v. M., 39 Ch. D. 316, C. A.
In an action by patentee against licensee for an account, when the Deft
licensee denies user and sets up a plea of secret process, the Pit is entitled
to full discovery, but not oppressively so as to compel disclosure of the
secret process : Ashworth v. Roberts, 45 Ch. D. 623.
Nor is the right confined to the obtaining of information. It may be
used to obtain an admission from the opposite party, so as to facilitate
proof and save expense : A. 0. v. OasTcill, 20 Ch. D. 519, C. A. ; Oumbrecht
v. Parry, 32 W. R. 204 49 L. J. 570 ; and see Dalrymple v. Leslie, 8
Q. B. D. 5.
If a fact is relevant, discovery of it cannot be resisted merely because
particulars of evidence intended to be used or the names of proposed
witnesses would thereby be disclosed : Marriott v. Chamhf.rlain, 17 Q. B. D.
154, C. A. ; Storey v. Lennox, 1 My. & Cr. 525 ; 1 Keen, 341.
The oath of the party that documents ordered to be produced are im-
material is sufficient, unless there be something in the nature of the case,
or on the face of his statements, to show that this is not so : Minet v.
Morgan, 8 Ch. 361 ; 21 W= R. 467 ; Comhe v. Corp. ofLond., 1 Y. & C. Ch.
652, et n. sup. p. 72.
All documents admitted to be relevant must be produced, unless good
reason be shown to the contrary : Storey v. Lennox, 1 My. & C. 525 ; and
as to what amounts to an admission of relevancy, see S. C, and that
scheduling them does, see Greenwood v. G., 6 W. R. 119.
An interrogatory asking in substance whether the Deft had not been in
such a position that he must have knowledge of the truth or falsity of the
allegations in the statement of claim, was held irrelevant : Re Morgan,
Owen V. M., 39 Ch. D. 316, C. A.
The Pit is entitled to interrogate the Deft as to facts which tend to support
the Pit's case, or to impeach the Deft's case, but not as to facts which
support the Deft's case : Hooton v. Dolby, [1907] 2 K. B. 18.
A Deft sued as agent, and denying the agency by his answer, had not to
answer as to what appeared to be his private affairs : O. W- Colliery Co. v.
Tucker, 9 Ch. 376. Questions as to sale of surplus water were held relevant
in a suit by a water oo. to restrain diversion of a stream : Wilts, dsc. Co. v.
Swindon W. W. Co., 20 W. R. 353.
As to whether documents required merely for comparing handwriting
are relevant, see Wilson v. Thornbury, 17 Eq. 517.
As to production of compromises with persons not parties, sup. p. 77.
Inquisitorial Inquisitorial questions, such as would, were an answer to them compelled,
questions. make the Court a scourge to the country, need not be answered : Dos
Santos V. Frietas, cited Wigram, 165 ; and see O. xxxi, 7, which provides
for the expunging of any interrogatories which are " oppressive " ; and
Parker v. Wells, 18 Ch. D. 484, C. A. ; A. 0. v. Gaskill, 20 Ch. D. 529, C. A. ;
but questions as to the amount of the Deft's pecuniary resources, whence
derived, &c., must, if material, be answered: Newton v. Dimes, 3 Jur.
N. S. 583 ; 30 L. T. 30 ; and a Deft required to give an account of partner-
ship transactions, was not allowed to refuse an account of the debts owing
to the firm on the ground that it would disclose the private affairs of the
customers : Telford v. Rushin, 1 Dr. & S. 148 ; Howe v. M''KerrMn, 30
Beav. 547 ; and where the Deft denied an alleged partnership in the pur-
chase of land, interrogatories exhibited by the Pit to prove that they had
been co-partners in various other similar purchases of land, were held to
be irrelevant and oppressive : Kennedy v. Dodson, [1895] 1 Ch. 334, C. A. ;
Discovery. 85
and an answer as to private dealings waa compelled where fraud was
alleged : Gartside v. Outram, 3 Jur. N. S. 39 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 113 ; 5 W. R.
35 ; and Defts (a co. alleged to be acting ultra vires) will not be compelled
to give full information to rivals in trade : A. O.r. North Met. Tram. Co.,
[1892] 3 Ch. 70.
EBSISTANCE TO DISCOVERY — (2) DISCOVERY RELATING EXCLUSIVELY TO
OWN CASE.
The general principle is, that a party must give discovery of the facts General prin-
upon which he relies to establish his case, but not of the evidence which ciple.
it is proposed to adduce : Eade v. Jacobs, 3 Ex. D. 335, C. A. ; and see
Bidder v. Bridges, 29 Ch. D. 29, C. A. ; A. 0. v. Gaskill, 20 Ch. D. 529,
C. A. ; Kettlewell v. Barstow, 7 Ch. 686 ; Briton Medical Assoc, v. Britannia
Fire Assoc, 59 L. T. 888 ; Garland v. Oram, 7 Times L. R. 86. This
principle is otherwise expressed by the statement that a party has no right
to see his adversary's brief : Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Ch.
D. 644, 656 ; The Palermo, 9 P. D. 6, C. A. ; Saunders v. Jones, 7 Ch.
D. 435.
Thus, details of conversations, upon which reliance is placed, may have Application
to be set out : Eade v. Jacobs, 3 Ex. D. 335, C. A. ; Lyon v. Tweddell, of principle.
13 Ch. D. 375 ; A. G. v. Gaskill, 20 Ch. D. 519, C. A. ; Fisher v. Owen, 8
Ch. D. 645 ; and details as to communication to Pit of a creditor's deed,
of which he claims the benefit : Johns v. James, 13 Ch. D. 370.
In an action to set aside a will for undue influence. Pit was entitled to
ask what sums Deft had received from testator, or from his universal
legatee since his death : SeHolloway,YoungY. H.,12'P.'D.16T ; newspaper
proprietors, Defts in an action for libelling Pit, as authors of letters which
they published, were obliged to state approximately the extent of the
. circulation of their paper, but not to answer as to the names of the persons
from whom the letters were obtained, what was paid for them, and what
inquiries were made and steps taken to test and verify information : Parnell
V. Walter, 24 Q. B. D. 441 ; but see ante, p. 68 ; nor to state how many
copies of the issue of the newspaper which contained the alleged libel were
printed and circulated, the answer a " considerable number " being held
sufficient: Whittaker v. Scarborough Post Newspaper Co., [1896] 2 Q. B.
148, C. A. ; overruling Parnell v. Walter, sup., and Rumney v. Walter, 61
L. J. Q. B. 149 ; 65 L. T. 757 ; 40 W. R. 174, on this point ; and discovery
could not be required as to quantities of goods sold by Pits in action for
injunction as to user of trade name, such quantities being evidence in support
of Pit's case : Benbow v. Low, 16 Ch. D. 93, C. A. ; explaining Saunders v.
Jones, 7 Ch. D. 435, C. A.
In general, the names of persons who may be called as witnesses need Names of
not be disclosed : Eade v. Jacobs, sup. ; unless such names are relevant witnesses,
facts in the case, or discovery of relevant facts cannot be made without
disclosing them : Marriott v. Chamberlain, 17 Q. B. D. 154, C. A. Thus,
Deft was not bound to give the names of persons in whose presence a verbal
consent, relied on by him as a defence, was given : Eade v. Jacobs, sup. ;
nor a Pit, in action for dissolution of partnership, the names of persons
in whose presence the Deft, his partner, misconducted himself : Lyon v.
Tweddell, 13 Ch. D. 376 ; nor a newspaper proprietor, admitting publi-
cation of alleged libel, the name of the writer of the words, unless the identity
of such writer were a fact material to some issue : Gibson v. Evans, 23
Q. B. D. 384 ; Hennessy v. Wright, 36 W. R. 879 ; 24 Q. B. D. 445, n.,
C. A. : nor Pit in action for damages in respect of being bitten by Deft's
dog, the names of persons alleged to have been bitten on previous occa-
sions: Knapp V. Harvey, [1911] 2 K. B. 725.
Where a Deft made no case of his own, simply denying the Pit's case, Privilege :
he could not protect his documents as being only evidence of his own case, Evidence
for Pit's case included matters charged as answers to an expected defence : only of
A. 0. V. Corp. of London, 2 M. & G, 247, 265. deponent's
86 Discovery. [chAp. vii.
As to whether Pit and Deft are in the same position as to this ground of
privilege, see Hoffmann v. Postill, 4 Ch. 673 ; Minel v. Morgan, 8 Ch. 361 ;
21 W. R. 467.
In order to protect documents from production on this ground, it is
material for the party to aver on oath that they form, support, or evidence
his own title, and are intended to be or may be used by him in evidence
accordingly, and that they do not contain anything forming or supporting
the case or title of the opposite party : A. Q. v. Emerson, 10 Q. B. D. 191,
C. A. ; and see Bewicke v. Graham, 7 Q. B. D. 400, C. A. ; Bulman v. Young,
49 L. T. 736 ; 31 W. R. 766 ; Morris v. Edwards, 15 App. Ca. 309 ; but
it is not necessary for him to state that they contain nothing impeaching
his own case or title : A. G. v. Newcastle Corp., [1899] 2 Q. B. 478 ; C. A.,
following Morris v. Edwards, 15 App. Ca. 309 ; and see BiMen v. Wilkin-
son, [1893] 2 Q. B. 432, C. A. ; unless misconception of the nature of the
documents is shown as matter of reasonable certainty and not merely
of probable surmise : Frankenstein v. Gavin's House to House Cycle Cleaning
and Ins. Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 62, C. A.
A statement that documents were obtained by a Deft for his own
defence, and that they did not relate to or evidence the " title " of the Pit,
was not sufficiently distinct to protect them : Felkin v. L. Herbert, 30
L. J. Ch. 798 ; 9 W. R. 756 ; and see Mansell v. Feeneij, 2 Jo. & H. 320 ;
9 W. R. 610.
In Bolton v. Liverpool, 1 M. & K. 88, a statement that the documents
were the title deeds of the Defts, was held sufficient to protect them
without using the word exclusively, or denying their supporting the Pit's
title : but see Minet v. Morgan, 8 Ch. 361 ; and A. G. v. Emerson, 10
Q. B. D. 191, C. A. ; Combe v. London, 1 Y. & C. C. 651 ; Harris v. H.,
4 Ha. 179.
If a Deft admit the relevancy of documents to a part of the Pit's case,
and do not distinctly deny that they prove that part of the case, he is not
privileged by a general statement that they are his own evidence : Smith v.
D. of Beaufort, 1 Ha. 507 ; 1 Ph. 209 ; Gresley v. Mousley, 2 K. & J. 288 ;
and he might lose his right to protect a deed relating solely to his own case,
but put forward by himself, by making it by statement or by partial
quotation part of his answer : Hardman v. Ellames, 2 M. & K. 732 ; Adams
V. Fisher, 3 M. & C. 549 ; Latimer v. Neate, 4 CI. & F. 570 ; 11 Bli. N. S.
149 : Hunt v. Elmes, 27 Beav. 62 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 645 ; secus, if the Pit stated
the deed and the Deft admitted and referred to it : Howard v. Robinson,
4 Drew. 522 ; see also Glover v. Hall, 2 Ph. 484.
And for a clear statement of the rule, see Comhe\. Corp. of London, sup.
A waiver of privilege as to some documents does not preclude the assertion
of it as to others in respect of which it was originally claimed : Lyell v.
Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
A Pit in an action to establish commonable rights had to give discovery
as to the nature of his title, but not as to the evidence of it : Bidder v.
Bridges, 29 Ch. D. 29, C. A. ; Cayley v. Sandycroft, 33 W. R. 577 ; and as
to right of Pit to discovery in an action for recovery of land, see Lyell v.
Kennedy, 8 App. Ca. 217 ; Bleazby v. B., 10 L. R. Ir. 60.
Documents And in order to obtain protection for documents of title, he need not
of title. assert that they contain nothing impeaching his own title ; A.O.-v. Emerson,
sup. ; Morris v. Edwards, 15 App. Ca. 309 ; and a party is not entitled to
see documents which only prove his title, if at all, by destroying his
adversary's : Bolton v. Corp. of Liverpool, 3 Sim. 467 ; 1 M. & K. 88 ; and
see Owen v. Wynn, 9 Ch. D. 33, C. A. ; Jenkins v. Bushby, 35 L. J. Ch.
400 ; 14 L. T. 431 ; 14 W. R. 531 ; nor is he entitled to see documents
because he may find evidence on which to turn the Deft out of possession :
Bolton V. Corp. of Liverpool, 1 M. & K. 92 ; Kettlewell v. Barstow, 7 Ch. 686.
And that a document relating to the Pit's own title, though referred to
in the pleadings, need not be produced until defence is put in, see Webster
V. Whewnll, 15 Ch, D. 120.
Discovery. 87
Notwithstanding the provision in sect. 2 of the Vendor and Purchaser
Act, 1874, precluding purchaser of leasehold from calling for lessor's title,
such a purchaser, in an action for specific performance, proving aliunde
that the title is bad, and raising a definite objection, will, like an ordinary
litigant, be entitled to production of relevant documents, but not if he
merely denies the title or vaguely alleges the existence of restrictive cove-
nants : Jrnies v. Watts, 43 Ch. D. 574, C. A.
A c. q. t. (though only of proceeds of sale of land) is prima facie entitled
to discovery and production of documents in possession of the trustees
relating to the trust estate : Re Cowin, 0. v. Oravett, 33 Ch. D. 179.
A Deft must produce evidence common to both parties, such as (the Evidence
question being identity or boundaries of land) maps and deeds in his posses- common to
sion : Earp v. Lloyd, 3 K. & J. 549, and cases there cited ; Bolkm v. Liver- ^°^^ parties.
pool, sup. ; Jenkins v. Bushiy, 35 L. J. Ch. 400 ; 14 L. T. 431 ; 14 W. R.
531 ; Barry v. Scully, Ir. Rep. 6 C. L. 449 ; especially in a suit by a lessor
against his lessee : Brown v. Wales, 15 Eq. 142.
And the former rule, that a Deft in an ejectment action cannot be com-
pelled to give discovery of documents in his possession, no longer holds
good : The New British, cfcc. Co. v. Peed, 3 C. P. D. 196 ; and see Eyre v.
Bodgers, 40 W. R. 137.
In suits between partners each must produce all documents relating to
the partnership : Adams v. Fisher, 3 My. & C. 547 ; secus, where there was
an agreement that the Pit should have no right to examine the books or
accounts : Turney v. Bayley, 4 D. J. & S. 332 ; 33 L. J. Ch. .500 ; over-
ruling 8. C, 34 Beav. 105.
As to production of title deeds by a mere stakeholder, holding them for
whoever should turn out to be entitled to the land, see Whittingham v.
Cusack, Ir. Rep. 7 Eq. 159.
Where title deeds relating to two estates were in custody of the solrs of
the previous owner of both, the owner of one estate was only entitled to an
order for deposit in Court with liberty to inspect : Wright v. Roboiham, 33
Ch. D. 106.
An heir in tail, suing devisees, was entitled to discovery and inspection Heir-at-law
of any deeds creating estates in tail general only : Shaftesbury v. Arrow- or in tail.
smith, 4 Ves. 66 ; 4 R. R. 181 ; or to prove his pedigree : Wright v. Vernon,
1 Drew. 344 ; and heir-at-law Pit may see such parts of any deed as relate
to his pedigree, the rest being sealed up : Rumhold v. Forteath, 3 K. & J.
44, 748 ; and as to different rights of heir-at-law and heir in tail, S. C,
and Qvin v. Ratcliff, 6 Jur. N. S. 1327 ; 9 W. R. 65 ; 3 L. T. 363 ; but an
heir-at-law of a feme covert entitled in default of appointment could not
see the deed creating the power : Bennett v. Glossop, 3 Ha. 578.
Assignees of co-heiresses suing to recover land was entitled to interrogate
the Deft as to matters relevant to the pedigree and heirship of the co-
heiresses, and as to alleged admissions by Deft that his possession of the
land was as trustee for the ancestress : Lyell v. Kennedy, 8 App. Ca. 217.
In a suit against him by a copyhold tenant, the lord must produce Copyholder,
documents, including the court rolls, without payment of fees : Hoare v.
Wilson, 4 Eq. 1 ; although he denies Pit's title ; Warrick v. Q. Con.,i Eq. 683.
But a person claiming adversely to the manor and manorial rights as
owner in fee, is not entitled to production of the court rolls : Owen v. Wynn,
9 Ch. D. 29, C. A. ; but see Heath v. Deane, [1905] 2 Ch. 86 ; and as to in-
spection of court rolls, see O. xxxi, 19.
In a suit against a bankrupt's assignees, evidence given by the Pit in the Examination
Court of Bankruptcy was not to be produced until the hearing : Qandee v. ™ Jjank-
StansfiOd, 4 D. & J. 1. ruptoy.
For cross-examining the Pit on his affidavit, the Deft was entitled to
production of an examination in Bankruptcy therein mentioned : Bell v.
Johnson, 9 W. R. 549 ; 4 L. T. 636.
A valuation of a surveyor, made with a view to the defence, was privi-
leged : Llewellyn v. Badeley, 1 Ha. 527.
88 Discovery. [chap. vii.
RESISTANCE TO DISCOVERY — (3) PEEMATURB DISCOVERY.
By O. XXXI, 20, " if the party from whom discovery of any kind or
inspection is sought objects to the same, or any part thereof, the Court or
a, Judge may, if satisfied that the right to the discovery or inspection
sought depends on the determination of any issue or question in dispute
in the cause or matter, or that for any other reason it is desirable that any
issue or question in dispute in the cause or matter should be determined
before deciding upon the right to the discovery or inspection, order that
such issue or question be determined first, and reserve the question as to
the discovery or inspection." For form of application, see D. C. F. 958.
Objections to answering any one or more interrogatories on the ground
that " the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage "
are now taken by the affidavit in answer : see r. 6.
The cases as to the grounds of resisting discovery by demurrer are
collected, Seton, 4th edition, pp. 157, 158. The most important of these
grounds, with reference to the new practice, under 0. xxv, was where
the Pit's case, being for relief, failed to show on the face of it a title to the
relief sought, in which case it was demurrable, and a demurrer to relief
was a bar to discovery : see Evan v. Portreeve, die. of Avon, 29 Beav. 152 ;
6 Jur. N. S. 1361 ; 9 W. R. 84 ; 30 L. J. Oh. 165.
This ground of objection will now be raised under 0. xxv, 4, by appli-
cation to strike out the statement of claim as disclosing " no reasonable
cause of action or answer " : v. sup. p. 38, Chap. V., " Pleadings."
Officers and agents of corporate bodies were sometimes made parties for
discovery : Dummer v. Corp. of Chippenham, 14 Ves. 246 ; but now that
discovery can be obtained from any member or officer of such bodies under
O. XXXI, 5, sup. pp. 65, 66, such persons can no longer be necessary parties ;
and to make solrs or other parties for payment of costs or discovery is
objectionable and " vexatious " within the meaning of O. xxv, 4 : Burstall
V. Beyfm, 26 Ch. D. 35, C. A. ; Barnes v. AMy, 9 Ch. 244 ; and see EUer
V. CarUr, 25 Q. B. D. 194, 198, C. A.
Now that, by virtue of the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 24 (2), Courts of Equity and
Common Law have concurrent jurisdiction, the defence of purchase for
valuable consideration is no longer available as a bar to discovery in an
action to recover land : Ind v. Emmerson, 12 App. Ca. 300.
The Court is reluctant, before the right to relief is established, to enforce
discovery which may be injurious to the Deft, and will only be useful to
the Pit if he succeeds in establishing his right to relief : Fennessy v. Clark,
37 Ch. D. 186, C. A. ; Heugh v. Garrett, 44 L. J. Ch. 305 ; and see Leitch
V. Abbott, 31 Ch. D. 374, C. A. ; and Parker v. Wells, 18 Ch. D. 477, C. A.,
and observations of Sir G. Jessel in that case ; and see Kettlewell v. Barstow,
7 Ch. 686 ; Schreiber v. Heymann, 63 L. J. Q. B. 749 (where discovery as
to damages was refused, liability being disputed).
Patent action. -^ Deft in a patent action cannot, by denying the validity of the patent,
avoid giving discovery as to his own process until the validity has been
established : Benno Jajfe, dkc. Fabrik v. Richardson, 62 L. J. Ch. 710 ;
68 L. T. 404 ; 41 W. R. 534.
Partnership A partner could not be made to set out partnership accounts in his
aooounts. answer : Lockett v. L., 4 Ch. 336 ; and see Wier v. Tucker, 14 Eq. 25 ;
Lyon V. Tweddell, 13 Ch. D. 375 ; nor a Pit to set out correspondence
between him and a third person, an order to inspect which could be obtained ;
Hoffmann v. Postill, 4 Ch. 673.
Exor's But an exor was required to set out his accounts though he denied the
accounts. p[j.!g ^jgj^^ ^f g^j^. j^g a creditor, but not to set them out in detail : Thompson
V. Dunn, 5 Ch. 573 ; 18 W. R. 334, 854 ; Cull v. Inglis, 37 L. J. Ch. 385 ;
16 W. R. 477 ; but see Kettlewell v. Barstow, 7 Ch. 686.
An exor as a general rule is under an obligation to set out the accounts
of his testator's estate, and will seldom be protected from discovery
of his accounts : Thompson v. Dunn, 5 Ch. 573 ; 18 W. R. 334,
Discovery. 89
854 ; St. Oeorge v. St. G., 19 L. R. Ir. 225 ; and this obligation has not been
affected by the Jud. Act : Be StctcUffe, Alison v. A., 50 L. J. Ch. 574 ; 44
L. T. 547 ; 29 W. R. 732 ; but an exor will be protected from discovery
of his accounts in a suit by legatees when he admits assets : Forbes v.
Tanner, 11 W. R. 414 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 455 ; and see Pullen v. Smith,
5 Ves. 20.
In Adams v. Fisher, 3 My. & C. 526, where an exor sued the Deft as
solr to the estate, and prayed an account, and the Deft by his answer
denied that he was such solr, Lord Cottenham refused production of docu-
ments, admitted to be in his possession, relating to the estate : and see
De la Rue v. Dickinson, 3 K. & J. 388. But Adams v. Fisher has been much
questioned : see contra, Clegg v. Fdmondson, 22 Beav. 125 ; S. C. com-
promised, 3 Jur. N. S. 299, L. JJ. ; Orectt Luxembourg Bail. Co. v. Magnay,
23 Beav. 646, aif. L. JJ. ; Beade v. Woodroffe, 24 Beav. 421 ; and Lord
Lyndhurst's remarks on Adams v. Fisher in Lancaster v. Evors, 1 Ph. 349 ;
and Lord Selborne's in Elmer v. Greasy, 9 Ch. 71 ; Hawkins v. Carr, L. R.
1 Q. B. 89 ; Rohson v. Flight, 33 Beav. 268 ; Hills v. Wales, L. R. 9 C. P.
688.
A Deft in a suit for waste was bound to answer as to the number and Action for
value, &c. of trees cut down, though he claimed the right to cut them waste,
down : Newry v. Kilmorey, 19 W. R. 271.
In an action for infringement of trade mark, after an order for trial Infringement
of questions of fact, discovery as to sales by Deft was not granted until the of trade
Pit made his election whether to claim damages or an account of profits : mark.
Fennessy v. Clarke, 37 Ch. D. 184, C. A. ; and see Marriott v. Chamberlain,
17 Q. B. D. 154, 162, C. A. ; Pape v. Lister, L. R. 6 Q. B. 242 ; Benbow v.
Low, 16 Ch. D. 93, 96, 99, C. A. Discovery to show the amount of damage
was not given until the question of liability had been decided, the two
questions being severable : Elkin v. Clark, 21 W. R. 447 ; Schrieber v.
Heymann, sup.
As to the discovery to be given in proceedings to remove trade marks
from the register, see Be Wills' Trade Marks, [1892] 3 Ch. 201.
As to whether a Deft will be allowed discovery for the purpose of paying To ascertain
a proper sum into Court in discharge of alleged liability, see Frost v. Brook, amount of
23 W. R. 260 ; 32 L. T. 312 ; Clarke v. Bennett, 32 W. R. 550. A Pit liability,
having claimed by mistake a smaller sum than he was entitled to, which is
paid into Court by the Deft and taken out by the Pit, cannot either amend
his particulars or bring a new action giving credit for the sum previously
taken out, as the matter is res judicata : Sanders v. Hamilton, [1907] 96
L. T. 679.
A liquidator. Pit in an action, will not be permitted to evade an order Liquidation
postponing discovery by availing himself of the process of examination of co.
given by the Companies Act, 1862, s. 115, now substituted by s. 174 of
the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 : Be North Australian Territory
Co., 45 Ch. D. 87, C. A.
PRIVILEGE (1) COMMTWICATIONS WITH SOLICITOB OK COUNSEL.
As to the meaning of the word " privilege " and that it includes grounds
for resistance to discovery generally, and not merely those which are
usually and conveniently designated by it, see Ehrmann v. E., [1896] 2
Ch. 826, sup. p. 79.
A general protection from discovery is accorded to communications
between client and solr or counsel.
The object of this privilege is to enable litigants to comm nicate freely Object,
and safely with their legal advisers : Nias v. N. & E. By., 3My. & C. 357 ;
Launrence v. Campbell, 4 Drew. 489 ; Oreenough v. Oaskell, 1 My. & K. 103 ;
Beece v. Trye, 9 Beav. 319 ; and it ought not to be extended further than
is necessary for that object : Olyn v. Caulfleld, 3 Mac. & G. 463 ; Anderson
V. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Ch. D. 644. A communication to some
90 Discovery. [(JHAP. vii.
one who is not a solicitor, nor a mere aUer ego of the solr is not privi-
leged : Jones v. Great Central Rly. Co., [1910] A. C. 4.
Limit of It is confined to communications between the client and his legal adviser,
privilege. with the view of the client obtaining legal advice as regards the conduct
of litigation or the right to property : Wheeler v. Le Marchant, 17 Ch. D.
675, 0. A. ; but see Lowden v. Blahey, 23 Q. B. D. 332, 334 ; and does not
(except in the distinct and modified form noticed inf. p. 94) extend to
facts communicated to the solr by a third party, nor to knowledge acquired
by the solr from a third person as well as the client ; and it must be clearly
stated that the knowledge was obtained by the solr in his character of solr,
and from the client : Spenceley v. Schulenhurgh, 7 East, 357 ; Deshorough v.
Rawlins, 3 M. & C. 515 ; Sawyer v. Birchmore, 3 M. & K. 572 ; Thomas v.
Bawlings, 27 Beav. 140 ; Lewis v. Pennington, 6 Jur. N. S. 478 : 29 L. J.
Ch. 670 ; 8 W. R. 465 ; Ford v. Tennant, 32 Beav. 162 ; Marsh v. Keith,
1 Dr. & S. 342 ; Exp. Campbell, 5 Ch. 703 ; Page v. Ward, 17 W. R. 435 ;
Be Land Credit Society of Ireland, 15 W. R. 703 ; but " all things reason-
ably necessary in the shape of communication to the legal advisers are
protected from production or discovery in order that the legal advice may
be obtained safely and sufficiently " : Jessel, M. R., 17 Ch. D. 682, C. A.
Thus, the privilege extends to communications between solr and his town
agent, and the client and the town agent : Hitghes v. Biddulph, 4 Russ.
190 ; and to correspondence passing through a third person acting as the
medium of communication between the client or solr : Wheder v. Le Mar-
chant, sup. ; Bwnhury v. B., 2 Beav. 173 ; Beid v. Langlois, 1 M. & G. 638 ;
Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Ch. D. 644 ; Steele v. Stewart,
1 Ph. 471 ; Carpmael v. Powis, ibid. 687 ; Hooper v. Ghimm, 10 W. R. 644 ;
and between the solr and his witnesses : Curling v. Perring, 2 M. & K. 380 ;
Holmes v. Baddeley, 1 Ph. 476 ; to communications between a Scotchman
in Scotland and Scotch solrs in London, who acted as his legal advisers :
Lawrence v. Campbell, 4 Drew. 485 ; 7 W. R. 336 ; to those between a
co.'s officers, agents, engineers, &c. and the solrs of the co. : Wilson v.
Northampton, dsc. By., 14 Eq. 477 ; and with persons doing the work of
the solr, so as to stand in his position : Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 26 ;
ex. gr., to the reports of an accountant employed by the solr : Walsham
V. Stainton. 2 H. & M. 1.
The privilege is that of the client, not of the legal adviser, who is bound
to claim it on the client's behalf : Anderson v. Banh of British Columbia.
2 Ch. D. 649 ; Procter v. Smiles, 55 L. T. 527 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 467 ; but is
equally extensive whether asserted by the solr or the client : semhle,
Thompson v. FalJc, 1 Drew. 26.
A party cannot be required to answer as to his information and belief
derived exclusively from privileged communications : Lyell v. Kennedy,
9 App. Ca. 81.
The advice or communication in order to be privileged must have been
given by the legal adviser professionally and confidentially : see Wheeler
V. Le Marchant, 17 Ch. D. 682 ; Bursill v. Tanner, 16 Q. B. D. 5, C. A. ;
Gardner v. Irvin, 4 Ex. D. 53, C. A. ; O'Shea v. Wood, [1892] P. 286, C. A. ;
Beg. V. Bullivant, [1900] 1 Q. B. 163, 168, C. A. ; 8. C. nom. Bullivanl v.
A. 6. for Victoria, [1901] A. C. 196, H. L. ; Kennedy v. Lyell 23 Ch. D.
405, 406 ; Foakes v. Webb, 28 Ch. D. 287 ; Beg. v. Cox, 14 Q. B. D. 153
(C. C. R.) ; and not as a friend : Smith v. Daniell, 18 Eq. 649 ; though
after the dispute arose : Greenlaw v. King, 1 Beav. 137 ; or mere state-
ments of fact : O'Shea v. Wood, [1892] P. 290, C. A. ; but the solrs having,
without the client's knowledge, ceased to practise, makes no difference :
Devaynes v. Robinson, 20 Beav. 142 ; Galley v. Bichards, 19 Beav. 401.
And the princijile extends to notes of examination of witnesses under
sect. 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, by a trustee in bankruptcy, with
the view of enabling his solr to advise him as to proceedings with reference
to the bankrupt's affairs : Learoyd v. Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co.,
[1893] 1 Ch. 686.
Discovery. ^1
A solr had to answer to whom, when and why, he parted with documents For what
of his client formerly in his possession : Banner v. Jackson, ] D. & S. 472 ; privilege
and could not claim privilege so as to refuse discovery of the residence of a cannot be
ward of Court : Ramsbotham v. Senior, 8 Eq. 575. claime .
A solr employed to obtain the execution of a deed, and who was one of
the witnesses, was not precluded from giving evidence as to what passed at
the time of execution : Crawcour v. Salter, 18 Ch. D. 30, C. A.
And in general a solr must state the names of the clients on whoso behalf
he claims privilege : Bursill v. Tanner, 16 Q. B. D. 1, C. A. ; and must dis-
close facts as to which he himself, if called as a witness, would be obliged to
answer ; e.g., in an action for specific performance of an agreement, whether
interviews and correspondence had not taken place between the solrs of
the parties, and between the Deft's solr and a third person in reference
to the agreement : Foakes v. Webh, 28 Ch. D. 287.
The privilege does not extend to protect communications between solr Traud.
and client for effecting a fraud impeached in the action : Morninglon v.
M., 2 J. & H. 703 ; Feaver v. Williams, 11 Jur. N. S. 902 ; 13 L. T. 270 ;
Phillips r.Holmer, 15 W.R. 578; Be Postlethwaite, P. v. Bickman, 35 Ch. D.
725 ; Bussell v. Jackson, 9 Ha. 392 ; Follett v. Jeffryes, 1 Sim. N. S. 3 ; and
where a sale by trustees to one of themselves was impeached as fraudu-
lent, communications between one of them and his co-trustee acting as his
solr were not privileged : Be Postlethwaite, P. v. Bickman, 35 Ch. D. 725 ;
and communications made to a solr by a client for the purpose of being
guided in the commission of a crime were not privileged, although the solr
was ignorant of the purpose for which his advice was sought : Beg. v. Cox,
14 Q. B. D. 153 (C. C. R.) ; but see Charlton v. Coombes, 4 Gift. 372 ; and
as to documents shown to contain legal advice or opinions, Sankey v.
Alexander, Ir. Rep. 8 Eq. 241. And that a client's address, communicated
to his solr by him when applying for advice, is privileged, unless solr and
client were jointly engaged in commission of some wrongful act, see Be
Arnott, 60 L. T. 109 ; 37 W. R. 223.
The privilege exists, though the solr claiming it be charged with fraud
in conducting the client's business : Qreenoagh v. Gaskell, 1 M. & K. 98 ;
but see also Gartside v. Outram, 3 Jur. N. S. 40 ; 5 W. R. 35 ; 26 L. J. Ch.
113 ; or attempting to " evade " a statute : Bullivant v. A. G.for Victoria,
[1901] A. C. 196, H. L. ; but where fraud is alleged against a Deft, communi-
cations as to the subject-matter of the alleged fraud are not privileged,
whether the solr is or is not a party to the alleged fraud : Williams v.
■ Quebrada By., Ltd., [1895] 2 Ch. 751.
The privilege is not lost by the client's death : Bullivant v. A. G. for Death of
Victoria, sup., and can in general be claimed by the represves of the client client,
and the solr : Minet v. Morgan, 8 Ch. 361 ; 21 W. R. 467 ; Gresley v.
Mousley, 2 K. & J. 288 ; but the privilege that belonged to a testator
cannot be claimed by his exors against the beneficiaries under his will :
Bussell V. Jackson, 9 Ha. 387 ; nor can it be claimed by a solr in an action
against him by the client : Gresley v. Mousley, 2 K. & J. 288 ; Wynne v.
Humberstone, 27 Beav. 421 ; 32 L. T. 306.
The privilege continues, although the solr, &c. afterwards becomes in- Solr party
terested in the matter in dispute : Chant v. Brown, 7 Ha. 79 ; where in a interested,
dispute between cs. q. t., one employed the trustee as his solr, communi-
cations between them were not privileged from the other c. q. i. : Tugwell
V. Hooper, 10 Beav. 348 ; and as to the right of a c. q. t. in respect of
documents relating to the trust, v. sup. p. 87.
The privilege does not extend to letters, &c. written by Deft's solr to a Letters to
third party (the Deft's agent) before the dispute arose or could have arisen : third party.
Original, &c. Co. v. Moon, 30 L. T. 193, 585 ; but does generally extend to
communications made before the suit began, and even before it was con-
templated : Minet v. Morgan, 21 W. R. 467 ; 8 Ch. 361 ; and the cases
discussed in the judgment of Lord Selborne : Turton v. Barber, 17 Eq.
329 ; Wilson v. Northampton, cbc. By., 14 Eq. 477 ; Macfarlan v Bolt,
92
Discovery.
[chap. vii.
Copies of
documents.
Litigant in
person.
Town clerk,
&c.
14 Eq. 580 ; Mostyn v. West Moslyn Co., 34 L. T. 531 ; and see O'Skea v.
Wood, [1891] P. 286, C. A. ; [1891] P. 237.
So that documents (e.g., a case for counsel's opinion) are sufficiently pro-
tected by the words " relating to the matters stated in the bill " •- Nias v.
N. <Ss E. Ry., 3 My. & C. 355 ; or " with reference to questions connected
with the matters in dispute in this cause " : Minel v. Morgan, 8 Ch. 361 ;
but in Paddon v. Winch, 9 Eq. 666, letters wore not protected because not
" in anticipation of the claim raised by the suit " and communications
between co-Defts as to their defence were not protected : Ooodall v. Little,
1 Sim. N. S. 155 : Betts v. Menzies. 2 J. & H. 602 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 528 ; 5 W. R.
767 ; Olyn y. Caulfield, 3 Mac. & G. 463 ; secus, where one, a solr, acted as
agent for the solr on the record : Hamilton v. Nott, 16 Eq. 112 ; and see
BlenJcinsopp r.B.,2 Ph. 607 ; Carr v. New Quebrada Co., 1873, W. N. 208. As
to client and solr being both Delts, see Oaskell v. Chambers, 26 Beav. 303.
Copies of documents, though procured by the solr for the purposes of
the action, are not privileged, if the originals were not : Chadwick v.
Bowman, 16 Q. B. D. 561.
Accounts prepared for the purposes of another action in which the trans-
actions referred to were impeached as being in breach of trust were held
privileged ; secus, copy of depositions in which accounts were exhibited,
and which were entered as read in an order compromising such other
action : Goldstone v. Williams, Deacon tb Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 47.
A collection of documents puhlici juris (e.g., entries in public records and
registers, and of photographs of tombstones and houses) may be privileged
if made for the purposes of the action, and the result of the professional
skill of legal advisers : Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
Documents discovered by the Deft after judgment for Pit, and which were
prepared for the defence of a previous action, defended at the cost of a pre-
decessor in title of the Pit, remained privileged (but the Deft was not pre-
cluded on the ground of privilege from giving secondary evidence of their
contents) : Calcraft v. Quest, [1898] 1 Q. B. 759, C. A. ; and so documents
prepared by Pit's solr, and which came into existence for the purpose of
private and confidential communications in an action, were held privileged
in a different action by the same Pit against a different Deft in reference
to the same subject-matter : Pearce v. Foster, 15 Q. B. D. 114, C. A. ; and
see those cases as to the rule being " once privileged always privileged ; "
and qumre, whether such rule ought not to be limited by the consideration
that the privilege is at an end, when the purposes of the confidence on which
it is grounded are exhausted : and see Bray, 409.
As to making a party produce his private memoranda, see Mattock v.
Heath, 1875, W. N. 201.
Indorsements on counsel's brief in the Probate Court, but not his in-
structions, were ordered to be produced, and shorthand notes of the pro-
ceedings : Nicholl v. Jones, 2 H. & M. 595 : Walsham v. Stainton, Id. 1 ;
and see Curtis v. Beaney, [1911] P. 181 (production of counsel's brief not
ordered) ; and that shorthand notes of proceedings, though taken in
anticipation of other proceedings, are not privileged, see Rawstone v. Corp.
of Preston, 30 Ch. D. 110 ; Be Worswick, Rohson v. Worswick, 38 Ch. D.
370 ; distinguishing Nordon v. Defries, 8 Q. B. D. 508, contra.
As the privilege depends entirely on the employment of a solr, it cannot
be claimed by a person conducting his own case : Kyshe v. Holt, 1888,
W. N. 128 ; and see Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 25, C. A.
The privilege may be claimed by the town clerk and solr of a municipal
Corp., interrogated by the opposite party : Corp. of Sal ford v. Lever, 24
Q. B. D. 695 ; unless the corp. have themselves elected to answer by him :
Mayor of Swansea v. Quirk, 5 C. P. D. 106 ; but it does not extend to a
person who is not a legal adviser, not acting for him ; ex. gr., the " pour-
suivant " of a herald's college, employed in the conduct and support of a
pedigree sought to be enrolled in the college : Slade v. Tucker, 14 Ch. D.
824 ; or a patent agent, or a solr acting in that capacity : Moseley v.
Discovery. 93
Victoria Co., 55 L. T. 482 ; or to an official of a co, not being the
solr : Jones v. Qreat Central By. Co., [1910] A. C. 4.
PRIVILBOE — (2) CASES AND OPIiSTIONS OP COUNSEL.
Cases and opinions of counsel as to the matters in question are privileged Limit of
in the same way as communications between solr and client, whether stated privilege,
and obtained in contemplation of, or since the commencement of, the action,
or not : Wilson v. Northampton, c&c. My., 14 Eq. 477 ; Minet v. Morgan, 8
Ch. 361 ; 21 W. R. 467, and cases there ; Bolton v. Corp. of Liverpool, 1
M. & K. 88, is overruled on this point ; and see Manser v. Dix, 1 K. & J.
451 ; 3 W. R. 313 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 466.
Opinions of counsel and the friendly opinion of an ex-chancellor, privilege
for which was claimed as taken " in anticipation of and relation to the
litigation," but not as confidential communications, had to be produced :
Smith V. Daniell, 18 Eq, 649 ; and see Anderson v. Bank of Brit. Columbia,
2 Ch. D. 644.
The privilege has been extended to eases and opinions prepared and ob-
tained with reference to prior suits between the same parties, and to suits
between the Deft and other parties than the Pit, on the same matter :
Combe v. Corp. of London, 1 Y. & C. C. 631 ; Thompson v. Falk, 1 Drew. 21.
A fortiori, when the question in dispute is the same in the former as in the
existing action : Bulloch v. Corrie, 3 Q. B. D. 356 ; and see Pearce v. Foster,
15 Q. B. D. 114, C. A. ; Holmes v. Baddeley, 1 Ph. 476. So also where the
litigation had taken a different form from that contemplated; Lafone v.
Falkland Isl. Co., 27 L. J. Ch. 25. And a copy of a case and opinion, lent
to a Deft by a person who was litigating the same point with the Pit, was
protected : Enthmen v. Cobb, 2 D. M. & G. 632.
The privilege is not necessarily lost by giving a cop3' of, or extract from,
the opinion'to the solron the other side : Carey v. Cuthbert, Jr. Rep. 6 Eq. 599.
Cases, &c., in which Pit and Deft have a joint interest must be produced : Parties
ex. gr., an opinion which had been taken by the predecessor in title of them having a
both : A. 0. v. Berkeley, 2 J. & W. 291 ; and see Reynell v. Sprye, 10 Beav. joint interest.
51. Privilege cannot in general be claimed as against cs. q. t. of the client, rr-jgj^o
who are entitled to the production of documents hold by their trustees in ^nd cs. a t.
that character : Re Cowin, C. v Oravett, 33 Ch. D. 179 ; Lewin, 1253 ; ex. gr.,
cases and opinions submitted and taken by the trustees for their guidance as
such, for the cs. q. t. will have to pay the expense of them : Wynne v. Hum-
berstone, 27 Beav. 421 ; Talbot v. Marshfield, 2 Dr. & Sm. 549 ; Re Postle-
thwaite, P. v. Rickman, 35 Ch. D. 722. Cases and opinions so taken must
be produced in a hostile action against the trustees by the cs. q. t. : Devaynes
v. Robinson, 20 Beav. 42 ; except those taken in contemplation of the action :
Brown v. Oakshott, 12 Beav. 252 ; Bacon v. B., 34 L. T. 349 ; and as to
exors and legatees, see Russell v. Jackson, 9 Ha. 387 ; Bowen v. Pearson,
9 Jur. N. S. 789 ; 11 W. R 811 ; 8 L. T. 495. But cases and opinions
taken for the purposes of the trustees' defence in litigation against them by
their cs. q. t. are protected : Talbot v. Marshfield, s%ip. ; Wynne v. Humber-
stone, sup. ; Thomas v. Sec. of State for India, 18 W. R. 312 ; but evidence
to show that opinions were taken for the trust, and had been printed and
published, was not admitted : Underwood v. Same, 35 L. J. Ch. 545 ; 16
W. R. 752 ; 18 L. T. 351. Exors who had used part of the estate in their
business had to produce the books : Vyse v. Foster, 13 Eq. 602. But a
mere claimant to the trust estate cannot call for them : Wynne v. Humber-
sttme, 27 Beav. 421 ; 32 L. T. 306 ; Newland v. Steer, 11 Jur. N. S. 596 ;
13 L. T. Ill ; 13 W. R. 1014 ; but see Cull v. Inglis, 16 W. R. 477 ; and
Re Pine, M. R. in Cham., 18 Nov. 1863, Dan. 1588 et seq., where an order
was made on a claimant coming in under a decree to produce documents,
and see Oroves v. 0., Kay, xix.
Letters between trustees, and between trustees and their solrs relating to
the trust before action brought, were not privileged against the beneficiaries :
Re Mason, M. v. Cattley, 22 Ch. D. 609 ; and the solr of trustees of a
94
Discovery.
[chap. VII.
Trade-mark
action.
Shareholders.
Ratepayers.
Agent em-
ployed by
solicitor.
Instances of
privilege
disallowed.
settlement could not refuse, on the ground of professional privilege, to
produce the settlement to a judgment creditor of a c. q. t. : Bursill v.
Tanner, 16 Q. B. D. 1, C. A. ; and a trustee cannot claim privilege for com-
munications with his co-trustee employed as his solr : Re Postlethwaite, P
V. Hickman, 35 Ch. D. 722 ; and see Tugwell v. Hooper, 10 Beav. 348.
Trustees are entitled to discovery as to any dealings with the trust pro-
perty, so as to know who are their cs. q. t. : Hurst v. H., 9 Ch. 762. And
letters from a joint solr of two persons {e.g., husband and wife) must be
produced in a subsequent suit between them : Warde v. W., S Mac. & G.
365 ; see also Ford v. De Ponies, 7 W. R. 299 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 993 ; Tugwell v.
Hooper, 10 Beav. 348, et sup. ; Oresley v. Mousley, 2 K. & J. 288, sup. p. 91.
A case for and opinion of a Dutch counsel were privileged : Bunhury v. B. ,
2 Beav. 177.
A draft settled by counsel of an advertisement of the result of successful
proceedings in a trade-mark action is privileged : Lowden v. Blahey, 23
Q. B. D. 332.
On similar principles, shareholders, in an action against the co., were
entitled to discovery of professional communications between the co. and its
legal advisers paid for out of tlie co.'s funds : Oouraud v. Edison Co., 57
L. J. Ch. 498 ; 1888, W. N. 94 ; 37 W. R. 265, C. A. ; and as to the right of a
ratepayer to see cases and opinions taken by the corp., see Corp. of Bristol v.
Cox, 26 Ch. D. 683 ; and that the Court ought in its discretion to refuse
inspection to a parochial elector of cases and opinions of counsel where
such documents have been brought into existence by threats of litigation by
such elector notwithstanding that they are documents within s. 58 (5) of the
Local Government Act, 1894, see Bex v. Godstone B. D. C, [1911] 2 K. B. 465.
PRIVILEGE — (3) COMMUNIOATIONS WITH AGENTS, &C.
Information obtained through an agent employed by the solr is pro-
tected, if confidential, and made in anticipation of, or with a view to,
proceedings in the litigation : Beid v. Langlois, 1 Mac. & G. 627 ; Oreenough
V. Oaskell, 1 My. & K. 98 ; Bustros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 423, C. A. ; but it
must have reference to impending or actual litigation : Wheeler v. Le liar-
chant, 17 Ch. D. 675, C. A. ; Chart. Bank of India v. Bich, 4 B. & S. 73 ;
M'Corquodale v. Bell, 1 C. P. D. 471 ; and see Steele v. Stewart, 1 Ph. 471 ;
and the extension of the privilege to any communications with a mere agent,
made with a view to litigation {see Boss v. Oibbs, 8 Eq. 522), has been dis-
tinctly disapproved : Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Ch. D. 644 ;
Jones V. Great Central By. Co., [1910] A. C. 4.
The privilege extends to all information sent at the instance of the solr
by an agent employed by him, or by the client on the recommendation of
the solr : Bustros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 423, 427, C. A. ; and if a document
comes into existence for the purpose of being communicated to the legal
adviser with the object of obtaining his advice, or of enabling him to pro-
secute or defend an action, it is privileged, as being something done for the
purpose of serving as a communication between adviser and client : South-
wark, &c. Co. v. Quick, 3 Q. B. D. 315, 322, C. A., where information ob-
tained by the client suo motu, for the purpose of being submitted to his solr
with a view to future litigation, was protected ; and see Collins v. Lo^idon
General Omnibus Co., 63 L. J. Q. B. 428. And, as to protection of that
" which comes into existence merely as the materials of the brief," see
Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Ch. D. 644, 656, 0. A.
A medical report to an insurance co., on which the insurance was founded,
had to be produced in an action for the money assured : Mahoney v.
Widows' L. A. Fund, L. R. 6 C. P. 252. A letter written to the English
manager of the Defts by their manager abroad containing information as to
threatened litigation, and intended for laying before their solrs, but not
made as a " confidential communication," was not privileged : Anderson
V. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Ch. D. 654 ; 24 W. R. 724 ; and see English
V. Tottie, 1 Q. B. D. 141. And production was ordered of letters between
Discovery. 95
the Defts' solrs and their surveyor, and between the surveyor and the solrs,
except such, if any, as the Defts should state by affidavit to have been
prepared confidentially after the dispute had arisen, and for the purpose of
obtaining information, evidence, or legal advice with reference to litigation
existing or contemplated between the parties: Wheeler v. Le Marchant,'
17 Ch. D. 675, C. A.
In Lafone v. Falkland Isl. Co., 4 K. & J. 34 ; 6 W. R. 4 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 25,
the privilege was extended to a mere agent collecting evidence ; but cf.
Jones V. Great Central Ry. Co., (1909) 100 L. T. 710 ; and as to letters between
Pit himself (who was not then employing a solr) and third persons, see
Storey v. Lennox, 1 My. & C. 525 ; and see Bichards v. Qellatly, L. R. 7
0. P. 127 ; Parr v. L. C. & D. Ry., 24 L. T. 558 ; M'Corquodalev. Bell, 1
C. P. D. 471 ; English v. Tottie, 1 Q. B. D. 141.
Correspondence between vendor and purchaser, referring to an expected
claim by B., was to be produced in a suit by B. against the purchaser :
Paddon v. Winch, 9 Eq. 666. An examination in bankruptcy taken in con-
templation of the suit was privileged : Fenton v. Queens, <fcc. Co., 38 L. J.
Ch. 263; 17W. R. 585.
The rules in law and equity were not, it seems, uniform : see Wolley v.
N. L. Ry., L. R. 4 C. P. 602 ; Chartered Bank v. Rich, 4 B. & S. 73 ; but any
such difference has been now abolished, and the rules of equity prevail :
Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, sup.
As to communications being privileged as confidential between master and Master
servant or workman, &c., and restraining disclosure, see inf. pp. 673, 674 et and servant.
seq.. Chap. XXXI., "Ikjunctions " ; Kerr, Inj., Chap. 11 ; and that fraud
of the employer supersedes the private obligation of secrecy, Oartside v.
Outram, 5 W. R. 35 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 39 ; and as to private letters, Hopkinson
v. L. Burghley, 1 Ch. 447 ; Howard v. Gunn, 32 Beav. 462 ; and see Form
15, sup. p. 59 ; Allen v. Royden, 42 L. J. C. P. 206 ; Crowther v. Appleby,
L. R. 9 C. P. 23. Notes prepared by the manager of a co. for an arbitration
which never took place, were privileged in a suit against a co. . Carr v.
New Quebrada Co., 1873, W. N. 208.
Arbitrators, whose fees have not been paid, are privileged from disclosing Arbitrators,
anything tending to show the contents of the award : Ponsford v. Swaine,
1 J. & H. 433. Secus, where fraud and collusion were alleged and denied in
general terms by the arbitrator : Padley v. Lincoln Water Co., 2 M. & G. 68.
Husband and wife are privileged from answering as to access before Husband
marriage, although the question is as to the parentage of a child born three and wife,
months after their marriage : Anmi., 22 Beav. 481 ; 23 Beav. 273.
A communication made to the wrong person by a bona fide mistake was Communica-
held privileged : Tompson v. Dashwood, 1 1 Q. B. D. 43. to wrong
As to discovery and production in patent oases, v. inf. pp. 645, 646. person.
The right to discovery may be lost by contract : Tumey v. Bayley, 4 D. J.
& S. 332 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 499 ; overruling S. C, 34 Beav. 105.
PRIVILEGE (4) PUBLIC POLIOY.
On grounds of public policy, documents relating to affairs of state and the
public service have been held privileged from discovery. Thus, in a cause
of damage for a collision by a vessel belonging to the R. N., though pro-
duction of the log-book was ordered, reports to the Admiralty were held
privileged : The Bellerophon, 44 L. J. (Adm.) 5 ; 23 W. R. 248 ; 31 L. T.
756 ; and see Wright v. Mills, 62 L. T. 558 ; Hennessy v. Wright, inf., and
cases there considered ; and Fitzgibbon v. Greer, Ir. Rep. 9 C. L. 294 ; and
Wadeer v. E. I. Co., 8 D. M. & G. 186 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 407, where exemption
was claimed by the E. I. Co., and allowed, for documents of a political
character.
The claim for privilege should be supported by the oath of the person at
the head of the particular department of the public service with which the
communication has taken place : Beatson v. Skene, 5 H. & N. 583 ; Hennessy
v. Wright, 57 L. J. Q.B. 530 ; 59 L. T. 795 ; 36 W. R. 878 ; Kain v. Farrer,
96 Discovery. [chap. vii.
37 L. T. 469 ; but it is not in every case essential that the principal officer of
a government department should himself attend in Court to take the objec-
tion. In many cases the Court will be satisfied with the affidavit of a
responsible officer : In Re Joseph Hargreaves, Ltd., [1900] 1 Ch. 347, C. A.,
in which case the Judge, having made, under s. 115 of the Companies Act,
1862, now substituted by s. 174 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908,
an order that the surveyor of taxes should attend for examination and
produce some balance-sheets of the co. which had been delivered to him for
the purpose of assessment of income tax, the C. A., reversing Wright, J.,
declined to interfere with the discretion of the Judge.
PBIVrLBGE — (5) CKIMINATIUa QTJBSTIONS.
Discovery need not be given if it would form evidence or links in a chain
of evidence of facts that would expose the Deft —
(a) To criminal proceedings : Thorpev. Macaulai/,5'M3,d. 218 ; Macaulay
v. Shackell, 1 Bli. N. S. 96 ; Parkhurst v. Lowten, 2 Swa. 202 ; Claridge v.
Hoare, 14 Ves. 59. It is for the Court to decide if the answer would foim a
link in criminatory evidence : Sidebottom v. Adkins, 3 Jur. N. S. 631 ; 15
W. R. 743. Public or private trustees cannot refuse to answer as to corrupt
execution of the trust : Bummer v. Corp. of Chippenham, 14 Ves. 245 ; and
see A. G. v. Broivn, 1 Swa. 265 ; M'LoughUn v. Dwyer, Ir. Rep. 9 C. P. 170.
A wife may decline to answer on the ground that her answers might subject
her husband to a charge of felony : Carlwright v. Green, 8 Ves. 405. A cor-
poration cannot decline answering as to matters which could not form the
subject of an indictment, or only of a prosecution in Sicily : K. of Two
Sicilies v. Willcox, 1 Sim. N. S. 301, 334. And that a party cannot refuse
to answer or to produce documents after having disclosed enough for a,
conviction, see 8. C, and Ewing v. Osbaldision, 6 Sim. 608. The privilege
cannot be claimed after a pardon under the great seal for the supposed
crime : B. v. Boyes, 7 Jur. N. S. 1158 ; 1 B. & S. 311.
A witness will not be excused from answering upon a mere statement of
his belief that his answer may tend to criminate him. The Court must be
satisfied that there is reasonable ground for him to apprehend danger, but
where this is apparent, great latitude must be allowed : Re Reynolds, 20
Ch. D. 294, C. A. ; and see Exp. Gilbert, In re Genese, 1886, W. N. 134 ;
Adams v. Lloyd, 3 H. & N. 351 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 590 ; 6 W. R. 752 ; M'Fadzen
V. Mayor of Liverpool, L. R. 3 Ex. 279 ; Bradley v. Clayton, 26 L. R. Ir.
405 ; Kelly v. Calhoun, [1899] 2 1. R. 199.
The party claiming protection for a document on this ground must pledge
his oath that, to the best of his belief, its production would tend to criminate
him : Webb v. East, 5 Ex. D. 108, C. A. ; Kelly v. Colhoun, [1899] 2 I. R.
199 ; but in an action of libel Defts were not bound to swear that a letter on
which the action was founded would subject them to a criminal prosecution
in order to avoid production, because the letter, if material at all to Pit's
case, must have contained criminating matter : Hill v. Campbell, L. R. 10
C. P. 222 ; see Greenfield v. Reay, L. R. 10 Q. B. 217 ; and see Tayl. Ev.
pp. 964, 1182 ; and in answer to interrogatories in an action for libel, it was
sufficient for the Deft, who denied publication, to object upon the ground
that his answer might tend to criminate him, without saying that he
believed it would do so : Lamb v. Munsier, 10 Q. B. D. 110.
A party examined under 15 & 16 V. c. 80, s. 31 (for which O. LV, 16, is now
substituted), could refuse to answer questions likely to prejudice him in a
pending action : Venables v. Schweitzer, 16 Eq. 76.
(b) To ecclesiastical censures ; as for an incestuous marriage : Brownsword
V. Edwards, 2 Ves. 243 ; fornication : Finch v. F., lb. 491 ; or simony :
Parkhurst v. Lowten, 2 Swa. 214, 5. As to questions tending to degrade the
witness, see Taylor, p. 1182.
(c) To penalties in actions by common informers : Martin v. Treacher,
16 Q. B. D. 507, C. A. ; under the Metropolis Man. Act, 1855, s. 54 ; Runn-
ings V. Williamson, 10 Q. B. D. 459 ; in action for treble damages under
Discovery. 97
2 Will. & M., sess. 1, c. 5, s. 4, for pound-breach and rescue of chattels dis-
trained for non-payment of tithe rent-charge : Jones v. J., 22 Q. B. D. 425 ;
in action, under 11 Geo. 2, o. 19, for double the value of goods fraudulently
removed by a tenant : Hdbhs v. Hudson, 25 Q. B. D. 232, C. A. ; under the
Patents, &o. Act, 1883, s. 58, now amended and substituted by the Patents
and Designs Act, 1907, s. 60, for infringement of copyright in a design :
Saunders v. Wiel, [1892] 2 Q. B. 18, 321 ; secus, where the penalty is im-
posed merely by way of compensation, as under the Copyright Act (3 & 4
Will. 4, c. 15, s. 2) : Adams v. Batley ; Cole v. Francis, 18 Q. B. D. 625,
C. A. ; or where the proceedings are to obtain an order, disobedience to
which involves a penalty, as ex. gr., under the Rivers Pollution Prevention
Act, 1876 (39 & 40 V. o. 75), ss. 3, 10, for it must not be assumed that the
order will be disobeyed : Derby Corp. v. Derbyshire County Council, [1897]
A. C. 550, H. L. affirming, C. A., [1896] 2 Q. B. 297 ; and the rule does not
apply to questions tending to expose the party to penalties under 13 Eliz.
c. 5 : May, Vol. Conv. 540, 541 ; Bunn v. B., 4 D. J. & S. 316 ; but did,
under the late Stock Jobbing Act, 7 Geo. 2, c. 8, repealed by 23 & 24 V.
0. 28 : Short v. Mercier, 3 M. & G. 205 ; S. C, 2 D. & S. 635 (but this Act
did not apply to railway shares : Williams v. Trye, 18 Beav. 366) ; and under
a private Act, for acting as a broker without licence : Robinson v. Kitchen, 8
D. M. & G. 88 ; Green v. Weaver, 1 Sim. 404. As to penalties under the
Solicitors Act, 6 & 7 V. c. 73, see Scott v. Miller, Job. 220, 328 ; and see
Asian's Case, 5 Jur. N. S. 615, 779 ; 4 D. & J. 320 ; and penalties under the
Foreign Enlistment Act : The Mary, L. R. 2 A. & E. 319. Bankruptcy
proceedings being of a penal nature, a petitioning creditor cannot obtain
discovery or interrogatories to prove the allegations in the petition : Re a
Debtor, [1910] 2 K. B. 59.
The witness must state his belief that the penalty would be incurred :
Scott V. Miller, sup.
(d) To forfeiture of estate ; as for simony : Parkhurst v. Lowten, 2 Swa.
194 ; 1 Mer. 391 ; 3 Mad. 121 ; or for infringing the Pluralities Act (1 & 2
V. c. 103): Botelerv. Allington, 3 Atk. 457; or for assigning a lease without
licence ; or for breaches of covenants in leases : Mexborough {Earl) v. Whit-
wood Urban District Council, [1897] 2Q. B. lll,C.A.(approvingP2/ev.BM«e?--
field, 5 B. & S. 829, and overruling Seaward v. Dennington, 4A W. R. 696) ;
Ld. Uxbridge v. Staveland, 1 Vez. 56 ; May v. Hawkins, 3 W. R. 550 : 1 Jur.
N. S. 600, Exch. ; or by a marriage without consent : Chancey v. Fenhoulet,
2 Vez. 265 ; 2 Atk. 392 ; or for waste : lb. ; Bolder v. Allington, 3 Atk. 453 ;
or (of marital rights) by a false oath of the consent of the bride's father :
A. G. V. Imcas, 2 Ha. 566 ; or of estate by being an alien : Finch v. F.,'2, Vez.
491 ; and as to forfeiture of an estate by an attempt to alienate, see Ham-
brook V. Smith, 17 Sim. 209 ; 21 L. J. Ch. 320 ; 16 Jur. 144 ; and see Hurst v.
H., 9 Ch. 762 ; or by having acted as agent for the Confederate States of
America : U. S. v. Macrae, 3 Ch. 79. But if the penalty would go to the
Pit, and he waive it {Ld. Uxbridge v. Staveland, sup.), or if the time within
which the penalty must be sued for has elapsed {Corp. Trin. Ho. v. Burge,
2 Sim. 411), discovery must be given.
Exposure to a civil suit alone is no bar to discovery : 46 Geo. 3, c. 37.
Leave to administer interrogatories ought not to be refused on the ground Objection to
that it is plain they must criminate ; the objection must be taken in the be taken in
affidavit in answer : Harvey v. Lovekin, 10 P. D. 122, C. A. ; Allhusen v. affidavit in
Labouchere, 3 Q. B. D. 654 ; Fisher v. Owen, 8 Ch. D. 645, C. A. answer.
The same principle applies under the usual order for an affidavit of docu-
ments : National Association of Operative Plasterers v. Smithies, [1906] A. C.
434; and where the objection is to producing a document, it should be taken
in the affidavit of documents : Webb v. East, 5 Ex. D. 108, C. A. ; Spokes v.
Orosvenor Hotel Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 124, C. A.
PROCESS IN DEFAULT OF DISCOVEEY.
By 0. XXXI, 21, " if any party fails to comply with any order to answer
VOL. I. H
98
Discovery.
[chap. VII.
interrogatories, or for discovery or for inspection of documents, lie shall be
liable to attachment. He shall also, if a Pit, be liable to have his action
dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a Deft, to have his defenoe,if any,
struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended,
and the party interrogating may apply to the Court or a Judge for an order
to that effect, and an order may be made accordingly." For forms of appli-
cation, see D. C. V. 962.
Service By r. 22, " service of an order for interrogatories or discovery or inspection
of order. made against any party on his solr, shall be sufficient service to found an
application for an attachment for disobedience to the order. But the party
against whom the application for an attachment is made may show in answer
to the application that he has had no notice or knowledge of the order."
An order, made in presence of Deft's solr, that if Deft did not file
answers to interrogatories within three days judgment might be signed
against him, need not be served upon him : Warden v. Bichter, 23 Q. B. D.
124 ; and see 0. lh, 14.
Though service on the solr is sufficient, yet 0. xli, 5, requiring indorsement
on the copy served, showing consequences of disobedience, applies, and
attachment could not issue in the absence of such indorsement : Hampden
V, Wallis, 26 Oh. D. 746, C. A.
A solr, upon whom an order for interrogatories or discovery or inspection
is served, is liable to attachment if he neglect, without reasonable excuse, to
give notice thereof to his client : r. 23.
Attachment. By 0. XLlv, 2, no writ of attachment is to be issued without leave of the
Court, to be applied for on notice to the party against whom the attachment
is to be issued.
It has been held that the provisions for attachment do not apply to orders
for discovery of names of partners under O. sxvinA, 1 ; nor to orders for
accounts, under O. xv, 1 : Pike v. Keene, 24 W. R. 322 ; 35 L. T. 341.
Where the order for attachment was discharged on an insufficient affidavit,
the order of discharge was discharged, so as to revive the original order,
but attachment was not to issue for a fortnight : Price v. P., 48 L. J.
Ch. 215.
Where Pit was shown at Deft's office a letter book, inspection of which
was refused till counsel's opinion had been taken, and Deft subsequently
asserted he had lost the book, an attachment was ordered : Mornington v.
Keene, 4 W. R. 793.
Where the order is complied with after the issue of the writ of attachment,
the enforcement of the writ ought to be stayed : Oay v. Hancock, 56 L. T.
726.
For oases in which the penalty by attachment has been enforced, see
Thomas v. Palin, 21 Ch. D. 360 ; Litchfield v, Jones. 25 Ch. D. 64 ; Joy v.
Hadley, 22 Ch. D. 571 ; Mellor v. Thompson, 1883, W. N. 128.
One Pit may enforce by attachment against his co-Pit compliance with
an order requiring the Pits to make an affidavit of documents : Seal ct-
Edgelow v. Kingston, [19081 2 K. B. 579.
Where the defence is struck out, the Deft is in default, and 0. xxvii
apphes : Fisher v. Hughes, 25 W. R. 528.
Dismissal. The penalty of dismissal will not be enforced, except as a last resort : see
1875, W. N. 202, 204 ; Hartley v. Owen, 34 L. T. 752 ; Twycross v. Grant,
1875, W. N. 201, 229 ; Kennedy v. Lyell, 1882, W. N. 137 ; Dauvillier v.
Myers. 1883, W. N. 58.
For form of order dismissing action for want of prosecution, see inf..
Chap. XI.
For the enforcement of the penalty against a Deft whose disobedience was
wilful, see Haigh v. H., 31 Ch. D. 478.
Waiver. As to waiver of contempt by acceptance of answer after time, see Roberts
v. Albert Bridge Co., 8 Ch. 753.
For the practice on attachment for default in answering in the Lancaster
Court of C. P., see Coston v. Blackburn, L. R. 8 Q. B. 54.
Discovery. 99
TTSINa DISCOVERY AT THE TRIAL.
As to using in evidence answers bo interrogatories, see 0. XXXI, 24.
As to the eflfect of this rule, see Lydl v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 1, 15, 29, C. A.
Portions of the answer to a bill for discovery could not be read upon the
trial at law without reading the whole, and documents admitted in the
answer were part of it, and could not be read without reading the whole
answer, unless by special order of the Court of Chancery that they should be
produced at the trial : Brown v. Thornton, 1 M. & C. 243 ; Aston v. L. Exeter,
6 Ves. 288 ; Hylton v. Morgan, ib. 293. As to reading parts of an answer
and withdrawing parts already read, see Freeman v. Tatham, 5 Ha. 329 ; and
see O. xxxvn, 21 — 25.
As to reading a dismissed co-Deft's answer on appeal from the order dis-
missing him, see Nesbitt v. Berridge, 4 D. J. & S. 45.
INSPECTION OF PROPERTY.
An order for the inspection of any property the subject of the action may
be made by the Court or a Judge, and authority given to enter any land or
building to take samples and make observations or experiments : O. l, 3,
The application for such order may be made by any party to the action :
r. 6 ; or the Judge himself may inspect : r. 4 ; but inspection will not be
ordered of articles not in the possession, power, or custody of the Defts,
their servants or agents : Garrard v. Edge, 37 W. R. 501 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 397 ;
60 L. T. 557.
And inspection cannot be granted to one Deft of property belonging to
another Deft when there is no right in question between them : Shaw v.
Smith, 18 Q. B. D. 193, C. A.
The Court has power, under r. 3, to make an interlocutory order before
trial, giving Pit liberty to enter upon Deft's land and make excavations :
Lumb V. Beaumont, 27 Ch. D. 356.
And for cases as to inspection, see Whaley v. Brancker, 12 W. R. 570, 595 ;
10 Jur. N. S. 535 ; 10 L. T. 155 ; Cooper v. Ince Hall Co., 1876, W. N. 24
(trespass) ; Barlow v. Bailey, 1870, W. N. 136 ; Flower v. Lloyd, 1876,
W. N. 169, 230 (nuisance) ; Chaplin v. Puttick, [1898] 2 Q. B. 160, C. A.
(stamp album sent abroad).
In Mitchell v. Barley Colliery Co., 10 Q. B. D. 457, inspecticm by Pit wao
allowed on his pajring costs in any event.
( 100 ) [chap. VIIL
CHAPTER VIII.
EVIDENCE.
1. Leave to serve Subpcena ad Testificandum in Scotland —
17 & 18 V. c. 34.
It appearing to tlie satisfaction of the Judge that it is proper to
compel the personal attendance at the trial of this action of A. who
is now at — within the United Kingdom but out of the jurisdiction
of this Court, It is ordered that a writ of subpoena ad testificandum
(or duces tecum) do issue in special form commanding the said A. to
attend at such trial wherever he shall be within the United Kingdom.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 335, 336.
2. Leave to prove particular Facts by Affidavit — 0. xxxvir, 1.
Order that the Pit be at liberty to prove by affidavit the state-
ments contained in paragraphs — of the Pit's statement of claim. —
Briesemann v. Sm,ith, M. E. at Chambers, 11 Dec. 1877, A. 2182.
For form of summons or notice, see D. C. F. 312.
3. Witness to attend to he Cross-Examined on Ms Affidavit —
0. xxxviii, 1.
Order that A. do attend before Mr. Justice — in his lordship's
Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, at • — o'clock
in the forenoon, for the purpose of being cross-examined on his affi-
davit in support of the Pit's motion [or petition or summons] or when-
ever thereafter the said motion shall come on to be heard.
4. Witness to attend at Chambers to be Examined — 0. xxxvii, 5.
Order that the Deft do attend at the Chambers of Mr. Justice
• — situate at &c., on &c., to be examined in reference to &c. [state
matters on which he is to be examined]. — See Re Davis's Estate, Fother-
gill V. Davies, V.-C. B., 1 Feb. 1877, A. 359 ; and see Gilbert v. Smith,
V.-C. M., 31 Jan. 1877, A. 174.
5. Order directing the Governor of — Prison to Produce a Witness
{in Prison for Contempt).
[Read order for committal]. Order that the governor of H. M.'s
prison at &c., do produce the said W. before Mr. Justice — , in his
Evidence.
lordship's Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, on
&c., at half-past ten o'clock in the forenoon precisely, to give evidence
on behalf of B. and so from day to day until the said W. shall have
given his evidence as aforesaid. — See Re Morris, Kay, J., 5 March,
1890, B. 224 ; followed in Jenks v. Ditton, 76 L. T. 591, Stirling, J.
See D. C. P. 337 ; Dan. 548 ; Prison Act, 1898 (61 & 62 V. c. 41), s. 11.
There is no power to grant a writ of habeas corpus to bring up a party
to an action who is in prison in order that he may conduct his case in
person : WeUon v. Neal, 15 Q. B. D. 471.
In order to bring up a witness who is in prison on civil process, it is not
the proper course to move for a writ of habeas corpus, but the visiting
justices require an order on the governor of the prison, who will comply
with it.
6. Order directing Gaoler to produce Prisoner (serving a term of
Penal Servitude) as a Witness.
It appearing by an affidavit of &c., filed &c., that A. B. is a prisoner
in (Her) Majesty's prison at Chatham undergoing a term of penal
servitude. This Court doth order that the Gaoler of (Her) Majesty's
Prison at Chatham in the County of Kent do have before his lordship
Mr. Justice K. in his Court No. — , Royal Courts of Justice, Strand,
London, on &c., at the hour of &c., the body of the said A. B. com-
mitted and detained in his custody as it is said, then and there to
testify the truth and give evidence on behalf of the Pit, and so from
day to day until the said A. B. shall have given his evidence as
aforesaid, and when he shall have given his evidence then that the
said Gaoler take him back without delay to the said prison to be
detained therein until he shall be from thence discharged by due
course of law. — Farrow v. The Third General Post Office Clerks
Mutual &c. Society, 31 Jan. 1890, A. 60.
In no case before the Court is a habeas ad testificandum correct. By the
Criminal Procedure Act, 1853, a warrant or order is substituted for it except
where witness is in prison imder civil process, in which case the Court which
sent him to prison has power to make the order on the Governor of the
prison and no habeas is necessary.
Under the Arbitration Act, 1889, sect. 18, which only authorizes a habeas,
it is still necessary, whether the prisoner is a criminal or civil prisoner.
For form of order for prosecution of Deft in custody for contempt for
his examination before the Sheriff on an inquiry under a writ of elegit
issued against him, see Be Steatham, S. v. S., 24 April, 1899, B. 1226.
7. Order appointing Special Examiner to take Examination of a
Witness — 0. xxxvii, 5.
Oedee that S. of &c. be appointed examiner for the purpose of
taking the examination of B. of &c. as a witness on behalf of the
Deft.
This form is also applicable to an examination de bene esse, in which case
those words must be inserted after the word " examination."
194*
^^2 Evidence. [chap. viii.
It is, however, not now the practice of the Court to appoint a special
examiner : Marquis of Bute v. J arms, 33 Ch. D. 157 ; Badddey v. Bailey,
1893, W. N. 56.
For order for the oral examination of witnesses before a district registrar,
see Brewster v. Woodall, V.-C. H. at Chambers, 12 Nov. 1877, A. 1912.
8. Order to comjxl attendance of Witness before an Examiner —
0. xxxvii, 13.
Upon motion &o., by Counsel for the Pits who alleged that the
Deft has been duly served with a subpoena to attend before Mr. A.,
one of the examiners of the Court at &c., to give evidence on behalf
of the Pits, and also to bring with him and produce at the time and
place aforesaid all deeds, documents, and securities in his possession
or power relating to the matters referred to in the inquiry directed
by the order dated &c., as by the affidavit of &c. appears, notwith-
standing which the defendant has not attended to be sworn and
examined as by the Examiner's Certificate dated &c. also appears.
And upon reading &c., This Court doth order that the Deft do attend
at his own expense before Mr. A., one of the examiners of the Court,
and be sworn and examined at such time and place as the said A.
shall appoint, Deft to pay costs of motion. — Re Evans, Evans v.
Noton, [1892] A. 380.
9. Order to take Examination of WiUiess de bene esse before an
Examiner of the Court.
Order that A. of — be examined as a witness in this action before
one of the examiners of the Court de bene esse upon giving to the said
A. and the Pits or Defts — hours' notice of the time and place when
and where such examination is to be taken. — See Barton v. The North
Staffordshire Ry. Co., Kay, J., 7 May, 1887, A. 670.
]0. Witness to be examined before one of the Examiners of the
Court — 0. XXXVII, 39.
Order that A. be examined before one of the examiners of the
Court as a witness on behalf of, &c.
11. To take Evidence de bene esse in an Action to perpetuate Testi-
mony where the Pleadings are not closed.
Order that this action do proceed notwithstanding the default
of the Deft in not delivering a defence. And it is ordered that all
witnesses in this action be examined de bene esse before one of the
examiners of the Court, notwithstanding the pleadings are not
closed.— If . of Bute v. James, V.-C. B., 25 June, 1886, A. 893 ; 33
Ch. D. 157.
In this order the V.-C. followed the analogy of Coveney v. Athill, 1 Dickens,
355
Evidence. 103
12. Publication of Evidence taken in an Action to perpetuate
Testimony.
Order that the depositions of &c., taken in the first action to
perpetuate testimony on &c., be published when the evidence in the
second action is closed, but not before the — day of — ; and this
order is to be without prejudice to any question as to the admissibility
of such depositions in evidence at the hearing of the second action,
and either party in the same action is to be at liberty to apply to
have the time for such publication extended. — See Vane v. 7.,
V.-C. M., 9 March, 1876, B. 470. And see Mogridge v. Hall, Lady
Llanover v. Homfray, Phillips v. Lady Llanover, V.-C. H., 13 Ch. D.
380 ; 28 W. E. 487 ; afid. C. A., 19 Ch. D. 224 ; 30 W. K. 557 ; and
Brandon's Trusts, M. E., 13 Ch. D. 773.
For form of notice of motion, see D. C. P. 808.
13. Another Form.
Order that the depositions of &c. taken in this action to perpetuate
testimony, and any other deposition taken in this action, and not
already published, be published forthwith, but without prejudice to
any exception that may be made against reading any of the said
depositions as evidence ; And any persons interested are to be at
liberty to take certified copies of such depositions, and to make such
use of proceedings, interrogatories and depositions in this action as
they may be advised. — Berkeley v. B., Stirling, J., 24 June, 1890, A.
845.
For an order on motion under the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856
(19 & 20 V. 0. 113), for the examination upon oath of witnesses resident in
England pursuant to rogatory letters issued by the Court of the Third
Division of the Judicial Circuit of Lisbon, see Ee Duchess ofSaldanha, M. R.,
5 March, 1879, B. 401.
And for subsequent order that the depositions so taken be filed in the same
way as if taken in an action in this Court, and that the applicant be at liberty
to take office or certified copies of them for the purpose of using them in the
proceedings in Portugal, with liberty to apply to take the depositions off the
file and transmit them to the Portuguese Court, if necessary, see 8. C, M. R.,
9 May, 1879, B. 895.
For an order appointing four examiners to examine witnesses abroad, two
alone to act, and providing that the others shall act in the event of the inca-
pacity of either of the two, see London Bank of Mexico v. Hart, V.-C. G., 11
June,' 1868, B. 1991 ; 8. C, 6 Eq. 467, where the form of the order is given.
NOTES.
Under the Attendance of Witnesses Act, 1854 (17 & 18 V. c. 34), s. 1, a
Judge of any of the Superior Courts of England, Ireland or Scotland may
order that a writ of subpoena ad testificandum shall issue in special form to
compel the personal attendance at any trial of any witness who is not within
the jurisdiction, and the service of any such writ in any part of the United
Kingdom shall be as valid as if served within the jurisdiction ; and Jud. Act,
1884 (47 & 48 V. o. 61), s. 16, gives power to any Judge of the High Court
to make such an order, even when the Court is not sitting.
104
Evidence.
[chap.
VIII.
Court may
exclude
aflSdavit
evidence.
As to the circumstances under which the Court or a Judge may order
evidence to be taken othervifise than viva voce, in open Court, see O. xxxvii,
1, 5. And see O. xvi, 21, as to where any party to any cause or matter
is under disability.
Under 0. xxxvii, 1, the Court may, in an admon action, and after the
Master has made his certificate, receive, if it think fit, fresh affidavit
evidence on further consideration : May v. Newton, 34 Ch. D. 347 ; and see
Be Revill, Leigh v. Bumney, 55 L. T. 542 ; Be Michael, Dessau v. Lewin,
52 L. T. 609
Agreement. Where in an agreement to take evidence by affidavit at the hearing the
word " only " was not used, it was not such an agreement under 0. xxxvii,
1 , as to prevent a witness being examined at the trial : Qlossop v. Heston, &c.
Local Board, 26 W. R. 433 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 536.
The consent must be a formal consent in writing : New Westminster
Brewery Go. v. Hannah, 1 Ch. D. 278 ; but a guardian {Fryer v. Wiseman,
24 W. R. 205), or a guardian ad litem {Knatchbull v. Fowle, 1 Ch. D. 604),
may consent on behalf of infants without an order. For form of consent,
see D. C. F. 306.
As to consent by guardian ad litem of person of unsound mind, see Piggott
V. Toogood, 1904, W. N. 130.
As to the power of the Court to exclude the affidavit evidence altogether,
and direct oral examination of the witnesses, see Lowell v. Wallis, 53 L. J.
Ch. 494 ; 46 L. T. 593 ; and as to the reluctance of the Court to try actions
for rectification of deeds, except on oral evidence, see Bonhote v. Henderson,
[1895] 1 Ch. 742 ; [1895] 2 Ch. 202, C. A.
Where, after consent given, a party finds that necessary witnesses are
reluctant to give evidence, the Court, on his application to be relieved from
his consent, will direct the examination of such witnesses viva voce, and, at
the option of the other party, discharge the agreement, and order all the
evidence to be taken viva voce at the trial : Warner v. Mosses, 16 Ch. D.
100, C. A.
Time for As to the time within wlaich, after a consent for taking evidence by aifi-
filing. davit, the evidence must be filed and a list thereof delivered by the party,
see 0. xxxvm, 25, 26, 27.
Affidavits not strictly in reply will be disregarded at the trial : Gilbert v.
Comedy Opera Co., 16 Ch. D. 594.
Where on replication new issues were raised by the Pit's affidavits, the
Deft had leave to file evidence in reply : Leech v. Holland, 10 Ch. 362 ;
and affidavits ready, but omitted to be filed, were admitted : Armstrong v.
Armstrong, Ir. Rep. 7 Eq. 84. It is not of course to give an opportunity
of answering evidence filed by leave after the proper time : Poupard v.
Fardell, 18 W. R. 69.
Further A motion for leave to use further evidence could not be made ex parte :
evidence. Bichards v. Curlewis, 18 Beav. 462 ; and the leave had to be applied for
before the hearing : Smith v. Pilgrim, 2 Ch. D. 127.
After Deft's case at the trial was closed, the Pit was not allowed to call
a witness whom he erroneously, but vrithout being misled by the Deft,
expected the Deft would call ; Barker v. Furlong, [1891] 2 Ch. 172.
As to using fresh evidence on appeal, v. inf. p. 835, Chap. XXXVI.,
" Appeals."
As to going into further evidence in Chambers to dispute the Pit's debt
after an order for admon, see Cardell v. Hawhe, 6 Eq. 464.
The outlawry of the Pit, though not pleaded, was an answer to his motion
to enlarge the time for closing the evidence : Knowles v. Bhydedefed Co.,
Joh. 514.
Enlarging By O. LXiv, 7, the Court or a Judge may abridge or enlarge the time fixed
time. for doing any act, or taking any proceedings, upon such terms, if any, as
the justice of the case may require, although the application is not made
until after the expiration of the time appointed or allowed.
The usual practice, when a party is out of time, is to enlarge the time, on
Evidence. 105
his paying the costs of tlie application : Eaton v. Siorer, 22 Ch. D. 91,
C. A.
As to giving leave to give notice to read affidavits (already filed) after
the proper time, see Lautour v. A. 0., 43 L. J. Ch. 313.
After the time for closing the evidence had expired, the Court would only
extend it under special circumstances : Thompson v. Partridge, 4 D. M. & G.
794 ; Poupard v. Fardell, 18 W. R. 37 ; and the subsequent discovery of
an important witness was not enough : Thexton v. Edmondston, 5 Eq. 373 ;
but in Watson v. Cleaver, 20 Beav. 137, Deft having, seven months after
notice of motion for decree, given material evidence in another cause, Pit,
applying immediately under Cons. Ord. 33, r. 8 (now obsolete), had leave to
use it, subject to Deft having an opportunity of explaining it ; and in Wilson
V. Qann, 23 W. R. 546, the evidence of a new witness was allowed to be used.
But Defts were allowed to file affidavits in answer to specific charges as to
character made in affidavits filed immediately before : Scott v. Corpn. of
Liverpool, 1 D. & J. 369 ; and a Pit was allowed, under special circumstances,
to read an affidavit filed after the time, reserving the right to cross-examine :
Hope V. Thrdfall, 1 S. & G. xxi. ; and see Douglas v. Archbutt, 23 Beav. 293.
A Judge may, at any period of a case, for his own satisfaction, allow
further evidence to be called by either party, even though it be doubtful
whether it is admissible, on the request of the party desiring it as a right :
Budd V. Davison, 29 W. R. 192.
As to notice requiring the production of the deponent for cross-examina- Attendance
tion at the trial, see O. xxxvni, 28. By this rule, the party producing such of deponent
deponent foroross-examination, shall not be entitled to demand the expenses ^°^ cross-
thereof in the first instance from the party requiring such production. exammation.
The penalty of having his affidavit rejected if the deponent is not pro-
duced, does not relieve the deponent from the obligation to attend at his
own expense : Re Baker, Connell v. B., 29 Ch. D. 711.
By r. 29, " the party to whom the notice mentioned in r. 28 is given, shall
be entitled to compel the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination,
in the same way as he might compel the attendance of a witness to be
examined."
A witness cannot refuse, after being sworn, to give evidence until his
expenses are paid : Be Working Men's Mutual Society, Ld., 25 Ch. D.
297, C. A.
As to demanding the expenses of witnesses on production under the old
practice, see Richards v. Ooddard, 10 Ch. 288 ; and as to tender of conduct
money before motion to attach for not complying with order to attend
for cross-examination in Prob. Div., see In the Estate of Harvey, [1907]
P. 239.
An official subpoenaed as a witness, must claim in the public behalf all
fees and allowances properly due to him as a witness, but they must be
accounted for by him to the head of the department.
By O. xxxvn, 21, " evidence taken subsequently to the hearing or trial
is to be taken as nearly as may be in the same manner as evidence taken
at, or with a view to, the hearing or trial " ; and by 0. xxxvn, 22, " the
practice with reference to the examination, cross-examination, and re-
examination of witnesses at a trial is to extend and be applicable to
evidence taken in any cause or matter at any stage." The effect of these
rules, read together with O. xxxvin, 28, is that the expense of producing
a deponent who has made an affidavit either previously (Mansel v. Clan-
ricarde, 54 L. J. Ch. 982 ; 53 L. T. 496), or subsequently to (Backhouse v.
Alcock, 28 Ch. D. 669), the trial, cannot be demanded in the first instance
from the party requiring such production.
The notice to produce a witness should state the occasion or place at
which the examination is to take place. If the notice is insufficient the
penalty of exclusion of the affidavit will not take effect : De Mora v.
Concha, 32 Ch. D. 133, C. A. ; 8. C, H. L., Concha v. C, 11 App. Ca. 541.
It appears doubtful whether r. 28 applies where a witness is out of the
106
Evidence.
[chap. VIII.
Withdrawing
affidavit.
Hostile
witness.
Co-Deft 3.
Subpoena.
jurisdiction : De Mora v. Concha, 32 Ch. D. 133, C. A. ; and see same case
suh nam. Concha v. C, 11 App. Ca. 541.
Liberty was given to use the affidavits of persons who ty death, lunacy,
or illness could not be cross-examined, saving just exceptions : Ridley v.
M., 34 Beav. 329 ; Braithwaite v. Kearns, 34 Beav. 202 ; Daviea v. Otty,
35 Beav. 214 ; Tanswell v. Scurrah, 11 L. T. 761 ; Lautour v. A. 0., 43
L. J. Ch. 313 ; secus, where the illness and death of a witness were con-
cealed : Evans v. Cooh, 22 W. R. 252 (Ir.) ; or the witness had left the
country : Bingley v. Marshall, 6 L. T. 682 ; and nothing short of absolute
necessity justifies the Court in relaxing the rule : Parker v. M'Kenna, 43
L. J. Ch. 802; 30 L. T. 807.
A Pit, though entitled to costs generally, had to pay the expenses of
witnesses whom he had declined to cross-examine at the hearing, after
obtaining leave to do so : Guilfoyle v. Hutchinson, Ir. Rep. 8 Eq. 298.
On the cross-examination, on a petition for winding-up, of the secretary
of a CO. as to accounts, the Petr was entitled to have the books produced :
Be Emma Mine, 10 Ch. 194.
As to the jurisdiction under the Jud. Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 44),
s. 5, to order costs — as distinguished from expenses — of a person examined
under s. 174 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, see In re Apple-
ton, French <b Scrafton, Ltd., [19051 1 Ch. 749.
As to time for giving notice to cross-examine, see Banhen v. Alfaro,
24 W. R. 54.
As to cross-examination on accounts, v. inf. Chap. XLIII., " Account,"
p. I3I7 ; and see Connell v. Baker, 29 Ch. D. 711.
An affidavit cannot be withdrawn in order to avoid cross-examination :
Clarke v. Law, 2 K. & J. 28 ; 4 W. R. 35 ; Pike v. Dickinson, 21 W. R. 862 ;
Be Quartz Hill, <&c. Co., Exp. Young, 21 Ch. D. 642, C. A.
A Pit having called the Deft as a witness has no right to cross-examine
him except by leave : Price v. Manning, 42 Ch. D. 372, C. A., overruling
Clarke v. Saffery, Ryan & Moo. 126.
It is for the Judge to decide whether a witness is so hostile as to justify
his cross-examination by the party calling him : Price v. Manning, sup. ;
Bice V. Howard, 16 Q. B. D. 681.
One Deft is not entitled to cross-examine witnesses called on behalf of
a co-Deft, unless there is an issue to be tried between the two Defts : Be
Wagstaff, (1907) 96 L. T. 605.
Any party may, without leave of the Court, issue a subpoena for the
examination of a witness at any stage of an action : Raymond v. Tapson,
22 Ch. D. 430, C. A. ; but the Court will not suffer the privilege to be used
oppressively : 8. C. ; Fenton v. Cumherlege., 52 L. J. Ch. 756 ; 48 L. T,
776 (as, ex. gr., where there is no possibility of the case being heard during
the current sittings for which the subpcenas run) ; London cfe Oldbe Finance
Carp. V. Kaufman, 1899, W. N. 240 : 69 L. J. Ch. 196 ; 48 W. R. 458 ;
and see Dan. 546.
As to the power of the Court to order issue of subpoena to compel attend-
ance of witnesses before an arbitrator or referee, see 52 & 53 V. c. 49, s. 18,
and inf. p. 394, Chap, XXVI., " Akbitkations."
BEADING EVIDENCE TAKEN IN ANOTHEE CAUSE OB MATTEE.
By O. XXXVII, 3, " an order to read evidence taken in another cause or
matter shall not be necessary, but such evidence may, saving all just
exceptions, be read on ex parte applications by leave of the Court or a
Judge, to be obtained at the time of making any such application, and in
any other case upon the party desiring to use such evidence giving two
days' previous notice to the other parties of his intention to read such
evidence."
The rule merely does away with the necessity for obtaining an order,
and does not authorize the reading of evidence which was not admissible
Evidence. 107
before the rule passed : Printing Telegraph, Sc, Co. v. Ducker, [1894] 2
Q. B. 801, C. A.
A notice to read affidavits in the action for some other purpose should
not be given in general terms, but should specify the particular passages
to be relied on : Doivning v. Falmouth United Sewerage Board, 37 Ch.
D. 234.
As to admitting evidence taken de bene esse in a former suit, the issue
in the two suits being the same, and there being privity of estate between
the parties to the two suits, see Llanover v. Uomfray, Phillips v. Hanover,
19 Ch. D. 224, C. A.
EXAMINATION DB BENE ESSE.
There is jurisdiction to make an order for the examination de bene esse
of witnesses upon ex parte application, the order being taken by the appli-
cant at his peril, and subject to its being discharged upon proper grounds,
but the order is not of course, merely on the ground that the witnesses
are over seventy years of age : Bidder v. Bridges, 26 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; and
the general practice will not be applied, without discrimination, in a case
where the witnesses are numerous : Ibid.
As to examining witnesses de bene esse before the Jud. Acts, see Bellamy
V. Jones, 8 Ves. 31 ; Macintosh v. 0. W. By. Co., 1 Ha. 328 ; Shirley v.
Ferrers, 3 P. W. 77.
An affidavit was required showing the age or state of health of the witness
and the materiality of his evidence ; or where the application was on the
ground that the person to be examined was the only witness to a particular
fact, this was to be stated in the affidavit : and see Bidder v. Bridges, sup.
If the person was about to go abroad, evidence as to the matters upon
which he was to be examined was not required : Orove v. Young, 3 D. & S.
397 ; Hope v.H.,3 Beav. 317.
Where the witness is out of the jurisdiction a special examiner will be
appointed : Crofts v. Middleton, 9 Ha. xviii ; Pillan v. Thompson, 10 Ha.
Ixxvi ; Beeves v. Hodson, 21 L. T. 124 ; but the application for such
examiner or for a commission must be made as soon as the case is set
down for trial : Steuart v. Gladstone, 7 Ch. D. 394.
Depositions taken de bene esse can only be used at the trial if it is shown
that the witness is then incapable of being examined : Barton v. N.
Staffordshire By. Co., 56 L. T. 561 ; 35 W. R. 536.
Where the Court below refused to admit the evidence of a witness, and,
pending appeal, the witness was taken dangerously ill, an order was made
to take the evidence de bene esse upon an undertaking as to costs : Solr of
the Treasury v. White, 55 L. J. P. D. 79 ; 1886, W. N. 144.
EXAMINATION BY COMMISSION.
For forms of order for commission to examine witnesses, see R. S. C.
App. K. 36, 37 ; and for form of commission, see App. J. 13 ; D. C. F. 324.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 323 ; and see Dan. 550.
By O. XXXVII, 6a, if the Court or a Judge shall so order, there shall be
issued a request to examine witnesses in lieu of a commission. For forms
of request (which are how generally adopted for all foreign countries, see
Dan. 649), see R. S. C. App. K. 37a, 37b, 37c ; D. C. F. 330, 331.
In some foreign countries, as, ex. gr., Germany, it is unlawful for any
person, not an officer of the Courts of the country, to administer an oath.
Requests are also issued to Colonial and Indian Courts.
The request will not be issued merely to obtain the inspection of docu-
ments in a foreign country : Cape Copper Co. v. Comptoir d'Bscompte de
Paris, 38 W. R. 763.
By 48 & 49 V. c. 74, s. 2, when any commission, order, or request for the
examination of witnesses is addressed to any Court or Judge in India
or the colonies, or elsewhere in His Majesty's dominions beyond the
108 Evidence. [chap. viii.
jurisdiction, such Court or Judge may nominate some fit person to take
the examination in lieu of the Court or Judge.
In a communication from the Foreign Office, dated the 26th Nov. 1892,
addressed to the senior Registrar, with respect to the procedure to be
adopted when the evidence of Spanish witnesses is to be taken for use by
or before a Court of Justice in Great Britain, it is stated that such evidence
should be obtained in future by means of letters of request, addressed by
the British Court to the competent Spanish Tribunal, and forwarded and
returned through the diplomatic channel.
Discretion A party is not entitled to a commission ex debito justiticn upon showing
of Court. that a material witness is resident out of the jurisdiction, but the matter
is one for the discretion of the Court having regard to all the circumstances :
Coch V. Allcock, 21 Q. B. D. 178, C. A. ; such as the materiality of the pro-
posed evidence to the issue raised : Langen v. Tate, 24 Ch. D. 522, C. A. ;
the difficulty and expense of bringing the witnesses to this country, or
procuring their attendance at the trial : Lawson v. Vacuum Brake Co.,
27 Ch. D. 137, C. A. ; Coch v. AUcoch, sup. ; Armour v. Walker, 25 Ch. D.
673, C. A. ; the necessity for the purposes of justice that the examination
should take place in this country : Armour v. Walker, 25 Ch. D. 673, C. A. ;
the bona fides of the application : Berdan v. Qreenwood, 20 Ch. D. 764, C. A.
(where the application of the Pit was refused because the Court thought
he was keeping out of the way) : In re Boyse, Grofton v. C, 20 Ch. D. 760 ;
Langen v. Tate, 24 Ch. D. 524, C. A.
The discretion will be exercised in a stricter manner where the Pit asks
for a commission to examine himself : Ooch v. Allcock, sup. ; Light v.
Governor of Anticosti, 58 L. T. 25 ; but less strictness will be shown where
the application is by a Deft who has not (like a Pit) chosen his own forum :
Moss V. Woodford, [1894] 1 Ch. 38 ; and see New v. Burns, 1894, W. N.
196, C. A. ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 104 ; 71 L. T. 681 ; 43 W. R. 182.
The order was not confined to witnesses mentioned by name, but ten
days' notice was to be given to the other side of the names and addresses
of the witnesses whom it was proposed to examine : Nadin v. Bassett, 25
Ch. D. 21, C. A. ; Armour v. Walker, 25 Ch. D. 673, C. A.
A commission to a foreign Court was refused where it appeared that the
cross-examination of the witness, which was important, would not be con-
ducted there in the way usual in this country : Re Boyse, Crofton v. C, 20
Ch. D. 760 ; and a commission or letters of request ought not to be issued
unless the desired evidence is directly material to an issue in the cause, and
not merely evidence which may be incidentally useful in corroboration of
other evidence : Ehrmann v. E., [1896] 2 Ch. 611, C. A.
Any objection to the reception of secondary evidence should be taken
before the commrs : Robinson v. Davies, 5 Q. B. D. 26 ; or as to irregularity
in taking a deposition : Richards, Tweedy <fc Co. v. Hough, 51 L. J. Q. B.
361; 30 W. R. 676.
When a single commr is appointed abroad, the commission should
authorize him to administer the oath to himself : Wilson v. De Coulon,
22 Ch. D. 841.
Where the identity of a Pit, not heard of for twenty years, was disputed,
words were added to the order directing that the depositions were " not to
be admissible at the trial without the consent of the Deft," who thus had
the means to compel the Pit to come from New Zealand to be identified :
Nadin v. Bassett, 25 Ch. D. 21, C. A.
ACTION TO PEEPETUATB TESTIMONY.
Witnesses will not be examined to perpetuate testimony unless an action
has been commenced for the purpose : O. xxxvii, 37 ; and the action will
not be set down for trial : r. 38.
O. xxxvii, 35, does not compel the Court to make an order at the Pit's
instance for the examination of witnesses in every action, which may fa
within the terms of the rule : West v. Sachville {Lord), [1903] 2 Ch. 378
Evidence. 10^
As to the clreUiustances under which an action to perpetuate testimony
may be commenced, see 0. xxxvii, 35 ; and as to when the A. G. may be
made a Deft, see r. 36.
If the Deft in an action to perpetuate testimony makes default in
pleading, the proper course is for the Pit to move that the examination of
witnesses be proceeded with as if the pleadings had closed : M. of Bute v.
James, 33 Ch. D. 157, following Goveney v. Athill, 1 Dickens, 355.
Where it was desired to perpetuate testimony as to the illegitimacy of
one of the children of a divorced lunatic, the course was for the Court to
make a settlement of some of the lunatic's property on his children, and
for the legitimate children to raise the question of the right of the other
child to participate, and then bring an action to perpetuate testimony :
In re Stoer, 9 P. D. 120, C. A.
As to the former practice (under the Perpetuation of Testimony Act,
1842, 6 & 6 V. 0. 69 ; from which 0. xxxvii, 35, is taken), see Dan. 1272,
1273.
FORM AND CONTENTS OP AITIDAVITS.
By 0. XXXVIII, 3, " affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the witness
is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory motions,
on which statements as to his belief, with the grounds thereof, may be
admitted. The costs of every affidavit which shall unnecessarily set forth
matters of hearsay, or argumentative matter, or copies of or extracts from
documents, shall be paid by the party filing the same."
And as to disallowance of such costs, see O. lxv, 27 (20) ; Young v.
Young Manufacturing Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 723, C. A.
Evidence on " information and belief " is not admissible and need not Information
be contradicted when the application, although interlocutory in form, and belief,
finally decides the rights : Gilbert v. Endean, 9 Ch. D. 259, C. A. ; and even
on an interlocutory application an affidavit of \nformation and belief will
be excluded, where the informant might have been subpoenaed, and the
exclusion will cause no irremediable injury : Re Anthony Birrell, Pearce <fc
Go., [1899J 2 Ch. 50 ; or the source of the information or belief is not
stated : Young v. Young Manufacturing Co., sup.
The Court has discretion to take affidavits off the file : Fox v. Bearhlock, Taking off
30 W. R. 342 ; 46 L. T. 145. the file.
A motion to take affidavits off the file on the ground of length and irrele-
vancy was refused, and the attention of the Court ought to be drawn to
such matters at the hearing : Owens v. Emmens, 1875, W. N. 210, 234.
Objections for irregularity should be taken when a deposition is tendered
in evidence, and not by motion to take it off the file : l>e Britto v. Hillel,
15 Eq. 213 ; but in Walker v. Poole, 21 Ch. D. 835, the order was made
on motion.
As to the general form of affidavits, see O. xxxvni, 7.
By O. Lxvi, 7 (k), " it shall be stated in a note at the foot of every affi- On whose
davit filed, on whose behalf it is filed," and a copy of such note is to appear behalf filed,
on office copies, and on copies supplied to the other side.
By 0. xxxviii, 8, every affidavit shall state the description and true Description
place of abode of the deponent ; and see Re Levy, Levin v. Levin, 37 W. R. of deponent.
396 ; 60 L. T. 317 ; Ellam v. E., 62 L. T. 331 ; and see r. 13 as to certificate
required to be made by the officer taking the affidavit of an illiterate or
blind deponent.
Affidavits by marksmen were ordered to be filed, although the usual
statement in the jurat that they had been read over had been omitted :
Fernyhough v. Naylor, 23 W. R. 228 ; and see Verner v. Cochrane, 23 L. R.
Ir. 422. An affidavit sworn before a British vice-consul abroad was received,
though the words " before me " were omitted in the jurat : EMowes v.
Argentine Loan Co., 59 L. J. Ch. 392 ; 62 L. T. 514 ; 38 W. R. 629.
In Ch. D. an affidavit, with an interhneation not properly initialled, ought Interlinea-
not to be filed without an order of the Court (».e., the Judge or Master tion.
no
Evidence.
[chap. VIII.
r>.): Re Gloake, 61 L. J. Oh.
40 W. R. 74; 65 L. T.
Neglect
to file.
Sworn before
writ issued.
In England.
Out of
England.
of the Ch.
455.
It is the duty of the solr to cause every affidavit sworn and used to be
filed, and if he neglects so to do he may bo visited with costs : Taylor v.
Gates, 72 L. T. 436, C. A.
Affidavits sworn before the writ is issued cannot be used, as the witness
would not be amenable to criminal proceedings for false swearing. But
the Court has allowed the solr to make an affidavit embodying the
facts contained therein, and making the original affidavits exhibits ; or
the order may be made on the undertaking of the Pit that the affidavit
shall be resworn and duly filed.
BEFORE WHOM AND WHERE AFFIDAVITS MAY BE SWORN.
The Jud. Act, 1873, s. 77 (inter alios), makes provision for commrs to
take oaths or affidavits. As to such oommrs and their appointment by
L. C, see Stringer's Oaths, 4—32, 66, 139.
By 0. xxxvni, 4, " affidavits sworn in England shall be sworn before a
Judge, district registrar, commr to administer oaths, or officer empowered
under the rules to administer oaths " ; by r. 5, every commr to administer
oaths shall express the time when, and the place where, he shall take an
affidavit, otherwise it shall not be held authentic, nor be admitted to be
filed without leave of the Court or a Judge ; and by the Commrs for Oaths
Act, 1889, s. 5, every commr before whom any oath or affidavit is taken
or made under this Act shall state truly in the jurat or attestation at what
place and on what date the oath or affidavit is taken or made.
The oath need not be administered at the solr's office : Be Record and
Writ Clerics, 3 D. M. & G. 723.
By 0. xxxviii, 16, and Commrs for Oaths Act, 1889, s. I, sub-s. 3, an
affidavit must not be sworn before the solr for the party on whose behalf
it is to be used : Hopkin v. H., 10 Ha. ii ; or his clerk or partner : see r. 17 :
Wood Y. HarpurjZ'Bea.v. 290 ; or " correspondent " (a country solr) : Par-
kinson V. Grawshay, 1894, W. N. 85 ; but may before the clerk of the Pit, a
solr, but not acting as such in the cause : Foster v. Harvey, 3 N. R. 98 ;
affirmed on appeal, dissentiente, L. J. K. B., 4 D. J. & S. 59 ; see also Re
Gregg, 9 Eq. 137 ; Barwick v. Yeadon L. B., 24 W. R. 23 ; 33 L. T. 322.
The disqualifying provision in this sub-section is not limited to pro-
ceedings in Court, but is co-extensive with the substantive provision in
sub-sect. 2, which empowers a commissioner for oaths to administer any
oath or take any affidavit for the purposes of any Court or matter in
England, including {inter alia) matters relating to the registration of any
instrument: Be Bagley, [1911] I K. B. 317.
An affidavit sworn in a lunatic asylum by an inmate without any notice
in the jurat of that fact, was ordered to be taken off the file with costs :
Spittle Y. Walton, 11 Eq. 420.
For observations of Kay, J., as to the duty of commrs to administer
oaths where a witness is swearing to the contents of an affidavit, see Bourke
V. Davis, 44 Ch. D. 110. But see Stringer, 76.
By the Commrs for Oaths Act, 1889, s. 3, ( 1 ) any oath or affidavit required
for the purpose of any Court or matter in England, or for the purpose of
the registration of any instrument in any part of the United Kingdom,
may be taken or made in any place out of England before any person
having authority to administer an oath in that place.
(2) In the case of a person having such authority otherwise than by the
law of a foreign country, judicial and official notice shall be taken of his
seal or signature affixed, impressed, or subscribed to or on any such oath
or affidavit.
As to the practice which obtains in the Supreme Court, of requiring
affidavits, &o., sworn or taken in foreign countries before persons having
authority to administer oaths by the law of a foreign country, to be
properly verified by a British consul or vice-consul, or by the certificate of
Evidence. 1 1 1
the High Court of the country, see Cooke v. Wilbij, 25 Ch. D. 769 ; Briitle-
bank v. Smith, 50 L. T. 491 ; 32 W. R. 675 ; Stringer, 42 ; Dan. 529.
By the Commrs for Oaths Act, 1889 (52 V. c. 10), s. 6 (as amended by
the Commrs for Oaths Act, 1891, s. 2), (1) every British ambassador, envoy,
minister, charg6 d'affaires, and secretary of embassy or legation exercising
his functions in any foreign country, and every British consul-general,
consul, vice-consul, acting consul, pro-consul, and consular agent, acting
consul-general, acting vice-consul, and acting consular agent, exercising
his functions in any foreign place may, in that country or place, administer
any oath, and take any affidavit, and also do any notarial act which any
notary public can do within the United Kingdom ; and every oath,
affidavit, and notarial act administered, sworn, or done by or before any
such person shall be as effectual as if duly administered, sworn, or done
by or before any lawful authority in any part of the United Kingdom.
(2) Any document purporting to have affixed, impressed, or subscribed
thereon or thereto the seal and signature of any person authorized by this
section to administer an oath in testimony of any oath, affidavit, or act
being administered, taken, or done by or before Mm, shall be admitted in
evidence without proof of the seal or signature being the seal or signature
of that person, or of the official character of that person.
For the similar provisions of O. xxxvni, r. 6, v. inf. p. 228.
As to aifirmation in lieu of affidavit under the Oaths Act, 1888 (51 & 52
V. c. 46), see Stringer, 89 ; and as to swearing in the Scotch form, 76. 80 ;
Dan. 520 ; D. C. P. 343 ; and see the Oaths Act, 1909 (9 Edw. 7, c. 39).
Where a statutory declaration taken before a notary in New South
Wales was not intituled in the cause, the signatures had to be verified by
affidavit : Whiting v. Bassett, 14 Eq. 70 ; and see Jearrad v. Tracey, 11
W. R. 97 ; and in Blarney v. Blarney, 1902, W. N. 138, affidavits not intituled
in any matter and made in the third person were admitted ; and see Prac.
Note, 1907, W. N. 180.
Where an affidavit was sworn before a notary abroad, and bore his seal,
his signature was required to be verified by affidavit : Re Davis, 8 Eq. 98 ;
or by a British consul there : Haggitt v. Inijf, 5 D. M. & G. 910 ; followed
in Be Burnett, M. R., 28 June, 1856 ; seciis, where the fund was only £35 :
Mayne v. Butler, 13 W. R. 128 ; 11 L. T. 410 ; or the other side consented :
Lyle V. Ellwood, 15 Eq. 67 ; Re Lane, 22 W. R. 39 ; and in a suit in which
infants, jointly with their mother, were Pits, an affidavit sworn not before
the consul, but a burgermeister, was allowed to be filed, the mother con-
senting : Bell V. Turner, 17 Eq. 439 ; and an affidavit, sworn before a
notary, certified by the governor of a foreign state to be a notary public
thereof, the jurat stating the date but not the place where it was sworn,
was allowed to be filed : Meek v. Ward, 10 Ha. i.
When the deponent is outside His Majesty's dominions, and resides at a
considerable distance from a British consul or vice-consul, the affidavit
may be sworn before a notary public : see Cooke v. Wilby, 25 Ch. D. 769,
where an affidavit sworn before a notary public was allowed to be filed,
the nearest consul being 150 miles away : see also Brittlebank v. Smith, 32
W. R. 675 ; 50 L. T. 491, where the nearest British consul was 250 miles
ofi, but certified that the clerk of a Circuit Court before whom the affidavit
was sworn, was authorized to administer oaths.
By O. xxxvm, 14, " the Court or a Judge may receive any affidavit
sworn for the purpose of being used in any cause or matter, notwithstanding
any defect, by misdescription of parties or otherwise, in the title or jurat,
or any other irregularity in the form thereof " ; and see Commissioners
for Oaths Act, 1889 (52 V. c. 10), s. 6, and Bddowes v. Argentine Loan and
Mercantile Agency Co., 38 W. R. 629 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 392 ; 62 L. T. 514, that
this rule applies to the omission in the jurat of the words " before me,"
where the affidavit, on the face of it, shows before whom it was in fact sworn.
As to mistake in the title to an affidavit, see Dan. 531 ; and as to affi-
davits generally, 76. 527 et seq.
112
Evidence.
[chap. VIII.
EXAMINATION BEUOKE AN EXAMINEE.
The examination of witnesses, under rr. 1 and 5 of 0. xxxvn, will now,
unless the judge shall otherwise direct, be taken before one of the examiners
of the Court, whose appointment and proceedings are regulated by rr.
39 — 50 of the same Order.
By O. XXXVII, 10, the examiner is to be supplied with a copy of the writ
and pleadings ; and by r. II, the examination is to take place in the pre-
sence of the parties, their counsel, solrs, or agents, and the witnesses are
to be subject to orosa-examination and re-examination.
By O. xxxvn, 13, " if any person duly summoned by subpoena to attend
for examination shall refuse to attend, or if, having attended, he shall
refuse to be sworn or to answer any lawful question, a certificate of such
refusal, signed by the examiner, shall be filed at the Central Office, and there-
upon the party requiring the attendance of the witness may apply to the
Court or a Judge ex parte or on notice, for an order directing the witness to
attend, or to be sworn, or to answer any question, as the case may be."
Subpoena. A witness is not bound to attend before an examiner unless served with a
subpcena : O. xxxvn, 20 ; StvMH v. BalUs Co., 53 L. J. Ch. 791 ; 32 W. R. 676 ;
50 L. T. 479 ; and see also (as to conduct money). Re Harvey, [IS07] P. 239.
But after attending several times before an examiner appointed with
his consent, under the Companies Act, 1862, s. 115, now substituted by
sect. 174 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, a witness could not
refuse to continue to attend because his depositions were being used against
him in an action by a shareholder: Be Lisbon, &c. Co., 2 Ch. D. 575.
Refusing to If a witness when served refuses to be sworn, the proper course is, not to
be sworn. move to commit him for contempt of the order directing the examination , but
for an order that he do attend at his own expense : Stuart v. Balkis Co., ibid.
Objecting If a witness objects to answer any question, the question and the objection
to answer. are to be taken down by the examiner and transmitted (r. 14) to the Central
Office to be filed, and the validity of the objection shall be decided by the
Court or a judge ; and by r. 15 the witness may be directed to pay any
costs occasioned by his refusal or objection.
Special The jurisdiction to appoint a special examiner still remains, but the Court
examiner. is reluctant to exercise it : Marquis of Bute v. James, 33 Ch. D. 157.
A contributory in a winding-up desiring to summon a witness before a
special examiner, must do so by chief clerk's summons, and not by subpcena:
Be Westmoreland Green and Blue Slate Co., 40 W. B. 171 ; 66 L. T. 52.
On the application of one of several Pits, an order for an examiner was
granted to examine oo-Plts as witnesses abroad : Banque Franco-Egyptienne
V. Liltcher, 28 W. R. 133 ; 41 L. T. 468.
Depositions. By 0, xxxvn, 16, " when the examination of any witness before an
examiner is concluded, the original depositions, authenticated by the
signature of the examiner, are to be transmitted by him to the Central
Office, and there filed."
The examiner's omission to sign the deposition, or to take it down in his
own handwriting, is not necessarily fatal : Stephenson v. 8., 19 Beav. 585 ;
Bolton V. B., 2 Ch. D. 217.
It is not proper to insert in the order for examination any words giving
leave to give the depositions in evidence at the trial : Barton v. N. Stafford-
shire By., 35 W. B. 536 ; 56 L. T. 601 ; but r. 18 provides that no deposition
is to be given in evidence at the trial without the consent of the party
against whom the same may be offered, unless the Court or Judge otherwise
directs, or is satisfied that the deponent is dead, or out of the jurisdiction,
or unable, from sickness or infirmity, to attend.
Cross- An examiner may allow a witness to be treated as hostile by the party
examination, calling him : Ohlsen v. Terrero, 10 Ch. 127 ; dissenting from Wright v.
Wilkin, 6 W. B. 643.
There is no jurisdiction to order the examination ex parte of witnesses
before an examiner for the purposes of trial : Warner v. Mosses, 16 Ch. D. 100.
Evidence. 113
Where a mass of correspondence is produced, and it is proposed to cross-
examine upon it seriatim, the proper course is to have an adjournment,
with a view to selection of that part which is material : Re Maplin Sands,
1894, W. N. 41, 184, C. A. ; 71 L. T. 56, 594.
The examiner may exercise his discretion as to the most convenient
order of examination of witnesses : Stuart v. Balhis Co., sup.
As to the power of adjourning the examination and recalling witnesses,
see In re Metropolitan Electric Co., Exp. Offor, 54 L. J. Ch. 253 ; 51 L. T,
816.
On cross-examination of witnesses on application by a shareholder for
rectification of the co's register, the shareholder's witnesses should be
cross-examined first : Re Dore Oallery Co., 62 L. T. 758 ; 38 W. R. 491.
The Court, as a general rule, disapproves of the practice of the Masters
taking examinations before themselves : M'Alister^. Walters, 1890, W. N.
204 ; and see ih. 224 ; and Dan. 791.
As to correction of error in transcript of shorthand notes of evidence
before examiner in Adm. Div., see The Knutsford, [1891] P. 219.
bankers' books.
According to the provisions of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 Prima farie
(42 V. c. 11), s. 3, a copy of an entry in a banker's book shall, in all legal evidence,
proceedings, be received as prima facie evidence of such entry, and of the
matters, transactions, and accounts therein recorded ; and by sect. 4 a
copy of such an entry is not to be received in evidence under the Act,
" unless it be first proved that the book was, at the time of the making of
the entry, one of the ordinary books of the bank, and that the entry was
made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that the book is in
the custody or control of the bank. Such proof may be given by a partner
or officer of the bank, and may be given orally or by affidavit."
The copy must also (sect. 5) be further proved in the same manner to
have been examined with the entry, and to be correct : Harding v. Williams,
14 Ch. D. 197, C. A.
The effect of sect. 3 is to make the entries admissible against any one,
ex. gr., entries in Deft's bankers' books admissible against Pit. S. C.
'As to production of bankers' books, v. sup. Chap. VII., p. 82.
And see further as to the effect of the Act, Dan. 507, 508.
VOL. I.
( 114 ) FcHAP. IX.
CHAPTER IX.
CHANGE AND REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES.
Section I. — 0. xvii, 4.
1. Order to carry on Proceedings against a new Party.
Upon the petition of &c. this day preferred unto this Court it was
alleged [state the last material proceeding in the action, and the svhse-
quent events in concise form, see inf.], It was therefore prayed and it
is accordingly ordered that the proceedings in this action be carried
on between the Petitioners as Pits and the Defts [name the continuing
Defts}a,ndL X. [the person on whom the interest or liability has devolved'].
This order is generally obtained on petition of course at the Registrar's
Office, Royal Courts of Justice, Room 1.38. For form of petition of course,
see D. C. F. 88
COMMON ALLEGATIONS IN ORDERS TO CONTINUE OR
CARRY ON PROCEEDINGS.
Object of Action, e.g. — That this is an action to administer the real and
personal estate of A. B., or for an account, or for foreclosure.
Writ iss^ied.- — ^That a writ of summons was issued in this action on &c.
Appearance. — That all the Defts (except A., who is out of the jurisdiction)
appeared to the said writ.
Statement of Claim. — That on &c. the Pit duly delivered his statement of
claim.
Defence. — ^That on &c. the Deft duly delivered his defence.
Reply. — That on &c. the Pit duly delivered his reply.
Judgment. — ^That by the judgment dated &c.
Master's Certificate. — That, pursuant to the said judgment, the Master
made his certificate dated &c.
Order on Further Consideration. — ^That an order was made on the further
consideration of this action on &c.
Grant of Probate. — ^That A. died on &c., having by his will appointed
B. and C. exors thereof, by whom the same was duly proved on &c.
Grant of Admon. — That A. died intestate on &c., and letters of admon
to his estate and effects were on &c. granted to B.
Grant of Admon with the Will annexed. — That A. died on &c., and that
letters of admon to his estate and effects with the will annexed were on
&c. granted to D.
Marriage. — That on &c. A. intermarried with B. [if so, and that by a
settlement executed prior to the said marriage, all the estate and interest
of the said A. in the subject-matter of this action was assigned to C. and D.
as trustees of the said settlement].
Birth of a Child. — That since &c. {last proceeding) a child has been born to
A. and B., namely, C, who was born on &c., and is a necessary party to
this action.
s. 1.] Change of Parties ahd Transmission of Interest. 115
Bankruptcy. — That on &c. A. was adjudicated a bankrupt, ^nd B. of &c.
has been appointed trustee in such bankruptcy.
Lunacy. — That on &c. a commission de lunatico inquirendo was issued,
whereunder (the Pit) A. was found a lunatic from &c., and by an order
dated &c., B. of &c. was appointed committee of his person and estate.
2. Carrying on Proceedings against a Party in an Additional
Capacity.
It was therefore prayed and it is accordingly ordered that the
proceedings in this action be carried on between the Petitioners and
the Defts A. and B. and the Deft A. in his additional capacity of &c.
3. Carrying on Proceedings against the Trustee of a Bankrupt
Defendant.
It was therefore prayed and it is accordingly ordered that the
proceedings in this action be carried on between the Petitioners and
the Deft A. and C. D. under his official title of " The Trustee of the
property of the Deft B. a bankrupt."
The new title should not contain the name of the Trustee in Bankruptcy;
4. Infant horn after Action brought — 0. xvii, 4.
Oeder that the proceedings in this action be carried on between
the Pits and the Defts, and the said infant C ; (if after Judgment add),
And it is ordered that an inquiry be made whether any proceedings
affecting the interest of the infant C. have been had in this action
since his birth, and, if so, whether it will be fit and proper, and for
the benefit of the said infant C, that he should be bound thereby,
And if it shall be so certified, it is ordered that the said infant C. be
bound accordingly.— Peier v. P., Chitty, J., 27 March, 1884, B. 384 ;
26 Ch. D. 181.
For form of petition of course to continue proceedings against infant
born after judgment, see D. C. P. 91,
NOTES.
The practice as to change of parties by marriage, death, or transmission
of interest, pending litigation, has been greatly simplified by the Rules of
Court under the Jud. Acts.
By 0. xvn, 1, a cause or matter shall not become abated by reason of the Abatement,
death, marriage, or bankruptcy of any of the parties, if the cause of action
survive or continue ; and shall not become defective by the assignment,
creation, or devolution of any estate or title pendente lite.
This rule has been held to apply only when the cause of action survives
or continues in some person who is before the Court : Eldridge v. Burgess,
7 Ch. D. 411 ; Jackson v. N. E. By. Co., 5 Ch. D. 844 ; In re Shephard,
Atkins V. 8., 43 Ch. D. 131, C. A.
Aooordingly, the death or bankruptcy of a sole Pit or Deft will still Sole Pit
cause an abatement, or render the action defective : Eldridge v. Biirgess, or DfU
sup. ; but not the bankruptcy &c. of one or more out of several Pits or
Defts jointly and severally interested : Lloyd v. Dimmack, 7 Ch. D. 398.
116
Change and Representation of Parties, [chap, ix.
In cases within the rule, the action may be continued between the sur-
viving Pits and Defts, without any such order as would in general have been
necessary under the former practice of the Court of Chancery : Lloyd v.
Dimmack, sup. ; and see Hinde v. Morton, 2 H. & M. 368 ; Fcdlowes v.
Williamson, 11 Ves. 306 ; Boddy v. Kent, 1 Mer. 361 ; Mitf. PI. [56—60).
The rule at Common Law, as regulated by the C. L. P. Act, 1852, ss. 135,
141, 142, and C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 92, was similar, though the procedure
was different.
Where the death or bankruptcy of a Pit or Deft terminates the cause of
action, or the interest of the party, so as to leave no subject for litigation
remaining, the action is necessarily at an end : see Twycross v. Grant, 4
C. P. D. 40, C. A. ; Chapman v. Day, 49 L. T. 436 ; 31 W. R. 767 ; Wymer
V. Dodds, 11 Ch. D. 438 ; unless by amendment a cause of action can be
shown : Ashley v. Taylor, 10 Ch. D. 768.
Actio As to the application of the maxim " actio personalis moritur cum persona,'"
personalis. see Phillips v. Homfray, 24 Ch. D. 456, C. A. ; Be Balthyany, B. v. Walford,
36 Ch. D. 278, C. A. ; Concha v. Murrietta, 40 Ch. D. 543, C. A. ; Finlay v.
Chirney, 20 Q. B. D. 494, C. A. ; and that it does not apply to the equitable
right to a mandatory injunction in respect of obstruction of light to free-
holds of the deceased, see Jones v. Simes, 43 Ch. D. 607 ; and that the exors
of the wrongdoer cannot be sued merely because his estate might have
benefited by the wrong complained of : Be Duncan, Terry v. Sweeting,
[1899] 1 Ch. 387 ; and that an action arising out of a statutory duty to
the deceased {e.g., to compel a local authority to make a sewer to dispose
of the liquids proceeding from the factory of the deceased) will survive
to his exors, see Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council, [1896] 2
Q. B. 159, C. A. No alteration is made in the rules as to causes of action
surviving or not : Kirh v. Todd, 21 Ch. D. 484, C. A. ; Stanhope v. Stanhope,
11 P. D. 103, C. A.
Where the cause of action survives or continues in a person not a party
to the record, he may, if proceedings are to be carried on by him, bring
himself, or if they are to be carried on against him, be brought before the
Court in the manner provided by the subsequent rules of 0. xvn : Twycross
V. Grant, sup. ; Jackson v. N. E. By. Co., 5 Ch. D. 844 ; Wright v. Swindon,
&c. By. Co., 4 Ch. D. 164.
Transmission By r. 2, " in the case of the marriage, death, or bankruptcy, or devolution
oi interest. of estate by operation of law, of any party to a cause or matter, the Court
or a Judge may, if it be deemed necessary for the complete settlement of
all the questions involved, order that the husband, pers. represve, trustee,
or other successor in interest, if any, of such party be made a party, or be
served with notice thereof in such manner and form as is prescribed (see
r. 4), and on such terms as the Court or Judge shall think just, and shall
make such order for the disposal of the cause or matter as may be just."
Rule 2 does not apply where there is no transmission of interest ; thus,
husband Petr in divorce action having died after decree nisi, his represve
could not revive : Stanhope v. S., 11 P. D. 103, C. A. ; or where tenant
for life, suing in ejectment, dies and is succeeded by his son as tenant in
tail : Ferrall v. Ciirron, [1899] 2 I. R. 470 ; and no order should be made
after receiving order and before adjudication, as there is no transmission
of interest until adjudication : Be Berry, Daffield v. Williams, Stirling, J.,
22 Jan. 1896, LL.P. Reg.
By r. 3, " in case of an assignment, creation, or devolution of any estate
or title pendente lite, the cause or matter may be continued by or against
the person to or upon whom such estate or title has come or devolved."
Assignment. Where the Pit pendente lite has validly assigned his interest, and the
assignee has obtained leave to carry on the proceedings in like manner as
the Pit might, the statement of claim should be amended by adding a new
title to the action showing that the assignee is the real Pit, and an averment
showing the devolution of the original Pit's interest : Seear v. Lawson, 16
Ch. D. 121, C. A.
s. I.] Change of Parties and Transmission of Interest. 117
Where a garnishee order absolute has been made in favour of a judgment Garniahee
creditor of the Pit, there is a devolution of estate by operation of law order,
within r. 2, and the creditor is entitled to be added as co-Pit, but not to
the conduct of the action : Wallis v. Smith, 51 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 46 L. T. 473.
Where sole Pit becomes bankrupt and his trustee declines to proceed, Bankruptcy,
the action may be stayed by order in Chambers : Warder v. Saunders, 10
Q. B. D. 114 ; Jackscm v. N. E. By. Co., 5 Ch. D. 844 ; Wolff v. Van Boolen,
(1906) 94 L. T. 502.
The Pit cannot, after his discharge, claim to have the stay removed on
the ground that he has purchased the assets from the trustee : Selig v.
Lion, [1891] 1 Q. B. 513 ; 39 W. R. 254.
On d.efault in pleading, and subsequent bankruptcy of a sole Pit, notice
of motion by the Defts to dismiss for want of prosecution was ordered to
be served on his trustees in bankruptcy : Wright v. Swindon, dkc. By. Co.,
4 Ch. D. 164.
That the intention and effect of an order of revivor against a trustee in
bankruptcy is to substitute him for, and place him in the exact position
of, the original Deft, see Charlton v. Dickie, 13 Ch. D. 160 ; and see John-
ston V. English, 55 L. T. 55 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 910 ; 35 W. R. 29 ; Cochshott v.
London General Cab Co., 1877, W. N. 214 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 120 ; 26 W. R. 31.
The trustee of an uncertified bankrupt who had sued for remuneration
and damages upon an agreement prior to his bankruptcy, was added as
co-Pit, with conduct of the action : Emden v. Carte, 17 Ch. D. 768.
Where an action is brought by the committee of a lunatic, and the lunatic
is subsequently adjudicated bankrupt, the right of action vests in his
trustee in bankruptcy, who cannot be added as a defendant against his
will : Farnham v. Milward & Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 730.
As to the right of assignee of Pit's trustee in bankruptcy to continue the
action, see Seear v. Lawson, 15 Ch. D. 426, C. A. ; Howard v. Fanshawe,
[1895] 2 Ch. 581 ; and as to the right of an undischarged bankrupt to sue,
&c., if the trustee does not interfere, Jameson v. Bride and Stone Co., 4
Q. B. D. 208 ; Cohen v. Mitchell, 25 Q. B. D. 262, C. A. ; Be Ball, [1899J
2 I. R. 313, C. A. ; Bailey v. Thurston & Co., [1902] 2 K. B. 397.
Trustee in bankruptcy, substituted for bankrupt Deft, by asking for a
statement of claim adopts the whole action, including a pending appeal,
and becomes liable for costs : Borneman v. Wilson, 28 Ch. D. 53, C. A.
Where sole Deft in an action on a bill of exchange became bankrupt, the
action could not be continued against the trustee, as the debt could be
proved in the bankruptcy : Barter v. Duheux, 7 Q. B. D. 413, C. A. ; and
see Oreenwoodv. Humber dk Co., 1898, W. N. 162 ; secus, where the action
was in respect of a debt incurred by fraud, and it was possible Pits might
obtain some relief against the trustee : Hale v. Boustead, 8 Q. B. D. 453,
citing Emma Silver Mining Co. v. Grant, 17 Ch. D. 122.
Where trustee in bankruptcy, suing in his official name, is removed and
a new trustee appointed, the new trustee must obtain an order to continue
the action and give notice to the other parties under rr. 4, 5 : Pooley's
Trustee v. Whetham, 28 Ch. D. 38, C. A.
By r. 4, " where by reason of marriage, death, or bankruptcy, or any other Carrying on
event occurring after the commencement of a cause or matter, and causing proceedings,
a change or transmission of interest or liability, or by reason of any person
interested coming into existence after the commencement of the cause or
matter, it becomes necessary or desirable that any person not already a
party should be made a party, or that any person already a party should
be made a party in another capacity, an order that the proceedings shall
be carried on between the continuing parties, and such new party or parties,
may be obtained ex parte on application to the Court or a Judge, upon an
allegation of such change or transmission of interest or liability, or of such
person interested having come into existence."
The order to continue or carry on proceedings under these rules may be
obtained in Chambers, or by petition of course at the Registrar's Chambers,
118
Change and Representation of Parties, [ghap. ix.
or by motion of course : see Roffey v. Miller, 24 W. R. 109 ; Crane v.
Loftiis, 24 W. R. 93 ; Walker v. Blackmore, 1876, W. N. 112 ; Middleton v.
PoUoch (No. 1), 1876, W. N. 250; Twycross v. Grant, 4 C. P. D. 40; Jackson
V. N. E. Ry. Co., 5 Ch. D. 844-9 ; Dan. 245 et seq.
On a motion or petition of course, proof of tlie allegations is not required,
though the order may be disohargedf or erroneous statements in the petition :
see Brignall v. Whitehead, 8 Jur. N. S. 183 ; 30 Beav. 229 ; 5 L. T. 301 ; 10
W. R. 69.
After It is doubtful whether r. 4 is applicable after final judgment : Arnison
judgment. v. Smith, 40 Ch. D. 567, C. A. ; Guy v. Churchill, 40 Ch. D. 481.
A foreclosure absolute being final in form only, an assignee may be made
a party to the action even after the order for foreclosure absolute : Camp-
bell V. Holyland, 7 Ch. D. 166.
Where two out of fifty-four Pits in an action for deceit died before judg-
ment, an application after judgment by the exors of the two for an order
under the rule was refused : Arnison v. Smith, sup.
Leave to revive under r. 4 for the purpose of appealing against a final
decree twelve years old, was refused, and (semble) such an order should
not, in the absence of fraud, collusion, or irregularity, be made after the
expiration of the time limited for appealing : Fussell v. Dowding, 27 Ch.
D. 237.
Where a sole Pit who has given notice of appeal dies before it is heard,
an order of course to carry on the appeal may be made : Sanson v. Patton,
17 Ch. D. 767, C. A.
Who may The exor and devisee of a sole deceased Pit was allowed to carry on an
apply. action for a mandatory injunction in respect of obstruction of light to
freehold premises of the deceased : Jones v. Simes, 43 Ch. D. 607.
On the death of a sole Pit, a person who has had leave to attend the pro-
ceedings may apply for leave to prosecute the action : Burstall v. Fearon,
24 Ch. D. 126.
Where exor, sole Deft in creditor's action, died pending application for
a receiver, an interim receiver was appointed, Pit undertaking that admon
de bonis non should be taken out with all speed : Be Parker, Cash v. P.,
12 Ch. D. 293 ; but where, pending an application for a receiver by way of
equitable execution, the judgment debtor died, an order for such receiver
could not be made in the absence of any person to represent the debtor's
estate : Re Shephard, Atkins v. S., 43 Ch. D. 131, C. A.
Where exor, after judgment in favour of his testator and notice of appeal,
obtains an order for revivor, he becomes a substantive party, and is per-
sonally liable for costs : Boynton v. £., 4 App. Ca. 733.
And where the liquidator of a co. obtains leave to continue an action and
does so, he adopts the action ab initio, and if unsuccessful must pay all the
costs : In re London Drapery Stores, [1898] 2 Ch. 684.
On death of counter-claiming Deft, his exors were entitled to obtain an ex
parte order against Pits who had obtained an order against them : Andrew
V. Aitken, 21 Ch. D. 175.
In an action by a lunatic so found by inquisition, the committee must
be a co-Pit : Re Townshend's (Lord) Settlement, [19081 1 Ch. 201.
In case of the decease of a lunatic Pit suing by and with his committee,
the order for the exor, &c., to carry on proceedings discharges the com-
mittee from the action, and (unless otherwise directed) from all liability
tor costs : Harland v. Garbutt, 1881, W. N. 8.
On the death of a sole petr before the hearing (see Re Dynevor Collieries
Co., 1878, W. N. 199)pending the other inquiries directed by the order made
on the hearing, the petition may be ordered to be carried on by the represves
of the Petr : Re Atkin's Estate, 1 Ch. D. 82.
An assignment of his debt by a petitioning creditor does not give the
assignee the right to obtain a winding-up order : Re Paris Skating Rink Co.,
25 W. R. 701 ; 5 Ch. D. 595.
Infant. Where proceedings have been taken after an action has become defective
Liability
for costs.
Co-claiming
Dft.
Lunatic.
Petitioner.
s. II. J Dispensing with and appointing Representatives. 119
by birth of an infant, he should be made a party by the common order
under r. 4, and the order should go on to direct an inquiry whether any
proceedings affecting his interest have been taken in the action since his
birth, and if so whether it will be for his benefit to be bound thereby (see
form 4, sup. p. 115), and if so certified he is to be bound accordingly. If
the inquiry is answered in the negative, the Pit or person having conduct
can still proceed by supplemental action (as in Capps v. C, 4 Oh. 1). The
advantages of making the infant a party in the first instance are that an
appearance can be entered for him, and that if he refuses to appear the
order can be worked out : Peter v. P., 26 Ch. D. 181.
Where Pits refused to apply to add infants born after judgment, Def ts
were entitled to an order, under r. 4, to add them : Wicks v. W., 1887,
W. N. 15.
Infant co-Pit having attained twenty-one, and become co-trustee with
Deft, was added as co-Deft on an ex parte application : Be Ooold, 0. v. 0.,
51 L. T. 416.
Revivor was dispensed with in a legatee's suit, commenced in 1758, where
there was a fund in Court, and it was impossible to trace the represves of
the original Defts : BaUard v. Milner, 1895, W. N. 14, C.
By O. xvn, 5, the order when made is to be served upon the continuing Service of
and new parties to the action, or their solrs, and every person served, not order,
already a party to the action, is bound to enter an appearance in the same
time and manner as if served with a writ of summons.
By r. 6, any person not under disability, or under any disability other Motion to
than coverture, but having a guardian ad litem, may apply to the Court discharge,
or Judge to discharge or vary such order within twelve days from the
service of it ; and by r. 7, any person under such disability, not having a
guardian ad litem, may apply within twelve days from the appointment of
a guardian or guardians ad litem for him ; and until such period has expired,
the order is to have no force or effect against him.
By O. XVII, rr. 1 — 4, the former technical distinctions between supple-
mental bills, bills of revivor and supplement, and original bills in the
nature of bills of revivor and of supplemental bills, are finally abolished.
By O. xvn, 8 (adapted from Cons. Ord. 32, r. 4), when the Pit or Deft in Summons to
a cause or matter dies, and the cause of action survives, but the person proceed,
entitled to proceed fails to proceed, the Deft (or the person against whom
the cause or matter may be continued) may apply in Chambers (see
0. XXX, sup. p. 25) to compel the Pit (or the person entitled to proceed)
to proceed within such time as may be ordered : and in default of such
proceeding, judgment may be entered for the Deft, ot, as the case may be,
for the person against whom the cause or matter might have been con-
tinued ; and in such case, if the Pit has died, execution may issue as in
the case provided for by O. xlu, 23.
When the action has been transferred to the County Court, the applica-
tion to compel Pits to proceed should be made in that Court : Duke v.
Davis, [1893] 2 Q. B. 260, C. A.
And see Dan. 239 et seq.
Section II. — Dispensing with and appointing Eepee-
SENTATIVES.
1. Order to carry on Proceedings ivithout a Represve — 0. xvi, 46.
Upon reading the order dated &c., and an affidavit of &c., whereby
it appears that A. and B., two of the grandchildren of G., the testator
in the writ named, are dead, and that there is no legal pers. reprusve
120 Change and Representation of Parties, [chap. ix.
to either of them, Order that the proceedings in this action, and the
inquiries and several other matters directed by the said order, be
carried on and prosecuted, notwithstanding the absence of any person
representing the respective estates of the said A. and B. — Gladwin
V. G., M. R., 8 Feb. 1853, A. 422.
For admon order dispensing with the represves of deceased exors and
trustees, where persons not sui juris were interested, see Whittington v.
Gooding, 10 Ha. xxix.
For order for exors of deceased Deft to carry on proceedings for the pur-
pose of enforcing payment of the costs of a discontinuance under O. xxvi, 1,
see Be Overton, Hansby v. Llewellyn, 13 July, 1892, B. 543.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 75, 76.
2. Order appointing Pit to represent the Estates of deceased persons
interested — 0. xvi, 46.
Order that the Pit A. be appointed to represent the estates of
B. and C, respectively deceased, for the purposes of this action. —
Yince v. Walsh, V.-C. W., 11 June, 1853, B. 893 ; Walker v. Daniell,
V.-C. B., 5 Nov. 1874.
3. Appointment of Person to represent heir-at-law, next of kin, or
class in order to decide Questions of Construction — 0. xvi, 32(a).
Order that A. be appointed to represent the heir-at-law [or
customary heir or next-of-kin or class] for the purpose of obtaining
the opinion of the Court upon the construction of the will of &c. [or
other instrument].
NOTES.
Numerous ByO. xvi, 9, " where there are numerous persons having the same interest
persons in one cause or matter, one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or
liaving same may be authorized tjy the Court or a Judge to defend in such cause or
interest. matter, on behalf, or for the benefit, of all persons so interested."
This rule adopts the practice of the Court of Chancery, that where several
persons are interested in establishing and contesting a particular right,
individuals may be selected on the one side as Pits to assert, and on the
ocher as Defts to contest, the claim, and the right may be finally determined
in an action thus constituted, so as to bind all parties, though not actually
present as parties to the action : see Oommrs. (^Sewers v. Oellatly, 3 Ch. D.
610, 615 ; and see Dan. 196, 362.
The order should state that the Court has proceeded in the absence of any
person representing, or entitled to represent, the estate of the deceased
person, or has appointed some person to represent such estate : Be Bicherson,
Scales V. Heyhoe, [1893] 3 Ch. 146.
Under this rule a part owner of a ship may sue on behalf of himself and
his co-owners : De Hart v. Stevenson, 1 Q. B. D. 313.
The rule is not confined to persons who have or claim some beneficial pro-
prietary right r D. of Bedford v. SUis, [1901] A. C. 1, H. L., observing upon
Temperton v. Russell, [1893] 1 Q. B. 435, 715, C. A.
Form of When numerous persons have the same interest, if one of them is sued as
order. a Deft, an order should be obtained in the form " It appearing that the
residuary legatees [or other class] are numerous, and that A. is one of them,
s. II. j Dispensing with and appointing Representatives. 121
order that A. do defend on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so
interested,' ' and when such an order is made, the absent parties are bound as
though they had been present throughout : Mat/ v. i^ewfoTi, 34Ch. D. 718.
In a bondholders' action, an order having been made in favour of the class Dissentient,
represented by the Pit, a dissentient member of the class could not appeal ;
but, semble, his proper course was to apply to the Court below to be made
Deft : Watson v. Cave, 17 Ch. D. 19, C. A. Where Pits sued on behalf of a
class except Deft, but did not obtain an order enabling the Deft to be sued
as representing dissentients, another member of the class was at his own
instance made Deft to represent all such dissentients : Fraser v. Cooper, Hall
d! Co., 21 Ch. D. 718.
In the case of the ordinary action by a creditor for admon of a deceased Creditor's
debtor's real and personal estate, the writ had formerly to be indorsed with admon action,
a claim on behalf of himself and all other the creditors : Re Boyle, Fyer v. B.,
5 Ch. D. 540 ; Worraker v. Pryor, 2 Ch. D. 109 ; Re Vincent, 26 W. R. 94 ;
not following Cooper v. Blissett, 1 Ch. D. 691 ; Dan. 196 ; secus, where admon
of personal estate only is sought : Re Blount, Naylor v. B., 27 W. R. 865 ;
Re Greaves, Bray v. Tofield, 1 8 Ch. D. 554 ; and seciis also now since the L. T.
Act, 1897, where admon of real estate is sought. Re James, James v. Jones,
[1911] 2 Ch. 349.
By r. 32, " (a) in any case in which the right of an heir-at-law, or the next Questions of
of kin, or a class, shall depend upon the construction which the Court or a construction.
Judge may put upon an instrument, and it shall not be known or shall be
difficult to ascertain, who is or are such heir-at-law, or next of kin, or class,
and the Court or a Judge shall consider that in order to save expense, or
for some other reason, it will be convenient to have the questions of con-
struction determined before such heir-at-law, next of kin, or class, shall
have been ascertained by means of inquiry or otherwise, the Court or Judge
may appoint some one or more persons to represent such heir-at-law, next
of kin, or class, and the judgment of the Court or Judge in the presence of
such persons shall be binding upon the heir-at-law, next of kin, or class so
represented.
" (b) In any other case in which an heir-at-law, or customary heir, or Difficulty of
any next of kin or a class shall be interested in any proceedings, the Court asoertammg
or Judge may, if, having regard to the nature and extent of the interest of Persons,
such persons or any of them, it shall appear expedient on account of the
difficulty of ascertaining such persons, or in order to save expense, appoint
one or more persons to represent such heir, or to represent all or any of
such next of kin or class, and the judgment or order of the Court or Judge
in the presence of the persons so appointed shall be binding upon the persons
so represented."
The Court has no power to appoint a person to represent a class of which
there is no member in existence, e.g., unborn children : Re Whiting's Settle-
ment, [1905] 1 Ch. 96.
With regard to companies, the Court will require a meeting of share-
holders to be held to nominate a person to represent them, before deciding
a question to bind them as a class : Morgan's Brewery Co. v. Crosshill, [1902]
1 Ch. 898.
Devisees who might prove to be entitled under a will other than that which
had been admitted to probate, were treated as a class under the rule : Re
Nash ; Lewis v. Darby, W. N. (93) 199.
In illustration of this rule, see Re Peppitt's Estate, Chester v. Phillips,
4 Ch. D. 230, in which case questions as to the meaning of the words " heirs "
and " children " arose on a will, and great difficulty in discovering the
heir was apprehended ; and see Re Gardiner, 1887, W. N. 59.
On summons by represve against residuary legatee to determine whether
residuary personalty goes to the next of kin, the represve may be appointed
to represent the next of kin : Re Hake, 1895, W. N. 116.
An order may be made under the rule against the will of the person or Objection
persons so authorized : Wood v. McCarthy, [1893] 1 Q. B. 775. to order.
122 Change mid Representation of Parties, [chap. ix.
One of a class may be added as a Deft, although the Pit objects : see per
Buckley, J., in McCheane v. Oyles (No. 2), [1902] 1 Ch. at p. 915.
An order appointing a person to represent a class, such as next of kin, is
not binding on one of the next of kin who has a distinct and independent
interest in another capacity : Re Lart, Wilkinson v. Blades, [1896] 2 Ch. 788.
Absence of On the decease of an interested person without a legal pers. represve,
repreave. i\^g Court, under 0. xvi, 46, may proceed in the absence of a represve,
or appoint one for the purposes of the cause, matter, or proceeding, on such
notice, if any, as it thinks fit. And the order so made, and any consequent
orders, are to bind the deceased's estate, as if a duly constituted legal pers.
represve had been a party to the cause, matter, or proceeding.
Clause (a) of the rule is adapted from 15 & 16 V. c. 86, s. 44(now repealed),
which was held to be generally applicable only in cases where, from insol-
vency or some other cause, there was difficulty in obtaining representation
to the deceased : Long v. Stone, Kay, App. xii ; Dailies v. Boulcott, 1 Dr. &
Sm. 23 ; Bliss v. Putman, 29 Beav. 20.
The application is usually made by ex parte motion, but the order may be
obtained at the hearing : Mendes v. Ouedalla, 10 W. R. 485 ; Hewitson v.
Todhunter, 22 L. J. Ch. 76 ; 1 W. R. 78 ; Be Peppiit, Chester v. Phillips,
4 Ch. D. 230 ; and see Dan. 251 ; D. C. F. 75 ; or, if required in respect
of matters pending at Chambers, by ex parte summons : and see Ashley v.
Taylor, 10 Ch. D. 768.
Before drawing up the order, notice should be given to the person entitled
to administer : Davies v. Boulcott, 1 Dr. & Sm, 23 ; Joint Stock Discoimt Co.
V. Brotm, 8 Eq. 376, 380.
Under 15 & 16 V. c. 86, s. 44, now repealed by 46 & 47 V, c. 49, the
intention being that the Court should have power either to appoint a person
to represent the estate, or to go on without a represve, if it considered that
the interests of the estate were sufficiently protected (see Joint Stock Dis-
count Co. V. Brovm, 8 Bq. 380), a wide discretion was given and exercised as
to appointing or dispensing with a represve : Tarratt v. Lloyd, 2 Jur. N. S.
371 ; Hewitson v. Todhunter, 22 L. J. Ch. 76 ; 1 W. R. 78.
Accordingly the Court has dispensed with the represve of a person in the
same interest with the Pit : Cox v. Taylor, 22 L. J. Ch. 910.
— with therepresves of some members of classes of children entitled under
a will per stirpes or per capita : Ahrey v. Neivman, 17 Jur. 153 ; 10 Ha. App.
Ivii ; 22 L. J. Ch. 627.
— with a represve of one of two exors who had died intestate and insol-
vent, and to whom representation could not be obtained : Moore v. Morris,
13 Eq. 139 ; Band v. Randle, 2 W. R. 331 ; 2 Eq. R. 439 ; Rogers v. Jones,
1 Sm. & G. 17.
The represve of a policy holder who died insolvent and intestate, was dis-
pensed with in an action by an equitable mortgagee of the policy against the
insurance co., the next of kin disclaiming and declining to take out admon :
Curtius V. Caledonian Ins. Co., 19 Ch. D. 534, C. A. ; but qucere, whether the
mere fact of the insolvency of the assured would be sufficient : Webster v.
British Empire Ass. Co., 15 Ch. D. 169, C. A.
But a represve could not be dispensed witli :
■ — where the estate of the deceased person was that which was being ad-
ministered, or against which relief was sought in the action : Silber v. Stein,
1 Drew. 295 ; Rowlands v. Evans, 33 Beav. 202 ; Bruiton v. Birch, 22 L. J.
Ch. 911 ; 1 Eq. R. 136 ; or, being subject to liability, was not otherwise
represented in the action : Coxv. Stephens,ll'W.R.922 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1144;
8 L. T. 721.
• — nor where the represve of the deceased person had active duties to per-
form : Fowler v. Bayldon, 9 Ha. App. Ixxviii.
— nor to enable the solrs of a sued party to receive a small sum out of
Court : Rawlins v. M'Mahon, 1 Drew. 225.
— nor where Deft in a foreclosure action died insolvent before foreclosure
absolute : Aylward v. Lewis, [1891] 2 Ch. 81.
s. II. j Dispensing with and appointing Representatives. 123
The Court would not appoint a person against his will to represent the Person to be
estate of a deceased person : P. of Wales Co. v. Palmer, 25 Beav. 605 ; Hill appointed.
V. Bonner, 26 Beav. 372 ; Joint Stock Discount Co. v. Brown, 8 Eq. 380 ;
and see Re Curtis andBetis, 1887, W. N. 126; nor where there was personal
responsibility attached to the position : Fyfe's Case, 17 W. R. 870.
The proper person to be appointed was the person who would be appointed
admor ad litem : Dean of Ely v. Oayford, 16 Beav. 561 ; and where the will
was disputed, the person named as exor : Hill v. Ld. Bexley, 15 Beav. 340 ;
Robertson v. Kemhle, 1867, W. N. 305.
Where a sole Pit died insolvent and intestate, a person to represent his
estate was appointed, so that the Deft might have some one against whom to
move for dismissal for want of prosecution : Wingrove v. Thompson, 11 Ch,
D. 419.
As to discontinuance by a represve Pit; v'. inf. p. 130
( 124 ) [chap. X.
CHAPTER X.
CONSENT AND COMPROMISE.
1. Judgment or Order made by Consent.
And the Pit and the Defts by their counsel [or solicitors] consenting
to this judgment [or order], This Court doth order &c.
This form is to be used where the judgment or order contains several
directions, all of which. are consented to ; in other cases the words " by
consent " should preface the particular direction ; and where an order has
been agreed to and arranged between the parties and has not been sanctioned
or directed by the Court, it should appear on the face of the order that it
is an order " by consent" : Michel v. Mutch, 1886, W. N. 10 ; 34 W. R. 251 ;
54 L. T. 45 ; 55 L. J. Ch. 485.
2. Stay of Proceedings on the Terms of a Compromise.
Order that all further proceedings in this action, except such as
may be necessary for enforcing this order, be stayed upon the terms
set forth in the schedule hereto [add schedule stating terms of the
proposed compromise].
A compromise ought not to be introduced into the body of the order, but
either identified or scheduled. It is, however, common practice to insert
undertakings in the body of the order, and in the event of a breach, the
undertaking may be enforced by writ of attachment, whereas if it formed
part of the agreement set forth in the schedule, proceedings in the nature
of specific performance might be necessary.
NOTES.
Consent order By the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 49, no order made by the High Court of Justice,
not subject or any Judge thereof, by the consent of the parties, shall be subject to any
to appeal. appeal, except by leave of the Court or Judge making such order.
Primafacie any order made in the presence and with the consent of counsel
is binding on all parties to the proceedings or action, and on those claiming
under them : Stannard v. Harrison, 19 W. R. 811 ; 24 L. T. 570 ; Harrison
V. Rumsey, 2 Ves. 488 ; Moss v. Leatham, 2 Moo. P. C. 73, and see
When it Worthington & Co., Ld. v. Abbott, [1910] 1 Ch. 588 ; and cannot be varied
may be or discharged unless obtained by fraud, or collusion, or by an agreement
discharged. contrary to the policy of the Court : see Buck v. Fawcett, 3 P. W. 242 ;
Cole V. Langford, [1898] 2 Q. B. 36 ; Bowker v. Hunter, 2 Dick. 611, where
agreements not to appeal were held bad ; or if the consent was given with-
out sufficient materials, or in misapprehension or ignorance of material facts,
or in general for a reason which would enable the Court to set aside an
agreement : see Wilding v. Sanderson, [1897] 2 Ch. 534, C. A. ; Hvddersfield
Banking Co. v. Lister, [1895] 2 Ch. 273, C. A. ; Holt v. Jesse, 3 Ch. D. 183, 4 ;
Davenport v. Stafford, 8 Beav. 508 ; Furnival v. Bogle, 4 Russ. 142 ; Exp.
Banner, Be Blythe, 17 Ch. D. 480, C. A. ; and see Carew v. Cooper, 12 W. R.
767 ; A. O.Y. Tomline, 7 Ch. D. 388 ; and though the mistake was on one
side only : Mullins v. Howell, 11 Ch. D. 763 ; if such mistake was induced
by the other party : Wilding v. Sanderson, [1897] 2 Ch. 534, C. A. ; Jen-
nings v. J., [1898] 1 Ch. 378. And the admission of an exor as to his
Consent and Compromise. 125
testator's liability, if made iona fide., is binding on the residuary legatee :
Be Youngs, Doggett v. Revett, 30 Ch. D. 421, C. A.
Even on application of both parties, a judgment by consent cannot be set
aside, if a third person would thereby be prejudiced, e.g., an alleged joint
contractor with Deft : TheBellcairn,10F. I). 161, C. A. ; Hammond w.Scho-
fidd, [1891] 1 Q. B. 452 ; and see Htcddersfield Banking Co. v. Lister, sup.
As a general rule both the solr in the action (not, however, it seems, his Power of
clerks, unless specially authorized, see Hodson v. Drewry, 7 Dowl. Prao. Ca. counsel or
569), though a London agent ; BeNewen, [1903] 1 Ch. 812 ; and counsel have sob: to _
power to bind their client by a contract or compromise, or abandonment of "onipromise.
claim made in Court, unless the compromise includes matters not within the
scope of the action, or their authority to compromise has been expressly
restricted or prohibited, or the terms consented to by the client have, by mis-
apprehension, been departed from : see Lewis's v. Lewis, 45 Ch. D. 281 ;
Matthews v. Munster, 20 Q. B. D. 141, C. A. ; Strauss v. Francis, L. R. 1 Q. B.
379 ; Rumsey v. King, 33 L. T. 728 ; Butler v. Knight, L. R. 2 Ex. 109 ; Be
Wood, 21 W. R. 104 ; Thomas v. Harris, 27 L. J. Ex. 353 ; Prestwich v.
Foley, 18 C. B. N. S. 806 (limiting and explaining Swinfen v. S., 2 D. & J.
381 ; 1 C. B. N. S. 364 ; 18 C. B. 485 ; Fray v. Voules, 1 Ell. & E. 839) ;
Neale v. Gordon Lennox, [1902] A. C. 465 (counsel) ; Be Newen, [1903] 1 Ch.
812 (solicitor) ; Cordery, Solicitors, 88 ; and counsel has authority to con-
sent not to appeal : Be West Devon Great Consols Mine, 38 Ch. D. 51, C. A.
Where acting upon general instructions, counsel consents to a compromise
under misapprehension, neither the counsel nor the client is bound ; and
upon the question of the extent of the authority of counsel, the Court will
accept the statement of counsel if made from his place at the Bar, without
requiring it to be made on oath : Hickman v. Berens, [1895] 2 Ch. 638, C. A. ;
approving Holt v. Jesse, 3 Ch. D. 177.
After a judgment has been passed and entered (by being filed, see O. lxii, Presh action
2 (l),a,nd see post, Tp. 184), whether taken by consent or otherwise, the Court to set aside
cannot set it aside otherwise than in a fresh action brought for the purpose judgment,
{AinswoHhY.Wilding, [1896] 1 Ch. 673; PrestonBankingCo.Y.Allsup,[lS95] ^''®° °®''^*"
1 Ch. 141, C. A. ; Gilbert v. Endean, 9 Ch. D. 259, 266 ; EmerisY. Woodward, ^*^^'
43 Ch. D. 185 ; and see Flower v. Lloyd, 6 Ch. D. 297), unless (1) there has
been a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission
within O. xxvrn, 11, or (2) the judgment as drawn up does not correctly
state what the Court actually decided and intended to decide (in which
cases the application may be made by motion in the action : Ainsworth v.
Wilding, sup.), but in general and in the absence of conflicting evidence (see
S. C.) until the judgment or order by consent has been drawn up, passed, and
entered — ^bufc not afterwards — it is open to any of the parties to withdraw a
consent given under mistake, misapprehension , or ignorance of materi al facts :
A.G.Y. Tomline, 7 Ch. D. 388 ; Craven v. Stanley, M. R., 5 May, 1876, Reg.
Min. fo. 39 ; 8. C, 4 Ch. D. 251 ; and see Bogers v. Horn, 26 W. R. 432 ;
but the consent, once given, cannot be withdrawn arbitrarily : Harvey v.
Croydon Union, 26 Ch. D. 249, C. A. ; Elsas v. Williams, 54 L. J. Ch. 336 ;
West Devon Great Consols Mines, 38 Ch. D. 51 , C. A. ; Holt v. Jesse, 3 Ch. D.
177 ; or on the mere allegation that the consent was given inadvertently,
without evidence of mistake or misapprehension : DavisY. D., 13 Ch. D. 861.
The action to seb aside the consent judgment on the ground of mistake,
may be maintained by a party who has failed to obtain from the Court a
decision in his favour upon the construction of it : Wilding v. Sanderson,
[1897] 2 Ch. 534, C. A. And generally as to when a compromise may be
set aside in consequence of what afterwards proves to have been an erroneous
view, see Be Boberts, [1905] 1 Ch. 704 ; Holsworthy Urban Council v.
Holswmthy Bural Council, [1907] 2 Ch. 62.
Ordinarily a judgment obtained by fraud can only be set aside as against
the person who committed or procured the fraud, but this does not apply
to an action to set aside a judgment granting probate of a will : Birch v.
Birch, [1902] P. 130.
126
Consent and Compromise. [chap. x.
But although the Court has no jurisdiction to alter or vary an order after
it has been passed or entered, it may make a supplemental order, e.g., an
order excluding a party from the benefit of a previous order except upon
terms as to costs or otherwise : Be Scowhy, [1897] 1 Ch. 741, C. A.
How corpora- A co. or Corp. may be bound by consent to an order, or by the compromise
tion may of an action or claim in the same way as a private person : Bath's Case,, 8
be bound. Ch. D. 334 ; Bixm v. Evans, L. R. 5 H. L. 606, 618 ; but in order to bind a
CO. there ought, it seems, to be some formal proceeding, either by the action
of the directors sitting as such, or something equivalent to a resolution of
the shareholders in general meeting : Miles v. New Zealand Alford Estate Co.,
32 Ch. D. 266, C. A.
An agreement by a local board compromising an action not being a con-
tract necessary for carrying the Public Health Act, 1875, into execution,
was enforceable though not under seal : A. 0. v. Gaskill, 32 Ch. D. 537.
Compromise In the case of infants, the Court, though it has power to sanction a com-
on behalf promise on their behalf {t;. m/. Vol. II., Chap. XXXVIII., "Infants": Hop-
of infants. good v. Parkin, 11 Eq. 80), will not make an order affecting their interests,
by arrangement, unless satisfied that it will be for their benefit, and that it
has been consented to by their next friend or guardian ad litem, and also
by their solrs or counsel : Re Birchall, Wilson v. B., 16 Ch. D. 41, C. A.
{where Jessel, M. R., stated the practice adopted by himself and his prede-
cessor). A next friend has no authority to bind the infant by a compromise
which is only for the next friend's benefit, as by agreeing after non-suit, not
to appeal in consideration of the Deft not asking for costs : Rhodes v.
Swithinhank, 22 Q. B. D. 577, C. A. An inquiry may be directed to ascertain
whether the compromise is for the benefit of the infant.
Trustee in A trustee in bankruptcy, suing in that capacity, has the right of an
bankruptcy, ordinary litigant to compromise the action : Leeming v. Lady Murray, 13
Ch. D. 123.
Bepresenta- As to incapacity of represve Defts to consent to judgment against those
tive Dfts. whom they represent, see Rees v. Richmond, 62 L. T. 427.
As to the effect of an order of compromise in an admon action made in the
presence of the parties and sanctioned by the Court, and rescinding a con-
tract for the purchase of land by the testator, on the terms that the vendor
should retain the deposit money, see In re Cockcroft, Broadhent v. Groves, 24
Ch. D. 94, 101.
A bond fide compromise of a real claim is a good consideration, whether the
claim would have been successful or not : Miles v. New Zealand Alford
Estate. Co., 32 Ch. D. 266, C. A. ; approving Cook v. Wright, 1 B. & S. 559
Callisher v. Bischojfshein, L. B. 5 Q. B. 449 ; Ockford v. Barelli, 20 W. R. 116
25 L. T. 504; and questioning ^x^. Banner, Re Blythe, 17 Ch. D. 480, C. A.
and see Holsworthy U.D.C. v. Holsworthy R.D.C., [1907] 2 Ch. 62.
Deeds of compromise of ascertained specific questions will not be con-
strued so as to deprive any party thereto of any right not then in dispute
and not in contemplation : see Bennett v. Merriman, 6 Bea. 360 ; Lawton
V. Campion, 18 Bea. 87 ; Glouite v. Storey, [1911] 1 Ch. 18.
Solicitor's There is no rule that parties may not compromise an action without the
Jien. intervention of their solrs, but they must do so honestly, and not with intent
to cheat the solrs of their proper charges : The Hope, 8 P. D. 146, C. A. ;
Price V. Couch, 60 L. J. Q. B. 767 ; Re Margetson and Jones, [1897] 2 Ch. 314
(where one solr attempted to defeat the lien of another solr employed to tax
the bill of the former) ; and see Dunihorne v. Bunbury, 24 L. R. Ir. 6 ; and
the solr's lien for costs attaches to money received by way of compromise,
where it is in substance the fruit of the action : Ross v. Buxton,, 42 Ch. D.
190 ; Moxon v. Sheppard, 14 Q. B. D. 627 ; and see inf. Vol. II., Chap. XL.,
" SoLiciTOKS." Where an order was made directing taxation of costs and
staying all proceedings, except for the purpose of enforcing a compromise,
as the parties were the only persons who could apply to enforce the agree-
ment, the solr could not obtain payment of his costs under it : Rowlands v.
Williams, 53 L. T. 135 ; 1885, W. N. 194.
Consent and Compromise. 127
A compromise entered into alter Pit's death and before grant of admon Enforcing
was enforceable by the admix, as the admon related back to the death : compromise.
Baker v. BlaUr, 55 L. T. 723.
Where proceedings are compromised, an order may be made by consent
in the terms of the agreement of compromise, at the trial, or on any inter-
locutory application, or on appeal : see Fawcett v. Nevile, Lush, J., for V.-C.
H., 23 Oct. 1878, A. 2013 ; Re Briscoe's Trusts, 20 W. R. 504 ; 26 L. T. 149 ;
Hopgood V. Parkin, 11 Eq. 80.
Or an independent application may be made to stay proceedings on the
terms of the agreement : Eden v. Naish, 7 Ch. D. 781.
Such an application may be made in Chambers or by motion : 8. C. In
cases of complication it has been made by petition : Dawson v. Newsome, 2
Gift. 272 ; 8 W. R. 725. For forms, see D. C. P. 1022, 1023.
Upon such an application, the Court will enforce the agreement against an
unwilling party to it, even though it includes proceedings in different Divi-
sions : Eden v. Naish, sup. ; Scully v. Lord Dundonald, 8 Ch. D. 658 ; el v.
inf. Chap. L., " Specific Peefobmance," pp. 2214, 2215.
Where one of several co-Pits has compromised with theDefts,he is not Compromise
entitled as of course to be discharged from the action, but in case of dif- by one of
ference between oo-Plts, the proper course is that the name of one of them several
should be struck out as Pit and added as Deft on giving security for the co-Pits,
original Defts' costs : Re Mathews, [1905] 2 Ch. 460.
An order by consent dismissing an action for want of prosecution , unless
it proceeds upon a compromise of the action, is no bar to another action
between the same parties in respect of the same subject-matter : Magnus v.
Nat. Bk. of Scotland, 58 L. T. 617 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 902 ; 36 W. R. 602 ; but
see Parker v. Simpson, 18 W. R. 204.
As to the jurisdiction of the Court under Jud. Act, 1875, s. 24 (7), to Jurisdiction
enforce a compromise in the winding up of a co., see Re Oaudet Freres in winding up.
Steamship Co., 12 Ch. D. 882.
As to the jurisdiction of the Court to enforce a compromise on summary Summary
application in the action, see Dan. 16 ; and as to compromise on behalf of application,
persons under disability, see Dan. 46.
It is not the practice in the Chancery Division where Deft, being Dft in person
served with notice of motion, does not appear, to act on his written consent to sign
to treat the motion as the trial of the action and to submit to judgment Registrar s
and perpetual injunction. The Deft, unless represented by counsel, must "°°^-
appear in person and sign the Registrar's book : Elliman v. Sequdh, 1903,
W. N. 187.
compromise in absence of parties interested.
By O. XVI, 9a, " where in proceedings concerning a trust, a compromise
is prepared, and some of the persons interested in the compromise are not
parties to the proceedings, but there are other persons in the same interest
before the Court and assenting to the compromise, the Court or a Judge, if
satisfied that the compromise will be for the benefit of the absent persons,
and that to require service on such persons would cause unreasonable ex-
pense or delay, may approve the compromise and order that the same shall
be binding on the absent persons, and they shall be bound accordingly,
except where the order has been obtained by fraud or non-disclosure of
material facts."
The Court under this rule can bind non-assenting or absent persons, but Dissentients
not dissentients, otherwise than by setting aside the full amount to which not bound,
they can be entitled : Gollingham v. Sloper, [1894] 3 Ch. 716, C. A. ; and see
8. G. (No. 2), [1901] 1 Ch. 769, C. A. And the Court has jurisdiction to
limit a time within which unascertained bondholders or other parties con-
cerned must come in, or be excluded: Saragassa and Mediterranean Ry. Co.
V. Collingham, [1904] A. C. 159, reversing Collingham v. Sloper, sup. on this
point. For a case in which the Court sanctioned a compromise in the ab-
sence of three out of seven residuary legatees, see Be Wrigglesworth, 1901,
W. N. 172.
( 128 ) [chap. XI.
CHAPTEE XI.
DISCONTINUANCE AND DISMISSAL.
Section I. — Discontinuance op Action.
1. Judgment after Notice of Discontinuance — 0. xxvi, 3.
The Pit having by a notice in writing wholly discontinued his
action [or withdrawn so much of his claim in this action as relates to
— ], and the Taxing Master having taxed the costs of the Deft [or of
so much of this action as relates to — ] as by the Taxing Master's
certificate filed &c., appears at £ — ■, It is this day adjudged that the
Deft do recover against the Pit the said sum of £ — .
For another form, see D. C. F. 283.
2. Order to Discontinue — 0. xxvi, 1.
Order that this action be discontinued ; And it is ordered that
the Pit A., do on or before &c., pay to the Deft his costs of this action,
to be taxed [*/ so, where discontinuance is as to one of several Defts,
add .•] And such discontinuance and payment of costs are to be with-
out prejudice to the question by whom, or out of what fund, such
costs shall be ultimately borne.
3. Counter-claim, dismissed by Consent.
Order that the counter-claim delivered by A. do stand dismissed
out of this Court as against B. without costs. — Union Bank of London
v. Ingram, M. R. at Chambers, 19 April, 1877, B. 798.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 284.
NOTES,
By 0. xxvi, 1, " the Pit may, at any time before receipt of the Deft's
defence, or after the receipt thereof, before taking any other proceeding in
the action (save any interlocutory application), by notice in writing wholly
discontinue his action against all or any of the Defts, or withdraw any part
or parts of his alleged cause of complaint, and thereupon he shall pay such
Deft's costs of the action, or, if the action be not wholly discontinued, his
costs occasioned by the matter so withdrawn. Such costs shall be taxed,
and such discontinuance or withdrawal, as the case may be, shall not be a
defence to any subsequent action. Save as in this rule provided, it shall
not be competent for the Pit to withdraw the record or discontinue the action
SECT. I.J Discontinuance of Action. 129
without leave of the Court or a Judge, but the Court or a Judge may,
before, or at, or after the hearing or trial, upon such terms as to costs, and
as to any other action, and otherwise as may be just, order the action to be
discontinued, or any part of the alleged cause of complaint to be struck out.
The Court or a Judge may, in like manner, and with the like discretion as
to terms, upon the application of a Deft, order the whole or any part of his
alleged grounds of defence or counter-claim to be withdrawn, or struck out ;
but it shall not be competent to a Deft to withdraw his defence, or any part
tliereof, without such leave."
By Cons. Ord. 23, c. 13, upon which the above order was founded, a dis-
missal of the bill, upon the Pit's own appUoation after the cause was set
down to be heard, or, on his default at the hearing, was, unless the Court
otherwise ordered, equivalent to a dismissal on the merits, and might be
pleaded in bar to a second suit for the same matter.
The only way in which an action can be discontinued is under O. xxvr, 1,
and a Pit can no longer elect to be non-suited : Fox v. Star Newspaper Co. ,
[1898] 1 Q. B. 636, C. A. ; [1900] A. C. 19, H. L. ; Dan. 481. The proper
order is judgment for the Deft and not one of non-suit : Westgate v. Crowe,
[1908] 1 K. B. 24.
A written notice by the Pit's solrs stating that they are " instructed not to What con-
proceed further with the action " is a sufficient notice of discontinuance : stitutes notice
The Pomerania, 4 P. D: 195 ; but see Moore v. Dickinson, 38 W. R. 278 ; of diacontinu-
63 L. T. 371. ^^'^^'
The words " taking any other proceeding in the action," in the beginning
of O. XXVI, 1, refer to a proceeding which is with the view of continuing the
action, not of putting an end to it, as by taking out of Court money paid in
satisfaction of claim : Spencer v. Watts, 23 Q. B. D. 350 ; or delivering an
amended statement of claim : Vichers, Sons S Maxim, Ltd. v. Coventry
Ordnance Works, Ltd., 1908, W. N 12.
An amendment which entirely alters the ground of action cannot be
treated as a discontinuance : Bourne v. Coulter, 53 L. J. Ch. 699 ; 60 L. T.
321.
The application to discontinue or to dismiss may, if the Deft consents. Form of
be by petition of course, but otherwise by motion or summons. application.
As to the terms which the Court may impose on an application to dis-
continue, see Robertson v. Purdey, [1906] 2 Ch. 615.
There is jurisdiction under the rule, on the application of the Pit, to make Costs,
an order staying all proceedings, each party to bear his own costs, except
such as were unnecessarily occasioned to the Defts : Musman v. Boret, 40
W. R. 352 ; 66 L. T. 171 ; distinguishing Lambton v. Parkinson, 35 W. B.
545 ; but the Deft will not be compelled to pay costs in auxiliary proceedings
before another tribunal : Lloyd's Bk. v. Princess Royal Colliery, 48 W. R.
460. The words " Court or Judge " include a Master in Ch. D. : S. C.
(No. 2) 1900, W. N. 99 ; 82 L. T. 559 ; 48 W. R. 427.
The Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, does not apply to a discon-
tinuance under O. xxvr, 1 : Smith v. Northleach Rural District Council,
[1902] 1 Ch. 197.
By 0. XXVI, 3, a Deft may enter judgment for the costs of an action if it
is wholly discontinued, or for the costs occasioned by the matter withdrawn
if the action be not wholly discontinued, in case such costs are not paid
within four days after taxation.
An application to dismiss certain Defts with their costs, but ^^ithout
prejudice to the question by whom, or out of what fund, such costs should
ultimatelv be paid, may be made by motion ex parte : see Berndston v.
Churchill, 1866, W.' N. 8 ; Clements v. Clifford, 14 W. B. 22.
The parties by whom, and to whom, the costs are to be paid should be
named in the order, with a view to suing out process under 0. xlh, 17 ; and
see Re Leeds Banking Co., 1 Ch. 150.
By O. xxvi, 4, " if any subsequent action shall be brought before payment
of the costs of a discontinued action, for the same, or substantially the same,
VOL. I. K
130
Discontinuance and Dismissal, [chap. xi.
One of several
co-Pits.
Representa-
tive Pit.
After entry
for trial.
After arbitra-
tion.
Pit impro-
perly induced
to discontinue,
Effect on
counter-
claim.
Effect on
appeal.
cause of action, the Court or a Judge may, if they or he think fit, order a
stay of such subsequent action until such costs have been paid." For an
instance of the exercise of the jurisdiction under this rule, see Hall y. Paulet,
66 L. T. 645.
An action in the High Court, where the subject-matter is'iinder £10, will
be dismissed with costs ; the High Court having now only the jurisdiction
the Court of Chancery and Courts of Common Law had before the Judicature
Act : Westbury-on-Severn Rural Sanitary Authority v. Meredith, 30 Ch. D.
387, C. A.
One of several op-Plts has no absolute right to withdraw from an action :
Be Mathews, [1905] 2 Ch. 460. But an intervener in a Probate action is
not a co-Pit, and if Pit discontinue, the intervener may proceed : Crichitt v.
Crichitt, [1902] P. at p. 186.
Pit after judgment in a creditor's admon action cannot discontinue ; secus.
Pit in a debenture-holder action : In re Alpha Co., Ltd., [1903] 1 Ch. 203 ;
but see Be Calgary cfe Medicine Hat Land Co:, Ltd., [1908] 2 Ch. 652, 659,
662.
Pit is not entitled to discontinue his action after it has been entered for
trial : Matthews v. Antrdbus, 49 L. J. Ch. 80.
After a iinding of the arbitrator in favour of the Deft on all material
points, the Pit will net be allowed to discontinue his action : Stahlschmidt v.
Walford, 4 Q. B. D. 217.
Where Pit is induced to discontinue by improper action of Deft {e.g., by
adducing false evidence), the remedy for consequent loss is by an indepen-
dent action : United Telephone Co. v. Tasker, 59 L. T. 852.
Discontinuance by Pit does not put an end to a counter-claim by Deft :
McQowan v. Middleton, 11 Q. B. D. 464, C. A. ; overruling Vavasseur v.
Krupp, 15 Ch. D. 474 ; but a counter-claim cannot be set up to an action
which has once been discontinued : The Salybia, [1910] P. 25.
Discontinuance of action puts an end to an appeal, which will be simply
struck out : Conyheare v. Lewis, 13 Ch. D. 469^ C. A.
Discontinuance does not relieve solrs who have instituted the action
without authority from being ordered to pay Pit's costs : Gold Beefs of W.
Australia v. Dawson, [1897] 1 Ch. 115.
Section II.— Stay of Proceedings.
1. Proceedings stayed until Satisfaction of Judgment in another
Division.
Order that all further proceedings in this action be stayed until
after the Pit shall have paid to the Defts the sum of £ — , which by
the judgment of the K. B. Division, dated &c., in an action wherein
&c., was awarded to be paid by the Pit to the Defts for their costs
of the defence of the said action in the K. B. Division. — Direction for
taxation and payment by the Pit of the costs of the Defts of this
application.— See Cannot v. Morgan, V.-C. M., 16 Dec. 1875, A. 1937.
For various forms of application in reference to stay of proceedings, see
D. G. F. 1018 et seq.
2. Stay of Proceedings until Payment of Costs hy Pit.
{Read order directing taxation and payment of costs hy Pits, the Taxing
Master's certificate, <£c.), Order that all further proceedings in this
SECT. II. J Stay of Proceedings. 131
action be stayed until the costs by the said order directed to be taxed
and paid be paid by the Pits to the Defts. — White v. Bromige, V.-C. H.,
4 Aug. 1877, B. 1620.
For the subsequent order to dismiss the action for want of prosecution
without further order, in default of payment of such taxed costs by a day
specified, see S. G., Sect. III., inf. p. 134.
For form of order for stay of proceedings on the terms of a compromise,
see ante, p. 124.
For order upon adjourned summons staying all further proceedings in an
action, on the ground that it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the
process of the Court, see Edmunds v. A.G., V.-C. M., 9 March, 1878, A. 627 ;
26 W. R. 550 ; 47 L. J Ch. 345 ; 38 L, T. 213.
NOTES.
Proceedings in an action may be stayed : —
(a) If the writ of summons has been issued without the authority or Writ issued
privity of the solr whose name is indorsed thereon, in which case " no without
further proceedings shall be taken thereupon without leave of the Court or a authority.
Judge " : O. vu, I. As to the authority requisite, see Dan. 263 et seq. ;
Cordery, 78 et seq. Where a solr brings an action without authority, the
order will be that he pay the costs of the Pit as between solr and client,
and those of the Deft as between party and party, following the common
law practice as preferable to the old Chancery practice : Newbiggin-by-the-
Sea Gas Co. v. Armstrong, 13 Ch. D. 310, C. A. ; Nurse v. Durnford, 13 Ch. D.
764 ; and so, mutatis mutandis, where an infant is joined as oo-Plt on the
assumption that he is of full age : Oeilinger v. Oibba, [1897] 1 Ch. 479 ;
and quare, whether solr and client costs might not, in special cases, be given
to Deft as well as Pit : Andrews v. Barnes, 39 Ch. D, 133, C. A.
(6) If, in an action by partners in the name of a firm, the Pits or their Pits failing to
solr fail to comply with a demand in writing by the Deft for a declaration in give names of
writing of the names and places of residence of all the persons constituting partners of
the firm — but, " when the names of the partners are so declared, the action fi'™-
shall proceed in the same manner and the same consequences in all respects
shall follow as if they had been named as the Pits in the writ" : O. xlviiia,
r. 2.
(c) If any question of law, which it would be convenient to have decided Determina-
before any evidence is given, or any question or issue of fact is decided, has tion of
been directed to be raised for the opinion of the Court by special case, or in question
such other manner as the Court or a Judge may deem expedient, in which o^ 1*^-
case " all such further proceedings as the decision of such question of law
may render unnecessary, may thereupon be stayed " : O. xxxiv, 2 ; and see
Dixon V. Rowe, 35 L. T. 548. As to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court,
see Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley, 10 A. C. 210.
(d) An action may also be stayed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of Abuse
the process of the Court : Dawhins v. Prince Edward of Saxe- Weimar, 1 process,
Q. B. D. 499 ; Edmunds v. A. 0., 26 W. R. 550 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 345 ; 38 L. T.
213 ; Castro v. Murray, L. R. 10 Ex. 213 ; and see Lawrance v. Lord Nmreys,
39 Ch. D. 213, C. A. ;" S. C, 15 App. Ca. 210 ; Willis v. Earl Howe, [1893]
2 Ch. 543 ; Willis v. Earl Beauchamp, 11 P. D. 59, C. A. ; Macdougall v.
Knight, 25 Q. B. D. 1, C. A. ; Metropolitan Banlc v. Pooley, 10 App. Ca.
210 ; Kellaway v. Bury, 66 L. T. 599 ; Dan. 1649.
An action for malicious prosecution -is not necessarily frivolous and
vexatious because the prosecution is by a trustee in bankruptcy brought
by order of the Court : Mittens v. Foreman, 58 L. J. Q. B. 40.
For form of order where repeated frivolous applications had been made
prohibiting any further applications in the particular action without the
leave of the Court, see Qrepe v. Loam, Bulteel v, Orepe, 37 Ch D. 168, C. A. ;
Lord Kinnaird v. Field, [1905] 2 Ch, 306.
132
Stay of Proceedings.
[chap. XI.
Action before
probate.
Title to sue at
an end.
Deft's com-
pliance.
Non-compli-
ance by Pit
with order of
Court
As to restraining a person, at the instance of the Att. Gen., instituting vexa-
tious legal proceedings, see the Vexatious Actions Act, 1896 (59 & 60 V. c. 51 ).
In making an order under it, the Court will look at the number, general
character and result of actions brought, and if these have been of a vexatious
character, habitually and persistently instituted without reasonable
ground, an order will be made : Exp. A. O., Re Alexander Chaffers, 76 L. T.
351 ; 45 W. R. 365.
As to staying proceedings where cause of action arose out of the jurisdic-
tion, see Re Norton's SctUbment, [1908] 1 Ch. 471.
As to staying proceedings where concurrent actions are brought in this
country and in a foreign country, on the ground " nemo bis vexari," &c.,
and that such proceedings cannot be regarded as vexatious where there is
a better remedy in the foreign Court, see McHenry v. Lewis, 22 Ch. D. 397,
C. A. ; Peruvian Guano Co. y. Bochwoldt, 23 Ch. D. 225, C. A. ; Hyman v.
Helm, 24 Ch. D. 531, C A. ; Re Christiansberg, 10 P. D. 141 ; Thornton v.
Thorntm, 11 P. D. 176 ; Mutrie v. Binney, 35 Ch. D. 614, C. A. ; Logan v.
Sank of Scotland (No. 2), [1906] 1 K. B. 141 ; Egbert v. Short, [1907] 2 Ch.
205 ; Re Norton's Settlement, sup.
As to jurisdiction of Ch. Div. to restrain proceedings in Palatine action :
Re Connolly Brothers, Ltd., [1911] 1 Ch. 731.
As to the jurisdiction to stay proceedings for admon in this country
on it appearing that proceedings equally beneficial to infant Pit are
pending in a Scotch Court, see Ewing v. Orr-Ewing, 9 A. C. 34.
As to staying proceedings in action by exor before probate, see Tarn
V. Commercial Bank of Sydney, 12 Q. B. D. 294 following Webb v. Adkins, 14
C. B. 401, and see Ingpen on Executors, p. 64 ; and as to consolidation or
stay of proceedings after judgmentin an admon action, see inf- p. 831, and
Re Ross, [1907] 1 Ch. 482.
If the Pit's title to sue has, since judgment, been put an end to, ex. gr., in
an admon action by revocation and fresh grant of admon, all further proceed-
ings may be stayed on the application of the person who has acquired the
title to sue : Houseman v. H., 1 Ch. D. 535.
Proceedings may also be stayed without costs where the Deft ofEers to
comply with the Pit's demand, and would have done so if applied to before
suit : Rudd v. Rowe, 10 Eq. 610.
If the Pit has been ordered to pay, or give security for costs, or to do any
act, proceedings in his action may be stayed until compHance with such
order, and in default the Deft may take proceedings to obtain an order to
dismiss for want of prosecution.
Mere non-payment of costs of interlocutory proceedings by a Pit is not a
ground for staying proceedings : Re Wickham, Marony v. Taylor, 35 Ch. D.
272, C. A. (dissenting from Re Youngs, Doggett v. Revett, 31 Ch. D. 239 ; and
Re Neal, Weston v. Neal, 31 Ch. D. 437) ; Morton v. Palmer, 9 Q. B. D. 89 ;
secus, where payment of costs is vexatiously withheld and an application is
made before trial : Re Wickham, sup. ; or if the action is vexatious, or has
been vexatiously conducted by Pit : Oraham v. Sutton Carden d: Co., [1897]
2 Ch. 367, C. A. ; but where a Pit having failed in one action, brings another
action for the same cause, the second action may be stayed until the costs
in the first have been paid : 0. xxvi, 4 ; though in the second action the Pit
sues in a different character, if substantially by virtue of the same alleged
title : Martin v. Earl Beauchamp, 25 Ch. D. 12 ; and see Peters v. Tilly, 11
P. D. 145 ; Denis v. Oorman, 4 L. R. Ir. 356 ; secus, where the second
proceeding is by the liquidator in the winding-up of the Pit co. : Re United
Service Assoc, [1901] 1 Ch. 97 ; and where an action by a married woman
by a next friend was dismissed for non-compliance with an order for security
for costs, a second action by her by another next friend against same Defts,
for same cause, was stayed until the costs of the first action were paid :
Re Payne, Randle v. P., 23 Ch. D. 288, C. A.
For case in which proceedings have been stayed pending security for
damages, see Richards v. Howell, 1883, W. N 159, 168.
SECT. III.] Dismissal, 133
As to staying proceedings under foreclosure judgment against will of
Deft, see Blake v. Harvey, 29 Ch. D. 827, C. A., and inf. Chap. XLVII.,
" MOKTGAQES."
The Court has jurisdiction to restrain a creditor whose debt is hcm& fide Proceedings
disputed from presenting a petition to wind up a solvent co. : Cercle in Co.
Restaurant Casliglione Co. v. iMoery, 18 Ch. D. 535 ; and see In re A Co., matters
[1894] 2 Ch. 349, where the Court restrained the advertisement of an
oppressive winding-up petition, and stayed all proceedings upon it.
The Court had jurisdiction, under sect. 85 of the Companies Act, 1 862, to
restrain quasi criminal proceedings against a oo. by a common informer,
for the recovery of penalties : Re Briton Medical Ass. Assoc , 32 Ch. D.
503 ; and see corresponding section 140 in the Companies (Consolidation)
Act, 1908.
A groundless action against official liquidators in their personal capacity
was stayed : Graham v. Edge, 20 Q. B. D. 683, 0. A.
As to stay of proceedings after presentation of a petition for winding up
a CO., see Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, ss. 140, 265, 270 ; and
as to proceedings against the co. by leave, see s. 142 and Currie v.
Consolidated Kent Colleries Corp., Ltd., [1906] 1 K. B. 134.
There is no analogy in this respect between a compulsory or voluntary
winding-up and a meeting of creditors or members of the co. under sect. 1 20 :
Booth V. Walkden Spinning <Ss Manufacturing Co., Ltd., [1909] 2 K. B. 368.
As to staying proceedings under a winding-up order, see In re Telescriplor
Syndicate, Ltd., [1903] 2 Ch. 174.
As to staying proceedings after presentation of a bankruptcy petition. Bankruptcy,
see Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 10 (2).
For stay of proceedings where there is a submission to arbitration, v. Arbitration.
post. Chap. XXVI.
By O. Lvm, 16, an appeal is not to operate as a stay of proceedings under Effect of
the decision appealed from except so far as the Court appealed from, or any appeal.
Judge thereof, or the Court of Appeal, may order. As to stay of proceedings
pending appeal, o. inf. Chap. XXXVI., " Appeaxs."
As to transfer and consolidation of actions, v. inf. Chap. XXXIV.
Section III. — Dismiss-ai.
1. Order to dismiss for not delivering Statement of Claim —
0. XXVII, 1.
Upon reading an affidavit of &c. whereby it appears that the Pit
has not delivered a statement of claim, Order that this action do
stand dismissed out of this Court for want of prosecution with costs
to be taxed by the Taxing Master and paid by the Pit to the Deft.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 274, 1024 et seq.
2. The Like — In Default of Answer to Interrogatories, or Discovery,
or Inspection of Documents— 0. xxxi, 21.
Upon reading an affidavit of &c. whereby it appears that the Pit
has not answered the interrogatories delivered by the Deft [or filed
an affidavit of documents or given inspection of documents], Order
that this action do stand dismissed &c. [Form 1, sup.].
134 Discontinuance and Dismissal, [chap. xi.
Under this rule a party failing to comply with an order to answer inter-
rogatories, or for discovery or inspection, is also liable to attachment, et v.
sup. Chap. VIII., " Evidence."
For form of application, see D. 0. F. 981.
3. The Like — In Default of giving Notice of Trial — 0. xxxvi, 12.
Order that in default of the Pit, on or before the — day of — ,
giving notice to the Deft of the trial of this action, this action do
stand dismissed out of this Court for want of prosecution, without
further order, with costs to be taxed &c.
For an order, with direction that the costs are to include the Deft's costs
of an application for injunction and receiver, see Crick v. Hewlett, Pearson,
J., 24 July, 1884, A. 1147 ; 27 Ch. D. 354.
For order dismissing action unless notice of trial be given and the trial
entered within a certain time, see Sievier v. Spearman, 74 L. T. 132.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 359.
4. Pit out of Jurisdiction — Dismissal for Want of Prosecution in
Default of Security for Costs.
Whereas by an order, dated &c., it was ordered [recite order for
security] ; Now upon the application of the Deft, and upon hearing
the solrs for the applicant and for the Pit, and upon reading &c.. It is
ordered that the Pit do on or before &c. give security for costs, or
lodge the said sum of £100 in Court, as directed by the said order,
and in default thereof it is ordered that this action do, vnthout further
order, stand dismissed out of this Court for want of prosecution, with
costs to be taxed by the Taxing Master and paid by the Pit to the
Deft ; And it is ordered that in the meantime all further proceedings
in this action be stayed.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 1014.
5. Dismissal in Default of Payment by Pit of Costs und-er former
Order.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for the Defts, who alleged that the
Pits had not paid to the Defts the sum of £ — , the amount of the
costs taxed under the order dated &c. ; And upon reading &c., This
Court doth order that the Pits do on or before &c., pay to the
Defts the said sum of £ — ; And it is ordered that in default of such
payment this action do, without further order, stand dismissed out
of this Court, with costs, including the costs of this motion, such costs
to be taxed by the Taxing Master and paid by the Defts to the Pits.
—White V. Bromige, V.-C. H., 31 Jan. 1878, B. 290 ; 26 W. R. 312.
Unless the words " without further order " are inserted, a further order to
dismiss upon default being made will be necessary. But see Dan. 628.
SECT. III.} Dismissal. 135
NOTES.
DISMISSAL FOK WANT OE PEOSBCUTIOK.
A Deft may obtain an order to dismiss the Pit's action for want of
prosecution —
(a) If the Pit being bound to deliver a statement of claim does not deliver Non-delivery
the same within the time allowed for that purpose (six weeks from Deft's of statement
entry of appearance, see 0. xx, 1 (a) : 0. xxvn, I, or other time limited by of claim,
order for directions under O. xxx, v. sup. p. 25).
(6) If the Pit fails to comply with an order to answer interrogatories or Non-compli-
for discovery or inspection of documents : 0. xxxi, 21. anoe with
Non-compliance with an order to make a further afBdavit of docu- order for
ments, obtained, but not served on him, does not prevent a Deft from moving discovery,
to di-smiss : Howe v. Qrey, 16 L. T. 345.
(c) If the Pit fails to give notice ot trial within six weeks after the close of Failing to
the pleadings, or within such extended time as may be allowed : O. xxxvi, give notice
12. And so if in London or Middlesex notice is given, but the trial is not of trial,
entered within six days, as required by O. xxxvr, 16, so that the notice is
" no longer in force " : Crick v. Hewlett, 27 Ch. D. 354. It is in the discre-
tion of the Court either to dismiss the action, or ti3 order that it be dismissed
unless notice of trial be given and the trial entered within a time certain :
Sievier v. Spearman, 74 L. T. 132.
(d) If the Pit does not within fourteen days from entry of Deft's appear- Failing to
ance take out a summons for directions or for summary judgment under take out
0. XIV : O. xxx, 8. summons for
It seems that in the Chancery Division the application to dismiss for want direotiona.
ot prosecution should be made at Chambers rather than by motion in Court : Form of
per Jessel, M. R., in Freason v. Lowe, 26 W. R. 138 ; but if there is reason application,
to expect a contest the motion is properly made in Court : Evelyn v. E.,
13 Ch. D. 138. If notice of motion is given, and Pit does not at once submit
to speed the cause, and tender the costs of the notice, the Deft, if the usual
order is made, will have his costs of the motion in Court : Ibid. ; and see
Pascoev.iJictortis, 29 W.R. 330; 50 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 44L.T.871; Thomasr.
Palin, 21 Ch. D. 360.
Where the Pit appears and gives an explanation of his delay, he is gene-
rally put under an undertaking to take further proceedings within some
short limited period (a week or fourteen days), and ordered to pay the costs
of the appUcation : see Higginbottom v. Aynsley, 3 Ch. D. 288 ; Sutton v.
Huggins, W. N. (75) 235 ; and the order ought to provide that in default of
his taking the particular step within the period limited, the action shall
stand dismissed without further order.
If at the end of such extended time the required step has not been taken,
the action is at end, and cannot be restored by subsequent order : see
Whistler v. Hancock, 3 Q. B. D. 83 ; Script Phonography Co. v. Gregg, 59
L. J. Ch. 406 ; Collinson v. Jeffery, [1896] 1 Ch. 644 ; nor will the consent
of the parties to enlarge the time avail : King v. Davenport, 4 Q. B. D. 402 ;
and see Dan. 628.
The costs of an action dismissed for want of prosecution are in the dis- Costs,
cretion of the Court or Judge under O. lxv, 1 ; and by sect. 49 of the
Judicature Act, 1873, the exercise of that discretion is not the subject-
matter of appeal, except by leave of the Court or Judge making the order :
Snelling v. Pulling, 29 Ch. D. 85, C. A.
If the Pit, who has made default in pleading, has become bankrupt, the Bankruptcy,
trustee in bankruptcy must be served with notice of the application to
dismiss : Wright v. Swindon Bail. Co., 4 Ch. D. 164.
And see Price v. Rickarda, 9 Eq. 35, where the trustee of a creditor's dead
of assignment executed by Tit pending suit, was ordered within three weeks
to take proper proceedings for the purpose of prosecuting the suit, and in
default that the bill be dismissed without further order.
A Deft who has become bankrupt may move to dismiss : Levi v. Heritage,
13t)
Discontinuance and Dismissal, [chap. xi.
Extension of
time to one of
co-Defts.
Wai%'er.
Discretion of
Court to order
security.
Kew action.
Jurisdiction
of 0. A.
26 Bsav. 560 ; secus, a Deft in contempt, until his contempt is cleared :
Vowles V. Younq, 9 Ves. 173 ; or unless the Pit has so acted as to waive the
contempt : Herrett v. Reynolds, 2 Giff. 409.
One Deft cannot move to dismiss for want of prosecution for non-delivery
of reply where Pit has, with his knowledge, consented to an extension of
time as to other Defts, so that the pleadings are not closed : Ambroise v.
Evelyn, 11 Ch. D. 759.
Piling interrogatories for the examination of the Pit did not affect the
Deft's right to dismiss for want of prosecution : Jackson v. Ivimey, 1 Eq.
693 ; nor an order on Pit to give security for costs, with stay of proceedings,
obtained by the Deft : Le Orange v. McAndrew, 4 Q. B. D. 210.
On a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution under O. xxxvi, 12, or
that the Pit should give security for costs, the Court has discretion to order
the Pit to give security : Willmott v. Freehold House Property Co., 33 W. R.
554 ; 52 L. T. 743.
Where an action has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the same not
having been set down, the Pit may bring a new action, but must pay the
costs of the old one first : Re Orrell Colliery Co., 12 Ch. D. 681 ; 28 W. R.
145 ; and see Magnus v. National Bank of Scotland, 36 W. R. 602.
Where the party who has obtained an order for a new trial has not entered
the action for trial, the C. A. has no original jurisdiction to entertain a
motion to dismiss the action for want of prosecution, but application
must be made in Chambers : Rdbarts v. French, 43 W. R. 258 ; 72 L. T.
147, C. A.
Section IV. — Dismissal of Action and of Various Peo-
CEEDINGS at THE HEARING.
1. Dismissal of Action.
Order that this action do stand dismissed out of this Court with
costs to be taxed by the Taxing Master, and paid by the Pit to the
Deft.
For various usual directions as to costs, see Chap. XVII. For costs out of
a fund in Court, see Chap. XVI.
2. Dismissal of Action when Pit does not appear — 0. xxxvi, 32.
This action coming on for trial [the — day of — and] this day
before this Court, in the presence of counsel for the Deft, no one
appearing for the Pit, although the Deft has been served by the Pit
with notice of trial ; And upon hearing counsel for the Deft, This
Court doth order that this action do stand dismissed out of this Court
with costs &c. [Form 1, sup.].
3. Judgment dismissing Action in Default of Pit's Appearance set
aside, and Action restored on Payment of Costs of the Day —
0. XXVII, 15 ; XXXVI, 33.
Upon motion &c., and upon hearing counsel for the Deft, this
Court doth order that the judgment in this action, dated &c.,
whereby it was ordered that the Pit's action should stand dismissed
SECT. IV.] Dismissal at the Hearing. 137
out of this Court with costs, be set aside ; And it is ordered that
the Pit do pay unto the Deft his costs occasioned by this action
being placed in the paper of actions for hearing on the — day of — ,
and of this application, such costs to be taxed &c. ; And upon payment
of the said costs it is ordered that this action be restored to the list of
actions for trial before this Comt.—Cochle v. Joyce, Fry, J., 16 Nov.
1877, A. 2010; 7 Ch. D. 56.
For form of notice of motion, see D. C. F. 370.
4. Petition dismissed with Costs.
Upon the petition of &c., on &c., preferred &c. that [recite shortly
prayer of petition], and upon hearing &c., this Court doth order that
the said petition do stand dismissed out of this Court with costs, to
be taxed by the Taxing Master (in case the parties differ) and paid by
the Petitioner to the Respondent.
5. Motion refused with Costs.
Upon motion this day made unto this Court by counsel for [recite
shortly notice of motion], and upon hearing &c., this Court doth not
think fit to make any order on the said motion ; but doth order that
the Pit [or Deft] do pay to the Deft (Pit) [name the party to receive
costs] his costs of the said motion to be taxed by the Taxing Master.
6. Originating Motion dismissed with Costs.
Upon motion this day made unto this Court by counsel for [recite
shortly notice of motion], and upon hearing &c.. This Court doth order
that the said motion do stand dismissed out of this Court with costs
to be taxed by the Taxing Master and paid by the Pit to the Deft.
7. Summons {not originating) in Chambers dismissed with Costs.
[Recite summons shortly] The Judge doth not think fit to make
any order upon the said application, but doth order that the Pit do
pay to the Deft his costs of the said application to be taxed by the
Taxing Master (in case the parties difEer).
8. Summons originating Proceedings dismissed with Costs.
[Recite summons shortly] Order that the originating summons,
dated &c., do stand dismissed out of this Court with costs, to be
taxed by the Taxing Master and paid by the Pit to the Deft.
notes.
By O. XXX VI, 31, "if when a trial is called on, the Pit appears and the Non-appear-
J)eft does not appear, then the Pit may prove his claim so far as the burden ance of Dft
of proof lies upon him." at trial.
In order to complete such proof the Pit will be required to prove service of
138
Discontinuance and Dismissal, [chap. xi.
Non-appear-
ance of Pit
at trial.
Co-Dfts.
Setting aside
judgment
obtained
in default.
Dismissal of
third party.
After decision
on point
of law.
notice of trial on the Deft : Cockshott v. London Cab Co., 26 W. R. 31 ;
47 L. J. Ch. 120 ; but see Chorlton v. DicMe, 13 Ch. D. 160 ; 28 W. E. 228.
If the Pit (having given notice of trial) does not appear when the action is
called on for trial, the Deft is entitled, under O. xxxvi, 32, to judgment
dismissing the action with costs : see Farrell v. Wale, 36 L. T. 95 ; and will
not be required to prove that he has been served with notice of trial : James
V. Crotv, 7 Ch. D. 410 (not following on this point Cockle v. Joyce, lb. 56) ;
and see Exp. Lows, lb. 160 ; Be Palmer, Skipper v. S., 32 W. R. 83 ; 49 L. T.
653.
If the Deft has a counter-claim he must, in order to obtain judgment on it,
prove the claim so far as the burden of proof lies on him : see O. xxxvi, 32.
Where one of several Defts has, in default of notice of trial by the Pit,
given notice of trial under 0. xxxvi, 12, his co-Defts cannot, it seems, have
the action dismissed as against them, at least if they have not been served
with the notice of trial : see Tatton v. Land. & Lane. dkc. Co., 8 Eq. 450.
As to notice of trial, and entering the action for trial, see Chap. XII.,
p. 145 et seq.
On payment of the costs of the day and of the application, an action which
has been dismissed for non-appearance of the Pit, or in which judgment has
been obtained by the Pit in the absence of the Deft, through mistake on the
part of his solr, may be restored to the paper : Birch v. Williams, 24 W. R.
700 ; Burgoine v. Taylor, 9 Ch. D. 1 ; and see Southampton Steamboat Co. v.
Bawlins, 11 Jur. N. S. 230 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 287 ; 13 W. R. 512.
The application to set aside a judgment obtained in default of appearance
at the trial, must be made within six days after the trial : O. xxxvi, 33 ;
and see Walter v. James, 34 W. R. 29 ; 53 L. T. 597 ; but an extension of
time has been granted when the default was that of the solr and not of the
party, who applied within six days after hearing that the trial had taken
place : Michell v. Wilscm, 25 W. R. 380.
An appeal to set aside such a judgment will not be encouraged : Vint v,
Hudspith, 29 Ch. D. 322, C. A.
An appHcation to set aside a judgment by default was refused, the defence
of the Deft making the application having been struck out for wilfully re-
fusing production of documents : Haigh v. H., 31 Ch. D. 478.
An action will lie to set aside a judgment by default (notwithstanding
O. xxvn, 15) ; but quare, whether, as a condition precedent to its continu-
ance, payment into Court of the sum due on the judgment may not be
ordered : Wyatt v. Palmer, [1899] 2 Q. B. 106, C. A.
As to dismissal of third party, when the whole matter cannot be disposed
of at one trial, see Schneider v. Batt, 8 Q. B. D. 701, C. A. ; Dan. 235.
Where the decision on a point of law under 0. xxv, 2, substantially dis-
posed of the whole action, the action was dismissed : Percival v. Dunn,
29 Ch. D. 128 ; O'Brien v. Tyssen, 28 Ch. D. 372.
Pleading.
RES JUDICATA.
As to the requisites to constitute ree judicata, see The Duchess of Kingston's
case, 2 Sm. L. C, 8th ed., 832 ; Caird v. Moss, 33 Ch. D. 22, 28, C. A. (per
Kay, J.) ; Dan. 411 et seq.
An unsuccessful litigant cannot be allowed to commence the litigation
anew upon the mere allegation of an additional fact ; he must be able to
show that such fact entirely changes the aspect of the case, and that informa-
tion of it was not, and could not by reasonable diligence be obtained by
him before : Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Malleson, 4 App. Ca. 801.
As to nature of evidence to maintain action to set aside judgment, see
Birch V. Birch, [1902] P. 130, C. A.
In pleading res judicata, it is not necessary to set forth in detail the
pleadings in the previous action ; but the Court will look at them in order to
judge whether the same questions were at issue : Houston v. Marquis of
Sligo, 29 Ch. D, 448, C. A.
SECT. IV.] Dismissal at the Hearing. 139
Whether a previous judgment obtained before trial, but after writ issued,
can operate as res judicata, quwre .' Houston v. Marquis ofSligo, sup.
After money had been paid under a judgment founded on the construction Same cause of
of an agreement, an action to rectify the agreement, on the ground that such action,
construction was contrary to the intention of all parties, could not be main-
tained : Caird v. Moss, 33 Ch. D. 22, C. A.
Where damage to goods and injury to person are caused by one and the Distinct cause
same wrongful act, distinct causes of action arise, and judgment in respect of action,
of the damage to the goods is no bar to a subsequent action in respect of the
personal injury : Brunsden v. Humphrey, 14 Q. B. D. 141, C. A.
A Deft who does not raise a defence of the Stat, of Frauds in an action Stat, of
for rent and has judgment entered against him, cannot in a subsequent EVauds.
action for rent, subsequently accrued, raise that defence : Humphries v.
Humphries, [1910] 1 K. B. 795.
There can be no res judicata in respect of an issue, the finding of which Finding on
was not necessary to the decision in the previous case, but which was merely incidental
decided incidentally : Concha v. C, 11 App. Ca. 541 ; secMS, in respect of an issue,
issue essential to the first finding: Cooke v. Richman, [1911] 2 K. B. 1125 ;
and as to the meaning of " incidentally," see Priestman v. Thomas 9 P. D.
210, C. A. ; In re Dedey's, Patent, [1895] 1 Ch. 687, C. A. (where, on petition
for revocation, unsuccessful Pits in an infringement action were not
estopped from asserting validity of a claim which had been held to be an
anticipation).
A judgment by consent or default is as effective an estoppel inter partes as Judgment by
a judgment on a contested case : Be 8. American and Mexican Co., Exp. consent or
Bank of England, [1895] 1 Ch. 37, C. A. (distinguishing Jenkins v. Bohertson, default.
L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 117) ; and a judgment which would not per se constitute
res judicata, may do so, if there is what amounts to an undertaking between
the parties, that the decision of the Judge on a question involved shall be
treated as final : Horrocks v. Stuhbs, 74 L. T. 58, C. A.
Where in a patent action judgment was given upholding the validity of Patent
the patent, the same Deft in a second action was held to be estopped from action,
denying the validity, notwithstanding that he alleged anticipations dis-
covered in the interval : Shoe Machinery Co. v. Cutlan, [1896] 1 Ch. 667.
As to the effect of a previous county court judgment, see Clarke v. Yorke, County court
52 L. J. Ch. 32 ; 31 W. R. 62 ; 47 L. T. 381 ; Webster v. Armstrong, 54 L. J. judgment.
Q. B. 236.
Apetitioner in divorce proceedings is not precluded fromrepeating charges Divorce
of adultery contained in a previous petition which has been dismissed : proceedings.
Hall V. H., 48 L. J. P. D. 57 ; 40 L. T. 525 ; 25 W. R. 664.
An heir at law made Deft, as one of the next of kin, but not cited as heir Probate
in a probate action to establish the will, and unsuccessfully contesting its action,
validity, cannot afterwards dispute it in respect of the real estate : Beardsley
V. B., [1899] 1 Q. B. 746.
A person who is not a party to proceedings in the Probate Division, in
which the validity of a will is questioned, is bound by the result only if he
was cognizant of the proceedings, and had a right to intervene : Young v.
Holloway, [1895] P. 87.
As to estoppel by conduct where a person, not a party to an action or sum- Estoppel by
mons, nor technically bound by the judgment, but fully cognizant of the conduct,
proceedings, stands by and deUberately takes the benefit of a decision under
which a particular fund is distributed, see Re Lart, Wilkinson v. Blades,
[1896] 2 Ch. 788 ; Mohan v. Broughton, [1899] P. 211 ; [1900] P. 56, C. A.
( 140 ) [chap. XII.
CHAPTER XII.
TEIAL AND JUDGMENT.
Section I. — Trial.
1. Judgment at Trial by Judge without a Jury.
[Date and Titk.]
Tjiis action coming on for trial [the — day of ^, and] this day,
before this Court, in the presence of counsel for the Pit and for the
Defts [if any persons not named in the title appear, name them, or, if
some of the Defts do not appear, for the Pit and the Deft B., no one
appearing for the Defts C. and D., although they were duly served
with notice of trial as by the affidavit (if filed before date of judgment,
of &c., filed the — day of — , if filed after date of judgment, as by
affidavit appears, this being supplemented by the Registrar's note in the
margin of the judgment stating the name of the Deponent and date of
filing)], And upon reading the pleadings delivered in this action
[if specially ordered enter evidence 0. lxii, 14 (6), and see p. 141, inf.]
and upon hearing what was alleged by counsel for the Pit and for the
Defts : This Court doth declare &c., And this Court doth order &c.
2. If standing for Judgment.
This Court did order that this action should stand for judgment,
and this action standing for judgment this day in the paper, in the
presence of counsel for the Pit and the Defts : This Court doth &c.
For forms of orders as to trials of issues or questions of fact, or of fact and
law before a Judge with or without jury or assessors, v. inf. Chap. XXII.,
" Issues " ; or by a referee, Chap. XXVI., " RErEBENCES."
3. Undertaking of Solicitor to refund Costs.
A. of the firm of A. & Co., the solrs for the Pits [or Defts],
personally undertaking in the event of this judgment being reversed
on appeal to abide by any order which may hereafter be made as
to their refunding to the Defts [or Pits] the costs by this judgment
directed to be paid to them by the Defts [or Pits], [and having signed
the Registrar's Book accordingly].
SECT. T.] Mode of Reading Evidence. 1^^
4. Findings of the Court as to Facts.
And the Pit [or Deft] having by his counsel proved to the satisfac-
tion of the Court the following facts, that is to say [or the facts in
the schedule hereto].— See Re Olenfield, 6. v. G., Farwell, J., 24 June,
1901.
Mode op Reading Evidence in Judgment where specially
Oedered.
By 0. Lxn, 146, in all actions or matters tried in the Chancery Division
with witnesses the judgment or order shall unless the Judge for some
special reason otherwise direct be drawn up without entering the evidence.
By 14c, if any judgment or order as last aforesaid be appealed, it shall
be the duty of the appellant within four days after service of the notice of
appeal to take an appointment before the Registrar for the purpose of
settling a schedule of the evidence used at the hearing. In settUng such
schedule the same procedure shall be followed as hereinbefore provided
with regard to the drawing up of orders. If there shall be any dispute
between the parties as to what evidence shall be entered as read, the
matter shall be adjourned to the Judge before whom the action or matter
was tried and he shall decide the question in dispute and may give such
directions as to the costs of the adjournment as he may think fit. Subject
to such direction (if any) the costs of settling the said schedule shall be
costs in the appeal. The schedule of evidence shall be signed by the
Registrar but shall not be entered nor shall the judgment or order be
amended so as to incorporate the same unless the Court of Appeal shall so
direct.
And by I4d, if at the trial of such action or matter the parties shall have
agreed that any bundle of copy correspondence, or of other documents
shall be taken as put in subject to all just exceptions as to whether any of
the documents in such bundle are evidence or otherwise such bundle shall
be marked by the Registrar for identification and entered as put in saving
all just exceptions, without referring to the particular documents actually
read. The Appellant shall within ten days after the said schedule has been
signed by the Registrar give notice to the respondent which of the said
documents he intends to read on the appeal and he shall not be bound to
supply copies for the use of the Court of Appeal of any documents not
included in such notice unless as to any further document or documents
some respondent shall by notice in writing specifying such document or
documents and deUvered at least ten days before the hearing of the appeal
require him so to do. The Court of Appeal may on the hearing of the
appeal make such special order as they think fit in reference to any costs
occasioned by any notice under this Rule or thrown away by supplying
copies of documents which are not admissible in evidence or are unneces-
sary for the purposes of the appeal but subject to such special order, if
any, the existing power of the Taxing Master shall not be affected by
this Rule.
5. Notice and Admissions of Documents — 0. xxxii, 2.
A notice, dated &c., to admit certain documents as evidence, and
the admissions thereof signed by &c.
6. Notice and Admission of Facts — 0. xxxii, i.
A notice, dated &c., to admit certain facts and the admissions
thereof signed by &c.
142
Trial and Judgment.
[chap. XII.
7. Mutiml or Voluntary Admissions.
The admissions in writing, dated &c., and signed by the solr for
the Pit A., and for the Deft B., and the several documents therein
referred to.
8. Affidavit in Answer.
The afi&davit of the Deft B. filed &c. in answer to the interrogatories
delivered by &c.
9. Depositions.
The deposition of C. filed &c., and the exhibits therein referred to.
10. Evidence rejected.
The deposition of C, except paragraph No. — , the said paragraph
of the deposition of the said witness and the exhibit marked X.
therein referred to, having been tendered as evidence on behalf of the
Defts, and rejected by this Court. — See Moseley v. Baker, V.-C. W.,
18 Feb. 1848, B- 1163.
11. Affidavits in Schedule where Parts rejected.
The several affidavits of the deponents named in the schedule
hereto, and the exhibits therein referred to, except such portions of
the affidavits in the first part of the said schedule as are specified in
the fourth column of the said part of the said schedule, such portion
having been tendered as evidence on the part of the Pits and rejected
by the Court : Gommrs. of Sewers v. Glasse, M. R., 24 Nov. 1874,
B. 552.
SCHEDULE.
Page of
Affidavit.
Names of
Deponents.
Dates when filed.
Portions rejected.
Exhibits
referred to.
7
Robert Allen. .
21st May,
1876.
Par. 10, To the
word " but " in
line 27, page 7,
B. F. G.
Mode of Eeading Evidence usually read in Oedbes
OTHBE than Judgments.
12. Acts of Parliament.
An Act of Parliament passed in the — year of the reign of his
late Majesty King Edward VII., intituled,
his present Majesty King George V.
' An Act " &c., or of
13. Wills, Probate, Letters of Administration.
The will of A., dated &c. [if thirty years from the date of the death
of the testator have elapsed].
SECT. I.J Mode of Reading Evidence. 143
Probate of tlie will of A., granted on the — day of — to B.
Letters of admon to the estate of A., granted on the — day of — ,
19— to B.
Letters of admon with the will annexed to the estate of A., granted
on the — day of — to B.
A certified official extract of the will of A., proved by B. on the —
day of — .
The confirmation of the nomination of B. and C, as exors of the
will of A., granted by the Commissary Court of Aberdeenshire, on
the — day of — , 19 — , and re-sealed by the Probate Division on
the — day of — , 19 — .
Testament dative of A. granted by the Commissary Court of B. on
the day of — , 19 — , to C, and re-sealed &c.
14. Opinion of Scotch Court on Case.
A certified copy of the opinion, pronounced at Edinburgh, on the
— day of — , by the Lords of the (First Division of the) Court of
Session in Scotland, on the case and questions set forth in the Schedule
to the order dated &c. — Trappes v. Meredith, L. C, 24 Dec. 1871,
B. 3301.
15. Certificates of the Land Registry.
(1) The Land Certificate of Title number — .
(2) The Certificate of Charge numbered — on Title number — .
16. Institution of Clerh.
An ofi&cial extract from the registry of the diocese of L., of the
admission and institution of C. (Clerk), M.A., to the rectory of H., in
the coimty of G., diocese of L.
17. Receipt for Duty on Residue.
The residuary account of the estate of A., deceased, Eeg. A. 1872,
folio 59, and the receipt for duty indorsed thereon, dated &c.
18. Receipt for Duty on Legacy.
The official receipt, dated &c., Eeg. A. 1872, foho 52, for legacy
duty payable in respect of the legacy of &c., under the wiU of &c.
19. Receipt for Succession Duty.
The official receipt, dated &c., Eeg. A. 1872, folio 52, for duty, pay-
able in respect of the succession of &c., arising on the death of &c.,
under the will of &c.
20. An Indenture.
An indenture, dated &c., and made between &c. [and if not thirty
years old, an affidavit of A., filed &c. of due execution thereof by &c.].
144
Trial and Judgment. [chap. xii.
21. A Deed Poll.
The deed poll, dated &c., under the hand and seal of &c. [and if not
thirty years old, an affidavit of &c.. Form 20, sup.].
22. Power or Letter of Attorney.
A deed poll \or power of attorney] under the hand and seal of A.,
and an affidavit of &c., of due execution thereof, by &c. [or if so,
verifying the signature of the said A. to the said power of attorney].
23. Pleadings.
The statement of claim delivered on &c.
The defence of the Deft A. delivered on &o.
24. Affidavit and Exhibits.
An affidavit of A. filed &c., and the exhibits therein referred to
{if necessary to set out) Exhibit A. being &c.
Where the certificates are numerous they may be specified in a schedule :
see next form.
25. Exhibits specified in Schedule.
An affidavit of A. filed &c., and the exhibits therein referred to
and specified in the schedule hereto.
SCHEDULE.
Mark ou
Exhibit.
Marriage. Baptism,
Birth, Burial, or
Death.
Date.
Name as in Certificate.
A.
Baptism.
18 June,
1815.
Arthur Jones.
26. Baptism in India.
Exhibit X., being an extract from the entries contained in a
paper kept at the India Office received by the Secretary of State
in Council of India, from Fort William, in Bengal, being certified
copies of the entries of baptisms at Calcutta, Fort William, Bengal,
A.D. — , by which it appears that A. was baptised on the — day of — .
27. Death in Military Service in India.
An extract from a list of military casualties reported to Government,
and received by the Secretary of State in Council of India from Fort
William, in Bengal, whereby it appears that A. died on the — day
of — . at — .
SECT. I.J IriaL 145
NOTES.
Causes or matters assigned to the Chancery Division are to be tried by a Mode of trial.
Judge without a jury unless the Court or a Judge shall otherwise order :
O. XXXVI, 3 ; and the question whether a Chancery action shall be tried by a
jury ia absolutely within the discretion of the Judge : Gardner v. Jmj,
29 Ch. D. 50, C. A., although there are two causes of action, only one of
which is specificallyassigned to that Division : Sheppard v. Gilmore, 34 W. R.
179 ; 53 L. T. 625 ; Lynch v. Macdonald, 37 Ch. D. 227 ; 36 W. R. 419 ;
and see Lord Kinnaird v. Field, [1905] 2 Ch. 361.
As to trial by jury, see inf. Chap. XXII., " Issues,"
NOTICE AND ENTRY OF TEIAL.
By 0. xxxvi, 11, notice of trial may be given by the Pit or other party in Notice
the position of Pit with the reply (if any), whether it closes the pleadings or of trial,
not, or at any time after the issues of fact are ready for trial ; but by r. 12
(as read together with O. xxx, v. sup. p. 25), if the Pit does not within six
weeks after the close of the pleadings, or such time as may be fixed under
O. xxx, or within such extended time as the Court or a Judge may allow,
give notice of trial, the Deft may, before notice of trial given by the
Pit, give notice of trial, or may apply to the Court or Judge to dismiss
the action for want of prosecution.
Where the action is under O. xvniA (v. sup. p. 43), Pit must, within ten
days after appearance of Deft, serve twenty-one days' notice of trial : r. 2.
Where a Pit does not deliver a reply, he cannot give notice of trial until
the expiration of twenty-one days after the delivery of the statement of
defence : Robinson v. Caldtvell, [1893] 1 Q. B. 519.
A Deft cannot set the action down on motion for judgment : Litton v. L.,
3Ch. D. 794.
The six weeks is not a " time appointed for doing any act or taking any
proceeding " within O. LXiv, 7, and cannot be abridged by the Court :
Saunders v. Pawleij, 14 Q. B. D. 234.
The notice of trial (ten days, except in cases by consent, see O. xxxvi, 14 ;
and R. S. C. App. B., Form 16) must be given before entering the trial, and
must state whether it is for the trial of the action, or of issues therein,
and is not to be countermanded, except by consent or leave given on such
terms as to costs, or otherwise, as may be just : 0. xxxvi, 13, 14, 15, 19,
A notice of trial before a Judge in Middlesex, headed " V.-C. Bacon,"
was held sufficient : Oaines v. Arabon, V.-C. B., 22 March, 1879 ; and see
Harris v. Gamble, 7 Ch. D. 877.
Where an action is to be tried at the assizes, the Judge, on summons
under O. xxx, 1, has jurisdiction suo motu to order that the Deft shall take
notice of trial at a period less than ten days before the commission day, and
that the case shall not come on for trial until a day which will make the
notice a ten days' notice : Baxter v. Holdsworlh, [1899] 1 Q. B. 266, C. A.
By r. 34, the Judge may postpone or adjourn the trial for such time, and Adjourn-
upon such terms, if any, as he shall think fit. ment.
As to trial before referees or with assessors, see Chap. XXVI., " Aebi- Reference.
TBATIONS."
Directions as to the mode of trial are given under 0. xxx, 2, upon the
hearing of the summons for directions.
As to directing issues of fact to be tried before a jury, see Chap. XXII., Issues of fact.
" Issues."
By0.xxxvi,8,theCourtoraJudgemayinany cause ormatter atanytime,
or from time to time, order that different questions of tact arising therein
be tried by different modes of trial, or that one or more questions of fact be
tried before the others, and may appoint the places for such trials, and in
all cases may order that one or more issues of fact be tried before any other
or others.
An application under this niie to have one issue in an action tried before
146
Trial and Judgment.
[oHAP. Xir.
another will only be granted on very special grounds : Piercy v. Young, 16
Ch. D. 475.
Jury. Under O. xxxvi, 4, 6, an action proper to be tried by a jury will be ordered
to be so tried, though commenced in the Chancery Division : Coles v. Civil
Service Supply Association, 26 Ch. D. 529 ; but the onus rests with the
party desiring this mode of trial : Cardinall v. Cardinall, 26 Ch. D. 772 ;
and that the Court has a discretion as to the mode of trial, see Coote v.
Ingram, 36 Ch. D. 117.
Where the whole case is a proper one to be tried by a jury, the more
convenient practice is to transfer the action to the King's Bench Division :
In re Martin, 20 Ch. D. 365.
Venue. Under 0. xxxvi, 1, the Pit may lay the venue where he pleases, although
the action is assigned to the Chancery Division by sect. 34 of the Jud. Act,
1873 : Philips v. Beale, 26 Ch. D. 621 ; or to any Judge (r. la). The place of
trial must be named in the original statement of claim : Locke v. White, 33
Ch. D. 308, C. A. This abolition of local venue confers no new jurisdiction
{e.g., to entertain action for damages for trespass to foreign land) : Cora-
panhia de Mocambique v. British S. Africa Co., [1893] A. C. 602, H. L. ;
[1892] 2 Q. B. 358, C. A.
Where the venue was laid at Liverpool, it was held that it was no
suiflcient ground to change it to Middlesex that the action was specially
assigned to the Chancery Division : Philips v. Beale, 26 Ch. D. 621, C. A.
In order to have the venue changed, the Deft must show serious injury to
his case, and no injury to the Pit : Shroder & Co. v. Myers <fc Co., 34 W. R.
261, C. A.
Pressure of business at the assizes is not a sufficient ground for remitting
the action to the Judge of the Chancery Division to whom it is assigned :
Fairburn v. Household, 53 L. T. 513, C. A. ; and see Jackson v. Braithwaite,
63 L. T. 231.
Where the balance of convenience is that an action should be tried in
London, the venue will, on the application of the Deft, be changed to
Middlesex, though the Pit has bv his claim named another venue : Oreen v.
Bennett, 32 W. R. 848 ; 60 L. T. 706 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 85 ; Powell v. Cobb, 29
Ch. D. 486, C. A.
Private Causes will not be heard in private without the consent of both parties,
hearing. except in cases which affect lunatics, or wards of Court, or where the whole
object of the suit would be defeated by a public hearing : Andrew v.
Raeburn, 9 Ch. 522 ; Nagle-Qillman v. Christopher, 4 Ch. D. 173 ; Badische
Anilin v. Levinstein, 24 Ch. D. 156 ; . Mellor v. Thompson, 31 Ch. D. 55, C. A. ;
Malan v. Young, 53 J. P. 822.
THIED PARTY.
Order for Under 0. xvi, 52, where a third party appears, the Deft giving the tliird
directions. party notice may apply for directions, and the Court or a Judge may, if
satisfied that there is a question proper to be tried as to the liability of the
third party, order the question, as between the third party and such Deft,
" to be tried in such manner, at or after the trial of the action, as the Court
or Judge may direct; and, if nob so satisfied,may order such judgment as the
nature of the case may require to be entered in favour of the Deft giving the
notice against the third party."
The rules as to third parties do not apply to originating summonses : Re
Wihon, A. G. v. Woodall, 45 Ch. D. 266.
No question can be determined between the third party and the Deft
unless the order giving directions is obtained : Piller v. Roberts, 21 Ch. D.
198 ; and so as between co-Defts, see Tritton v. Banhart, 56 L. J. Ch. 629 ;
56 L. T. 306 ; 35 W. R. 474.
If the third party on an application for directions declines to state any
defence, judgment may be given against liim : Gloucestershire Banking Co. v.
Phillipps, 12 Q. B. D. 533.
SECT. I.J Trial 147
In Coles V. Civil Service Supply Association, 26 Oh. D. 529, the form of Form of
order was that the third party, who did not admit his liabihty, should have order,
liberty to appear at the trial, and take such part as the Judge should
direct, and be bound by the result, and that the question of his liability to
indemnify the Deft should be tried at the trial of the action, but subsequent
thereto.
This form of order will be adhered to whenever it gives the third party all
reasonable protection, as a Pit ought not to be embarrassed and put to
expense by persons, who are not necessary parties to his action, being
allowed to proceed as though they were Def ts : Barton v. L. & N. W. Ry.
Co., 38 Ch. D. 144, C. A. Where such an order has been made, the third
party may appear by counsel and have the question tried immediately after
the trial without having obtained directions as to pleadings or otherwise, as
the Deft should obtain such'directions if he desires them : Blore v. A shby,
42 Ch. D. 682.
As to refusal to give directions, and dismissal of third party from the Dismissal of
action where the Pit would be embarrassed by proceedings between him and third party,
the Deft giving the notice, see The Bianca, 8 P. D. 91 ; Schneider v. Batt,
S Q. B. D. 701, C. A.
The Court has power to order the third party to pay to the Pit the costs Costs,
occasioned by his defence : Filler v. Roberts, 21 Ch. D. 198.
Where the Deft set up a defence which failed, he paid the costs of the
action, but the third party being found liable to the Deft paid the costs of
the third party proceedings : Blore v. Ashby, sup.
And as to the scope and effect of the procedure, see Dan, 230 et seq.
ENTEEING THE ACTION FOE TEIAL — MAEKING " SHORT."
Actions for trial in the Chancery Division are set down at the Chancery Entering
Registrar's Office upon production of a copy of the notice of trial, on the list for trial,
of the Judge to whose Court the action is attached, and unless marked
" short," or advanced by order, come on fortrial in their turn : see Dan. 578.
Unless within six days after notice of trial is given, the trial shall be
entered by one party or the other, the notice of trial shall be no longer in
force : 0. xxxvi, 16 ; see Tonsley v. Heffer, 19 Q. B. D. 153. And when
the cause is not entered for trial within the time limited, the Deft may move
to dismiss for want of prosecution : Crick v. Hewlett, 27 Ch. D. 354 ; but see
Page v. Oilmore, 30 L. R. Jr. 299. A Deft cannot set down the action on
motion for judgment : Litton v. L.,S Ch. D. 794.
As to whether when the action is marked " short," ten days' notice of Short cause,
trial is necessary under O. xxxvi, 1 4, or two days' notice of motion under
O. Ln, 5, may be directed under 0. xxx, 2, see Re Prinyle <Ss Co., Ld., 1903,
W. N. 207.
Where a debenture-holder's action is directed to be set down as a short
cause on minutes without pleadings, copies of theaifidavits in support ought
to be left with the papers for the use of the Judge : Re Church Strelion
Mineral Water Co., Ld., 1904, W. N. 48.
Actions may be marked " sh(jrt," without the consent of the solrs for the
Defts, on production of the certificate of the Pit's counsel that the cause or
action is fit to be so heard.
If a Deft who has not consented, can show any fair reason why the cause
should not be heard as short, it goes into the general list, but counsel's
certificate is prima facie ground for setting it down as short : Felstead v.
Gray, 18 Eq. 92. When the Deft does not appear at the hearing, an affidavit
of notice that it has been marked to be heard as short is required : Moles-
worth V. Snead, 11 W. R. 934 ; 2 N. R. 512 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 709. In Dymonds
v. Croft, 24 W. R. 700, the notice filed as against a Deft (under 0. xix, 10)
who had not entered appearance was held sufficient, although it did not st ate
that the action had been marked short.
And unless by consent of all parties, it will not be marked so as to come on
148
Trial and Judgment. [cHAP. Xll.
Action with
■\vitnessea.
Abatement.
Papers to
be delivered
on entering.
before the day for which the notice of trial has been given, or in the case of
causes for furtlier consideration, until after the expiration of ten days.
A cause is not fit to be heard short unless the evidence is by affidavit.
Per M. R., 1875, W. N. 193.
An action for rectification of a settlement is not proper to be heard as a
short cause : Cknnell v. C, 1884, W. N. 14. ;
As to motions for judgment heard as short causes, v. inf. Chap. XIII.,
" Motion fgk Judgment."
All actions in which witnesses are to be examined before the Court must
be certified as such by the Pit's solr, and thereupon will be so marked in the
cause book.
Where any cause or matter becomes abated, or in the case of any change
of interest under O. xvn, the Pit's solr must certify the fact to the proper
officer, who will cause an entry thereof to be made ia the list or cause book :
0. XVII, 9. And by r. 10, any cause or matter standing over generally, or
marked as " abated " for twelve months, shall be struck out. But a cause
may for special reasons be ordered to stand over generally, notwithstanding
this rule : Brooke v. Todd, 6 Jur. N. S. 664 ; 2 L. T. 480. When a cause
has been struck out under this rule, the notice of trial is no longer in force,
and another notice of trial must be given before the Pit can re-enter the
cause for trial : Le Blond v. Curtis, 33 W. R. 561 ; 52 L. T. 574.
By O. XXXVI, 30, the party entering the action for trial must deliver to
the proper officer two copies of the whole of the pleadings, one of which
shall be for the use of the Judge at the trial. The other is for the use of the
registrar.
If the solr neglects to deliver the papers, he may be personally ordered
to pay the costs occasioned thereby : see 0. lxv, 5.
Where there are to be pleadings it is not now the practice to allow actions
to be set down for trial before pleadings have been delivered : see Practice
Note, 1901, W. N., p. 94.
DEPAtTLT OP EITHER SIDE APPEAEING AT THE TEIAL — 0. XXXVI.
Kon-appear-
aiice of Dft.
Affidavit of
Sftting aside
judgment.
By 0. xxxvi, 31, 32, if when a trial is called on, the Deft does not
appear, the Pit may prove his claim, so far as the burden of proof Ues upon
him ; and if the Deft appears, and the Pit does not, the Deft, if he has no
counter-claim, is entitled to judgment dismissing the action, but if he has a
counter-claim, then he may prove such claim so far as the burden of proof
lies upon him.
The Pit is always required to prove service of notice of trial on the Deft :
Cockskott V. London General Gab Co., 47 L. J. Ch. 126 ; 26 W. R. 31,
1877, W. N. 214; but see Charlton v. Dickie, 13 Ch. D. 160; but Deft need
not prove that notice of trial was served upon him : Re Palmer, Skipper
v. S., 49 L. T, 553 ; 32 W. R. 83 ; Dacres-Pailerson v. Foote, 1880,
W. N. 70.
As to affidavits of service, by a communication from Cotton, L. J., dated
29th May, 1884, " the members of the Court of Appeal, after considering
the subject ot affidavits of service not sworn on the dale of the order, think
the registrars may, until an opinion of the Court is expressed to the contrary
effect, accept affidavits of service sworn and filed at any time before the
order is drawn up. But if the affidavit be sworn after the date of the order,
the order is not to be post-dated, and the affidavit is not to be entered
formally as evidence. The registrars are in such a case to make a memo-
randum in the margin of the order that the affidavit has been sworn and filed,
and the recital may be introduced into the order, ' no one appearing for
A. B., although duly served &c., as by affidavit appears.' "
By 0. xxxvi, 33, any verdict or judgment obtained where one party does
not appear, may be set aside upon such terms as may seem fit, on application
made within six days after the trial.
SECT. I.] Trial 149
ENTBSINa EVIDENCE AS BEAD QENEBAlLy.
As to entering evidence in judgments in witness actions, see 0. Lxn, Witness
14 B, 0, and d. actions.
Every order containing a reference to the evidence on which it is made, Orders in non-
should particularly notice the documentary evidence, specifying, under witness
special circumstance, the nature of the document and its date, if any, or actions,
if it be referred to as an exhibit, either specially noticing the exhibit mark,
or identif jdng the exhibit by reference to the affidavit or deposition.
Where the Deft is not called upon for his defence, but the Pit's action is Where Df t
dismissed on his own case, the Deft is entitled, in actions not coming within not called
O. LXII, 14 B, to have entered in the judgment as read all the evidence on ipou.
which he intended to rely : Manby v. Bewiche, 3 Jur. N. S. 685 ; 5 W. R. 867 ;
although the Def t's witnesess have not been cross-examined, as that may be
done on appeal : Chahord v. New Russia Co., M. R., 26 July, 1871, A. 2.362 ;
and see Singer v. Wilson, 2 Ch. D. 448.
Affidavits used in support of an application ought to be entered as read. Affidavits,
notwithstanding that they have been so entered in a Master's certificate :
Mutual, <fec. Society (C. A.), 6 Aug. 1885. An affidavit used on a motion, but
not filed until afterwards, may be entered in the order as read, provided it
does not interfere with the date of the order (which may be post-dated
accordingly) : Be King & Co.'s Trade Mark, [1892] 2 Ch. 462.
It is not for the registrar to state what facts are proved, but only what Duty of
evidence is admitted ; and for the Court itself to say what facts are estab- registrar,
lished by it : Trulock v. Bobey, 2 Ph. 396.
And it is material that the evidence should be entered in such a way as
will show precisely what was received : Watson v. Parker, 2 Ph. 5 ; M'Mahon
V. Burchell, Id. 137 ; although the judgment only directs issues or inquiries :
Parker v. Morrell, Id. 453 ; Drake v. D., 25 Beav. 641 ; thus, when any
evidence tendered is objected to, the Court should adjudicate on its admissi-
bility, and either receive it or reject it, in which case that circumstance
should be noticed in the judgment : Form 10, p. 142. Evidence ought not
to be entered as read de bene esse: Watson v. Parker, Parker v. Morrell, supra.
The entry of the evidence, followed by a statement that both sides consent
that such entry should be without prejudice to its admissibility, is improper,
as the Court should adjudicate on its admissibility : M'Mahon v. Burchell,
2 Ph. 137. This case and Watson v. Parker, and Parker v. Morrell, supra,
were followed by C. A. in De Mora v. Concha, 32 Ch. D. 133.
Where, to save time, documentary evidence was to be entered as read,
if the parties could agree, and they could not agree, the Court permitted
a rehearing, confined to the subject of the evidence : Wyld v. Ward, 1 Y.
& J. 536.
Documents annexed to depositions taken in India, and referred to as Exhibits,
exhibits, but omitted to be marked by the commr, were by order on motion
on notice, allowed to be used as evidence : Impey v. /., -V.-C. E., 20 Feb.
1845, A. 866.
As to the disadvantages of " annexing " exhibits to affidavits, see Dan.
634.
In Lopdell v. Creagh, 1 Bli. N. S. 255, after an appeal had been lodged in Evidence
the House of Lords, an order made on motion in the Court below, expunging improperly
part of the evidence as entered by mistake, was reveresd as irregular, the ^"tp^^d or
proper course being to apply to the House for leave to move in the Court °™'''"'''"'
below to rectify the mistake.
But in H. L. only the evidence entered in the decree could be looked at :
Fernie v. Young, L. R. 1 H. L. 63.
So, on a motion to rectify minutes : Eden v. E. Bute, 1 B. P. C. 465.
Where the evidence had not been in fact read or relied on, an order for
entering the evidence as read, made on motion to rectify minutes, was
reversed on appeal, but leave was given to re-hear the cause : S. C. ; but see
Manby v. Bewicke, 5 W. R. 867 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 685.
150
Trial and Judgment.
[chap. XII.
where evidence is improperly admitted by the Court below and not
objected to, the objection cannot be taken in the Court of Appeal : Gilbert v.
Endean, 9 Ch. D. 259, C. A.
Further Under O. xxxvii, 1, the Court may, in an admon action, and after the
evidence. Master has made his certificate, receive, if it think fit, fresh affidavit evidence
on further consideration : May v. Newfnn, 34 Ch. D. 347.
As to the power of the Court of Appeal to receive further evidence, see
O. LViil, 4, and Chap. XXXVI., "Appeals."
Wills.
Pedigree;
Deed
executed
under power
of attorney.
Ancient
documents.
ENTERING DOCUMENTAEY EVIDENCE.
A will proves itself thirty years from its date : Mann v. Bichetls, 7 Beav.
93, and cases there cited ; but in Charman v. C, M. R., 23rd March, 1808,
A. 780, the thirty years were reckoned from the death of the testator, and
this seems more reasonable, as the testator might live more than thirty
years after the date of the will ; and since the Wills Act, 1 V. c. 26, the will
speaks only from the day of the death : and see Taylor, §§ 87, 1845a. In
Bidkeley v. Jmes, M. R., 23 July, 1856, A. 1560, a will dated in July, 1813,
and proved in June, 1831, was received as evidence of title to land, but this
decree went by default.
A will of which probate had not been granted was held to be evidence on
production of an affidavit of one of the attesting witnesses : Re Wichens'
Trusts, 27 W. R. 880.
Letters testimonial sealed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, setting forth
verbatim a will of real estate made in the colony, and stating that it had
been duly proved, were accepted as sufficient for the purposes of the usual
preliminary judgment in a partition action : Waiie v. Bingley, 21 Ch. D. 674 ;
but on petition by appointee under will for payment out of Court, probate in
the Supreme Court of New Zealand was not sufficient : E. Limehouse Bd. of
Worhs, Be Vallance, 24 Ch. D. 177 ; and see Ingpen on Exors., pp. 154, 158.
For the purpose of construing a will the Court is entitled to look at the
original : Re Harrison, Turner v, Hellard, 30 Ch. D. 390, C. A. ; and see
Ingpen on Exors., p. 90.
As to the admissibility of declarations by testator to prove contents of a
lost will, see Woodward v. Goulstone, II App. Ca. 469 ; and as to evidence
generally to prove contents of a will, see Ingpen on Exors., p. 80.
In a pedigree case the will of the father or reputed father of a person
whose legitimacy is disputed, is admissible evidence to disprove the legiti-
macy : Murray v. Milner, 12 Ch. D. 845.
And a declaration by A., in a draft will, that B. passed as his wife, was
admissible in evidence as to the marriage of A. and B., and, being relevant,
was not to be excluded because the document was not complete for its
primary purpose : In re Lambert, 56 L. J. Ch. 122 ; 56 L. T 15 ; but where
the question was not pedigree, but infancy, a declaration by a deceased
parent as to his child's age could not be received : Haines v. Outhrie, 13
Q. B. D. 818, C. A. ; and as to the distinction between proving infancy and
pedigree, see In re Turner, 29 Ch. D. 985. As to proof from information
in such cases, see Re Palmes, 1901, W. N. 146.
Where a deed more than thirty years old purports to be an appointment
under a special power, and to be executed by the attorney of the donee of
the power, although the execution of it by the attorney as such ought to be
presumed, yet there is no rule of law which justifies the presumption that
the attorney was duly authorized to execute the power : In re Airey, A. v.
Stapleton, [1897] 1 Ch. 164.
For the practice with regard to documents which prove themselves, and
generally as to documentary evidence, see Dan. 501 et seg.
For a case in which an ancient document, coming from the proper custody
and stating a compromise on terms by a former tenant abandoning his claim
of right to trespass, was admissible as evidence of an act of ownership by a
predecessor in title, though not as an admission by the tenant, see Blandy-
Jcnkins v. Earl of Dunraven, [1899] 2 Ch. 121, C. A.
SKCT. I.J Trial. 151
A witness summoned on a subpoena duces tecum need not be sworn : per Suhpcena
Chitty, J., Lewin v. L., 9 July, 1885. ''"'=«« '«''»"■
As to entries against interest by persons since dead, see Taylor v. Witham, Entries
24 W. R. 877 ; Bewleyy. AtMnson, 13 C. D. 283, 297 ; Newbould v. Smith, 29 against
Ch. D. 127, C. A. ; Massey v. Allen, 13 Cli. D. 558 ; Hope v. fl., 1893, W. N. 20. interest.
The admission by the deceased person must have been actually against
interest when made ; an admission by a bankrupt that a debt is due is
not admissible by reason of the mere possibility of there being a surplus
after paying creditors : Exp. Edwards, Re Tollemache, 14 Q. B. D. 415, C. A.
Verbal declarations or written entries by a deceased person against his
interest are sufficient evidence of the truth : see Bewley v. Atkinson, 13
Ch. D. 283, 297 ; Taylor, §§ 669 e< se(?.
An entry of a payment of interest in a deceased creditor's book, which
would have the effect of reviving a statute-barred simple contract debt, is
not admissible in evidence as an entry against interest : Newbould v. Smith,
29 Ch. D. 882 ; but see S. C, 14 App. Ca. 423.
Entries by a person in discharge of his official duty are only evidence of Entries ra
the facts therein stated, when the facts are parts of a transaction effected by j? . ^"^^^ ?
such person himself, which it is his duty to record : Polini v. Gray, Sturla o™"'*' "" y-
V. Freccia, 12 Ch. D. 411, C. A. ; 5 App. Ca. 623 ; ex. gr., a survey and report
made by a surveyor in 1816 in discharge of a duty imposed upon him by the
8th section of 34 G. 3, c. 75, upon the occasion of a sale of Crown lands, and
produced outof the proper custody: Evansv.Merihyr Tydfil DistrictCouncil,
[1899] 1 Ch. 241, C. A., distinguishing Phillips v. Hudson, L. R. 2 Ch. 243.
A document in order to be admissible in evidence as a public document,
must be made for the purpose of the public making use of it and of being kept
pubhc : Mercer y. Denne, [1904] 2 Ch. 534.
And as to admission of a note book from the British Museum, a document
out of the Cottonian MSS., and an entry in a parish church book, see Bidder
V. Bridges, 34 W. R. 541 ; 52 L. T. 529 ; Lauderdale Peerage Case, 10 App. C. 692.
An entry in a stockbroker's book is not admissible in evidence, either as a Entries in
declaration against interest, or as an entry in the ordinary course of business ordinary
by a person whose duty it was to make it : Massey v. Allen, 28 W. R. 212 ; course of
13 Ch. D. 558 ; and an entry in an agent's diary is not admissible unless it busmess.
was his duty to make the whole entry : Trotter v. Maclean, 13 Ch. D 574.
Entries in books of a firm of solicitors, acting for trustees, are not
admissible to prove pajrment of interest to tenant for life by trustees so
as to get over § 8 of the Trustee Act, 1888 : Re Fountaine, [1909] 2 Ch. 382.
An unsigned entry in a book in which it appeared to be the practice to sign
the entries, was not admitted as evidence : Fox v. Bearblock, 17 Ch. D. 4 29.
The fact that a deposition taken in a suit to perpetuate testimony and duly
sealed up by the examiners, is found unsealed, is not evidence of user or
adoption by the party on whose behalf the deponent was examined, so as to
render it admissible as an admission by conduct : Evans v. Merthyr Tydfil
District Council, [1899] 1 Ch. 241, C. A.
As to the former practice of proving exhibits viva voce or by affidavit at Exhibits,
the hearing, see Dan. 519, 520 ; a deed impeached by the answer cannot be
so proved : Hitchcock v. Carew, Kay, xiv.
The Gen. Ord. 43, of 26th Aug. 1841, as to proving exhibits by affidavit at
the hearing, was not included in the Cons. Ord. 1860 ; but by Prel. Ord. r. 5,
and now by 0. Lxxn, 2, the practice under it (though rarely resorted to) has
remained. A deed could be proved as an exhibit at the hearing of a motion
for decree : Woodburn v. Grant, 22 Beav. 487 ; but the Court had a discretion
and would not allow important evidence to be unexpectedly slipped in at the
last moment ; and where an order of course, to prove in support of the main
issue a letter of which no notice had been given, was obtained during the
hearing of a cause, the Court refused to allow proof : Wilson v. Thornbury,
10 Ch. 239. As to the former practice, see Dan. 519, 520.
Judgments in other Courts under Cons. Ord. 19. r. 4, and office copy Prooeedmga
proceedings in other Courts {Manby v. Bewicke, 3 Jur. N. S.685 ; 5 W. R. 867), Courte
152
Trial and Judgment.
[chap. XII.
Jurisdiction
to receive
proof by
affidavit.
might bo read without an order ; but in Hill v. Hibbit, 7 Eq. 421, an appli-
cation that evidence taken de bene esse in one suit might be read in another
was refused, and in WhitK v. Cox, 2 Ch. D. 397, V.-C. B. held that the bill,
answer, and decree in another suit must be proved by an affidavit which
should also prove the identity of the first Deft in that suit with the Pit
in this ; and proceedings in a Sheriff's Court in Scotland were admissible as
to matters of pedigree : Lyell v. Kennedy, 14 App. Ca. 437.
A certified copy of the conviction of a husband for the murder of his
wife is admissible in civil proceedings inter alios acta not merely as proof
of the conviction but also as prima facie evidence of the commission of
the crime: Re Crippen, [1911] P. 108.
As to reading evidence taken in another cause or matter, v. sup. Chap.
VIII., " Evidence," p. 106.
The report of a Judge of an Irish Court, and the shorthand notes of his
judgment exhibited to an affidavit, were allowed to be used as evidence of
what was decided in Ireland : Houston v. M. ofSligo, 29 Ch. D. 448, 458, C .A.
A judgment may be proved by the production of a duly certified copy of
an entry in the entry book of judgments of the Court in which the judgment
was recovered : Exp. Anderson, Re Tollemache, 14 Q. B. D. 606, C. A.
'Phe file of the proceedings in bankruptcy is not in the nature of a record :
Exp. Bacon, Re Bond, 17 Ch. D. 447, C. A.
As to admissibihty and effect of previous decrees and judgments as evi-
dence in subsequent actions brought in assertion of prescriptive rights, see
Earl de la Warr v. Miles, 17 Ch. D. 535, C. A. ; Neill v. Duhe of Devonshire,
8 App. Ca. 135 ; Hanbury v. Jenkins, 70 L. J. Ch. 730.
Where two causes strongly resemble each other in point of fact, but the
allegations of fact are not the same in each, the record of one cannot be
referred to for the purpose of explaining or supplying anything in the other :
Gann v. Johnson, L. R. 4 H. L. 265.
By O. i,xi, 7, all copies, certificates, and other documents appearing to
be sealed with the seal of the Central Office shall be presumed to be office
copies, &c., issued from the Central Office, and if duly stamped may be
received in evidence without further authentication.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 61, all writs and documents and exemplifications and
copies thereof, purporting to be sealed with the seal of the district registry,
shall be received in evidence without further proof.
And by 0. vni, 2, the production of a writ of summons wliich has been
renewed is sufficient evidence of its renewal and of its original date.
The 13 & 14 V. c. 35, s. 28 (repealed by 46 & 47 V. c. 49), empowered the
Court, at the hearing of the cause, or on further directions, to receive proof
by affidavit of all proper parties being before the Court, and of matters
requiring proof, before ordering payment of moneys belonging to any
married woman, and of other matters not directly in issue in the cause.
As to what matters might and might not be so proved, see Devey v. Thorn-
ton, 9 Ha. 233 ; Bush v. Watkins, 14 Beav. 33 ; Fowler v. Reynal, 15 Jur. 1019,
2 D. G. & Sm. 749 ; 3 M. & G. 500 ; Hoghion v. H., 15 Beav. 278 ; Bear v.
Smith, 5 D. & S. 92 ; Fallows v. Dillon, 2 W. R. 507 ; Bateman v. Margerisrm,
2 W. R. 607, 6 Ha. 496 ; Delevante v. Child, 6 Jur. N. S. 118 ; 1 L.T. 397.
Now, by O. xxxvii, 1, the Court or Judge may at any time, for sufficient
reason, order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or
that the affidavit of any witness may bo read at the hearing or trial, on such
conditions as the Court or Judge may think reasonable. But whether tliis
apphes on motion for judgment, qu. : Ellis v. Bobbins, 50 L. J. Ch. 512.
A press copy of a letter, in the handwriting of the Pit, scheduled to his
affidavit of documents, was admitted as evidence on the part of the Deft,
though objected to by the Pit as not proved : Wilson v. Compton, L. JJ.,
26th Feb. 1874, B. 931.
Production by a witness of a copy of a letter made by him, wliich letter he
swore he would have posted in the ordinary course of business, was held to
be evidence of posting : Trotter v. Maclean, 13 Ch. D. 574.
SECT. I.J Trial. 153
A letter from the master of a ship to the owners is admissible as evidence
against them in regard to facts therein stated, but the opinion of the master
expressed in such letter is not evidence : Tlie Solway, 10 P. D. 137 ; citing
Nothard v. Pepper, 17 C. B. N. S. 39.
The Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1836 (6 & 7 W. 4, c. 86), s. 38, Certificates
enacts that all certified copies of entries purporting to be sealed or stamped °f birth,
with the seal of the General Register Office, shall be received as evidence of death, or
the birth, death, or marriage, to which the same relates, without any further "^rriage.
or other proof of such entry ; but the identity of the person named in such
certificate must be proved. Extracts from the district registries were not
formerly received by the Court, but they are now generally admitted as
evidence. In Re Bunmj, M. R., 25th Feb. 1871, certificates signed by the
Registrar General of New Zealand were accepted without verification. And
so also entries of baptisms in India were admitted : Queen^s Proctor v. Fry,
4 P. D. 231.
And as to entries of marriages in India, see Ratdiffy. R., 1 Sw. & Tr.
467 ; The Peerless, 1 Lush. 42.
A certificate of birth is not evidence of the date of the birth, but only of
the fact of the birth having taken place before the date of registration : Ee
Wintle, 9 Eq. 373.
An entry in a baptismal register of the date of birth, though not per se
proof that the child was born on the day stated, will not be rejected alto-
gether as an item of evidence upon an inquiry as to the child's legitimacy :
Re Turner, OlenisterY. Harding, 29 Ch. D. 985 ; and see Taylor, Evid. 1774.
By the Evidence Act, 1851 (14 & 15 V. o. 99), s. 14, extracts from parish
registers of marriages, &c., purporting to be signed by the incumbent or
his curate, are now received without further verification : Re Hall, 17 Jur.
29 ; 9 Ha. xvi ; Re Porter, 2 Jur. N. S. 349 ; 2 W. R. 386 ; inf. Vol. II. p.
1217, The Queen v. Weaver, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 5 ; and see (as to census
returns) Dublin Corp. v. Bray Commrs, [1900] 2 I. R. 88.
As to extra-parochial registers, see the Non-Parochial Registers Act, 1840
(3 & 4 V. c. 92), and see Births and Deaths Registration Acts, 1858 (21 & 22
V. c. 25) ; 1874 (37 & 38 V. c. 88), the latter Act repeahng Act of 1858
except sects. 1 to 4.
As to extracts from registers of births and baptisms in Scotland, as
evidence of the marriage of the parents, see Lyle v. Ellwood, 19 Eq. 98.
Scottish parochial registers and certified extracts from them are receivable
in evidence in England : Lyell v. Kennedy, 14 App. Ca. 437.
Copies of entries of baptisms and of marriages in India transmitted to the
India OflSce are admissible in evidence : Queen's Proctor v. Fry, 4 P. D. 231 ;
RatcUffY. R., 1 Sw. & Tr. 467 ; The Peerless, 1 Lush. 42.
By the Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 V. c. 39), s. 64, and sched., a certified
copy or extract of or from anyregisterof births, baptisms, marriages, deaths,
or burials, requires an adhesive penny stamp, which is to be cancelled by the
person signing the copy of extract.
Probate or letters of admon are not received as evidence of the death, but
only to show who represents the deceased.
A description of age and birthplace in the report of a foreign government,
not material for the purpose forwhioh the report was made, is not admissible
as evidence of the facts therein stated : Siurla v. Freccia, 12 Ch. D. 411 : 5
App. Ca. 623.
It being shown that foreign registers of births could not be removed, the
contents of an entry were proved by a copy verified by a witness who had
himself compared it with the original : Burndby v. Baillie, 42 Ch. D. 282.
By the Evidence Act, 1851 (14 &15 V. c. 99), s.7, foreign and colonial acts Foreign and
of state, judgments, &c., are provable by certified copies, without proof of colonial acts
seal or signature, or judicial character of the person signing the same. of state, etc.
Foreign law is a matter of fact, to be decided on the evidence of advocates Foreign law.
practising in the Courts of the country whose law is to be ascertained ; but
if the witnesses in their evidence refer to any passage in the code of their
154
Trial and Judgment. [chap. xii.
status and
of seal or
signature, &c
country, as containing the law applicable to the case, the Court is at liberty
to look at those passages and consider what is their proper meaning : Concha
V. Murietta, 40 Ch. D. 543, C. A. The expert on foreign law should be a
professional man, or should hold some official position in the state in ques-
tion, qualifying him to give evidence : Re Turner, 1906, W. N. 27.
The status and boundaries of foreign states are matters within the judicial
boundaries of cognizance of the Court, which, if in doubt, will apply for information to the
foreign states. Foreign Secretary, whose reply is conclusive : Foster v. Olohe Venture Syndi-
cate, [1900J 1 Ch. 811.
Documents By sect. 8, apothecaries' certificates are admissible without proof of seal ;
*4"?'^^'^^® by sect. 9, documents admissible without proof of seal, &c., in England or
without proof \Vales, are equally admissible in Ireland ; by sect. 10, documents admissible
without proof of seal, &o., in Ireland, are equally admissible in England
and Wales ; by sect. 11, documents admissible without proof of seal, &c., in
England, Wales, or Ireland, are equally admissible in the colonies ; by
sect. 12, registers of British vessels, and certificates of registry.are admissible
as prima facie evidence of their contents, without proof of signature, &c. ;
by sect. 13, conviction or acquittal of a person charged, may be proved by
the certificate of the clerk of the Court.
By sect. 14, whenever any book or other document is of such a public
nature as to be admissible in evidence on its mere production from the proper
custody, and no statute exists which renders its contents provable by means
of a copy, any copy thereof, or extract therefrom, shall be admissible in
evidence in any court of justice, or before any person now or hereafter
having by law, or by consent of parties, authority to hear, receive, and
examine evidence, provided it be proved to be an examined-copy or extract,
or provided it purport to be signed and certified as a true copy or extract
by the officer to whose custody the original is intrusted. The officer is to
furnish such copy or extract on being paid for it at the rate there mentioned.
The report of a committee appointed by a public department in a foreign
state, though addressed to that department and acted on by the government
is not necessarily admissible here as evidence of all the facts therein stated :
Sturla V. Freccia, 5 App. Ca. 623.
A statutory certificate under seal of execution of works entitUng a co.
to a charge is only prima facie evidence in favour of the co. : Landoivners
W. of England Drainage Co. v. Ashford, 16 Ch. D. 411.
The discretion given to the Bank of England of requiring stricter evidence
of proof of title than is ordinarily admitted by the Court of Chancery, will
not be interfered with : see 33 & 34 V. c. 71 (National Debt Act, 1870), s. 24 :
Prosser v. Banh of England, 13 Eq. 613 ; see also Riseley v. Shepherd, 21
W. R. 782 ; and directors of an insurance office were entitled to further
evidence of death of c. q. vie than an order under 6 Anne, c. 27 : Doyle v.
City ofOlasgow Life Assurance Co., 53 L. J. Ch. 527.
The C. L. P. Act, 1854 (17 & 18 V. c. 125), s. 26, enacts that it shall not
be necessary to prove by the attesting witness any instrument " to the
validity of which attestation is not requisite," and such instrument may be
proved by admission or otherwise, as if there had been no attesting witness.
On unopposed applications for payment of money out of Court, any deed
required to be proved is usually required to be proved by the attesting
witness : Me Reay, 1 Jur. N. S. 222 ; Pedder v. P., M. R., 24th Nov. 1859,
Reg. Min. f. 63 ; Re Rice, 32 Oh. D. 35, C. A. And in non-contentious cases
generally it is the rule that a deed should be proved by the attesting witness :
per Cotton, L. J., in Re Felthouse, 14 June, 1884. If the attesting witness
be dead, or abroad, or cannot be found, the proper course is to prove these
circumstances and the signature of the witness. Where the attesting witness
was abroad, the Court of Appeal required an affidavit that an endeavour had
been made to find a witness to prove his handwriting, before allowing the
deed to be proved by proving the handwriting of the grantor : Re Rice, sup.,
overruling Re Muir, 21 W. R. 749. A deed under seal requires proof of the
delivery by the party, not merely of the signature. A power of attorney
Bank of
England.
Attesting
witness.
SECT. I.] Trial. 155,
to receive money, though usually under seal, need not be so : v, inf.
p. 229.
Where all parties are represented, sect. 26 applies, and proof by the at-
testing witness can be dispensed with : Worthingtcm v. Moore, Chitty, J.,
24 Feb. 1891 ; 64 L. T. 338.
A party to a deed is, of course, competent to admit or to prove his own
execution thereof ; but where it has to be executed with certain formalities,
qncere whether he can admit or prove more than his own signature.
Absence of seal from deeds, there being no evidence that they ever had Seal,
been sealed, rendered them invalid. Though it is unimportant what a seal is
made of, yet there must be something in the nature of an impression on the
deed : Nat. Prov. Bank v. Jackson, 33 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
The alteration of the date of a deed by the person last executing it, if Alteration of
immaterial, does not invalidate the deed : Credilon (Bishop) v. Exeter date of deed.
(Bishop), [1905] 2 Ch. 455.
By sect. 27, disputed writing may be compared by witnesses with any Disputed
writing proved to be genuine, and the writings and evidence submitted to writing,
the Court and jury.
By the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 & 43 V. c. 11), s. 3, a copy Banker's
of any entry in a banker's books is (subject to the provisions of that Act) to books,
be received as prima facie evidence of such entry, and of the matters, trans-
actions, and accounts therein recorded, in all legal proceedings, i.e. (see s. 10),
any civil or criminal proceeding or inquiry in which evidence is or may be
given, including an arbitration. Sect. 4 provides for the proof to be given
that the book from which the entry is taken is a banker's book, and sect. 5
for the mode of verification of the copy. An affidavit of the manager of a
bank setting out copies of certain entries from the bank books is prima facie
evidence of the entries : Harding v. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 197, C. A.
As to inspection under the Act, v. sup. p. 82 ; and see Dan. 507.
Sect. 3 is not confined to legal proceedings in which the originals would be
admissible as evidence, but makes the copies admissible evidence against
anv one, ex. gr., entries in Deft's bankers' books evidence against Pit :
Harding v. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 197, C. A. ; Dan. 507.
For orders under the Act, see Henry v. Lawrill, 27 May, 1880 ; Doyle v.
Mulkem, 13 June, 1884; Re Pickering's Estate, Pickering v. P., 2 Dec.
1884.
By O. XXXI, 15, no party may put in evidence any document referred to Documents
in his pleadings or evidence which he has failed to produce for inspection not produced
after notice to do so, unless he can satisfy the Court that he has some cause '?'' mspec-
for not producing it : Webster v. Whewall, 15 C. D. 120. The effect of this *'°°-
rule and r. 17 is not to take away the privilege, but merely to impose a
penalty : Roberts v. Oppenheim, 32 W. R. 654.
As to proving proclamations, orders, and regulations issued by his Public
Majesty, or by the Privy Council, or by the Treasury, the Admiralty, the departmental
Secretaries of State, the Board of Trade, or the Poor Law Board, see the documents.
Doc. Ev. Act, 1868 (31 & 32 V. c. 37) ; and see 33 & 34 V. c. 79, s. 21 (the
Postmaster-General) ; 34 & 35 V. c. 70, s. 5 (the Local Government Board) ;
and 40 & 41 V. c. 21, s. 51 (the Prison Act, 1877), and rules under that Act.
By the Doc. Ev. Act, 1882 (45 V. c. 9), s. 2, documents in the above-men-
tioned Acts referred to, printed under the superintendence of his Majesty's
Stationery Office, are to be receivable in evidence.
By 33 & 34 V. c. 76, s. 83, orders, minutes, certificates, notices, requisi-
tions, and documents of the Education Department may be proved by the
production of a copy purporting to have been signed by a secretary or under-
secretary of the department.
As to proving declarations of nationality under the Naturalization Act, Naturaliza-
1870, and entries in any register thereunder, and proving certificates of tion.
naturalization, and of re-admission to British nationality, see that Act
(33 V. c. 14), s. 12. The usual qualified certificate under the NaturaUzation
Act, 1870, effects only a partial naturaUzation, and a French subject does
156
Trial and Judgment. [chap. xii.
not, by taking out such a certificate, lose his French status, as he cannot be
completely naturalized, except bv authority of the French Government :
Be Bourgoise, 41 Ch. D. 310, C. A.
By whom
notice to be
taken.
Stamping
before order
Undertaking
of solr.
Amounts
payable.
Penalties.
Receipts
unstamped.
By s. 14 of the Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 V. c. 39), which came into
operation on the 1st Jan. 1892, it is provided that upon the production of
an instrument chargeable with any duty as evidence in any Court of civil
jurisdiction, or before an arbitrator or referee, notice shall be taken by the
Judge, arbitrator or referee of any omission or insufficiency of the stamp
thereon, and if the instrument is one that may legally be stamped after the
execution thereof, it may, on payment to the officerof the Court whose duty
it is to read the instrument, or to the arbitrator or referee, of the amount of
the unpaid duty, and the penalty payable on stamping the same, and a
further sum of £1, be received in evidence, saving all just exceptions, on
other grounds. An instrument which was held to be a bill of exchange,
and not an equitable assignment, could not be stamped : Exp. Shellard,
17 Eq. 109 ; but see Bryce v. Bannister, 3 Q. B. D. 569.
Formerly it was the duty of the registrar to call the attention of the
Judge to the omission or insufficiency of the stamp. The duty of taking
notice thereof is, by the above-cited section, cast upon the Judge. In
practice the Court accepts the undertaking of the solr as its own officer that
documents shall be stamped before the order is drawn up, without requiring
any signature of the registrar's book or other document, the undertaking
being treated as satisfying the obligations of the Act of 1891 : Be Coolgardie
OoldfieMs, Be Cannon, Son & Men-ten, [1900] 1 Ch. 475, 478 (referring to
Jennings v. Christopher, ex relatione Lavie, Registrar).
A solr giving such an undertaking is personally responsible. Where such
an undertaking was given and not fulfilled, the Court directed that the order
should be drawn up without entering the unstamped documents and ordered
the solr within four days to produce the documents to the registrar duly
stamped : S. C.
Since the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 8), the
amounts payable on deeds unstamped, or insufficiently stamped, produced
in evidence, have been as follows : — (1.) The deficient amount of the duty.
(2.) £10 penalty. (3.) £1 under sect. 16 of the Stamp Act, 1874. (4.) When
the unpaid duty exceeds £10, interest on the deficiency at the rate of £5
p. c. per ann. from the date of the deed until payment. (5.) An additional
penalty equivalent to the whole (not the deficiency) of the stamp duty
thereon, unless a reasonable excuse for the delay in stamping, or for the
omission to stamp, or the insufficiency of the stamp, be afforded to the satis-
faction of the Judge.
Under s. 15 of the Stamp Act, 1891, the penalties are as follows : — " Save
where other express provision is in this Act made, any unstamped or insuffi-
ciently stamped instrument may be stamped, after the execution thereof, on
payment of the unpaid duty and a penalty of £10, and also by way of further
penalty, where the unpaid duty exceeds £10, of interest on such duty at the
rate of £5 p. c. per ann. from the day upon which the instrument was
first executed up to the time when the amount of interest is equal to the
unpaid duty."
Receipts for payments not duly stamped were received in evidence by
consent. The Stamp Act not permitting the stamp to be added ex post facto,
either with or without a penalty, the Court held it was not bound to object
under the Act : Orange v. Pickford, V.-C. K., 4 June, 1860, Reg. Min. f.
79 ; following Thompson v. Webster, L. JJ., 21 July, 1859, Reg. Min. f . 121 ;
12 Nov. 1859, Reg. Min. f. 19.
Where an instrument is capable of being viewed in two different aspects
involving different rates of stamp duty, it may be admitted in evidence if
relied on in the aspect in which it is properly stamped : Adams v. Moigan,
SECT. I.] Trial. 157
12 L. R. Ir. 1 ; 14 L. R. Ir. 140, citing Bwk v. RobsiM, 3 Q. B. D. 686 ;
Bryce v. Bannister, ib. 569 ; Fisher v. Calvert, 27 W. R. 301.
Probate or letters of admon insufficiently stamped must be properly Probate or
stamped before the judgment is drawn up. letters of
As to agreements requiring a stamp, see Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., admon.
[1892] 2 Q. B. 484, 490, and cases tliere cited. Agreements.
The Court will not receive parol evidence of a written agreement never
stamped ; though fraudulently destroyed by the person against whom it is
sought to be enforced : Smith v. Henley, 1 Ph. 391. Sec.us, where the evi-
dence was a draft or other writing admitting of being stamped : 8. C. 395 ;
Blair v. Ormond, 1 D. & S. 428 ; Bousfield v. Godefroi, 5 Bing. 418. But in
the absence of evidence it will be presumed that the agreement was stamped ;
and see Gilchrist v. Herbert, W. N. (72) 33, 133 ; 26 L. T. 381 ; 20 W. R.
348; Tayl. Ev. §§ 145, 148 ; Hart v. H., 1 Ha. 1, where, under the circum-
stances, the Court directed an inquiry what had become of the agreement.
Missing instruments are generally presumed to have been duly stamped Missing
unless some evidence to the contrary be given, when the burden of proof instruments,
is shifted to the person setting up the instrument: Tayl. Ev. § 148; Marine
Investment Co. v. Haviside, L. R. 5 H. L. 624 ; Closmadeuc v. Carrell, 2 Jur,
N. S. 474 ; Cole v. Binks, Kay, J., 25 March, 1885, where the action for
specific performance was dismissed with costs.
In May v. M., 33 Beav. 81, an unsatisfactory copy of a lost agreement was
not allowed to be stamped in order to its being put in evidence.
Where there has been a verbal agreement for sale followed by possession,
a subsequent document setting forth the terms of the agreement need not
be stamped with ad valorem duty, before allowing it to be admitted in
evidence : Don Francesco v. De Meo, [1908] S. C. 7— Court of Sessions.
An agreement for sale of goodwill was not a conveyance on sale within
sect. 70 of the Stamp Act, 1870, although in equity the purchaser thereby
became owner : Commrs of Inland Revenue v. Angus, 23 Q. B. D. 579,
C. A. ; but see 52 V. c. 7, s. 18.
All instruments executed out of the kingdom are liable to stamp duty, if Instruments
they relate to property, or are to be acted upon witliin the kingdom ; and executed
also all instruments executed within the kingdom : Wright v. Commrs o/^^broad.
Inland Revenue, 11 Exch. 458; 24 L. J. Exch. 49; and see Orenfell v.
Same, 1 Ex. D. 242.
Where, as in the case of some foreign deeds which are retained by the
notary abroad, the Court acts on a copy, there is no provision for levjdng
the stamp duty by stamping a copy : Brown v. Collins, Kay, J., 13 and 30
July, 1883, Reg. Min. Book, f. 155.
A bill drawn in France on the Bank of England was properly stamped by Foreign bill,
the holder with a penny stamp : Re Boyse, Crofton v. C, 33 Ch. D. 612.
A mortgage deed stamped only with a deed stamp and not with an ad Mortgage
valorem stamp, is not " duly stamped " within sect. 17 of the Stamp Act, deed.
1870 : Whiting to Loomes, 14 Ch. D. 822 ; afid. 17 Ch. D. 10, C. A.
An allotment letter though unstamped is receivable as evidence of the allot- Allotment
ment having been received: ReWhitley Partners, Steel' sCase,'L91j. 3 .CKVl^. letter.
An unstamped deed was allowed to be given as evidence of an act of
bankruptcy : Exp. Squire, 4 Ch. 47.
As to whether an instrument should be stamped as a debenture or a Promissory
promissory note, see British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Commrs o/note.
Inland Revenue, 7 Q. B. D. 165.
A promissory note insufficiently stamped is not admissible as a receipt for
the money : Ashling v. Boon, [1891] 1 Ch. 568 ; but may be used by the Pit
for the purpose of refresliing the Deft'a memory and obtaining from him an
admission of a loan : Birchall v. Bullough, [1896] 1 Q. B. 325 ; and as to
document requiring to be stamped as an agreement or as a promissory note,
see Yeo v. Dawe, 53 L. T. 125.
A letter amounting to an order for payment of money cannot be admitted Order for
in evidence if unstamped : Re Whitting, Exp. Rowell, 48 L. J. Bkcy. 46. payment.
158 Trial and JiLdgment. [chap. xii.
Court fees. Court fees are to be paid by stamps, and no document is to be received in
evidence unless properly stamped ; but if any such document is received,
filed, or used without the proper stamp through inadvertence or mistake, the
same may be stamped under the direction of the Court or the person on
whom the regulations are binding, and under such conditions as may be
prescribed by the regulations : 42 & 43 V. c. 58, s. 3.
By the Revenue Act, 1898 (61 & 62 V. c. 46), s. 9, the fees to be collected
under the Public Offices Fees Act, 1879, are to be a debt due to the Crown
and recoverable in such manner and by such persons as the Treasury may
direct, and if so directed as part of the Inland Revenue.
The ruling of a Judge at the trial as to the sufficiency of a stamp is final :
0. XXXIX, 8 ; Blewitt v. Tritton, [1892] 2 Q. B. 327, C. A.
Summary of decisions under or in reference to Stamp Act, 1891.
Annuity : sect. 87, sub-s. 2, held not applicable to the case of a grant
of a perpetual annuity in consideration of a sum of money paid by way of
purchase : Mersey Docks and Harhour Board v. /. R. Commrs, [1897] 2
Q. B. 316, 0. A. And see inf. " Bond."
Bond, covenant or instrument : additional or substituted security ; a
covering deed to secure perpetual 3-^ p. c. debenture stock appUcable in
paying off old 4 p. c. debenture stock, held to be either a mortgage within
sect. 86 (1), or a debenture within Sched. I., and in either view chargeable
with ad valorem duty at 2s. Gd. p. c. and not merely an " additional or
substituted security " chargeable with a Qd. p. c. duty : City of London
Brewery Co. v. /. R. Commrs, [1898] 1 Q. B. 408 ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 121, C. A.
— ^to secure annual sum in lieu of repairs, held rent : British Electric
Traction Co. v. /. R. Commrs, [1902] 1 K. B. 441.
— an agreement not under seal held included : Nat. Tel. Co. v. /. R.
Commrs, [1900] A. C. 1, H. L. ; [1899] 1 Q. B. 2.50, C. A.
— so an annuity under a separation deed made payable quarterly, ad-
valorem payable on the annuity or yearly sum secured : Lems v. /. R.
Commrs, [1898] 2 Q. B. 290.
Agreement held security for an indefinite period for a sum of money at
weekly periods, and ad valorem duty therefor payable on the weekly sums :
Clifford V. /. R. Commrs, [1896] 2 Q. B. 187 ; and see County of Durham
Electrical Power Distribution Co. v. /. R. Commrs, [1909] 2 K. B. 604, C. A.
- — and so contracts, determinable en notice, by a telephone oo. to supply
telephonic communication for fixed annual sums, and by a railway co. to
allow automatic machines to be placed on their platforms, on being paid
yearly rent, are not " leases " or " tacks," but chargeable as securities for
annuities or sums of money at stated periods : Jones v. /. R. Commrs, [1895]
1 Q. B. 484 ; Sweetmeats Automatic Co. v. I. R. Commrs, [1895] 1 Q. B. 484.
Bill of exchange : sect. 32, sched., exemption 10 : bill drawn in favour of
Commrs of Customs, but with the primary object of enabling merchants to
obtain release of goods from Custom House, not within the exemption,
because not drawn for the " sole purpose " of " remitting " money to ac-
count of public revenue : Committee of London Clearing) Bankers v. 7. R.
Commrs, [1896] 1 Q. B. 542, C. A.
For reduction of duty on certain bills of exchange, see Finance Act, 1899
(62 & 63 V. c. 9), s. 10.
Company's Capital, s. 113 ; A. 0. v. Midland Ry Co., [1902] A. C. 171 ;
duty increased, see Finance Act, 1899 (62 & 63 V. c. 9), s. 7 ; A. G. v.
Regent's Canal <fe Dock Co., [1904] 1 K. B. 263 (on s. 8 of Finance Act,
1899) ; A. 0. v. Anglo-Argentine Tramways Co., Ld., [1909] 1 K. B. 677
(on s. 112 of Stamp Act, 1891).
Company reconstructed by statute, copy of the Act chargeable :
A. O. V. Felixstowe Qas Light Co., [1907] 2 K. B. 984 ; and see London <h
India Dock Co. v. A. 0., [1909] A. C. 7, as to the effect of modification
of rights of holders of existing stock on amalgamation.
SECT. I.} Trial. 159
Contract or agreement : equitable estate or interest in property : sect. 59,
sub-s. 1. See West London Syndicate v. I. R. Commrs, [1898] 2 Q. B. 507,
C. A. (agreement to sell a lease or, at the option of the purchaser, execute
a declaration of trust held not to be a contract for sale of an equitable
interest in land) : Muller and Co.'s Margarine, Ld. v. /. R. Commrs, [1900]
1 Q. B. 310, C. A. ; [1901] A. C. 217, H. L. (contract for sale of an option to
purchase held within the section) ; Chesterfield Brewery Co. v. /. R. Commrs,
[1899] 2 Q. B. 7 (shares in co. A. to be held in trust for co. B.).
— contract " made " in that country in which the signature of the last
necessary party is affixed : Muller and Co.^ s Margarine, Ld. v. L R. Commrs,
[1900] 1 Q. B. 310, C. A. ; [1901] A. C. 217, H.L.
— " property locally situate out of the United Kingdom " held to include
goodwill as annexed to business premises : Muller and Co.'s Margarine, Ld.
V. 7. R. Commrs, sup. ; ad valorem duty payable on an agreement made
in England for purchase of an estate in New South Wales, the words of
exception not being applicable to an equitable interest : Farmer tfc Co. v.
/. R. Commrs, [1898] 2 Q. B. 141 ; and on agreement made in England
for sale of share or license to use patent, granted in New South Wales, in a
district of that colony : Smelting Co. of Australia v. /. R. Commrs, [1897]
1 Q. B. 175 ; and see contra, Danuhian Sugar Factories v. I. R. Commrs,
[1901] 1 K. B. 245, C. A.
— agreement for sale of property other than lands : West London Syndi-
cate, Ld. V. /. R. Commrs, [1898] 2 Q. B. 507, C. A. (goodwill of leasehold
hotel, being property capable of being sold independently of the hotel).
Contract Note : ss. 52, 53 ; the penalty does not affect the contract but
only the broker : Learoyd v. Bracken, [1894] 1 Q. B. 114, C. A.
Conveyance cm Sale : ss. 54 and 55 : ad valwem stamp duty held to be
payable on the following : —
— a transfer of shares by a shareholder in one company to another
company in exchange for shares in the latter company : Coats v. 1. R.
Commrs, [1897] 2 Q. B. 423, C. A. ; and see Chesterfield Brewery Co. v. I. R.
Commrs, [1899] 2 Q. B. 7.
— a transfer of their business by a firm to a company consisting of them-
selves : Foster and Sons v. /. R. Commrs, [1896] 1 Q. B. 516, C. A.
— a deed declaring dissolution of partnership and acceptance of a pro-
missory note in discharge of share of outgoing partner : Oarnett v. I. R.
Commrs, 81 L. T. 633 ; 48 W. R. 303.
— conveyance on sale of perpetual annuity : Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board v. I. R. Commrs, [1897] 2 Q. B. 316, C. A.
— family arrangement where money passed : Bristol (M. of) v. 7. R.
Commrs, [1901] 2 K. B. 336.
— a special Act amalgamating railway undertakings : 0. W. Ry. Co. v.
7. R. Commrs, [1894] 1 Q. B. 507, C. A.
— secus, apportioned rent on sale of a part of the land comprised in a
lease : Swayne v. 7. R. Commrs, [1900] 1 Q. B. 172, C. A.
— ^receipt for money for coal to be left unworked under railway : G. N. Ry.
Co. V. 7. R. Commrs', [1901] 1 K. B. 416, C. A.
— an assent in writing, not under seal, of the executor, under s. 3 (1) of
Land Transfer Act, 1897, is not liable to stamp duty as a conveyance or
transfer : Kemp v. 7. R. Commrs, [1905] 1 K. B. 581.
Coupons : exempt now under Finance Act, 1894 (57 & 58 V. c. 30), s. 40 ;
formerly chargeable : see Rothschild v. 7. R. Commrs, [1894] 2 Q. B. 142.
Equitable Mortgage : ss. 64, 57. A conveyance directed by an order
absolute for foreclosure in an action by an equitable mortgagee, held to be a
" conveyance on sale," chargeable with ad. valorem stamp duty : Huntington
V. I. R. Commrs, [1896] 1 Q. B. 422. And see 7. R. Commrs v. Tod, [1898]
A. C. 399, H. L. Sc.
Sect. 6 of the Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 V. c. 10), is as follows :—
For the removal of doubts with reference to the effect of ss. 54 and 57 of
the Stamp Act, 1891 , it is hereby declared that the definition of " conveyance
160 Trial and Judgment. [chap. xii.
on sale " in the said s. 54, includes a decree or order for, or having the effect
of an order for, foreclosure. Provided that — (a) The ad valorem stamp duty
upon any such decree or order shall not exceed the duty on a sum equal to
the value of the property to which the decree or order relates, and where the
decree or order states that value, that statement shall be conclusive for the
purpose of determining the amount of the duty ; and (b) Where ad valorem
stamp duty is paid upon such decree or order, any conveyance following
upon such decree or order shall be exempt from the ad valorem stamp duty.
As to mortgage made after the Act of 1891 and before Act of 1898, see
In re Lovell and CollartVs Contract, [1907] 1 Ch. 249.
Lease : A lease for 99 years if certain persons should so long hve, is a
lease for a term which exceeds 35 years and not a lease for an indefinite
term, within the meaning of Sched. I. : Mount Edgeumhe v. I. B. Commrs,
[1911] 2 K. B. 24.
Loan Capital, Duty on : Finance Act, 1899 (62 & 63 V. c. 9), a. 8.
Letters of Allotment or Renunciation : increased duties, Finance Act, 1899
(62 & 63 V. c. 9), s. 9.
Marketable Securities : s. 82, sub-s. 1 (b) (i) : bonds of a foreign company
payable to bearer, but not valid until certified by the foreign trustee for the
bondholders, when certified by such trustee, while in England, held to be
" marketable securities by a foreign company made and issued in the United
Kingdom " : Lord Bevelstohe v." /. B. Commrs, [1898] A. C. 565, H. L.
affirming [1898] 1 Q. B. 78,0. A., nam. Baringv. LB. Commrs; and as to a
debenture purporting to create a charge on ships where there are already
previous mortgages of the ships to trustees for debenture holders, being
liable to stamp duty under the head " Marketable Security," see Deddington
Steamship Co., Ltd. v. /. B. Commrs, [1911] 1 K. B. 1078.
As to the meaning of the expression " marketable security " and as to the
stamp duty payable thereon, see Knight's Deep v. /. B. Commrs, [1900] 1
Q. B. 217, 0. A. (ad valorem stamp on " money secured " payable on prin-
cipal moneys advanced and not on additional sum contingently payable
on redemption) : Bowell v. I. B. Commrs, [1897] 2 Q. B. 194 (secus, where
additional sum payable in any event) ; Bead v. Eley, 1900, W. N. 57 (equit-
able charge not under seal of debentures of limited company ; stamp 6d.) ;
Noakes v. L B. Commrs, 83 L. T. 714 ; Broum v. L B. Commrs, 84 L. T. 71,
C. A. ; Mount Lyell Mining and By. Co. v. I. B. Commrs, [1905] 1 K. B.
161, debentures of one company accepted in substitution for debentures
of another company ; not necessary that " a marketable security " should
involve any hypothecation of property : Speyer v. /. B. Commrs, [1907] 1
K. B. 246 ; [1908] A. C. 92 ; promissory note with representation that
holder was to have the benefit of securities deposited : s. 82, sub-s. 1 (b),
apphcable : Broum, Shipley <fc Co. v. /. B. Commrs, [1895] 2 Q. B. 598, C. A.
— for imposition of additional duty on foreign and colonial instruments,
see Finance Act, 1899 (62 & 63 V. c. 9), s. 4.
Mortgage : sched. 1, sub-s. 5. The sub-section applies only to such dis-
charges as wholly free the security, and the duty must be calculated on the
maximum burden which has ever been incumbent by virtue of the security.
A discharge of part only bears the ordinary deed stamp : Munro v. 7. B.
Commrs, 33 Scottish L. R. 152 ; 1896, W. N. 149.
— further advances, s. 15 : further ad valorem stamp even after execution
of deed : Fitzgerald's Trustee v. Mellersh, 1892, W. N. 4.
Sect. 86, sched. 1 : agreement to execute mortgage held chargeable with
ad valorem duty : United Realization Co. v. I. B. Commrs, [1899] 1 Q. B. 361,
and V. sup. "Bond."
— auxiliary security or by way of further assurance : British Oil db
Cake Mills, Ld. v. /. B. Commrs, [1903] 1 K. B. 689.
Policy : " policy of insurance against accident " : s. 98, sched. 1 : see
Lancashire Ins. Co. v. I. B. Commrs ; Vulcan Boiler Co. v. /. B. Commrs,
[1899] 1 Q. B. 353 ; Finance Act, 1899 (62 & 63 V. c. 9), s. 11 ; indemnity
policy against loss or damage to property : Mortgage Ins. Co. v. I. B.
SECT. I.] Trial IGl
Commrs, 20 Q. B. D. 645 ; old age endowment policy : Prudential Insurance
Co. V. /. R. Commrs, [1904] 2 K. B. 658 ; ss. 93, 97. Policy of sea insurance ;
Oenforsikrings, c&c. Co. v. Da Costa, [1911] 1 K. B. 137; s. 104, settlement
of policy of lite insurance — no provision for keeping up the policy ; Duke
of Northumberland v. I. B. Commrs, [1911] 2 K. B. 343.
" Property," s. 59, sub-s. 1 : the English trade mark and goodwill of a
firm of soap manufacturers in U. S. A. who sold soap to an English syndi-
cate to be retailed in England, was held to be property within the section,
and an agreemen t for sale thereof, together with the business, was chargeable
with ad valorem stamp duty : Brooke v. /. R. Commrs, [1896] 2 Q. B. 356 ;
and see Danubian, Sugar Factories, Ld. v. /. R. Commrs, [1901] 1 K. B. 245.
Property abroad conveyed by one English co. to another English co. ;
Maple cfe Co. {Paris) v. /. R. Commrs, [1908] A. C. 22.
Receipt : s. 101 : acknowledgment of receipt of salary by solr as officer of
bank, held to be within the section : A. G. v. Carlton, Bank, [1899] 2 Q. B.
158. Counsel's initials or signature for fee : General Council of the Bar v.
I. R. Commrs, [1907] 1 K. B. 462.
— sched. exemption 1 1 : London and Westminster Bank v. I. R. Commrs,
[1900] 1 Q. B. 166, C. A.
— for further exemptions, see Revenue Act, 1898 (61 & 62 V. c. 46), s. 8.
Reconveyance : by building society incorporated under the Building
Societies Act, 1874 (37 & 38 V. e. 42), exempt by virtue of s. 41 of that Act
though trustees for dissolution of society joined as parties : Old Batter sea
Bldg. Soc. V. /. R. Commrs, [1898] 2 Q. B. 294.
Release or Renunciation of Property upon a Sale : sched. 1 : G. N. Ry.
Co. V. I. R. Commrs, [1899] 2 Q. B. 652 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 416, C. A. (receipt
for compensation for not working coal adjacent to railway : stamp, 10s.).
— endorsement of discharge on indenture securing redeemable debenture
stock : Frith tfc Sons, Ld. v. /. R. Commrs, [1904] 2 K. B. 205.
Settlement : sched. : a settlement of contingent reversionary interests in
specified stock vested in trustees with power to vary, held liable to ad valorem
duty : Onslow v. /. R. Commrs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 239, C. A. ; so a marriage
settlement taking effect by way of revocation under power : Russell v. /. R.
Commrs, [1901] 2 K. B. 342 ; secus, an appointment of new trustees vesting
stock purchased under a power in the original settlement : Massereene ( F.)
v. /. R. Commrs, [1900] 1 1. R. 43.
Share Warrants and Stock Certificates to Bearer : extension of stamp duty;
Finance Act, 1899 (62 & 63 V. c. 9), s. 5 (1).
Transfer of Colonial Stock : duty chargeable on, to extend to stock of any
British protectorate : see Finance Act, 1898 (61 & 62 V. o. 10), s. 5.
I'ORM AND CONTEKTS OV AFFIDAVITS.
By O. xxxvnr, 3, " affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the
witness is able of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory
motions on which statements as to his belief, with the grounds thereof, may
be admitted. And the costs of every affidavit which shall unnecessarily set
forth matters of hearsay, or argumentative matter, or copies of or extracts
from documents, shall be paid by the party filing the same ; " and as to
costs, see 0. lxv, 27 (20).
Evidence on " information and belief " is not admissible, and need not be Information
contradicted where the application, although interlocutory in form, finally and belief,
decides the rights : Gilbert v. Endean, 9 Ch. D. 259, C. A.
Affidavits by persons having no personal knowledge of the facts, and
merely echoing the statement of claim, should not be filed, and the costs are
to be disallowed : per M. R., 1876, W. N. 59.
A motion to take affidavits off the file on the ground of length and irrele- Objections,
vaney was refused, and the attention of the Court ought to be drawn to when to be
such matters at the hearing : Owens v. Emmens, 1875, W. N. 210, 234. Objec- taken,
tionsforirregularity should be taken whenadepositionistendered in evidence,
and not by motion to take it off the file : De Britto v. Hillel, 15 Eq. 213.
As to using in evidence answers to interrogatories, see ante, p. 99.
162 Trial and Judgment. [chap. xii.
ADMISSIONS IN PLEADINGS.
By 0. XXXII, 1, " any party to a cause or matter may (5ive notice, by his
pleading, or otherwise in writing, that he admits the truth of the whole or
any part of the case of any other party."
If such admissions are contained in one of the pleadings entered as read,
they need not be specially mentioned.
By O. XIX, 13, " every allegation of fact in any pleading, not being a peti-
tion or summons, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or
stated to be not admitted, in the pleading of the opposite party, shall be
taken to be admitted, except as against an infant, lunatic, or person of
unsound nTind not so found " : see Hammer v. Flight, 24 W. R. 346 ; 35
L. T. 127 ; Symonds v. Jenkins, 24 W. R. 512 ; 34 L. T. 277.
By r. 17, each party must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of
which he does not admit the truth; and by r. 19 he must not do so evasively,
but must answer the point of substance : see Thorp v. HoMsworth, 1876,
W. N. 159.
By r. 20, "when a contract, &c., is alleged in any pleading, a bare denial
of the same by the opposite party shall be construed only as a denial in fact
of the making of the express contract, &o. in fact, or of the matters of fact
from which the same may be implied at law, and not of its legality or its
sufficiency in law, whether with reference to the Statute of Frauds or
otherwise."
By O. XXIV, 3, where a Deft pleads a ground of defence which has arisen
after the action commenced. Pit may deliver a confession of such defence,
and, unless otherwise ordered, sign judgment for his costs up to that time.
See inf. Form 6, p. 167.
Judgment signed by Pits for costs under the rule, was set aside on motion
by Defts on terms of their withdrawing the ground of defence, the Court
reserving the costs of it, the signing of the judgment and the motion :
Bridgetoion Waterworks Co. v. Barbados Water Supply Co., 38 Ch. D. 378 ;
and see Harrison v. Marquis of Abergavenny, 57 L. T. 36 ; 1887, W. N. 156,
ADMISSIONS, CONSENTS, SUBMISSIONS, AND UNDERTAKINGS — WAIVEBS.
The Court frequently proceeds upon admissions of facts by the parties,
or some of them, or by their counsel at the bar, consents, sabmissions, under-
takings, or waivers of claim ; in which case such admissions, &c., should be
inserted in the judgment or order immediately before the ordering part, if
they relate to the whole, or immediately before the part to which they relate,
if they do not relate to the whole : see Maybery v. Brooking, 7 D. M. & G.
673, 679.
PKOOF or DOCUMENTS OR COPIES BY ADMISSION.
As to proof of documents or copies by admission on notice to admit and
the consequence as to costs on refusal or neglect to admit, see 0. xxxii, 2.
As to form of notice, see r. 3.
By r. 9, " if a notice to admit or produce comprises documents which are
not necessary, the costs occasioned thereby shall be borne by the party giving
such notice."
By r. 7, an affidavit of the solr or Ms clerk of the due signature of any
such admissions, is to be sufficient evidence of them, but where both sides
appear it has not been the practice in Chancery to prove the signatures.
The parties also, to save expense, often voluntarily enter into admissions
in writing of facts or documents which are not in dispute ; and such admis-
sions, being signed by the parties, or by their solrs, and used at the hearing,
are entered as read in the judgment.
The original admissions are endorsed by the registrar as those entered as
read in the decree, and filed, pursuant to O. LXi, 15, in the Central Office,
where a memorandum of the filing is made in the margin of the judgment
before it is passed.
SECT. I.] Trial. 163
No documents are evidence in the cause unless they are put in at the
trial. The mere fact that they are admitted in the admissions does not
make them evidence in the cause. Every document which it is intended
to use in evidence ought to be formally put in, and marked by the registrar.
Per James, L. J., in Watson v. Rodwell, 11 Ch. D. 153, C. A.
Letters, &c. which are not actually read, or put in, although they are in
the admissions, and are set out in counsel's briefs, ought not to be entered
in the judgment : per Chitty, J., in Skipworth v. Sayle, 18 April, 1883 ; and
see note on Form 1, p. 140.
ADMISSION OF FACTS.
As to proof of facts by admission on notice to admit and the consequence
as to costs on refusal or neglect to admit, see O. xxxii, 4.
For forms of admission by agreement and notice, see D. C. F. 288 — 296.
MEMORANDUM AS TO MARKING DOCUMENTS EEFEEEED TO IN ADMISSIONS.
The following practice has been adopted in accordance with the require-
ments of the Court of Appeal : —
All documents produced to witnesses, or with regard to the admissibility
of which any question has been raised in the Court below, should be
specially marked, even if included in the admissions.
It is not necessary that other documents referred to in the Court below,
which are included in formal admissions, should be marked.
It will be sufficient, as a general rule, to enter " the admissions and
the several documents therein referred to " according to the present
practice.
In the case of a bundle of correspondence being put in at the trial and
being admitted in evidence without proof, each of the lettersmust be marked,
unless the solrsof the parties will go through the bundle and mark the letters
so as to identify them. If they do so, it will be sufficient to enter as read,
" a bundle of letters " (giving their number) " on each of which the solrs of
Pits and Defts have signed their initials ; " and see sup. p. 140.
No judgment or order wherein any written admissions of evidence are
read, is to be passed until the admissions shall have been filed at the Central
Office, and a note thereof made on the judgment or order by the proper
officer : O. lxi, 15.
Admissions between co-Def ts are not to be entered as evidence against the
Pit, and cannot be included in the general costs of action : Dodds v. Tulce,
25 Ch. D. 617.
GKOUNDS OF JUDGMENT.
Formerly the Court, in some instances, directed the reason of its decree to
be specially entered therein : Maynard v. Moseley, 3 Swa. 653 ; Onions v.
Tyrer, 1 P. W. 343 ; Gibson v. Kinven, 1 Vern. by Raith, 67, n. ; Dux
Hamilton v. Dom. Mohun, L.C., May, 1710, A. 340 ; How v. Oarrard, L. C,
6 May, 1710, A. 301.
But this practice is not usual : Exp. E. Ihhester, 7 Ves. 373.
Nevertheless, the utility of it has been noticed : Bax v. Whitehead, 16 Ves.
24 ; Gordon v. (?., 3 Swa. 478.
And it is sometimes adopted : Gordon v. 0., sup. ; Jenour v. J., 10 Ves.
573 ; A. G. V. Clapham, 4 D. M. & G. 607 ; Austin v. A., 11 Jur. N. S. 536,
DECLABATION OF EIGHT.
The Court frequently prefaces its judgments by declarations of matters of
fact, or of the rights of the parties, and then proceeds to decree the con-
sequent relief. Thus, in judgments to execute the trusts of wills relating to
real estate, the Court often declares the will to be well proved, and that the
same ought to be established, and the trusts thereof performed : and so,
where the Court gives effect to an agreement, or an equitable mortgage, or
164 Trial and Judgment. [cHAP. xil.
construes a will or other instrument, or sets an instrument aside, and in
other cases.
And where a party establishes his right to property, the direction to
transfer it to him is often prefaced by a declaration of his title : Jenour v. J.,
10 Ves. 568.
Formerly it was not the practice to make a declaration in orders on petition
or motion ; but in Be St. Nazaire Co., 12 Ch. D. 88, 0. A., it was approved
of, and it is now the usual practice.
The practice as to declaring rights and determining questions not only aa
between the Pit and Deft, but as between co-Defts, and also between Pit or
Deft and other persons whom it is desirable to bind once for all by the
judgment in the action, has been materially altered under the new precedure :
see Jud. Act. 1873, s. 24 (7); 0.xvi,48— 55; 0. xxi, 11, 12, 13 ; Trelevenv.
Bray, 1 Ch. D. 176 ; Harry v. Davey, 2 Ch. D. 721.
And by O. liva, 1, "in any Division of the High Court, any person
claiming to be interested under a deed, will, or other written instrument may
apply by originating summons for the determination of any question of con-
struction arising under the instrument, and for a declaration of the rights of
the persons interested." See Dan. 774 ; D. 0. F. 521. But where the
validity of the instrument is in question, if no question of construction
arises under it, it would seem that the Court, even if it has jurisdiction,
should not, under this order, give partial relief by making a declaration of the
rights of the persons interested, but should leave the whole matter to be
dealt with in an action : Be Amalgamated Society ofBailway Servants, [1910]
2 Ch. 547.
Precedure under ihis order is not applicable where questions both of fact
and of construction are involved : Lewis v. Qreen, [1905] 2 Ch. 340.
The word " indemnity" in 0. xvi, 48, means a right arising from contract,
express or implied, or under some statute, or depending upon some equitable
doctrine, and must not therefore be confounded with a claim for damages :
Birmingham, &c. Land Co. v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 34 Ch. D. 261, C. A. ;
35 W. B. 173.
Co-Defts. Formerly the Court would not decide rights between co-Defts : Thomas
V. Lloyd, 25 Beav. 620 ; except where necessary in order to determine the
right of the Pit, or unless the evidence was clear and the case ripe for
decision : Jolly v. Arhuthnot, 4 D. & J. 245 ; Qresley v. Mousley, 4 D. & J. 99 ;
Oottingham v. E. Shrewsbury, 3 Ha. 637 ; but this is now altered by Jud.
Act, 1873, s. 24 (7) : and see O. xvi, 48—55 ; O. xxi, 11—13.
For form of order where issues are raised between co-Defts, see Bagot v.
Easton, V.-C. B., 11 Ch. D. 392.
Consequential Formerly it was not the practice of the Court in ordinary suits to make a
relief. declaration of right, except as introductory to relief which it proceeded to
administer ; but by the 13 & 14 V. c. 35 (Sir G. Turner's Act), s. 14, the
Court was empowered, on a special case being stated for its opinion, to make
such a declaration of it without administering any consequent relief. This
Act is repealed by 46 & 47 V. c. 49 (sched.), but is in substance re-enacted
by O. XXXIV, 8.
By O. XXV, 5, "no action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the
ground that a mere declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby, and the
Court may make binding declarations of right whether any consequential
relief is or could be claimed or not " : and see Chapman v. Michaelson,
[1909] 1 Ch. 238 (C. A.).
Under the new procedure since the Jud.Acts declarations have been made
without granting any relief whatever : A. O. v. Merthyr Tydfil Union, [1900]
1 Ch. 516 ; Islington Vestry v. Hornsey District Council, [1900] 1 Ch. 695 ;
and where relief by way of injunction was refused : London Assoc, of Ship-
owners V. London and India Docks, [1892] 3 Ch. 242, C. A. ; but not where
jurisdiction is excluded by statute : see Barraclough v. Brown, sup.
In order to justify an action for a declaratory judgment or order there
must be still as before the rule, a cause of action : Offin v. Bochford Bural
SECT. II.] Judgments. 1^5
Council, [1906] 1 Ch. 342; and seeNorthEastem Marine Engineering Co. v.
Leeds Forge Co., [1906] 1 Ch. 324, 328 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 498.
The power conferred by 0. xxv, 5, is discretionary : Be Berens, 1888, W. N. Future rights.
95 ; and to be exercised with caution, Dan. 631 ; and the Court has always
been reluctant to make declarations of future rights : Langdale v. Briggs, 4
W. R. 703 ; 8 D. M. & G. 426 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 45 ; Honour v. Equitable Life
Assoc, of U.S.A., [1900] 1 Ch. 852 ; though it will do so under sect. 5 of the
Conveyancing Act, 1881, if necessary in order to ascertain what sum of money
ought to be set aside for discharge of incumbrance : Re Freme's Contract,
[1895] 2 Ch. 778, C. A. ; or as to rights of parties in a contingency which has
not happened : Dowling v. D.,l Ch. 612 ; or upon a fictitious interest created
for the purpose of obtaining a decision : Bright v. Tyndall, 4 Ch. D. 189 ; or
the validity of a policy of assurance before the event insured against has
occurred : Honour v. Equitable Life Assoc, of U.S.A., sup. ; or as to the
validity of an unreasonable condition inserted by a lessor in a licence to
assign : Young v. Ashley Gardens Properties, Ld., [1903] 2 Ch. 112, C. A. ;
nor would the Court construe a mere legal devise at the request of some of
the parties, where some of them were infants : WeVb v. Byng, 8 D. M. & G.
633 ; but where an executory gift over was void as in restraint of alienation,
the Pit was entitled to a declaration as to the invalidity of the gift over :
Be Dugdale, D. v. D., 38 Ch. D. 176, 183 ; and see Walmsley v. Foxhall, 1
D. J. & S. 451, where persons afifected by a declaration of future rights in
remainder were held entitled to appeal when the remainder fell in five years
afterwards : secus, after forty-five years : Curtis v. Sheffield, 30 W. R. 581 ;
20 Ch. D. 398 ; 21 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; or after twelve years : Fussell v. Dowd-
ing, 27 Ch. D. 237.
The Court will not declare a merely legal right : Birkenhead Docks v. Legal rights.
Laird, 4 D. M. & G. 732.
The High Court will not make a declaration affirming a statutory right to Statutory
recover expenses in a Court of summary jurisdiction : Barraclough v. Brown, "gnts.
[1897] A. C. 615, H. L.
Under this section the Court has jurisdiction to make a binding declara- Against
tion of right against the Att.-Gen. as representing the Crown: Dyson v. Crown.
Att.-Oen., [1911] 1 K. B. 410; Burghes v. Att.-Gen., [1911] 2 Ch. 139.
Section II. — Judgments.
1. Judgment after Trial on Circuit upon Associate's Certificate
under 0. xxxvi, 41, 42.
This action, having on the &c., been tried by {name the Judge) and
a common [or special] jury of the county of — , and the jury having
found a verdict for the Defts, and the said Judge having ordered that
judgment be entered for the Defts with costs, as by the associate's
certificate appears ; Therefore it is adjudged that the Defts recover
against the Pits their costs of this action to be taxed &c. [in every case
inserting consequential directions from Associate's certificate].
As to the form of order for the trial of an action, or any question in an
action pending in the Chancery Division before a jury, see Wood <fc Ivery,
Ld. V. Hamhlet, 6 Ch. D. 113.
For form of order on motion for judgment after trial, see also Hunt v. City
of London, dbc. Co., V.-C. H., 26 Nov. 1878, A. 2369.
2. The like Judgment — Injunction.
This action, having on the — day of — been tried by (name the
Judge) and a common [or special] jury of the county of — , and the
166 Trial and Judgment. [chap. xii.
jury having found \tahe findings from Associate's certificate such as
that the Pit had a right of way over &c.], And the Judge having
directed that [take directions from Associate's certificate such as that
an injunction should be granted as prayed and that the Deft should
pay the costs of the Pit], Therefore it is adjudged that the Deft be
restrained &c. [folloiv Associate's certificate], And it is ordered that
the Deft do pay to the Pit his costs of this action to be taxed by the
Taxing Master.
Under O. xxx, 2, the Judge may direct the mode and place of trial.
If it is ordered that the action be tried (with or without a jury) at the
Assizes, where the officer present is not the officer by whom judgment
ought to be entered, the Associate or Master enters pursuant to O. xxxvi,
41, any findings of fact and direction of the Judge as to judgment, and
under O. xxxvi, 41, if such judgment is in favour of any party absolutely,
the Associate or Master's certificate is a sufficient authority to the proper
officer to enter judgment accordingly.
The proper officer to enter judgment is the Registrar in attendance on
the Judge to whom the action is assigned, and the judgment is dated as
of the date of the Associate's certificate.
3. Judgment where local Venus, hut Action transferred to be tried
in London.
This action, having on the &c., come on for trial at Swansea, in the
county of Glamorgan, by the Hon. Mr. Justice Bruce without a jury,
and the Judge having reserved the same to be heard before himself in
London, and this action having come on this day for trial accordingly
in the presence of &c., and upon hearing the pleadings in this action
read, and what was alleged by coimsel for the Pit and Deft, This
Court doth declare &c. — Davies v. Thomas, North, J., 13 Nov. 1899,
A. 4154.
N.B. — This order was drawn up upon a brief signed by Bruce, J.
4. Leave to enter Judgment for the Amount to he certified on an
Inquiry as to Damages — 0. xiii, 6 ; xxvii, 4.
The Pit by his solrs not desiring to have the value of the furniture
in the writ of summons (statement of claim) mentioned assessed,
Order that instead of a writ of inquiry to assess the damages claimed
by the said writ of summons (statement of claim), the following
inquiries be made, that is to say : 1. An inquiry what damages the
Pit has sustained by detention of the furniture and other articles in
the indorsement of the writ mentioned ; 2. An inquiry what damages
the Pit is entitled to recover in the nature of mesne profits for the
occupation by the Deft of the dwelling-house and furniture in the
said writ mentioned ; And the Pit is to be at liberty to sign judgment
for what shall be certified in pursuance of this order to be due to him
in respect of such damages, and for the costs of this application
SECT. II. J Judgments. 167
and consequent thereon, such costs to be taxed by the Taxing Master.
—Bundy v. Board, M. R. at Chambers, 20 June, 1876, A. 1123.
5. Judgment on Report of Official or Special Referee adopted by the
Court — 0. XXXVI, 54.
Mr. — , to whom it was referred by the order dated &c. to inquire as
[official] special referee what if anything ought to be paid to the Pit
by way of damages for the injury mentioned in his report dated &c.,
having by his report dated &c., which has, pursuant to sect. 13 of the
Arbitration Act, 1889, been adopted by the Judge, assessed such
damage at £ — , It is this day adjudged that the Pit do recover against
the Deft such sum of £ — .
In this case the costs of the reference had by agreement been borne by the
parties equally.
The order is drawn up as of course on the report being adopted.
6. Judgment for Costs under 0. xxiv, 3.
The Pit having this day confessed the defence of the Deft stated in
paragraph — of the defence (or further defence), and in so much
of paragraph — of such defence (or further defence) as alleges (a
ground of defence arising after the comrnencement of the action), It is
adjudged that the Pit do recover against the Deft his costs of this
action up to &c., the date of the delivery of the defence (or
further defence), such costs to be taxed &c.
For another form of judgment, see D. C. F. 213.
7. Leave to sign Final Judgment notwithstanding Appearance —
0. XIV, 1.
Order that the Pits be at liberty to sign final judgment in this
action for the amount indorsed on the writ, with interest, if any [or
possession of the land in the indorsement of the writ described as &c.],
and costs to be taxed, and that the costs of this application be £ — .
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 198.
8. Final Judgment after the above.
The Deft having appeared to the writ of summons herein, and the
Pit having by order dated &c., obtained leave to sign final judgment
under 0. xiv, 1, for [recite order], It is this day adjudged that the Pit
recover against the Deft £ — [or possession of the land in the indorse-
ment of the writ described as &c.] and costs to be taxed.
And see D. C. F. 200.
168 Tried and Judgment. [chap. xil.
9. Judgment by Default against Sole or All Defts — 0. xiii, 3 ;
XXVII, 2.
The Deft [or the Defts] not having appeared to the writ of summons
[or not having delivered any defence], It is this day adjudged that
the Pit recover against the Deft [or the Defts] £ — [or possession of the
land in the indorsement of the writ described as &c.] and costs to be
taxed.
10. Judgment in default of Appearance in Action for Recovery of
Land — 0. xiii, 8.
No appearance having been entered to the writ of summons. It is
this day adjudged that the Pit recover possession of the land in the
indorsement of the writ described as &c.
N.B.. — ^This judgment carries no costs.
11. Judgment in default of Defence in Action for Recovery of Land—
0. xxvii, 7.
No defence having been delivered in this action, It is this day ad-
judged that the Pit recover possession of the land in the indorsement
of the writ described as &c., with his costs to be taxed.
12. Judgment in default of Appearance in Claim for Detention
of Goods, or Damages — 0. xiii, 5.
No appearance having been entered to the writ of summons in this
action. It is this day adjudged that the Pit do recover damages to be
See D. C. F. 184, 185.
13. Judgment in default of Pleading in a like Action — 0. xxvii, 6.
No defence having been delivered in this action. It is this day
adjudged that the Pit do recover against the Deft damages to be
assessed.
14. Judgment in default of Appearance or Defence after Assessment
of Damages — 0. xiii, 5, 7.
The Defts not having appeared to the writ of summons in this
action, [or not having delivered a defence], and a writ of inquiry
dated &c. having been issued directed to the sheriff of &c., to
assess the damages which the Pit was entitled to recover, and the
said sheriff having by his return dated &c. returned [or it appearing
by the Master's certificate dated &c. that such damages have been
assessed at £ — ] or, [if any other method has been adopted, state it]
SECT. II.] Judgments. 169
that the said damages have been assessed [or ascertained] at £ — , It
is this day adjudged that the Pit recover against the Defts £ — and
costs to be taxed.
15. Judgment after Order for Pit to he at liberty to sign Judgment
unless Money paid into Court under 0. xiv, 3.
The Deft not having paid into Court the sum of £ — pursuant to
the order dated &c., It is pursuant to the said order this day adjudged
that the Pit recover against the Deft £ — and costs to be taxed.
16. Judgment set aside where an Administration Action fending.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the Deft, and upon hearing counsel
for the Pit in the first-mentioned action, Order that the order dated
&c., whereby it was ordered that the Pit sign final judgment for the
amount endorsed on the writ of summons, with interest (fee, be dis-
charged, and it is ordered that the judgment entered up in pursuance
thereof on the day &c., be set aside. Stay further proceedings in
first-mentioned action. Liberty to Pit in first-mentioned action to
come in and prove for his debt and costs in the second-mentioned
action, but exclusive of his costs of this motion which he is not to
have or prove for in the second-mentioned action. — Cottrell v. Briggs,
Chitty, J., 9 Dec. 1887, A. 1844 ; 1887, W. N. 240.
For form of notice of motion or summons, see D. C. F. 1 90.
NOTES.
DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE.
Judgment in default of appearayice may be entered : —
1. Where the writ is specially indorsed under 0. m, 6 : 0. xm, 3, 4.
2. Where it is not specially indorsed : 0. xm, 5 — 8.
3. For the recovery of land : O. xm, 8.
By O. xm, 3, " where the writ of summons is indorsed for a liquidated
demand, whether specially or otherwise, and the Deft fails, or all the Defts,
if more than one, fail, to appear thereto, the Pit may enter final judgment for
any sum not exceeding the sum indorsed on the writ, together with interest
at the rate specified (if any), or (if no rate be specified) at the rate of five
p. 0. per ann., to the date of the judgment and costs."
Under this rule judgment may be signed for the liquidated demand, not- Foreclosure
withstanding that the writ is also indorsed with a claim for an account and action,
foreclosure : Bissett v. Jones, 32 Ch. D. 635 ; but if the demand has been
reduced by pa3rment, judgment can only be entered for the amount actually
due at time of entry : Hughes v. Justin, [1894] 1 Q. B. 667, C. A. Since
there is a complete remedy in the Chancery Division by claiming a personal
order for payment as well as for foreclosure, a second action brought in the
King's Bench Division for principal and interest is improper and should be
stayed : Williams v. Hunt, [1905] 1 K. B. 512 (C. A.).
As to what is a liquidated demand within 0. m, 6, see Worhman, Clark
& Co., Ld. V. Lloyd Brazileno, [1908] 1 K. B. 968, and see post, p. 539.
If an executor or administrator allows judgment to go against him by j;xor or
default the judgment is an admission of assets of his testator or intestate, admor.
and it is in form de bonis testaforis as to the debt and interest and costs to be
170
Trial and Judgment. [chap. xti.
After no step
for a year.
Common
acoounts.
Action
against a
firm.
Several Defts,
Detention
of goods and
damages.
taxed, and if he has not sufficient in his hands to be administered then as
to the costs de bonis propriis. The Pit cannot enter judgment for a devas-
tavit until proved, butinaseoond action for the debt suggesting a devastavit,
the Deft is estopped from denying assets : see Judgment Table No. 38,
Ann. Prao. Vol. 2, Pt. IX., and Lacons v. Warmoll, [1907] 2 K. B. 350,
360.
Where the Pit has taken no step for a year, a month's notice must be
given under O. LXiv, 13, before judgment can be signed : Webster v. Myer,
14 Q. B. D. 231, C. A. ; and personal service is unnecessary : Morison v.
Telfer, 1906, W. N. 31 ; but the rule does not apply to the issue of execution
as to costs, by sequestration or otherwise : Taylor v. Roe, 62 L. J. Ch. 391 ;
1893, W. N. 26 ; 68 L. T. 253.
Where a writ of summons is indorsed under 0. in, 8 (in a case, that is, of
ordinary accounts, as, for instance, a partnership, exorship, or ordinary
trust account), and the Deft fails to appear, the Pit may, after fiUng an
affidavit of service, or of notice in lieu of service, as the case may be (O. xra,
2), obtain an immediate orderf or the account claimed, with usual directions :
O. XV, 1. But only common accounts and inquiries can be directed under
this rule, and not accounts and inquiries the right to which depends on the
Pit establishing a case for them at the hearing : Re Gyhon, Allen v. Taylor,
29 Ch. D. 834, 0. A. The order is to be made on an application at Chambers
supported by an affidavit of the grounds of the application : 0. xv. 2.
Where the writ was against a firm, and one member of the firm entered
appearance as such, but the others did not appear, judgment in default of
appearance could not go against the firm : Adam v. Townend, 14 Q. B. D.
103 ; and see Jackson v. Litchfield, 8 Q. B. D. 474.
Where the writ was served first on the firm and afterwards on an alleged
partner, and judgment by default was signed against the firm vidthin eight
days after service on such partner, he was entitled to have the judgment set
aside : Alden v. Beckley, 25 Q. B. D. 543.
By O. xni, 4, " where the writ of summons is indorsed for a liquidated
demand, whether specially or othervrfse, and there are several Defts, of
whom one or more appear to the writ, and another or others of them fail to
appear, the Pit may enter final judgment, as in the preceding rule, against
such as have not appeared, and may issue execution upon such judgment
without prejudice to his right to proceed with the action against such as have
appeared."
By r. 5, " where the writ is indorsed with a claim for detention of goods
and pecuniary damages, or either of them, and the Deft fails, or all the Defts
if more than one fail, to appear, the Pit may enter interlocutory judgment,
and a writ of inquiry shall issue to assess the value of the goods and the
damages, or the damages only, as the case may be, in respect of the causes
of action disclosed by the indorsement on the writ of summons. But the
Court or a Judge may order that, instead of a vreit of inquiry, the value and
amount of damages, or either of them, shall be ascertained in any way which
the Court or Judge may direct."
By r. 6, " where the writ is indorsed as in the last preceding rule men-
tioned, and there are several Defts, of whom one or more appear to the writ,
and another or others of them fail to appear, the Pit may sign interlocutory
judgment against the Deft or Defts so failing to appear, and the value of the
goods and the damages, or either of them, as the case may be, may be
assessed, as against the Deft or Defts suffering judgment by default, at the
same time as the trial of the action or issue therein against the other Deft
or Defts, unless the Court or a Judge shall otherwise direct. Provided that
the Court or a Judge may order that, instead of a writ of inquiry or trial, the
value and amount of damages, or either of them, shall be ascertained in any
way which the Court or Judge may direct."
By r. 7, " where the writ is indorsed with a claim for detention of goods
and pecuniary damages, or either of them, and is further indorsed for a liqui-
dated demand, whether specially or otherwise, and any Deft fails to appear
SECT. II.] Judgments. 171
to the writ, the Pit may enter final judgment for the debt or liquidated
demand, interest and costs against the Deft or Defts faiUng to appear, and
interlooutorj' judgment for the value of the goods and the damages, or the
damages only, as the case may be, and proceed as mentioned in such of the
preceding rules of this Order as may be applicable."
By r. 8, " in case no appearance shall be entered in an action for the Recovery
recovery of land, within the time limited by the writ for appearance, or if an of land,
appearance be entered but the defence be limited to part only, the Pit shall
be at liberty to enter a judgment that the person whose title is asserted in the
writ shall recover possession of the land, or of the part thereof to which the
defence does not apply."
Rule 8 does not provide expressly for the case of one out of several Defts
making default, but the practice has been established in the King's Bench
Division to allow judgment to be signed as against the Deft or Defts who
have made default, although there are other Defts who are not in default.
The effect of the judgment is to prevent the Deft against whom judgment
has been signed from entering appearance before final judgment is obtained.
The final judgment being that the Pit recovers possession of the land,
includes all the Defts.
By r. 9, " where the Pit has indorsed a claim for mesne profits, arrears of
rent, double value, or damages for breach of contract, or wrong or injury to
the premises claimed, upon a writ for the recovery of land, he may enter
judgment as in the last preceding rule mentioned for the land, and may
proceed as in the other preceding rules of this Order mentioned as to such
other claim so indorsed."
By r. 10, " where judgment is entered pursuant to any of the preceding Setting aside
rules of this Order, it shall be lawful for the Court or a Judge to set aside or judgment,
vary such judgment upon such terms as may be just."
For form of order as to costs when an action comes on for trial against Costs,
one Deft, and on motion for judgment against another Deft who has not
appeared to the writ, or does not appear at the trial, and the Pit recovers
judgment against both \vith costs, see Dansh Rekylriffel SyTidihat
Alclieselskab. v. Snell, [1908] 2 Ch. 127; and see Smith v. Stanley, post,
p. 238, for form of order.
DEFATJLT OF PLEADING.
Judgment in default of pleading can only be entered in actions for —
1. Debt or liquidated demand : O. xxvn, 2, 3.
2. Detention of goods and pecuniary damages, or either of them : O.
xxvn, 4, 5.
3. For debt or liquidated demand, and also for detention of goods and
pecuniary damages, or pecuniary damages only : O. xxvn, 6.
4. For the recovery of land : O. xxvn, 7.
5. And also where the writ for the recovery of land is indorsed for mesne
profits, arrears of rent, or damages for breach of contract : 0. xxvn, 8.
A probate action proceeds notwithstanding the default : r. 10.
In all other actions, if the Deft makes default in delivering a defence, the
Pit may (on leave under 0. xxx) set down the action on motion for judg-
ment : r. 11 ; and where Pit has not put in a defence to a counter-claim, the
Deft cannot sign judgment for default of pleading, but must move for
judgment : Jones v. Macaulay, [1891] 1 Q. B. 221, C. A. ; Higgins v. Scott,
21 Q. B. D. 10, C. A. : though the action has been dismissed for want of
prosecution : Roberts v. Booth, [1893] 1 Ch. 52.
The provisions of O. xxvn must be read in connection with those of
0. xxx : with regard to summons for directions, v. sup. p. 25.
Where Pit after appearance of Deft delivers a statement of claim without
taking out a summons for directions, and then, in default of defence, moves
for judgment under O. xxvn, 11, the Deft cannot require that the motion
should be dismissed, but his only remedies are to take out a summons to
have the action dismissed under O. xxx, 8, sup. p. 25, or to move to have
172 Trial and Judgment. [chap. xii.
the notice of motion set aside as irregular : Kemp v. Colman, 80 L. T. C4
(where Channel!, J., said that the Bule Committee seem to have overlooked
O. XXVII, 11, when framing 0. xxx).
Notwithstanding O. xxvn, 13, a statement of defence delivered out of
time is not to be treated as a nullity : Oill v. Woodfin, 25 Ch. D. 707, C. A. ;
Montagu v. Land Corp. of England, 56 L. T. 730 ; nor was a reply under the
rules of 1875 : Graves v. Terry, 9 Q. B. D. 170 ; and as to mode of dealing
with such a defence on motion for judgment, see Oibhings v. Strong, 26 Ch. D.
66, C. A. ; Montagu v. Land Corp. of England, sup.
Where an action is proceeding in default of appearance under O. xm, 12,
as if the Deft had appeared, pleadings and documents (including an amended
writ : Re Hartley, Nuttall v. Whittaker, [1891] 2 Ch. 121, or statement of
claim : Southall Development Syndicate v. Dinisdon, (1907) 96 L. T. 109)
are to be delivered by being filed : 0. xix, 10 ; and the Pit can then proceed
in default of pleading under O. xxvn, 2 — 8 ; a non-appearing Deft may be
sufficiently served by filing the amended writ : Jamaica By. Co. v. Colonial
Bank, [1905] 1 Ch. 677.
Where the Deft is personally served with statement of claim it need not
also be filed : Benshaw v. B., 28 W. R. 409 ; 49 L. .1. Ch. 127 ; 42 L. T. 353 ;
Phillips V. Kearney, 58 L. J. Ch. 344.
Notwithstanding O. xx, 4, which provides that the Pit may alter, modify,
or extend his claim without any amendment of the indorsement of the writ,
the Pit cannot, when the Deft has not entered appearance, obtain judgment
for more than he has claimed by the writ : Oee v. Bell, 35 Ch. D. 160 ;
Kingdom v. Kirk, 37 Ch. D. 141 ; Law v. Philby, 56 L. T. 522 ; 35 W. R. 450.
MODE OF ENTERING JUDGMENT (1) ON DEFAULT GENERALLY.
As to the official requirements on signing judgments, see Judgment Table,
Ann. Prac. Vol. II. Pfc. IX.
In the Chancery Division, judgments upon default, as well as all other
judgments, are entered at the registrar's office by filing under O. Lxn, 2 :
The documents required to be produced being produced and examined, and
found regular and sufficient, judgment is entered.
Two printed forms of judgment properly filled up are to be produced to the
registrar.
The documents being produced and found correct, both copies of the judg-
ment will be marked as examined. In judgments for default of appearance
the affidavit of service, and in judgments for default of pleading the state-
ment of claim, must be filed by the solr, and a note of filing will be made on
the judgment, on which the fee stamp (10s.) is impressed.
The registrar will then pass the judgment as he would any other judgment
or order by putting his initials to it, and affixing his seal to the duplicate,
and the judgment will be entered immediately at the entering seat, and the
duplicate handed out. When entered the judgment will be marked with the
folio of the entry, indexed and transmitted in due course to the Central
Office.
Date. Judgments by default are entered under date of, and take effect from, the
day on which the requisite documents are left with the proper officer : see
0. XLi, 4.
Interest Where the writ is specially indorsed, interest, calculated up to the day of
and costs. entering judgment, should, if claimed, be added to the amount indorsed on
the writ ; and as no amount has been fixed for costs, the judgment will be
" with costs to be taxed," and the Taxing Master will tax the costs with or
without notice, as the case may require.
(2) IN DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE.
On applying in the Chancery Division to enter judgment in default of
appearance there must be produced —
SECT. II.] Judgments. 173
1. The original writ.
2. The affidavit of service. This must show when, where, and how such
service was effected (ses O. lxvii, 9), and must also comply with the pro-
visions of O. IX, 15: (see sup. Chap. II. p. 19); Hamp- Adams v. Hall,
1911, W. N. 163. B3fore the judgment is passed the affidavit must be
filed, and a note of the filing marked on the judgment.
3. A certificate of non-appearance obtained at the Central Office : Dan.
305 ; D. C. F. 184.
The affidavit of service cannot be dispensed with : Ford v. Mieske,
16 Q. B. D. 57.
Service of the writ must be personal, unless substituted or other service
has been ordered (0. ix, 2), except in cases mentioned in rr. 3, 8, and
O. XLViiiA, 6, 7. In the case of substituted service, the order for such service
must be produced. In case of such service being by post, the writ and order
ara (unless the order shall otherwise direct) to be deemed to be served on the
day following the day on wliioh a prepaid letter containing such copies shall
have been postsd : P. M. R. 17.
In the case of partners or a firm, or a corporation, service must bD in
accordance with 0. xlviiia, 6, 7. When the Defts are sued as a firm, judg-
ment will b3 against the firm, and execution will issue in accordance with
O. XLViLEA, 8 ; V. inf. p. 411.
On applying to enter judgment for recovery of possession of part of land
under 0. xm, 8, the certificata of the Central Office of limited defence must
be produced, or the notice signed by ths Deft or his solr, which is referred to
in O. xn, 28.
(3) IN DEFAULT OF PLEADING.
On appl3dng to enter final judgment in default of pleading under 0. xxvii,
2, 3, 7, 8, or interlocutoryjudgment under rr. 4, 5, 8, the certificate of the
Central Office of appearance must be produced, and also the statement of
claim, unless it appears by such certificate that the Deft did not require a
statement of claim to be delivered.
If the statement of claim does not show the date of delivery, which (unless
otherwise directed under O. xxx, v. sup. p. 25) must be ten clear days before
judgment is entered (O. xxi, 6), the date must be indorsed.
Before the judgment is passed the statement of claim must be filed at the
Central Office, and the filing will be noted in the margin of the judgment.
PKOCEBDINGS IN DISTRICT REGISTEIES.
Where a cause or matter is proceeding in a District Registry, all proceed-
ings, except where by the rules it is otherwise provided, or the Court or a
Judge shall otherwise order, are to be taken in the District Registry, down
to and including the entry of final judgment, and every final judgment and
every order for an account by reason of the default of the Deft or by consent
is to be entered in the District Registry in the proper book, in the same
manner as a like judgment or order in an action proceeding in London would
be entered in the Central Office : 0. xxxv, 1. Where the writ of summons
is issued out of a District Registry, and the Pit is entitled to enter inter-
locutory judgment under any of the rules of 0. xm, or where the cause or
matter is proceeding in a District Registry, and he is entitled to enter inter-
locutory judgment under any of the rules of 0. xxvn, in either such case
interlocutory judgment, and when damages shall have been assessed final
judgment, is to be entered in the District Registry, unless the Court or a
Judge shall otherwise order : r. 2.
As to the entry of interlocutory and final judgments in the District
Registry, see 0. xxxv, 2 ; and as to entry in Central Office, see r. 3.
When a cause or matter is proceeding in a District Registry, writs of
execution for enforcing any judgment thereon, and all summonses under
the Debtors Act, shall issue from the District Registry unless otherwise
ordered.
174
Trial and Judg7nent.
[chap. XII.
Taxation
of costs.
Appearance.
Filing
documents.
Jurisdiction
of registrar.
Appeal.
Accounts
and inquiries,
Where final judgment is entered in a District Registry, costs are to be
taxed there unlsss otherwise ordered : O. xxxv, 4 ; but where objections
on taxation of costs have been carried in and dealt with by the District
Registrar, the Judge, under O. xxxv, 4, and 0. Lxv, 27 (41), has jurisdiction
to order that the items in dispute shall be referred to a Taxing Master of the
Supreme Court for retaxation : Stevens v. Griffin, [1897] 2 Q. B. 368, C. A.
Where a writ is issued out of a District Registry, if the Deft resides or
carries on business there he must, and if not he may, appear in the district:
O. XII, 1^ — 5, and see O. IV, 1 — 3, as to issue and indorsement of writ.
When any Deft (unless a merely formal Deft, or one who has " no sub-
stantial cause to interfere in theconduotof the action ") appears in London,
the action proceeds in London : O. xii, 7.
If appearance bya sole Deft or by all the Defts is entered in the district
the action proceeds there : r. 6.
A Deft to a district writ appearing in London must give notice the same
day to the Pit : r. 9.
As to default in such a case, see 0. xiii, II ; Dan. 298.
" When a cause or matter in the Chancery Division is proceeding in a
District Registry, all certificates of the chief clerk " (Master) " and taxing
officer, and all other documents (required to be filed) used in London before
the Judge in Chambers, or before any taxing officer or referee, and not
already filed in the District Registry, are to be filed in the same office as
they would have been filed in if the proceedings had originally commenced
in London, and if the Court or Judge shall so direct, office copies thereof
shall be transmitted to the District Registry " : 0. xxxv, 21 ; and actions
for trial elsewhere than in London or Middlesex are to be entered for trial
with the Associates, and not in the District Registries : O. xxxvi, 22b ;
and see Jud. Act, 1873, s. 64.
Where an action proceeds in a district, the registrar may exercise all such
authority and jurisdiction as may be exercised by a Judge at Chambers,
except such as a Master or chief clerk is precluded from exercising : r. 6.
Under this rule a District Registrar has concurrent jurisdiction with that
of a Master to set aside or vary a final judgment in default of appearance
signed in the registry : Toionend v. Kirkham, [1898] I Q. B. 51, C. A., com-
menting on Hood V. Yates, [1894] 1 Q. B. 240. He may also amend clerical
mistakes and accidental omissions in judgments or orders under 0. xxvm,
11 : Armiiage v. Parsons, [1908] 2 K. B. 410.
Where a cause or matter is proceeding in the District Registries of Liver-
pool or Manchester, the registrar may act as a chief clerk of the Judge of
the Chancery Division to whom the cause or rule is assigned, and as regis-
trar and Taxing Master according to directions to be given by the Judge,
provided that no order for payment of money out of Court for an amount
exceeding £50 shall be made except by the Judge in person, and provided
that no District Registrar who is a practising solr shall tax costs : r. 6a.
Applications are to be made in the same manner as at Chambers : i. 7 ;
and to be in like manner subject to reference or appeal to and control by the
Judge to whom the action is assigned : rr. 8 — 12 ; see Atkinson v. Button,
1909, W. N. 74.
The discretion of a Judge to order a sale, in actions where the accounts
are being taken in a District Registry, to take place in his Chambers
will not be interfered with by the Court of Appeal : Macdonald v. Foster,
6 Ch. D. 193, C. A.
Jud. Act, 1873, s. 49, as to appeals from orders by consent, or as to costs
only, does not apply to orders by a District Registrar : Foster v. Edwards,
48 L. J. C. P. 767.
Accounts and inquiries ought not to be taken by District Registrars unless
the judgment so directs : Re Bowen, Bennett v. Bowen, 20 Ch. D. 538 ; ife
Smith, Hutchinson v. Ward, 6 Ch. D. 692.
Certificates or reports by District Registrars should follow the form and
practice of a Master's certificate : lie Bowen, sup.
SECT. II. J Judgments, 175
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 66, the Court or a Judge may direct any books or
documents to be produced, or accounts or inquiries taken or made in tlie
office of or by any District Registrar, and may act on his report.
Payment of money into Court in an action commenced in District Registry Payment
should be under tlie Ch. Funds Act and Rules, not into a bank to " the credit into Court,
of the District Registrar " : Finlay v. Davis, 12 Ch. D. 735.
Actions may be removed from the District Registry : Removal.
1. In any case by an order of the Court or a Judge, or of the District
Registrar : Jud. Act, 1873, s. 65 ; O. xxxv, 16.
2. By notice from the Deft or his solr, served on tlie other parties, and
delivered to the District Registrar : see r. 14 ; (a) when the writ is specially
indorsed under O. m, 6, and the Deft has obtained leave to defend, or has
appeared, and the Pit has not for four days given notice of an application for
an order against him under 0. xiv ; (6) when the writ is not specially
indorsed, at any time after the Deft has appeared, and before delivering a
defence, or the expiration of the time for doing so : O. xxxv, 13. But a
merely formal, &o. Deft, has no right to give such notice : r. 14.
Actions may by order be removed from London to a District Registry :
rr. 16, 17.
When an action is removed, the file and a copy of the entries in the books
are transmitted : r. 20 ; Jud. Act, 1873, s. 65.
And as to removal from District Registry, v. post. Chap. XXXIV.,
" Transfer and Consolidation," p. 794.
O. xxxv, 5, provides that where an action proceeds in a District Registry Entering
all proceedings relating to (a) leave to enter judgment under O. xvi, 50 judgment,
and 51, (6) leave to issue or renew writs of execution, (c) examination of &o.
judgment debtors for garnishee purposes, [d) garnishee orders, (e) charging
orders nisi, (/) interpleader orders (Aug. 1894), shall, unless the Court or a
Judge otherwise order, be taken in the District Registry.
As to setting down on motion for judgment actions in wliich default has
been made in a District Registry, v. inf. p. 180.
By 44 & 45 V. e. 68, s. 22, a District Registrar shall not, either by himself D. R. not to
or his partner, be directly or indirectly engaged as solr or agent for a party engage as
to any proceeding whatsoever in the District Registry of which he is ^"l'^- ™ •"-*•
registrar. Registry.
( 176 ) [chap. XIII.
CHAPTEE XIII.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT.
1. Judgment upon Motion for Judgment in defaidt of Defence where
Deft has not entered Appearance — 0. xxvii, 11.
Upon motion for judgment on the default of the Deft in delivering
a defence this day made unto this Court by counsel for the Pit, and
upon reading an office copy statement of claim, filed the &c.,
an office copy notice of this motion [if marked short, and that this
action would be marked short], filed the &c.. This Court doth &c.
2. The like, where Deft has entered Appearance.
Upon motion for judgment &c. [see Form 1], and upon reading,
the Central Office certificate of appearance having been entered for
the Deft, dated &c.,the statement of claim, with the certificate of the
Pit's solr indorsed thereon, showing that the Deft has not delivered
any defence, an affidavit of &c., of service of notice of this motion on
the Deft \ifmarTied short, and that this action would be marked short],
This Court doth &c.
Where the Deft appears in Court by counsel or in person, neither the
certificate o£ appearance nor that of the Pit's solr as to no defence need be
read.
3. Judgment at Trial against some Defts and u-pon Motion for Judg-
ment against others — 0. xxvii, 12.
This action coming on for trial this day before this Court against
the Deft A., in the presence of &c., and counsel for the Pit this day
also moving for judgment on the default of the Defts B. and C. in
delivering a defence, and upon reading the pleadings in this action
[Enter default evidence, as above, Forms 1 and 2], and what was alleged
by counsel for the Pit and the Deft A. This Court doth &c.
4. Defendants not competent to consent Submitting to Judgment.
This action coming on &c., for trial &c., in the presence of counsel
for the Pit and Defts &c., and the Pit by his counsel withdrawing the
charges of fraud and all imputations made by her against the Defts,
and the Defts A. and B. by their respective counsel consenting to this
Motion for Judgment. 177
judgment, and that no order shall be made as to their costs of this
action up to and including this judgment, and the Defts E. and F. by
their counsel stating to this Court that they have no defence to the
action, and submitting to judgment for the Pit, and the Pit by her
counsel not asking for costs against the last-named Defts, This Court
doth &c.—Rees v. Richmond, Kekewich, J., 13 Dec. 1889, B. 1756.
In this case two Defts were defending on behalf of themselves and all
other parties interested under a settlement, and were held incapable of con-
senting to a judgment setting aside the settlement.
NOTES.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT.
O. XL, 1, directs that " except where by the Act or Rules it is provided that
judgment may be obtained in any other manner, the judgment of the Court
is to be obtained by motion for judgment."
When the Defts are sued as a firm, judgment must be against the firm, and
execution will issue in accordance with 0. XLvmA, 8.
In the following cases (as also after trials before a jury, as to which v.
inf. Chap. XXII., " Issues "), judgment is to be obtained by setting down
the action on motion for judgment : —
(a) Under 0. xxvu, 11, 12, in all actions other than those referred to in Default in
the preceding rules of that Order {e.g., actions for debt or hquidated demand, delivering
detention of goods, pecuniary damages only, recovery of land, and probate defence,
actions) where the Deft or one of several Defts makes default in delivering a
defence the Pit may set down the action on motion for judgment, and
such judgment shall be given as upon the statement of claim the Court or a
Judge shall consider the Pit is entitled to.
(6) Under O. xxvn, 14, in any case in which issues arise, other than where issues
between Pit and Deft, if any party make default in delivering any pleading, arise other
the opposite party may apply for such judgment, if any, as he may appear than between
to be entitled to. Pit and Deft.
(c) In cases where (under O. xxxvi, 8, &c.) issues have been tried, or Where issues
issues or questions of fact determined : O. xl, 7. are directed
The Pit must set down the action and give notice of motion within ten and tried,
days, or the Deft may do so : lb.
(d) By leave of the Court, in cases where some only of several issues or Where only
questions of fact have been tried or determined, and the others have become some issues
unnecessary, or may be postponed : 0. XL, 8. determined.
A motion for judgment in default of defence may be joined with a motion
to strike out the defence, but there must be two orders and the motion for
judgment must be set down : Salamon v. Hole, (1905) 53 W. R. 588.
O. xxvn, 11, applies to default of pleading to counterclaim : Street v.
Crump, 25 Ch. D. 68 ; Higgins v. Scott, 21 Q. B. D. 10 ; Jones v. MacavJay,
[1891] 1 Q. B. 221, C. A. ; BobeHs v. Booth, [1893] 1 Ch. 52.
On motion for judgment in default of defence, under O. xxvn, 11, the Extent of
Pit will only be granted such relief as is asked by his statement of claim : relief.
Faithfull V. Woodley, 43 Ch. D. 287.
And see, as to necessary allegations in actions of foreclosure, Bdlinghrolce
V. Hinde, 29 Ch. D. 795 ; Piatt v. Mendel, 27 Ch. D. 246 ; 32 W. R. 918 ; and
for specific performance, Tacon v. National Standard Land Co., 56 L. J. Cb.
529 ; 56 L. T. 156 ; Smith v. Buchan, 36 W. R. 631 ; Law v. Philby, 35 W. R.
450 ; 56 L. T. 230 ; Wethered v. Cox, 1888, W. N. 165.
On such a motion the Court cannot accept any evidence, but must give
judgment according to the pleadings only : Smith v. Buchan, 36 W. R. 631 ;
58 L. T. 710.
Where at the hearing it is necessary to amend the statement of claim, it
must be re-served on the Deft : S. C.
VOL. 1. N
178
Motion for Judgment. [chap. xiii.
Infant Deft.
Patent
action.
FUing,
Statement
of claim.
Dismissal of
third party.
No affidavit in support of the statement of claim is required, even in
specific performance actions : Bagley v. Searle, 35 W. B. 404.
Where minutes of judgment are not left, the notice of motion must state
the precise words of the judgment asked for : De Jongh v. Newman, 56 L. T.
180 ; 35 W. R. 403 ; 1887, W. N. 59 ; and see Bagley v. Searle, 56 L. T. 306.
Where the defence of infant Defts was withdrawn, the Court required
the statement of claim to be proved by affidavit : Fitzwater v. Waterhouse,
52 L. J. Ch. 83 ; Gardner v. Tapling, 33 W. R. 473 ; Cheek v. Cheeh, 1910,
W. N. 87.
In an action for infringement of a patent, the particulars of breaches
delivered with the statement of claim are to be regarded as part thereof :
United Telephone Co. v. Smith ; Same v. Mitchell, 38 W. R. 70 ; 61 L. T. 617.
Where a Deft's defence is struck out, under O. xxxi, 21, for default in
answering interrogatories, judgment may be moved for under this rule :
Haigh v. H., 31 Ch. D. 478 ; Fisher v. Hughes, 25 W. R. 528 ; Tacon v.
National Standard Land Co., 56 L. J. Ch. 529 ; 56 L. T. 165, 529.
By O. XIX, 10, " every pleading or other document required to be delivered
to a party, or between parties, shall be delivered in the manner now in use
to the solr of every party who appears by a solr, or to the party if he does
not appear by a solr, but if no appearance has been entered for any party,
then such pleading or document shall be delivered by being filed with the
proper officer."
A notice of motion for judgment may be delivered or filed under this rule:
Dymond v. Croft, 3 Ch. D. 513 ; Morton v. Miller, 24 W. R. 723 ; though the
Deft be out of the jurisdiction : Gardiner v. Hardy, 1876, W. N. 185.
In case of default of appearance, upon the Pit filing a proper affidavit of
service, and (if the writ is not specially indorsed) a statement of claim
(which cannot be dispensed with even under O. xxx), the action may
proceed as if the party served had appeared (O. xrn, 12). And every plead-
ing or document required to be delivered shall be delivered (O. XTX, 10) ;
and all writs, notices, &c., in respect of which personal service is not requisite,
may be served (0. Lxvn, 4) by filing with the proper officer.
The object of the provision as to filing in O. xix, 10, is to avoid the neces-
sity of obtaining an order for substituted service every time a step is taken
in the action : Dymond v. Croft, sup. (per Jessel, M. R.).
It is not convenient that an order should be made under O. xxx that the
action {e.g., a debentiire-holder's action) be set down without pleadings as a
short cause on motion for judgment with agreed minutes. There should be
a statement of claim on such applications : In re Dupont, Ld., 1906, W. N.
14.
Where Deft fails to appear, Pit cannot by his statement of claim enlarge
the scope of his action by claiming some relief not asked by the indorsement
on the writ : Law v. Philby, 35 W. R. 450 ; 56 L. T. 522 ; Gee v. BeU, 35
Ch. D. 160.
As to dismissal of third party where the whole matter cannot be disposed
of by one trial, see Schneider v. Batt, 8 Q. B. D. 701, C. A. ; and see Baxter
V. France, [1895] 1 Q. B. 591, C. A. ; Dan. 235, 236.
ADMISSIONS ON PLEADINGS OR OTHEEV(nSE.
By 0. xxxn, 6, " any party may at any stage of a cause or matter where
admissions of fact have been made, either on the pleadings or otherwise,
apply to the Court or a Judge for such judgment or order as upon such
admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of
any other question between the parties ; and the Court or a Judge may upon
such application make such order, or give such judgment as the Court or
Judge may think just."
O. xxxil, 6, is to be read as if the words "if any" were inserted after the
word " question ; " so that the Pit may move for the whole relief sought
by his statement of claim : Glutton v. Lee, 24 W. R. 607 ; 7 Ch. D. 541, n. ;
Motion for Judgment. 179
45 L. J. Ch. 684. Where the order is equivalent to a decree, further con-
sideration should be adjourned : Bennett v. Moore, 1 Ch. D. 692.
The relief under this rule is discretionary, and will be granted only on the Belief dis-
apphoation of all the Pits : Re Wright, Kirke v. North, [1895] 2 Ch. 747. oretionary.
The order under this rule may be obtained on apphcation in Chambers : Form of
London Steam Dyeing Co. v. Digby, 57 L. J. Ch. 505 ; 36 W. R. 497 ; 58 L. T. application,
724 ; but the usual course is to move for judgment, unless there are special
reasons for proceeding in Chambers : Cook v. Haynes, 1884, W. N. 75. Where
the Defts wrote a letter containing admissions which would have enabled the
Pits to obtain an order by summons, extra costs occasioned by proceeding
by motion were disallowed: Allen v. Oakey, 1890, W. N. 121; 62 L. T. 724;
but the circumstances may justify such a course : Cooper-Dean v. Badham,
1908, W. N. 100.
Where there is no actual admission, but only a constructive admission by
default, the motion must be set down : Caroli v. Hurst, 31 W. R. 839 ; 48
L. T. 759; 1883, W.N. 115.
In an action for damages, to obtain incidental relief by injunction, e.g.
against trespass or libel, the Pit must move for judgment : Cooper-Dean v.
Badham, 1908, W. N. 100 ; Dykes and Others v. Thomson, 1909, W. N. 104.
A Deft cannot set down the action on motion for judgment under this
rule : Litton v. L., 3 Ch. D. 794 ; but see Pascoe v. Richards, 29 W. R 330 ;
50 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 44 L. T. 87.
As to the meaning of the words " at any stage," see Brown v. Pearson, 21
Ch. D. 716, where Pit was allowed to move after joinder of issue and notice
of trial given.
Whether admissions contained in an affidavit are within the words " or Admissions
otherwise," or whether those words refer only to cases in which notice to in affidavit,
admit has been given under 0. xxxn, 1 or 4, qucere : Landergan v. Feast,
34 W. R. 469, 691 ; 55 L. T. 42.
Under the Rules of 1875, 0. XL, 2 (not revived by Rules of 1883), the Indorsement
indorsement on a writ was held not to be a pleading : Wallis v. Jackson, 23 on writ.
Ch. D. 204; 31 W. R. 519.
Unless the allegations in a statement of claim are specifically denied by Sufficient
the defence, the Pit is entitled to move for judgment : Butter v. Tregent, 12 denial.
Ch. D. 758 ; and that allegations in a counterclaim must also be specifically
dealt with, see Benbow v. Low, 13 Ch. D. 553 ; Oreen v. Sevin, 13 Ch. D. 589.
Where the motion was made in an action for infringement of patent, on Patent
the admission of an infringement in ten instances, the Pit was confined to an action,
inquiry as to damages in respect of those ten instances : United Telephone Co.
v. Donohoe, 31 Ch. D. 399, C. A.
Where in an action for a liquidated demand the Defts admitted the claim, Counterclaim,
but counterclaimed for a larger sum, and the counterclaim was not shown
to be frivolous or unsubstantial, the Pit could not sign judgment on admis-
sions : Mersey Steamship Co. v. Shuttleworth, 10 Q. B. D. 468 ; 11 Q. B. D.
531, C. A. ; but see now O. xxvn, 9, providing that where defence goes to a
separable part of Pit's claim, and judgment is entered, if there is a counter-
claim execution shall not issue without leave of the Court. In Showell v.
Bouron, 52 L. J. Q. B. 284 ; 31 W. R. 550 ; 48 L. T. 613, Pits were held
entitled to judgment, but on terms that, if oounterclaiming Deft brought the
debt into Court, execution should be stayed.
Husband and wife having put in a joint defence, which was no defence Husband
as regarded the husband. Pit was entitled to final judgment against him : and wife.
Jenkins v. Davies, 1 Ch. D. 696 ; 24 W. R. 690 ; 1876, W. N. 49.
Orders have been made on motion under this rule — for partition: Gilbert Instance of
V. Smith, 2 Ch. D. 686 ; in a partition action for sale and an account of orders under
rents and profits received by the Pit in possession : Burnell v. Burnell, 11 '^'"^ "•
Ch. D. 213 ; against Defts admitting a partnership, and that they had not
accounted, but alleging that Pit was indebted to them : Turquand v. Wilson,
1 Ch. D. 85 ; against an agent on his admission of the agency : Rumsey v.
Reade, 1 Ch. D. 643 ; and in a suit against a trustee for a breach of trust, his
180 Motion fm^ Judgment. [chap, xiii
statement that he did not know and could not set forth whether the Pits
were, &o., was a sufficient admission of title of the Pits as cs. q. «.,and
payment into Court of the amount was ordered : Symonds v. Jenkins, 24
W. R. 512 ; 34 L. T. 277 ; Bennett v. Moore, 1 Ch. D. 692 ; Dan. 468, 469.
Several Detts. As to setting down the action against one Deft, under this rule, and against
others on default of pleading, see O. xxvii, 12, and Bridsdon v. Smith, 24
W. R. 392 ; Oilhtt v. Ker, 24 W. R. 428.
Confessing By 0. xxiv, 3, where a Deft pbads a ground of defence which has arisen
defence arisen after the action commenced, Pit may confess it, and, unless otherwise
after action, ordered, claim costs up to that time. See form of judgment, sup. p. 167,
Form 6.
SETTING DOWN — MARKING " SHORT."
After some conflicting decisions as to hearing motions for judgment as
interlocutory motions (see Bowen v. B., 24 W. R. 246 ; Pearce v. Spickett,
1876, W. N. 109 ; Hale v. SnelUng, ib. 77), the Judges directed that " motions
for judgment in actions shall not be brought on as ordinary motions, but
shall be set down in the cause book.
" They can be marked short on production of the usual certificate of
counsel, and will then be placed in the paper on the day for which notice
is given, if a short cause day, or on the first short cause day after the notice
expires. If not marked short, they will come into the general paper in
their regular turn.
" It will be advisable that the notices of motion for judgment should, if
it is intended to mark them short, contain a statement to that effect, and
also a statement that no further notice will be given of their having been
so marked. Such statements will dispense with the necessity for giving
Defts further notice that motions for judgment have been marked short : "
Judge's Notice of 11th April, 1876. In Meahin v. Sykes, 24 W. R. 293, the
Court fixed an early day for the hearing on motion for judgment in default
of pleading.
The expression " first short cause day after the notice expires " has been
considered to mean the first available short cause day ; so that if notice were
given for a day which was a short cause day, the case might be placed in the
paper for that day : Green v. Moore, 39 W. R. 421 ; 1891, W. N. 68.
An action for rectification of a settlement will not, it seems, be heard as a
short cause : Clennell v. C, 1884, W. N. 14.
Where an action proceeds in a District Registry, and it is necessary to
set it down on motion for judgment, the proper course is for the District
Registrar to forward to the senior Chancery Registrar a formal notification
or certificate that he has set down the action on motion for judgment,
together with a copy of the notice, and the two copies of the pleadings,
which have to be left on setting down (v. sup. p. 148) : see Birm. Waste Co.
V. Lane, 24 W. R. 292.
By O. XL, 9, except by leave, no motion for judgment is to be set down
after the expiration of one year from the time when the party seeking to set
down the same first became entitled so to do.
And by r. 10, upon a motion for judgment, the Court may give judgment,
or may direct the motion to stand over for further consideration, and direct
such issues or questions to be tried or determined, and such accounts and
inquiries to be taken and made, as it may think fit.
For form of counsel's certificate, &c., see D. C. P. 365.
As to motions for judgment generally, see Dan. 505 ; and as to motions
for judgment where issues or questions of fact have been tried, v. inf.
Chap. XXII., " Issues." p. 368.
( 181 )
CHAPTER XIV.
VARIOUS DIRECTIONS.
Further Consideration Adjourned — Liberty to apply.
1. Usual Directions adjourning Further Consideration.
And it is ordered that the further consideration of this action [or
matter] be adjourned ; And the parties are to be at liberty to apply
[if so in Chambers for &c., and] generally as they may be advised.
The rule that an order carries with it liberty to apply, although not
expressly reserved, only applies where the order is not of a final character •-
per Cliitty, J., in Penrice v. Williams, 23 C. D. 353 ; and see Dan. 629.
2. The like — where Order is made on Interlocutory Motion under
0. XXXII, 6.
And this Court, not requiring any trial of this action other than
the hearing of this motion, doth order that &c.. And the further
consideration &c. — Liberty to apply. — And see Brassington v.
Cussons, 24 W. R. 881.
3. The like — on Application in Chambers under 0. xv, 1, where
Order equivalent to a Judgment.
" And the Judge not requiring any trial of this action other than
the hearing of this application," doth order that the further considera-
tion &c. — Liberty to apply.
For observations on the use of the words " the Judge not requiring, &c.,"
see Qatti v. Webster, 12 Ch. D. 771.
4. If Costs are partly dealt with by the Judgment.
And it is ordered that the further consideration of this action, and
of the costs of this action not hereinbefore [otherwise] provided for
[or disposed of] be adjourned. — Liberty to apply.
NOTES.
ADJOtTENMENT.
Where under 0. xxxn, 6, a judgment or order is made, the further con-
sideration may be adjourned, although such judgment or order is made on
interlocutory motion : Bennett v. Moore, 1 Ch. D. 692. So, also, where an
order is made on summons under 0. xv : Form 3, sup.
The adjour.ment of further consideration will be continued from time to
time, if necessary ; and see 0. xxxvi, 21.
Notice of setting down on further consideration need not be given, in the
absence of special reason, to persons served with the judgment who have
not appeared : Re Bolfe, 1894, W. N. 77 ; 70 L. T. 624.
182
Various Dh^ections.
[chap.
XIV.
Liberty
to apply.
Costs.
S. 0., with
liberty to
restore.
For the mode of setting down causes for further consideration, v. r. 21.
Where on further consideration there are further accounts and inquiries
to be taken, but no further question of law to be decided, the practice is
not to adjourn the further consideration to the Court, but to give general
liberty to apply in Chambers : Gilbert v. Russell, 1875, W. N. 225.
The usual direction for the adjournment of the further consideration of
the action, pending an account or inquiry directed to be made in Chambers,
does not in terms include the reservation of costs ; but they are in effect
thereby reserved.
Where accounts or inquiries are directed, and the further consideration is
adjourned, the Court rarely gives any costs until the further order ; except
where some part of the action or some of the Defts are dismissed at the
hearing, or an improper defence has been set up by the Defts or some of
them ; in such cases it is the more usual course at once to deal with the
costs relating to those matters : see inf. Chap. XVII., " Costs."
Where, however, the question of costs is partly disposed of at the hearing,
the further consideration of the costs undisposed of should be expressly
reserved : Horsfall v. Garneit, V.-C. W., 5 March, 1858, Regr. Min. 246 ;
Chilton V. Crosby, V.-C. W., 6 March, 1858, Regr. Min. 270 ; Form 4, sup.
In an action against an exor or trustee where the Court, after hearing
the facts, makes an order for admon without any reservation of costs, it
is not in accordance with the practice to entertain an application on
f ui'ther consideration that the exor or trustee should be ordered to pay
costs down to judgment; but this practice does not extend to a case
where the order is made without evidence on both sides, or full dis-
cussion, either for the sake of convenience or to save expense, or otherwise
in circumstances in which the Court has not sufficient knowledge of
the facts: Prac. Note, 1911, W. N. 155.
Where costs are given by the judgment or order generally and further
consideration is adjourned, subsequent costs are included : Quarrell v.
Bechford, 1 Mad. 286 ; Krehl v. Park, 10 Ch. 236 ; and see Cluiion v. Pardon,
T. & R. 304 ; and this notwithstanding a reservation of subsequent costs
" not provided for by the judgment or order," there being other costs by
which these words might be satisfied : Quarrell v. Bechford, sup. ; and
where subsequent costs are not intended to be given, the direction should
be confined to costs up to the judgment or order : S. C.
Trustees were held entitled to their proper costs of carrying out trans-
actions after order on further consideration, though without the sanction of
the Court : Re Mansel, Rhodes v. Jenkins, 54 L. J. Ch. 883 ; 33 W. R. 727 ;
52 L. T. 806.
The usual direction for liberty to apply does not extend to an application
for costs, as to which no express direction is given in the judgment or
order : Kendall v. Marsters, 2 D. F. & J. 200.
Where by consent a case is taken out of the paper and stands over
generally, with liberty to either party to apply to restore, the action is a
lis pendens which requires an actual application for leave to discontinue
before it will come to an end, notwithstanding 0. xvn, 10 : Brooks dh Co.,
Ld. v. Lycetts Saddle d; Motor Accessory, Ld., [1904] 1 Ch. 512, 515.
Directions foe Payment.
Payment of Money by Instalments, the whole to become due on
Default.
Order that the Deft do on or before the several dates set opposite
to the amounts in the second column of the schedule hereto, pay to
the Pit the sum of £50 by the several instalments mentioned in the
first column of the said schedule, but, on default being made by
the Deft in payment of any one of such instalments, It is ordered that
Various Directions. 1^3
the Deft do forthwitli pay to the Pit the whole balance of the said
sum of £50 then remaining unpaid. — Morris v. Jones, M. R. at
Chambers, 21 Jan. 1878, B. 154.
SCHEDULE.
First Column.
Second Column.
Instalments.
Dates \vhen paynienta are to be made.
£10 - - -
5 -
5
5
22 February, 1878.
8 April „
8 July
8 October „
5
5 -
5
5
8 January, 1879.
8 April
8 July
8 October „
5
8 January, 1880.
£50
NOTES.
As to attachment and the mode of enforcing judgments and orders for Enforcing
payment by one person to another, see Chap. XXVII., " Exectjtiok and judgments.
Contempt," inf. ; and O. xui, O. XLin, and 0. xliv ; and as to the attach-
ment of debts, see O. XLV, O. XLvni a, 9, and Chap. XXVIII., " Chaegino
Orders," inf.
By the Judgments Act, 1838 (1 & 2 V. c. 110), s. 18, and Judgments Act, Orders of
1864 (27 & 28 V. c. 112), s. 2, it was enacted that decrees and orders of Courts of
Courts of Equity, whereby any sums of money or any costs, charges, or Equity,
expenses are payable to any person, should have the effect of judgments at
law, when registered pursuant to sect. 19. This does not apply to a
Master's certificate : Mansfield v. Ogle, 4 D. & J. 38 ; nor to an order for
taxation : Shaw y. Nettle, 6 H. L. C. 581 ; 6 W. R. 635. By the Judgments
Act, 1839 (2 V. 0. 11), s. 4, judgments must be re-registered every five
years ; and by the Judgments Act, 1840 (3 & 4 V. c. 82), s. 2, and Judgments
Act, 1855 (18 & 19 V. c. 15), ss. 4, 5, until registered, notice thereof does
not affect purchasers, mortgagees, or creditors ; and see the Law of Property
Amendment Act, 1860 (23 & 24 V. c. 38), ss. 1—5 ; and by the Judgments
Act, 1864 (27 & 28 V. c. 112), no judgment entered up after the passing of
the Act was to affect any land until such land should have been " delivered
in execution, by virtue of a writ of elegit or other lawful authority."
Land which cannot be delivered in execution by the sheriff could be by
" other lawful authority," i.e., the decree of the Court of Chancery : Hatton
v. Haywood, 9 Ch. 229, and cases there ; Be South, 9 Ch. 369 ; Wells v.
Kilpin, 18 Eq. 298 ; Tillett v. Pearson, 22 W. R. 209 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 93 ; Exp.
Evans, Me Watkins, 13 Ch. D. 252, C. A. ; and as to " eqmtable execution "
by appointment of receiver, v. inf. Chap. XXXII., " Receivers," pp. 757
et seq. And as to the effect of the 1 & 2 V. i;. 110, the Land Charges Regis-
tration and Searches Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. o. 51), and the Land Charges Act,
1900 (63 & 64 V. c. 26), as giving a direct charge upon land and otherwise,
and as to judgments generally, v. inf. Chap. XLVIL, " Mortgages," pp.
1993 et seq.
Where money had been paid under an order, and the order was reversed on Order on
appeal, repayment was ordered with interest at £4 p. c. : Rodger v. Comptoir appeal for
d'Escompte de Paris, L. R. 3 P. C. 465 ; Merchant Banking Co. v. Maud, 18 repayment.
Eq. 659 ; 22 W. R. 874. But this has not been usual in Chancery unless a
special case for interest has been made out : Parker v. Morrell, 2 Ph. 453,
469 ; and see Dan. 1077.
As to orders for taxation and payment of costs, v. inf. Chap. XVIL,
" Costs."
( 184 ) [chap. XV.
CHAPTBE XV.
PASSING, ENTERING, COKREOTING, ADDING TO, AND
ENROLLING JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS.
Section I. — Passing and Entering.
Motion to vary Minutes refused.
Upon motion &c. that the minutes of the judgment [or order] dated
&c. be varied by &c. [state proposed variations] ; And upon hearing
&c., This Court doth not think fit to make any order upon the said
motion, but doth order &c. — Directions as to costs.
For form of notice of motion, see D. C. P. 392.
NOTES.
DRAWING UP JtrDGMBSTTS AND ORDERS.
When a judgment is pronounced, or an order made by the Court, a note
of it is taken down by the registrar, and a similar note is indorsed by counsel
on the briefs ; and from these notes the draft or minute of the formal judg-
ment or order is'prepared.
The party entitled to the carriage of the order should, immediately after
it is pronounced, leave his papers at the registrar's office, otherwise the
registrar may proceed to draw it up at the instance of any other party.
As to the practice on drawing up, entering and filing judgments or orders,
see O. Lxn.
As a general rule all judgments and orders deciding the rights of parties
inter se will require to be settled in the presence of the parties, notwith-
standing that they are of a simple character, as the judgment itself may
be of importance as a document of title, or as evidence of res judicata.
By r. 12, "if any party fails to attend the registrar's appointment for
settling the draft of or passing any judgment or order, or fails to produce his
briefs and such other documents as the registrar may require, the registrar
may proceed to settle the draft, or pass the judgment or order in his absence,
and shall be at liberty to dispense with the production of counsel's briefs,
and to act upon such evidence as he may think fit of the actual appearance
by counsel of the party failing to attend or to produce such documents or
papers as aforesaid, or may require the matter to be mentioned to the Court
or Judge.
A party not producing his briefs when required, under r. 12, was ordered
to do so within a limited time ; and in default the order was to be drawn up
without them : Yeatman v. Read, 14 W. R. 123 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 176 ; 13 L. T.
680.
A solr who has been discharged before the passing and entry of an order
SECT. I.] Passing and Entering. 185
will not be allowed, by withholding papers on which he claims a lien, to
prevent the drawing up or entry of the order : Simmonds v. G. E. By. Co.,
3 Ch. 797 ; Clifford v. Turrill, 2 D. & S. 1 ; and see Be Hawhes, [1898] 2
Ch. 1, C. A.
And see Dan. 636 et seq.
VARYING MINUTES.
The registrar in drawing up any order may introduce such alterations as Juriadiotion
from his experience he believes the Court would sanction, and these altera- of registrar,
tions are binding on the parties : see Davenport v. Stafford, 8 Beav. 503 ;
Hargrave v. i?., 3 Mao. & G. 348. But it is improper to make an addition
to the records of the Court without the sanction of an order : Blake v.
Harvey, (1885) 29 Ch. D. 827, C. A.
Questions of difficulty sometimes arise which the registrar himself may
require to be mentioned to the Court.
After, but not before, the draft or minutes have been settled by the regis- Motion to
trar, if any party should feel dissatisfied with the draft as so settled, and Court,
wish to bring the matter before the Court, an application, at the peril of the
party as to costs, must be made by motion specifying the matters complained
of in the proposed judgment or order ; and the registrar should be pre-
viously informed of the application : Prince Y. Howard, 14 Beav. 208 ; Hood
V. Cooper, 26 Beav. 373 ; Tennanl v. TrencMrd, 4 Ch. 537, 545 (where, per
L. C, the practice of setting down the cause upon the minutes was dis-
approved) ; British Dynamite Co. v. Krebs, 25 W. R. 846 ; Oeneral Share, <i:c.
Co. V. Wetley Brick, <t:c. Co., 20 Ch. D. 130, C. A. ; and such application can
be made at any time before the judgment, &c. is passed and entered :
1 Turn. & Ven. 319 ; Dan. 641.
The party moving should apply to the registrar, who will forward a copy
of his note to the Judge.
Upon such a motion the only question to be argued is what was the
actual order made, except in cases where both parties consent to an addition
being made, or where it cannot be ascertained what order was pronounced,
in which case the matter will be allowed to be put in the paper and re-
argued: Jlfem., 1876, W.N. 296.
Any variation made by the Court in the draft settled by the registrar is Form of
embodied in the judgment, &c. originally made ; and except where the order,
costs of the application are ordered to be paid, no further order need be
drawn up by any party. If any addition is made or further evidence read
the order will usually have to be post-dated.
The drawing up of another order as to the costs of an application to vary
minutes may be obviated by adding a clause to the direction in the minutes
as to costs as follows : " including the costs of an application to vary the
minutes of this order " ; and this is useful where it is undesirable to post-
date the order in question.
If there is fair ground for the application, and there has been no improper Costs.
opposition,the costs areusuallymade costs in the action ; and the judgment,
&c. is often post-dated so as to include the costs of the day.
The practice as to varying minutes applies to orders made by the C. A., as Court of
well as to those made by the Court below : Oeneral Share, <fcc. Co. v. Wetley Appeal.
Brick, d:c. Co., 20 Ch. D. 130, C. A. ; 30 W. R. 695.
Where a party instead of adopting the proper course of applying to vary
minutes, applied after theorder had been passed and entered, he was ordered
to pay the costs of the application : Be Swire, Mellor v. Swire, 30 Ch. D. 239,
C. A.
The C. A. will not interfere with the opinion of the Judge as to drawing
up the minutes of his order. If documents have been omitted from the
judgment as entered, the proper course is to appeal from the judgment as it
stands: James v. Jones, 67 L. T. 684.
And as to the practice generally, see Dan. 640 et seq.
186 Judgments and Orders. [chap; xv.
PASSING AND ENTERING JUDGMENTS AND OEDEES.
When the draft has been finally settled, the registrar causes it to be
engrossed.
Orders to be acted upon by the Chancery Paymaster are printed : S. C.
F. R. 23 ; and in these cases the draft order, instead of being engrossed, is
sent by the registrar to the King's printers for proof.
The proof on being returned is examined by the registrar and the solrs,
and the number of copies required is then struck off.
The judgment or order is said to be passed when the registrar has signed
his initials in the margin at the foot of the last page of the engrossment or
print, as an authority to the clerk of entries to enter it in the registrar's
book ; in the case of orders to be acted upon by the paymaster, the registrar
stamps each leaf or separate sheet with his official stamp : S. C. P. R. 24.
When passed, the order is left by the registrar for entry.
Even under the former practice an abatement of the suit did not prevent
a decree from being passed and entered before the suit was revived : see
Man V. Bicketts, 2 C. P. Coop. 36, 37 (notwithstanding the authority for the
contrary of Bertie v, L, Falkland, 1 Dick. 25) ; WillmoU v. Ogilby, M. R.,
28 June, 1832, 23 Jan. 1833, Reg. Min.
So also when the suit abated between the hearing and the judgment :
Preston v. Meux, M. R., 20 Nov. 1839, B. 341 ; Belsham v. Percival, 8 Ha.
157 ; Collinson v. Lister, 20 Beav. 356, and 0. xli.
ENTRY 01" JUDGMENT.
By 0. XLI, 1, every judgment is to be entered by the proper officer (who
in the Chancery DivisioiTis the registrar, as to entry by whom by filing, v.
0. LXii, 2) in the book to be kept for the purpose, and the party
entering the judgment is to deliver to him a copy of the whole of the
pleadings in the cause other than any petition or summons ; such copy to be
in print, except such parts (if any) of the pleadings as may be written : but
no copy need be delivered of any document a copy of which has been
delivered on entering any previous judgment in such cause.
Under this rule, when the judgment has been drawn up by the registrar,
the engrossment, together with the pleadings to be filed, must be taken to
the Writ, Appearance, and Judgment Department of the Central Office (see
P. M. Rules, r. 15), and the officer receiving the same is to make a note in
the margin of the engrossment that the pleadings have been filed, and to
authenticate such note with the small seal of the office, and return the
engrossment to the solr. The registrar before passing the judgment re-
quires to be satisfied that the pleadings have been duly filed.
Date of entry. By r. 3, where the judgment is pronounced by the Court, or a Judge in
Court, the entry of the judgment shall be dated as of the day on which such
judgment is pronounced, unless the Court or a Judge shall otherivise order,
and the judgment takes effect from that date.
In all other cases (as for instance where judgment is entered by default)
the entry is to be dated on and take effect from the day on which the
requisite documents are left for entry : lb. r. 4.
By r. 6, where any judgment may be entered upon the filing of any
affidavit or production of any document, the officer is to examine the affi-
davit or document produced, and if the same be regular, and contain all
that is by law required, he is to enter judgment accordingly.
And by r. 7, where any judgment may be entered pursuant to any order
or certificate, or return to any writ, the production of such order or certificate
sealed with the seal of the Court, or of such return, shall be a sufficient
authority to the officer to enter judgment accordingly.
ENTEEING ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC.
By Gen. Order of 4th Dec. 1691, all orders pronounced in Mich, and Hil.
Terms, or the vacations following, were to be entered before the first day
SECT. I.] Passing and Entering. 187
of the ensuing Mich. Term, and all orders pronounced in Easter or Trinity
Terms, or the following vacations, were to be entered before the first day
of the ensuing Easter Term. This order is not expressly included in the
Cons. Ords., but leave to enter nunc pro tunc after the expiration of the above
periods is still necessary.
Orders to enter nunc pro tunc have been made after an interval of eighteen
years: i)o?iMe v. ieiois, 11 Ves. 601 ; and of twenty -three years : Lawrence
V. Richtnond, IJ. & W. 241 ; Dan. 646.
Formerly, where the time for entering a judgment or order had expired
before the entry was actually effected, it was necessary to obtain an order
of course for entry nunc pro tunc ; but now, by 0. Ln, 1 &, it is provided, that
it shall not be necessary to obtain an order to enter a judgment or order
nunc pro tunc ; but in all cases in which such entries were formally made
under orders of course, the solr applying to have a judgment or order so
entered shall leave with the clerk of entries a memorandum in writing,
countersigned by the Chancery registrar, and bearing a stamp according to
the scale of Court fees for the time being in force. For form of memoran-
dum, see D. C. P. 393.
In Re Jones, BuUis v. J., 1891, W. N. 114; 39 W. R. 619, the order was
made on an ex parte application.
TIME or ENTRY.
0. Lxv, 19b, provides, that " the proper officer, by whom an order direct-
ing a taxation of costs shall be drawn up, shall certify upon tlie order the
date on wliieh it was signed, entered, or otherwise perfected."
This rule was intended to afford information to the taxing masters, but in
practice every order is now, by means of a stamp, marked on the back with
the date on which it is actually entered on the records of the Court,
EFFECT OF ENTEBING JUDGMENTS AND OEDEES.
Both under the former practice, and by O. XLi, 3, judgments relate back
to, and take effect from, the day on which they are pronounced, and the
entry is to be dated as of that day, unless for some particular reason it is
ordered to be ante-dated or post-dated.
Proceedings under a judgment or order before it has been entered are
irregular and voidable : see Tolson v. Jervis, 8 Beav. 366 ; and an attach-
ment for contempt will not be granted for disobedience to an order not
entered : Ballard v. Tomlinson, 31 W. R. 563 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 656 ; 48 L. T.
515; but in the case of injunctions and restraining orders parties are bound
by notice of the order, however received, from the time when it is pro-
nounced : inf. Chap. XXXI., " Injunctions," p. 521 ; and see Re Bryant,
1876, W. N. 252; and by O. LXii, 2 (1), "in the case of procedure orders
drawn up in Chambers, no entry thereof shall be necessary Jsefore an attach-
ment can be issued for disobedience thereof."
COKEECTION OF MISTAKES IN JUDGMENTS OE OEDEES.
By 0. xxvm, 11, " clerical mistakes in judgments or orders, arising cieiioal or
therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected accidental
by the Court or a Judge on motion or summons without an appeal " : see slip or
Blahe v. Harvey, 29 Ch. D. 827, C. A. ; 33 W. R. 602 ; Dan. 650. omission.
By the S. 0. F. R. 27, "clerical mistakes or errors, or accidental omissions
in printed orders, may be amended in writing: Provided that no amendment
shall be made in any order to provide for a new state of circumstances arising
after the date of the order ; nor shall any order be amended for the purpose
of extending the time thereby limited for making any lodgment of funds in
Court."
When any such amendment is made in a schedule to an order, the copy
of such schedule to be sent to the pay office under r. 24 (if not already so
sent) shall be amended and stamped in the manner above provided. If
188
Judgments and Orders. [chap. xv.
No jurisdic-
tion to
review.
No limit
as to time.
General
inherent
jurisdiction.
such copy has prior to the amendment been sent to the pay office, a notifica-
tion of the amendment, signed by a registrar, shall be delivered to the solr
having the carriage of the order, who shall leave such notification at the
pay office, and produce therewith the amended order ; and the paymaster
shall note such amendment on his copy of the schedule and act in accordance
therewith.
The judgment or order has been rectified, where it contained some material
omission, on payment of costs of the application by the party to whom the
omission was attributable : Hughes v. Jones, 26 Beav. 24 ; Williams v.
Carmarthen, &c. By. Co., 17 W. R. 346 ; 19 L. T. 762 ; see also Tiel v.
Barlow, 3 D. J. & S. 426 ; also where the amount included in the judgment
for costs exceeded the amount properly allowable for costs : Armitage v.
Parsons, [1908] 2 K. B. 410.
So also for non-compliance with the provisions of O. Lxn, 11, as to notice
to the parties of the time for passing the judgment or order : Re London, iSsc.
Assoc, Exp. Pulbrook, 17 W. R. 1076 ; 21 L. T. 283.
Orders have been corrected under the rule where error arose from an
inadvertent statement by Deft that interest already allowed was due :
Barker v. Purvis, 56 L. T. 131 ; and where a trustee in default was errone-
ously allowed costs : Staniar v. Evans, 34 Oh. D. 470; Preston v. Allsup,
[1895] 1 Ch. p. 144.
For cases in which directions as to payment of costs have been corrected,
see Re Tiel, 11 W. R. 351 ; Viney v. Chaplin, 3 De G. & J. 282 ; Fritz v.
Hdbson, 14 Ch. D. 542 ; Blakey v. Hall, 35 W. R. 592 ; 56 L. T. 400 ; 56
L. J. Ch. 568 ; Chessum v. Gordon, [1901] 1 K. B. 694, C. A. ; Armitage v.
Parsons, sup.
Where an order on appeal had been passed and entered, and expressed the
intention of the Court at the time when it was made, it could not be varied
by giving the successful appellant additional costs : Olasier v. Rolls, 38 W. R.
113; 59L. J. Ch. 63; 62 L. T. 305.
Since the Judicature Act, 1873, the High Court has no jurisdiction to
review its own order, even by means of an independent action, and where
there is an error in law apparent on the face of the order, such jurisdiction
is essentially appellate : Charles Bright ds Co., Ld. v. Sellar, [19041 1 K. B. 6.
In admon proceedings an erroneous order made on further con-
sideration may be corrected by a new order made " notwithstanding " the
previous order : Re Blackwell, Bridgman v. Blackwell, 1886, W. N. 97 ;
Slaniar v. Evans, (1886) 34 Ch. D. 470 ; Re Clinton, Jackson v. Slaney,
18S2, W. N. 176 ; Re Scowby, [1897] 1 Ch. 741, C. A., sup. p. 126; so also an
order made in a foreclosure action was rectified : Eckersley v. Eckersley,
1884, W. N. 133.
Although the Court has no power to vary or alter a perfected judgment
except under O. xxviii, 11 : Be Suffield, 20 Q. B. D. 697, C. A. ; Re St.
Nazaire Co., 12 Ch. D. 88 ; Glasier v. Rolls, 59 L. J. Ch. 63 ; 38 W. R. 113 ;
62 L. T. 305 ; yet where a winding-up order had been pronounced, but not
passed or entered, the Court by consent dismissed the petition : Re Crown
Bank, 44 Ch. D. 634. As to orders not passed and entered, see Preston
Bank v. Allsup, [1895] 1 Ch. 144.
There is jurisdiction to correct the error, though the time for appealing
has expired : Barker v. Purvis, 56 L. T. 131.
A decree made in 1871 was corrected in 1890 by inserting words omitted :
Shipwright v. Clements, 1890, W. N. 134 ; 38 W. R. 746 ; 63 L. T. 160 ; and
see Hatton v. Harris, [1892] A. C. 547, H. L.
Irrespectively of any rule or order, the Court has a general inherent juris-
diction to alter the record of its order in such a way as to carry out its own
meaning : Lawrie v. Lees, 7 App. Ca. 35 ; In re Swire, Mellor v. Swire, 30
Ch. D. 239, C. A. (where the applicant was put upon an undertaking that he
would not take any objection to the certificate by reason of the alteration
made in the record) ; Ainsworth v. Wilding, [1896] 1 Ch. 673, sup. p. 125 ;
Tucker v. New Brunswick Co., 4A Oh. D. 249, C. A. ; Milson v. Carter, [1893]
SECT. II.] Adding to Judgment or Order. 189
A. C. 638, P. C. In such a case application should be made to the Judge
who made the order or the Judge associated with him, under O. v, 9, and
extra expense occasioned by coming to the C. A. may be disallowed :
Tucker v. New Brunswick Co., sup.
As to the distinction between setting aside a judgment obtained through
some slip on the part of the Deft and one obtained by the Pit irregularly,
and that in the latter case the Deft is entitled ex debito justitice to have the
judgment set aside, and the Court has no power to impose terms upon him
except as a condition of giving him his costs, see Anlaby v. Proetorius, 20
Q. B. D. 74, C. A. ; Dan. 310.
Section II. — Adding to Judgment or Obdek.
Additional Accounts and Inquiries — 0. xvi, 40.
Order that in addition to the accounts and inquiries directed by
the judgment dated &c., the following further accounts and inquiries
be made and taken, that is to say [number the further accounts and
inquiries consecutively after the numbered directions of the original
judgment].
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 544.
NOTES.
By O. xxxm, 2, " the Court or a Judge may, at any stage of the proceed- At any
ings in a cause or matter, direct any necessary inquiries or accounts to be stage of
made or taken,notwithstanding that it may appear that there is some special proceedings,
or further relief sought for, or some special issue to be tried, as to which it
may be proper that the cause or matter should proceed in the ordinary
manner."
By O. XVI, 40, " wherever in any action for the admon of the estate On applica-
of a deceased person, or the execution of the trusts of any deed or instru- tion of person
ment, or for the partition or sale of any hereditaments, a judgment or an served with
order has been pronounced or made — (a) under O. xv ; (b) under 0. xxxni ; 'io*i<'6 °^
(e) affecting the rights or interests of persons not parties to the action — the °™®'^"
Court or a Judge may direct that any persons interested in the estate, or
under the trust, or in the hereditaments, shall be served with notice of the
judgment or order ; and after such notice such persons shall be bound by
the proceedings in the same manner as if they had originally been made
parties, and shall be at liberty to attend the proceedings under the judgment
or order. Any person so served may, within one month after such service,
apply to the Court or Judge to discharge, vary, or add to the judgment or
order."
That accounts on the footing of wilful default will not in general be On footing
directed where such default was not originally pleaded, see Barber v. Mack- of wilful
rell, 12 Ch. D. 534, 538, C. A. ; Mayer v. Murray, 8 Ch. D. 424 ; Job v. J., default.
6 Ch. D. 562 ; Lake v. Tonkin, 21 Oh. D. 757 ; In re Wrighison, [1908] 1 Ch.
789 ; and inf. Chap. XLI., " Trustees."
After the usual judgment in a partnership action, the Court declined to
add an inquiry or direction as to return of premium, it not appearing that
any further facts had oome to the knowledge of the Pit since the hearing :
Edmonds v. Robinson, 29 Ch. D. 170.
190 Judgments and Orders. [chap. xv.
Section III. — Enrolment of Judgment or Order.
By O. LXi, 8, " it shall not be necessary to enrol any judgment or order,
whether dated before or since the commencement of the principal Act."
As to the practice before the Jud. Acts, see Seton (6th ed.), p. 194.
As to the enrolment of schemes under the Ry. Cos. Act, 1867 (30 & 31
V. c. 127), V. Chap. LIV.
VACATING ENROLMENTS.
As to the former practice of vacating enrolments, see Seton (4th ed.),
p. 1550.
Section IV. — Enrolling or Entering Orders of other
Courts.
1. Order of the High Court of Justice in Ireland enrolled on Petition
of Course to the Lord Chancellor — 41 G. III. c. 90, s. 6 — Order
of the Land Court in Ireland enrolled — 21 <& 22 V. c. 72, s. 36.
Upon the petition [entitled in the case of orders of the Irish Court of
Chancery in the matter of the first-mentioned Act, and in the case
of orders of the Irish Land Court in the matters of both Acts] of the
Pit this day preferred unto the Et Hon. the L. C. &c., His Lord-
ship doth order that the judgment made in the Chancery Division
of the High Court of Justice in Ireland dated &c. in the above-
mentioned action, whereby it was ordered &c. [state judgment or order,
. or the part of it to be enrolled in this Court], and a copy of which,
judgment has been exemplified and certified to this Court under the
Great Seal of Ireland, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Parha-
ment made in the 41 G. III. c. 90 [in the case of orders of the Land
Court add, and of the Act of Parliament 21 & 22 V. c. 72], be enrolled
on the rolls of this Court. — Harris v. Webb, L. C, 22 April, 1901,
A. 1419 ; see Re Tryon, L. C, 26 Mar. 1901, B. 977 ; Ferguson v. F.,
L. C, 7 July, 1875, A. 1134.
This order is obtained on petition presented at the L. C.'s office. House of
Lords. For a subsequent order in Be Tryon, see Kekewich, J., 14 June,
1901, and for subsequent orders in Ferguson v. F., see V.-C. H., 22 July,
1875, A. 1181 ; L. JJ., 4 Aug. 1875, A. 1828, 10 Ch. 661 ; and see Pennefather
V. Short, 1866, W. N. 102, 126.
NOTES.
Irish Court. By the Crown Debts Act, 1801 (41 G. III. c. 90), s. 6, where, in any suit
between party and party, any decree shall be pronounced, or any order made
for payment or for accounting for money, by the High Court of Chancery in
Ireland, the L. C. of Ireland for the time being is, upon application to him,
to cause a copy of such order or decree to be exemplified and certified to the
Court of Chancery in England under the Great Seal of Ireland ; and the
L. C. of England is forthwith to cause such order or decree, when presented
to him so exemplified, to be enrolled in the rolls of the High Court of
Chancery in England, and is to cause process of attachment and committal
to issue against the person of the party against whom the order or decree
shall have been made to enforce obedience to and performance of the same as
SECT. IV.] Enrolling or Entering Orders of other Courts. 191
fully and effectually as if such order or decree had been originally pro-
nounced in the Court of Chancery in England.
Sect. 5 of the same Act relates to an order or decree of an English Court
exemplified to the High Court of Chancery in Ireland, and, as to enforcement
by attachment or committal, is in the same words as sect. 6. In Viscount
Kilworth v. m. of Mount Cashdl, 31 L. R. Ir. 81, it was held that there is no
jurisdiction to enforce such an order by sequestration.
By the Crown Debts Act, 1824 (5 G. IV. c. Ill), these provisions are
extended to orders made in any matter or proceeding by petition in cases of
minors, bankrupts, idiots, or lunatics.
By 12 & 13 V. c. 77, s. 14, a similar provision was made in the case of
orders of the Commrs for Sale of Incumbered Estates in Ireland, and by 21 &
22 V. c. 72, s. 36, in the case of orders of the Landed Estates Court in
Ireland ; but the jurisdiction of that Court is now transferred to the Irish
High Court of Justice.
Even before the 35 & 36 V. c. 57, abolishing imprisonment for debt in
Ireland, it seems that the English Court could not enforce an Irish decree by
attachment in a case which in England would be within the Debtors Act,
1869 (32 & 33 V. c. 62) : Ferguson v. F., 10 Ch. 661.
Procedure by judgment summons under the Debtors Act, 1869, is not
" execution " within sect. 4 of 31 & 32 V. c. 54, for enforcement of a regis-
tered Irish judgment : Re Watson, Exp. Johnston, sup.
An Irish judgment when enrolled can be enforced by attachment : Newell
V. N., 1896, W. N. 160; Pennefather y. Short, 1866, W. N. 102, 126; Hazel-
ton V. Wright, 1873, W. N. 3 ; but not unless it is disobeyed according to
its tenour, as it is not ipso facto made an English order : Re Tryon, 1901,
W. N. 176, C. A.
The jurisdiction to order enrolment of decrees of other Courts under The
Crown Debts Act, 1801 (41 G. III. c. 90), and 2 & 3 W. IV. o. 93, appears to
have been formerly exercisable by the V.-C. : 53 G. III. c. 24, s. 2 ; 5 V. c. 5
(Court of Qiancery Act, 1842), s. 22 ; or by the L. JJ. : 14 & 15 V. c. 83
(Court of Chancery Act, 1851), s. 5 ; or one of them : 30 & 31 V. o. 64 ; but
not by the M. R., and appears now to be exercisable by any Judge of the
Chancery Division : see Jud. Act, 1873, ss. 16, 34 (2), 39.
There is no jurisdiction to enrol a decree of a Scotch Court : Re The Scotch Court.
Dundee Suburban Ry. Co., 58 L. J. Ch. 5 ; 59 L. T. 720 ; 37 W. R. 50 ;
1888, W. N. 205 ; except decrees in the course of winding up a co. ; or for
'■ any debt, damages, or costs " under the Judgments Extension Act (31 &
32 V. i;. 54).
Where a Scotch Pit has registered his judgment under s. 3 of 31 & 32 V.
c. 54, he is in the same position as if on the day of registration he had
recovered judgment for the amount in an English Court : Re Low, Bland v.
Low, [1894] 1 Ch. 147, C. A. (where the effect was to enable the party to
prove on the judgment in an admon action, notwithstanding a previous ad-
judication adverse to his claim), and may obtain appointment of a receiver
by way of equitable execution : Thompson v. QUI, [1903] 1 K. B. 760.
A judgment of the Court of Session in Scotland registered under tlie Act
cannot be made the foundation of a bankruptcy notice : Re a Bankruptcy
Notice, [1898] 1 Q. B. 383, C. A., following Re Watson, Exp. Johnston, [1893]
1 Q. B. 21.
2. Order of the Arches Court of Canterbury enrolled —
2(&BW. IV. c. 93.
Upon the petition &c., setting forth that by the decree of the Arches
Court of Canterbury, dated &c., sentence was pronounced, and the
Court pronounced against the appeal made in this cause on behalf of
the Reverend C, and affirmed the order or decree of the Worshipful
P., the Official Principal of the Consistory Court of — , and condemned
192 Judgments and Orders. [chap. xv.
the said C. in costs ; that the said costs were on the — day of — taxed
to that date at £ — ; that the said C, after having been duly monished,
has wholly neglected to comply with such monition, and to pay the
said costs, and has since been duly pronounced contumacious and in
contempt ; It is therefore ordered that a copy of the exemplification of
the said decree, dated &c., and the several proceedings thereunder, be
enrolled on the rolls of this Court, pursuant to the Act of Parliament
of 2 & 3 W. IV. c. 93, s. 2.— Craig v. Watson, L. C, 21 June, 1871,
A. 1873.
For subsequent order for sequestration, see S, C, inf. Chap. XXVII.,
" Execution," p. 441.
NOTES.
By the Ecclesiastical Courts Contempt Act, 1832 (2 & 3 W. IV. c. 93), s. 1,
provision is made for enforcing decrees of Ecclesiastical Courts by the writ
de contumace capiendo in cases not within 53 G. III. c. 127.
As to the proceedings on tliis writ, see Hudson v. Tooth, 2 P. D. 125 ;
Dale's Case, (1881) 6 Q. B. D. 376 ; Green v. Lord Penzance, (1881) 6 App.
Cas. 657.
By sect. 2, when any person has been ordered by the order or decree, final
or interlocutory, of any Ecclesiastical Court to pay any sum or sums of
money, and after having been duly monished, shall refuse or neglect to
comply with such monition, and to pay the said sums therein ordered to be
paid by him, or a peer or lord of ParUament or member of the House of
Commons shall in any way neglect to perform or shall not perform any
decree or order of such Courts, it shall be lawful for the Judge or Judges
who shall have made such order or decree to pronounce the person so
neglecting or refusing to comply contumacious and in contempt, and
within ten days to cause a copy of such order or decree under the seal of
the Court to be exemplified and certified to the L. C, who shall forthwith
cause such copy to be enrolled in the rolls of the (Chanc. Div. in England),
and shall thereupon cause process of sequestration to issue against the real
and personal estate in England of the party against whom the order or
decree shall have been made, in the same manner as if the cause had been
originally instituted in the (Chanc. Div.), and as if the process antecedent
to process of sequestration had been duly issued and returned in the last-
mentioned Court.
It was held sufficient if the exemplification was signed by the Ecclesias-
tical Judge within ten days : Cooper v. Dodd, 15 Jur. 69.
3. Order of the Chancery Court of the County Palatine made an
Order of Court — Court of Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1850 (13 cfc
14 V. c. 43), s. 15.
Whereas by an order dated &c., made in the Chancery of the
County Palatine of Lancaster ( — District), it was ordered &c. [Recite
order verbatim] ; Now upon motion this day made unto this Court
by Counsel for the Deft, and upon reading a transcript of the said
order under the signature of the registrar of the said Court, and an
affidavit &c. {evidence that the order cannot he fully enforced in the
County Palatine Court), This Court doth order that the said order,
dated &c., be made an order of this Court. And it is ordered that
SECT. IV. J Enrolling or Entering Orders of other Courts. 193
the Pit do pay to the Deft his costs of this application and
consequent thereon to be taxed by the Taxing Master. — Duhe v.
Clarke, North, J., 1 June, 1894, A. 699 ; 1894, W. N. 100.
And for like order as against oontributories named in a schedule, sea Be
Lirerpool and Dublin Steam Co., V.-C. W., 4 Dec. 1866, B. 2461.
For form of application, see D. C F. 404.
NOTES.
OEDEES OE THE COUNTY PALATINE OOUETS.
By the Court of Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1850 {13 & 14 V. c. 43), s. 15, Lancaster
whenever a Pit or Deft in any suit or proceeding, in which a decree or order Palatine
has been made by the County Palatine Court, shall reside or withdraw his Court.
goods or person out of the jurisdiction of that Court, and whenever any
decree or order of that Court cannot be fully enforced by reason of the non-
residence of any person to be bound thereby within the jurisdiction of the
said Court, then it shall be lawful for the (Chanc. Div.), upon the application
of any person entitled to the benefit of such decree or order, and upon the
production of a transcript of such decree or order, or such part thereof
respectively as cannot be enforced for the reasons aforesaid, under the
signature of the registrar of the County Palatine Court, and an affidavit that
by reason of such non-residence, or removal as aforesaid, such decree or
order, or such part thereof, cannot be enforced, to make such decree or order,
or such part thereof respectively as cannot be enforced, a decree or order of
the (Chanc. Div.) ; and thereupon such decree or order, or such part tliereof
respectively, may be enforced, and proceedings had thereon, as if such decree
or order had been originally made by the (Chanc. Div. ) ; and the costs of and
consequent upon such application may be recovered as if the same were part
of such decree or order.
The application is by motion, ex parte, see Dan. 674. The order should
provide for the costs of the motion : Duke v. Clarke, 1894, W. N. 100 ;
Form 3, sup.
By 17 & 18 V. c. 82, s. 10, these provisions were extended to decrees or
orders made by the C. A. in Chancery of the County Palatine thereby
established.
By s. 7, the C. A. in Chancery of the County Palatine (now His Majesty's
C. A.) is empowered to make orders according to the practice of the (Chanc.
Div.) in all cases in which by reason of any person being out of the jurisdic-
tion of the County Palatine Court, or otherwise, effectual protection cannot
be given to any ward of that Court, or to any exor, admor, officer of Court,
or other person entitled to its protection, or in which for the same reason, or
otherwise, any contempt of the said Court cannot be efiectually punished ;
and every such order shall have the same effect as an order of the (Chanc.
Div.) ; and see Downes v. Jackson, 14 W. R. 907.
By s. 8, where the parties are out of the jurisdiction of the Court of the
County Palatine, the C. A. may either direct the cause or matter to be
transferred to the (Chanc. Div.), or order service to be effected out of the
jurisdiction of the Court of the County Palatine.
On an application to serve a writ on a sole Deft out of the jurisdiction of
the Court of the County Palatine of Lancaster, the Pit was put on terms to
submit to a transfer of the action to the Chanc. Div. if the Deft applied for
it ; and on the Deft so appljdng the Pit had to pay the costs : Re Walmough
Sergenson v. Beloe, 24 Ch. D. 280, C. A. In this case it was questioned
whether sect. 8 applies to the case of a sole Deft.
The Palatine Court of Durham Act, 1890 (52 & 53 V. c. 47), s. 4, contains, Durham
in respect to that Court, provisions similar to those of 13 & 14 V, c. 43, s. 15, Palatine
and 17 & 18 V. c. 82, s. 10, above stated. t)o"rt.
VOL. I. O
194 Judgments and Orders. [chap. xv.
OEDBES OP THE STANNAEIES COtTET.
Under 18 & 19 V. c. 32, s. 10, procedure was prescribed for making a
decree or order of the Court of tke Vice- Warden of the Stannaries a decree
or order of the High Court, but now by the Stannaries Court Abolition Act,
1896 (59 & 60 V. c. 45), the Vice-Warden's Court is abolished and its powers
transferred to the County Court.
4. Order in Irish Winding-up made an Order of Court as against
Contributor ies resident in England — Companies Consolidation
Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII. c. 69), s. 180 (2).
Whereas by an order of the Hon. Judge M., one of tie Judges of
the High Court of Justice in Ireland, made in this matter, dated &c.,
It was ordered &c. [Recite call order verhatim without the schedule] ;
And whereas the schedule referred to in the said order is as set forth
in the first part of the schedule hereto ; Now upon motion &c., And
upon reading an office copy of the said order and the schedule thereto,
This Court doth order that the said order of the said Court, dated &c.,
be made an order of this Court as against such of the persons named in
the first part of the schedule hereto as are named in the second
column of Part 2 of the same schedule. — Re Holly ford Copper
Mining Co., L. J. G., 11 Dec. 1869, A. 3081, 5 Ch. 93.
In this case the proceedings had been transferred to the Bankruptcy Court
under the Cos. Act, 1862 (25 & 26 V. c. 89), s. 81.
For like order to make a similar order of the Court of Session at Edinburgh
an order of the Court, see Be Scottish Farmers' Co., M. R., 11 Dec. 1877,
B. 2128.
5. Order of the High Court of Justice in Ireland made an Order of
Court.
Whereas by an order dated &c., made in the High Court of
Justice in Ireland, Chancery Division, It was ordered &o. {Recite order
verhatini] ; Now upon motion &c., by counsel for A. B., Order that
the said order dated &c., be made an order of this Court. — See Re
Slaney Woollen Mills Co., Ld., Kay, J., 12 April, 1888, B. 866 P.
For forms of motion paper and exemplifications of order, see D. C. F. 405.
NOTES.
By the Cos. (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII.), ss. 178-180 (corre-
sponding to ss. 120-123of the Cos. Act, 1862 (25 & 26V.c. 89);,orders,inter-
looutors, and decrees made by the Court of Session in Scotland, for or in the
course of winding up a company, are to be enforced in England and Ireland,
and orders made by the Court in Ireland for or in the course of winding up a
company are to be enforced in England and Scotland by the Courts which
would respectively have had jurisdiction in the matter of such company if
registered in that part of the United Kingdom where the order is required
to be enforced, and in the same manner as if such order had been made by
the Court required to enforce the same in the case of a company witliin its
own jurisdiction,
SECT. IV. J Enrolling or Entering Orders of other Courts. 195
By sect. 180, an office copy of the order to be enforced is to be produced to
the proper officer of the Court required to enforce it, and the production of
such office copy is to be sufficient evidence of such order having been made ;
and thereupon such last-mentioned Court shall take the requisite steps in
the matter for enforcing the order.
In oases under these sections the order to be enforced is to be made an
order of the Court required to enforce it : Re Holly ford, &c. Co., 5 Ch. 93 ;
Form 4, sup. ; Re City of Olasgow Bank, 14 Cli. D. 628 ; Re Queensland
Mercantile and Agency Co., [1892] 1 Ch. 219, C. A.
The Court to enforce suola an order is tlie Chanc. Div., although the
matter may be pending in the Irish Court of Bankruptcy : 8. C.
( 196 ) [chap. XVI.
CHAPTEE XVI.
LODGMKNT AND PAYMENT OF FUNDS.
Seotion I. — Lodgment — S. C. F. E. 1905, kr. 5, 29 et seq. —
Investment — S. C. F. E. 1905, er. 69 et seq.
[Note. — For Lodgment Schedule Forms, see p. 201.]
1. Lodgment in Court.
The Deft by tis solrs admitting ttat lie has in Ms hands tlie sum
of £ — as executor of the will of the above-named testator A., It is
ordered that the Deft do on or before &c. or subsequently within —
days after service of this order, lodge in Court as directed in the
schedule hereto the said sum of £ — . — [Add Lodgment Schedule, Form
No. 1, p. 201.]
For order on motion in an admon action for payment into Court by Deft
of money stated by Pit to be in Ms hands, and not disputed by Deft, who
did not appear on the motion, see Freeman v. Cox, 8 Ch. D. 148.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 895 et seq.
2. Lodgment in Court with Interest.
Order that the Deft do on or before &c., lodge in Court as
directed in the schedule hereto, the sum of £ — , due from him &c.,
and interest thereon, at the rate of — p. c. per ann. from the —
day of — to the day for lodgment. — [Add Lodgment Schedule, Form
No. 3.]
As to distinguishing capital from interest, see Be Hichey, Hickey v. Calmer,
35 W. R. 63 ; 5S L. T. 588.
3. Lodgment in Court — Investment.
Order that the Deft do on or before &c. lodge in Court as directed
in the schedule hereto £1000 Consols (admitted by his said affidavit
to be) standing in his name in the Books of the Bank of England
{if so) ; And it is ordered that the Deft do within seven days after the
receipt thereof lodge in Court as directed in the said schedule &c.,
dividends received by him before or after the lodgment of the said
Consols. — [Add Lodgment Schedule^ Form No. 2.]
SECT.
I.] Lodgment. 1^'
4. Leave to Lodge from Time to Time — Investment.
Order that the Deft be at liberty, from time to time, to lodge in
Court, as directed in the schedule hereto, any sum or sums of money
(amounting to not less than £ — ) which may hereafter be received by
him on account of the estate of the above-named testator A. — [Add
Lodgment Schedule, Form No. 4.]
5. Deposit in Court of Securities passing by Delivery.
Order that the Deft do on or before &c., lodge in Court, as
directed in the schedule hereto, the bonds in the said schedule
mentioned, amounting together to the nominal amount of £10,000,
with the coupons thereto attached from the date of this order. — [Add
Lodgment Schedule, Form No. 7.]
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 897, 898.
6. Deposit in Court of Securities passing by Delivery and Deed.
Order that the Deft do lodge in Court, as directed in the schedule
hereto, the securities specified therein, and execute and procure to
be registered a transfer of such securities to the account of the
Paymaster-General for the time being, for and on behalf of the Supreme
Court of Judicature. — [Add Lodgment Schedule, Form No. 7.]
7. Deposit in Court of Plate or Jewels, or such Securities as must
be placed in a Box.
Order that the Deft do on or before &c., in the presence of the
solrs for the Pit place in a box indorsed " In the High Court of Justice,
Chancery Division, A. v. B. 1900, A. 900, Plate, or Jewellery, or
Securities," the several articles of plate or jewellery or the certificate
or other documents of title of &c. specified in the Order Schedule
hereto, and do, within the time aforesaid, deposit the said box in
Court as directed in the Lodgment part of the schedule hereto.
[If required : And it is ordered that the said box be delivered out as
directed in the payment part of the schedule on or after &c. and &c.,
and the same days in each succeeding year, to the Deft for the purpose
of receiving the dividends on the said securities. And it is ordered
that the Deft do on or before &c. and &c., and the same days in
each succeeding year, re-deposit the said box and lodge the said
dividends in Court, as directed in the lodgment part of the said
schedule.]
198
Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
The Oeder Schedule above referred to.
{Containittg a list of articles of Plate or Jewellery, or Certificates and
other Documents of Title of the above-mentioned Shares.)
Lodgment and Payment Schedule.
In the High Court of Justice,
Chancery Division.
day of 1900.
A. V. B. 1900. A. 900.
Ledger Credit, as above.
I. — Lodgment.
ParticularB of Fuuds to be lodged.
Person to make tbe Lodgment.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
A box indorsed " In the
High Court of Justice,
Chancery Bivision. A. v.
B., 1900, A. 900, Plate or
Jewellery or Securities."
Re-deposit the said box
from time to time.
Dividends to be received
from time to time.
Defendant.
The Bame.
The same.
£ s. d.
£ <,. d.
II. — Payment.
Funds to be dealt with. Funds to be lodged as above.
Particulars of Payments, Trausfers,
or other operations to be carried
out by the Paymaster.
Payees, Transferees, or titles
of separate Accounts,
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
On or after the — day
of — and the — day
of — , and the same days
in each succeeding year,
deliver out the said box.
Pay dividends to be lodged
as above during life of
payee, [or invest and accu-
mulate dividends to be
lodged as above in Con-
sols].
Defendant.
C. D., of, &o.
£ s. d.
£ 8. d.
SECT. I.J
Lodgment.
199
8. Deposit of Diamonds in a Box, and Deposit of such Box in
Court — Inspection of Contents — Delivery to Deft, or He-deposit
in Court.
Order that the Deft do, within four days after service of this order,
deposit upon oath in a box indorsed as in the schedule hereto men-
tioned, the diamonds, ornaments, and other articles of jewellery set
out in the inventory to the said a£&davit of the Deft filed &c., and
lodge the same in Court as in such schedule mentioned to be dealt
with as therein directed, and within the like time deliver the key of
such box to the Master at the Chambers of the Judge, Room (288),
in the Royal Courts of Justice, in order that such diamonds, orna-
ments, and other articles of jewellery may (at such time or times as
shall be mentioned in the certificate of the Master) be inspected at
the Chambers of the Judge (in the presence of the Master) by the Pits,
their solrs and witnesses, pursuant to the said order (which inspection
the Deft is to be at liberty to attend), and after such inspection the
said diamonds, ornaments, and other articles of jewellery are to be
forthwith replaced in such box in the presence of the Master, and the
said box is together with the key thereof to be delivered back (in
the like presence) to the Deft if he shall attend on such inspection,
or re-deposited in Court as in the said schedule mentioned by such
person as shall be named in the Master's certificate, and within the
time thereby limited, and subsequently delivered out to the Deft
on its being certified by the Master that the said diamonds, ornaments,
and other articles of jewellery have been produced as hereinbefore
directed, in which last-mentioned case the key of the said box is to
be returned to the Deft.
LoDaMENT AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE.
In the High Court of Justice, 20th Feb. 1891.
Chancery Division. L. v. W. 1889. L. 3118.
Ledger Credit, as above.
I. — Lodgment.
Particulars of Funds to be lodged.
Fersou to make the Lodgment.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
Box indorsed " In the High
Court of Justice, Chancery
Division, L. o. W., 1889, L,
3118 diamonds, ornaments,
and other jewellery set out
in Defendant's inventory."
The said box after it has been
delivered out.
C. W., Defendant.
Such person as shall be
nominated in that behalf
by the Master's certificate.
£ ^^ d.
£ S. d.
200
Lodgment and Payment of Funds. [cHAF. XVI.
II. — Payment.
Funds to be dealt with. Box to be lodged as above.
Particulars of Payments, Trausfers,
or other operatioua to be carried
out by the Paymaster.
Payees aud Transferees, or titles
of separate Accouiits.
Amouuts.
Money.
Securities.
Deliver out above box.
Deliver out box if and when
re-deposited upon its being
certified that the diamonds,
ornaments, and other arti-
cles of jevpellery therein
contained have been pro-
duced as directed by this
order.
Such person as shall be
nominated in that behalf
by the Master's certificate.
C. W., Defendant.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
Laing v. Walker, Stirling, J., 20 Feb. 1891, B. 581.
By 0. LXi, r. 30, no jewels or plate, or other articles of a like nature, or
negotiable securities, are to be deposited in the Central Office.
Neitherthe Paymaster nor the Bank inquire as to the contents of the box,
but the Bank objects to receive a box beyond a certain weight and size.
Under S. C. F. R. 1905, r. 3, " funds " or " funds in Court " include boxes
and other effects.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 900 et seq.
SECT. I.]
Lodgment.
201
FOEMS OF LODGMENT SCHEDULES.
Lodgment Schedule.
In the High Court of Justice, Date of Order
1889.
Chancery Division. Title of cause or matter. A. v. B. 1889. A. 15.
Ledger Credit [If same title of cause or matter] " as above " {add, account, if any].
Particulars of Funds to be
lodged.
Persons to make the
Lodgment.
Amounts.
Cash.
Securities.
1. Lodgment of cash and
[if so] investment.
As to cash being placed on
deposit without any direc-
tion, see S. C. F. R. 1905, 79.
Cash
C. B
£ s. d.
5000 0 0
£ s. d.
[// so] Invest and accu-
mulate in Consols.
2. Lodgment of securities.
Consols
Great Western Railway £4
per centum Debenture
Stock.
A. B. and C. D.
The same
••
5000 0 0
4000 0 0
3. Lodgment of cash or
purchase-money and
interest.
£500, together with in-
terest thereon at 4 per
cent, per ann., from
— day of — to day
for lodgment.
C. B
The same.
500 0 0
4. Lodgment of cash from,
time to time.
Cash, not less than £100,
from time to time in
his hands as part of
the estate of X.
C. B.
5. Cash paid under r. 31
to suspense account.
Money lodged to a suspense
account is transferred to the
Paymaster-General on a re-
quest, S. C. F. R. 1905, 31,
and no order for that pur-
pose need be drawn up.
A box indorsed, &c
A. B. and C. D.
1
7. Deposit of securities
passing liy delivery.
The following bonds : —
Brazil 4 per cent. Bonds
1883. With coupons
attached from the —
day of — .
No. 1 dated, &c.
Mo. 2 &c.
No. 3 &c.
B.
8. Money raisedhy mort-
gage by order of the
Court.
Amount directed to he
raised by mortgage, and
certified by the Master.
Mortgagee or
mortgagees to
be named in
the Master's
certificate.
i
1
9. Guardian's lalancca .
Balance to be from time to
time certified on passing the
guardian's accounts. Ufso\
(invest and accumulate in
Consols).
CD.
i
202
Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
NOTES.
PAYMASTEK-GBNBEAL. GENERAL EEGULATIONS.
By the Court of Chancery (Funds) Act, 1872 (35 & 36 V. c. 44), amended
and extended to all the Divisions of the Supreme Court by the Supreme
Court of Judicature (Funds, &c.) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 V. c. 29), the office of
Acoountant-General was abolished, and that of Paymaster-General estab-
lished, with similar duties, re-moulded by the Act.
By O. LXii, 16, " all orders for the payment or transfer of money or
securities into Court to the account or creditof the Paymaster-General,and
for the payment or transfer of money or securities out of Court by the
Paymaster- General, are to be drawn up in conformity with such rules
relating thereto as shall be from time to time made under the Court of
Chancery Funds Act, 1872, or any Act amending the same."
S. C. F. E. By S. C. F. R. 1905, r. 2, all other rules and general orders prescribing the
1905. mode of dealing with funds in Court are revoked, and by r. 3 terms are
defined.
Lodgment By r. 5, every order directing funds to be lodged in Court is to have a
schedule. lodgment schedule annexed thereto, which shall be headed with the title of
the cause or matter, the date of the order, and the title of the ledger credit
to which the funds are to be placed, and shall set out in tabular form (a) the
name or a sufficiently identifying description of the person by whom the
funds are to be lodged ; (b) the amount, if ascertained, and the description
of the funds. The authority for a lodgment of the proceeds of sale of any
property which has been directed by an order to be sold, and for lodgment
of receivers' balances, may be a lodgment schedule signed by a Master of
the Supreme Court, and such lodgment schedule shall operate in the
same manner as a lodgment schedule annexed to an order. The lodgment
schedule may direct the investment and accumulation of interest on the
funds to be lodged, and may also direct that the funds shall not be dealt
with without notice to the purchaser or other person named in the schedule.
Payment As to transfer of securities out of Court, and dividends accruing thereon,
schedule. see S. C. F. R. 1905, r. 6.
Instructions By r. 10, the lodgment and payment schedules respectively are to contain
to Paymaster, the whole of the instructions intended to be acted upon by the Pa3?master,
and all particulars necessary to be known by him, so far aa the same are
capable of being expressed at the date of the order, and the Paymaster is
only to be responsible for giving effect to such instructions as are expressed
in the schedules thereto. The instructions and particulars contained in the
schedule are not to be set forth in the body of the order, but are only to be
therein referred to as appearing by the schedule, unless for any special
cause it may, in the opinion of the Judge by whom the order is made, or the
registrar by whom the same is drawn up, be necessary to set forth some part
of such instructions or particulars, both in the body of the order and in the
schedule.
Preparation By r. 22, when an order is made dealing with funds in Court in accordance
of draft with agreed minutes, the solr of the party whose duty it is to procure
schedules. the order to be drawn up is to lodge with the registrar or otherproper officer,
for his consideration, draft schedules, in the same form as the lodgment and
payment schedules to an order, and containing the particulars required to
be contained in such schedules.
Orders, how By r. 23, every order which isto be acted upon by the Paymaster is to be
drawn up and drawn up and entered by the registrar, unless the Judge otherwise directs,
entered. and is either to be wholly printed, or, in cases in which printed forms can be
used, partly in print and partly in writing.
Copy of By r. 24, when any order to be acted upon by the Paymaster is left for
schedules for entry, a further copy of the schedules thereto, initialled by the registrar and
Paymaster, stamped with his official seal on every leaf, shall be left therewith. Such
further copy of the schedules shall be examined and sealed and marked with
reference to the order as entered, and shall be sent to the Paymaster,
SECT. I.] Lodgment. 203
A copy of a lodgment schedule, signed by a Master of the Supreme
Court, under r. 5, shall be sent to the Paymaster by the Master.
The following regulations have been issued by the registrars (see 30
Sol. Jo. 717) :—
Regulations Concerning the Transmission of Schedules to the Paymaster,
The entering clerks will transmit schedules direct to the Paymaster
immediately after the order is entered.
For this purpose the entering clerks will keep a book or books in which
will be entered the title of each order and its date, and the book containing
these entries will be sent, with the schedules, to Room No. 106, where the
chief of the room then present will sign the book by way of receipt for the
schedules then left.
It will be observed that in no case will a schedule ever be in the hands of
the solr, and, as a fact, the Paymaster will refuse to accept schedules by
any other channel than through the entering clerks. By this means a
complete record will be preserved of all schedules in the hands of the
Paymaster.
The Paymaster undertakes the duty of distributing the schedules among
the several divisions of his department.
By r. 25, the copy of the schedules to an order sent to the Paymaster is to Paymaster to
be Us authority for giving effect to the several operations directed therein ; act on copy
and no part of the order other than the schedules is to be sent to him. °' schedules.
By r. 26, additional copies of orders according to the requirements of the Additional
parties may be printed and issued as office or certified copies. copies.
By r. 27, accidental errorsmay be amended in writing, but no amendment Amendment
is to be made to provide for a new state of circumstances arising after the of accidental
date of the order, nor for extending the time limited for making any payment errors.
into Court.
Where the alteration is formal, and all parties consent, the registrar will
make the amendment, but where the parties do not consent, there must be a
summons or motion under O. xxvm, 11. A party unreasonably refusing to
consent may be ordered to pay the costs of the application.
By r. 96 the Paymaster may, when he requires evidence for carrying into Evidence
effect any order, act on affidavits or statutory declarations.
And by r. 99 he may, upon a request in writing made by or on behalf of Paymaster's
a person claiming to be interested in any funds in Court to the credit of an certificate of
account specified in such request, issue a certificate of the amount and f^ds m
description of such funds, on the morning of the day of the date thereof, '^o^"-
and not having reference to the transactions of that day, notif jdng the dates
of any orders restraining the transfer, &c. of such funds, and any charging
orders affecting them of which he has had notice, and the names of the
persons to whom notice is to be given, or in whose favour such orders have
been made.
And when a cause or matter has been inserted in the list referred to in Paymaster
r. 101, the fact is to be notified on the certificate relating thereto : r. 99. may issue
By r. 100, the Paymaster may, upon a like request, issue a transcript of transcript of
the account ; and, if so required by the person to whom it is issued, such account,
transcript shall be authenticated at the Audit Office, and the Paymaster
may supply such information as may be required.
By r. 101, a list is to be prepared by the Paymaster, and published on Dormant
or before 1 March in every third year, of any funds amounting to or exceed- funds,
ing £50 which have not been dealt with for fifteen years.
By r. 102, small balances which have not been dealt with for five years are
to be carried over to a separate account.
By R. S. C, O. xxn, 12b, " every petition or summons for dealing with
funds which have been placed in the list of dormant funds shall contain a
204 Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
statement that such funds have not been dealt with for fifteen years or
upwards, and where such funds shall amount to, or exceed in value,
£500, a copy of such petition or summons shall, unless the Court or
Judge shall otherwise direct, be served on the official solr of the
Court."
Costs of the official solr occasioned by the neglect of a tenant for life in
not applying for the dividends were payable, not by the railway co. by
whom the money had been paid in under the L. C. C. Act, but out of the
portion of the fund belonging to the tenant for life : Re Clarke's Estate, 21
Ch. D, 776.
PAYMASTBR-GENBBAL. — OBDEES IN LUNACY.
By sect. 145 of the Lunacy Act, 1890 (53 V. c. 5), where an order relates
to the depositing of any funds or securities in Court, or the disposal by the
Paymaster of the funds or securities in Court, to the credit of the matter
of a lunatic, the Paymaster and the Bank and all other persons are to act on
an office copy of the order ; and by sect. 147, forging the signature of a
Master in Lunacy is a felony.
In the S. C. F. R. 1905, r. 3, the word " order " includes a report of a
Master in Lunacy confirmed by fiat, and a certificate of a Master in Lunacy
to be acted on without further order ; and the notes as to form, &c., of
orders dealing with funds in Court generally apply to orders and reports in
Lunacy.
Drawing up Formerly orders in Lunacy were required to be passed and entered by
of orders in a Chancery registrar before being acted on by the Ace. Gen. They are now
Lunacy. drawn up by the Masters in Lunacy (Rules in Lunacy, 1890, r. 59), and
printed under their direction and control. Orders made concurrently
in Chancery and in Lunacy dealing with funds in Court are passed and
entered both by the registrar in Lunacy and one of the registrars in
Chancery.
Duration of By the Rules in Lunacy, 1890, r. 116, all orders for the appointment of
orders. committees, and for the allowance of maintenance, are to be deemed to
take effect only until further order ; and see r. 121 as to transferring into
Court stock of a lunatic, when no one is named in the order to make the
transfer.
By the Rules in Lunacy, 1890, i'. 2, the Lunacy Orders, 1883, are
annulled.
Ledger credit. By Ch. Funds Lunacy Orders, 1874, rr. 4, 5, future orders and certificates
of Masters for payment or transfer into or deposit in Court of money, stock,
securities, or other effects, shall direct such payment or transfer to be made
into, and deposit to be made in Court, to the credit of the matter of the
lunatic, to the account, if any, to which it is intended that such money,
stock, securities, or other effects should be placed ; and orders or certificates
made before and not acted on at the commencement of these orders are to be
construed as if they contained such direction.
And by r. 6, no declaration of trust with respect to stock or securities
transferred into Court to the credit of the matter of a lunatic shall be
required to be made.
According to the present practice in Lunacy, no order in the nature of
a stop order can be made in favour of a person claiming part of the lunatic's
estate as assignee of the next of kin : Re Wilkinson, 10 Ch. 73.
Jurisdiction. -^J *^^^ 3viA. Act, 1873, s. 18 (5), the appellate jurisdiction in Lunacy of
the Privy Council is transferred to the C. A., and the general jurisdiction in
Lunacy is not transferred to the High Court generally (s. 17), but to such of
the Judges (including the present Lords Justices) as may be intrusted, &o.
The jurisdiction of the L. 0. is, apparently, not affected (Jud. Act, 1873, s.
94). An appeal from a Lord Justice sitting in Lunacy is to the Court of
Appeal : Re Oathcart, (1902) W. N. 80.
A petition by the exors of a deceased lunatic for the paymentof a balance
SECT. I.] Lodgment. 205
in Court should be served on the committee, though his accounts be passed
and his security discharged : Re Wylde, 6 D. M. & G. 25.
BRINGING FUNDS INTO COURT. — SUPREME COURT FUNDS RULES, 1905.
By r. 29, all funds to be lodged in Court are to be paid or deposited at the Funds lodged
Law Courts Branch of the Bank of England, and placed in the books of the to be placed
Bank to the account of the Paymaster-General ; and the Bank shall cause to account
a receipt to be given to the person making the payment or deposit. All ™ Paymaster
securities to be transferred into Court shall be transferred to the said account ^^^^^^ •
in the books of the Bank or other oo. in whose books such securities are
registered. Effects deposited in Court are to be in locked boxes, or other-
wise secure, so as to satisfy the Bank, and the Bank may inspect the contents
of the box in the presence of the person depositing it.
A direction for lodgment of money directed by an order or (in the
case of purchase-money or receiver's balances) by a lodgment schedule
signed by a Master will be issued by the Paymaster on receipt of a
copy of the lodgment schedule, and for lodgment under the Trustee Act,
1893, upon receipt of an office copy of the schedule, to the trustee's affidavit
mentioned in r. 41 : r. 30. Separate directions may be given for lodgment
of a part of a sum directed to be lodged ; and directions for lodgment at
Liverpool or Manchester may be issued by the respective district registrars :
Ihid. A lodgment of funds not directed by an order may be made upon a
direction to the Bank or other oo. to be issued by the Paymaster on a request
signed by or on behalf of the person desiring to make such lodgment : Ihid.
No lodgment can be to a separate account (except to a security for costs
account) except under an order : Ihid. The forms of request are set out in
Forms 8, 9, and 10 to the rules ; and see D. C. E. 894 el seq. A request for
a direction may be sent to the Paymaster by post, and the direction returned
by post : r. 35.
Rule 31 provides for payment into Court in urgent cases to a suspense Conditional
account. lodgment.
Although an order limits a time for lodgment, the lodgment may be made Lodgment
after the time has expired, but without prejudice to any liability, process or after time
other consequence to which the person making the lodgment may have expired,
become subject : r. 36.
The Paymaster files a certificate of lodgment, and an office copy of such Lodgment
certificate is to be received as evidence : r. 38. under L. C. C.
In the case of money lodged under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act or •'^ct and
the Copyhold Acts, rr. 39 and 40 prescribe the particulars to be stated in the Copynold
account to be raised and in the request for direction to lodge. Acts.
By r. 41, " where a legal pers. represve desires to lodge funds in Court, Lodgment:
under the Trustee Act, 1893, without an affidavit, he shall leave with the by leg. pers.
Pajrmaster a request, signed by him or his soir, with a certificate of the represve;
Commrs of Inland Revenue ; such request and certificate to be in the Form
No. 16 in the Appendix to the Rules, with such variations as may be neces-
sary, or, as regards such certificate, in such other form as shall from time to
time be adopted by the said Commrs, with the consent of the Lords Commrs
of Her Majesty's Treasury. The money or securities so lodged shall be
placed to the credit mentioned in such request."
When a trustee or other person desires to lodge funds in Court in the by trustee or
Chancery Division under the Trustee Act, 1893, upon an affidavit, he shall other person;
annex to such affidavit a schedule in the same printed form as the lodgment
schedule to an order setting forth (a) his own name and address ; (b) the
amount and description of the funds proposed to be lodged in Court ; (c) the
ledger credit in the matter of the particular trust to which the funds are to be
placed ; (d) a statement whether legacy or succession duty (if chargeable) or
any part thereof has or has not been paid ; (e) a statement whether the
money or the dividends on the securities so to be lodged in Court, and
all accumulations of dividends thereon, are desired to be invested in
any and what description of government securities, or whether it is deemed
206
Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
by CO. under
Life Assur-
ance Co. 's
Act, 1896;
by CO. under
Assurance
Co.'s Act,
1909.
Closing of
transfer
books.
Adverse
orders.
Prospective
order.
unnecessary so to invest the same. An office copy of such schedule is to be
left with the Paymaster.
By r. 41, " where a co. desires to lodge money in Court under the Life
Assurance Co.'s (Payment into Court) Act, 1896, there shall be annexed to
the affidavit directed to be made by 0. liv, C, r. 1 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court, or any substituted rule, a lodgment schedule stating the title
and address of the oo., the amount of the money proposed to be lodged, and
the ledger credit to which it is to be placed ; such ledger credit shall be as
follows, with any necessary variations : — In the matter of the Policy
No. of the Co. An office copy of the schedule is to be left with the
Paymaster.
" On receipt by the Paymaster of any subsequent notice of claim trans-
mitted by such CO. pursuant to their undertaking referred to in sub-s. (e) of
the said rule, he shall retain the same and make an entry thereof in his books ;
and on any certificate of the fund to which such notice refers he shall notify
the name of the person giving such notice and the date thereof.
" The Paymaster, upon request and payment of same fee, supplies a copy
of such notice."
Every assurance oo. within the meaning of the Assurance Companies Act,
1909, shall deposit and keep deposited with the Paymaster-General for and
on behalf of the Supreme Court the sum of £20,000 which shall not be
accepted except on a warrant of the Board of Trade : see 9 Edw. VII. c. 49,
s. 2.
By 24 V. c. 3, s. 7, the Bank is authorized to close the books for the trans-
fer of the various stocks created by Act of Parliament transferable at the
Bank on any day in the month preceding that on which the dividends
thereon respectively are payable ; and the persons who on the day of the
closing of such books were inscribed as the proprietors shall, as between them
and the transferees, be entitled to the then current half-year's dividends
thereon ; and the persons to whom any transfer shall be made after the day
of the closing of such books shall not be entitled to such dividend, but shall
take such stock exclusive of the right to the said dividend.
By s. 10, the like provision is made for closing the books for the transfer
of East India stocks.
Quarterly notices are issued by the Bank, under this Act, of the closing of
the books.
For the practice as to ordering transfer of stock or payment of money into
Court adversely, see Dan. 1477 seq. As to applications by originating
summons or upon interlocutory motion for payment into Court of money in
the hands of exors or admors or trustees, see O. 55, 3 (d) ; Neville v.
Matthevyman, [1894] 3 Ch. 345 (C. A.) ; and Ingpen on Exois, p. 568.
On a motion for a writ of attachment in default, it must be proved that
the money ordered to be paid into Court is or has been in the actual posses-
sion or control of the person sought to be committed : Re Fewsler, [1901]
1 Ch. 447 ; Be WilUns, (1901) W. N. 202.
As to the form of order against a married woman, see Be Turribull, [1900]
1 Ch. 180.
At the hearing, payment in may be ordered without previous notice :
Isaacs V. Weatherstone, 10 Ha. xxx.
On a oertifioate of the Master showing a balance due from an accounting
party, he will be ordered to pay it into Court ; but not till after the expira-
tion of the eight days allowed by O. LV, 70 ; Douthwaite v. Spensky, 18 Beav.
74 ; Craven v. Ingham, 57 L. T. 486 ; 1888, W. N. 83 ; Dan. 1481.
A prospective order may be made to enable parties to pay in from time to
time : Lodgment Schedule, Forms 3 and 4.
Payment may also be directed by instalments.
The application is usually by summons in Chambers against an accounting
party if not opposed : see Dan. 1478 ; D. C. F. p. 613 ; Tompson v. Hope,
V.-C. W., 30 Jan. 1860 ; and as to who may make the application, see
Dan. 1477 seq.
SECT. I.] Lodgment. 207
BRINGING rUNDS INTO OOUBT. — MODES OF TBANSFBEEING AND
DEPOSITING VABIOUS SECURITIES.
The following " securities " may be brought into Court under sect. 3, 8, Securities
and 10 of the Ch. Funds Act, 1872, viz. : which will
llfi rGCfilVGQ
1. Those passing by delivery, as Exchequer Bills.
2. Those transferable in books, as Consols.
3. Those transferable by registered deed, as Railway Stock.
No. 1 will be deposited in Court,
Securities consisting of bonds or debentures which are deliverable, but re-
quire a transfer to complete the title, may, in some cases, be deposited with-
out a box : see Povah v. Walker, 15 Eq. 316 ; Re Oledstane, 1878, W. N. 26.
Securities of any co. out of the United Kingdom will not be received
except in a box, such securities not being included in the third section of the
Act. If considered desirable, securities comprised in Class I. may be placed
in a box.
Care must be taken to describe the securities in the schedule to the order Description,
by the description under which they are known at the Pay Office, adding the
amounts, dates, and numbers, if any, and if there are coupons attached, they
ought to be mentioned. The descriptions ought to be taken from the
securities themselves, and if there are securities of several different descrip-
tions the total amount of each description should be stated in the mandatory
part of the order. Stock should be transferred to " the account of the Pay-
master-General for the time being on behalf of the Supreme Court of
Judicature," and not " to the Paymaster-General " : Re Stephens, 8 Ch. 465.
S. C. F. R. r. 71, authorizes the Bank to deliver out securities in course of Principal and
payment, and to pay the principal andinterest into Court, and such principal interest when
money or dividends received by the Bank are to be placed to the credit of the P
same account.
Under r. 76, the money, if not directed to be invested, would be placed Money placed
upon deposit. If an option is to be given, the direction should be in the °^ deposit,
alternative.
It is not of course to direct the delivery out to the solrs in the cause of Receipt of
securities deposited for the purpose of receiving the dividends ; the trustees dividends
or exors, if there are any, being the proper persons to receive the interest ;
but it has been sometimes ordered : Broum v. Heselton, V.-C. of B., 8 Feb.
1849, A. 520.
Foreign stocks and securities, plate or jewels, and other specific articles Lodgment in
of value unascertained, are put in boxes indorsed with the short title of the boxes,
cause to which they belong, and are deposited at the Bank with the privity
of the Paymaster ; neither the Paymaster nor the Bank take any cognizance
of the contents of such boxes ; and it is not the practice of the Bank to
receive the interest on such securities.
The order usually directs that the foreign securities, or other specific
articles, shall be placed in the box in the presence of the solrs for the parties
interested.
By the Ch. Funds Amended Ord., 1874, 16, the Clerks of Records and
Writs (now the Masters of the Supreme Court, see 0. lx, 3) were prohibited
from receiving into their custody effects of the suitors consisting of jewels
or plate, or other articles of a like nature, or negotiable securities. (And
that negotiable securities would be ordered to be deposited with the Pay-
master and not with the Master : see Harvey v. Morris, 23 W. R. 21, 40.)
By O. LXi, r. 30, " where any deeds or other documents are ordered to be
left or deposited, whether for safe custody or for the purpose of any inquiry
in Chambers, or otherwise, the same shall be left or deposited in the Central
Office, and shall be subject to such directions as may be given for the
production thereof, but no effects of the suitors consisting of jewels or
plate, or other articles of a like nature, or negotiable securities, are to be so
deposited."
208
Foreign
bonds.
Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
The Paymaster will receive foreign government or railway bonds, the
coupons on which are payable to bearer in gold in London, also French
Rentes and Italian Rentes, and some other similar foreign government
securities ; in other cases the bonds must be placed in a box. The practice
as stated in Be Brackenbury, 22 W. R. 682, has been so far modified.
Time to be
stated in
order.
Endorsement.
Mode of
reckoning
time.
'Forthwith."
Lodgment
after time
expired.
TIME POK TBANSFEE OB PAYMENT.
By 0. XLI, 5, every judgment or order in any cause or matter, requiring
any person to do any act thereby ordered, is to state the time, or the time
after service of the judgment or order, within which the act is to be done,
and upon the copy of the judgment or order which is to be served upon the
person required to obey the same there is to be endorsed a memorandum in
the words or to the effect following, viz. : — " If you the within-named A. B.
neglect to obey this judgment [or order] by the time limited you will be
liable to process of execution for the purpose of compelling you to obey the
said judgment [or order]." The want of this endorsement on the order
itself (not on the copy served) will not invalidate a motion to commit for
non-compliance : Thomas v. Palin, 21 Ch. D. 360 ; Savage v. Bentley, 1904,
W. N. 89 ; but see contra, Hampden v. Wallis, 26 Ch. D. 746, C. A. If the
time be not specified, the judgment or order is not thereby rendered alto-
gether ineffectual, but an application may be made to fix a time for perform-
ance of the act : Needham y. N., 1 Ha. 633 ; Morley v. Olavering, 30 Beav,
108. As to efiect of rule and mode of enforcing judgments and orders,
see inf. p. 408 et seq.. Chap. XXVIL, " Execution."
Where Pit in an action against an exor or admor or trustee for mis-
application of trust funds takes an ordinary judgment for recovery of the
sum in question, the judgment cannot be supplemented by an order for
payment witliin a limited time, so as to found a right to issue a writ
of attachment against the Deft in default of payment : Re Oddy, [1906]
1 Ch. 93.
Sometimes the order directs the transfer or payment to be made on a fixed
day, or subsequently within a time after service in the alternative, to allow
an opportunity of complying before service, or in case there should be a delay
in serving the order. If the order is served before the fixed day the person
ordered to pay will have until the fixed day, or to the time limited after
service, whichever shall be last.
In reckoning time, months, unless otherwise expressed, are calendar
months ; Sunday, Christmas Day, and Good Friday are not to be reckoned
when the time limited is less than six days ; and when the time expires on a
day on which the offices are closed the act or proceeding will be in time on
the next day the offices are open : 0. lxiv, 1 — 3 ; and see Re Railway Sleepers
Supply Co., 29 Ch. D. 204, as to the computation of time generallj'.
Notwithstanding Thomas v. Nohes, 6 Eq. 521, the word " forthwith " has
not in practice been considered a sufficient limitation of time within this
rule : see Gilbert v. Endean, 9 Ch. D. 259, C. A. ; but see contra, Halford v.
Hardy, 1899, W. N. 243 ; 81 L. T. 721 ; and see inf. Chap. XXVIL, " Execu-
tion."
Funds, &c., may be brought into Court although the time limited by the
order has expired ; any further sums payable for interest or dividends may
be paid in upon request without prejudice to any liability, &c., such person
may have become subject to by reason of his default as to time : S. C. F. R.
r. 36.
SECT. II.] Payment of Dividends and Interest, d-c.
209
Section II. — Payment of Dividends and Interest, and transfer, sale,
OR CARRYING OVER OF SECURITIES.
Order that the funds in Court \or so to be lodged] be dealt with as directed in
the schedule hereto.
Forms of Payment Schedules.
In the High Court of Justice, Date of order, 1889.
Chancery Division. Title of cause or matter. A.v.B. 1900. A. 15.
Ledger Credit [If same title of cause or matter] " as above " [add account, if any].
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
1. Payment of dividends
to life tenant.
By Supreme Court Funds
Tlules, 1906, r. 3, the word
"interest" in the Schedule
shall, unless otherwise speci-
fied, mean the dividends and
interest on all the funds men-
tioned in the heading.
Pay interest as it accrues
during life of payee.
A. B., of, &c.
£ s. d.
£ .. d.
2. To private trustees.
In Ex parte the Mayor of
Manchester, North, J., re-
fused to apply the words "or
either of them " in the case
of payment of interest to
private trustees. See letter
to G. lavie.Kegistrar, 4 May,
1897.
See D. C. F. 907; Dan.
1491, 1495.
Pay interest as it accrues
(if so) during life of G.
A., B., and C, as
trustees of the
indenture,dated
&c. [or of the
will of X. de-
ceased].
3. To trustees of charity.
Pay interest as it accrues.
A., B., and C, as
trustees of the
charity, or, if so
ordered, any two
of them, or to the
trustees of the
said charity tor
the time being, or
any two of them.
Where there are
numerous trustees,
and it is desired
that only some
should give apower
of attorney, add,
or to the attorney
of any two or
more of them.
4. To a corporation sole.
Pay interest as it accrues.
The Reverend
A., of, &c,, as
rector of the
parish of C,
or other, the
rector of the
said parish for
the time being.
VOL. I.
210
Lodgment and Payment of Funds.
[chap. XVI.
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by tlie
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
5. To a corporation ag-
gregate.
Pay interest as it accrues.
A. B. as secretary
or treasurer of, &c.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
6. To a treasurer
See D. C. F. 907.
Pay interest as it accrues.
C. D., of, &o., as
treasurerof,&c.,
or other the
treasurer of the
said corpora-
tion for the
time being.
7. To a married woman,
entitled for her sepa-
rate use.
See S. C. F. R. 63 (b).
Pay interest as it accrues
during life of payeie.
A. B., of, &c.,
married woman.
8. To a divorced woman.
Pay interest as it accrues
during life of A. B.
A. B., of, &c., a
single woman.
9. To a widow until her
second marriage.
Pay interest as it accrues
during widowhood of
payee.
A. B., of, &o.,
widow.
10. To husband and wife
for life successively.
See D. C. F. 906.
Pay interest as it accrues
during life of payee.
Upon his death, in case
C. D., his wife, shall
survive him, pay in-
terest as it accrues from
the last half-yearly day
of payment of interest
preceding A. B.'s death
during life of payee.
A. B., of, &o.
C. D., at present
a married
woman.
11. To two persons, and
the survivor.
Pay interest as it accrues
during the joint lives of
payees or the survivor
of them.
A. B. and C. D.
12, Until a sum certain
has been received.
Pay interest as it accrues
during the life of C, or
until payee shall have
received £ — .
Subject to the payment of
the said £ — , pay the
said interest.
A. B., of, &o.
C, of, &o.
SECT. II. J Payment of Dioidends and Interest, cjr
211
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
13. Until costs have hem
received.
Pay interest as it accrues
during the life of C, or
until the balance (to be
certified by the Taxing
Master) of the costs of
the said C. be fuUy dis-
charged.
Subject to the payment of
the said costs, pay the
said interest.
A. B., of, &c.,
solicitor.
C, of, &o.
£ s. d.
£ 8, d.
14. VrUil alienation . . .
Upon production of an
affidavit by A. B., that
she has not alienated
her Ufe interest .under
the indenture dated,
&c.
Pay interest as it accrues
during life of payee.
A. B., of, &c.
15. Urdil interest shall
cease to he payable.
Pay interest as it accrues
during life of payee, or
until the same shall from
any cause whatever
cease to be payable
into her own hands, the
fact that the interest
has not ceased to be so
payable be verified by
her affidavit.
C. D., widow.
16. Until disqualified hy
bankruptcy.
Upon production of an
affidavit by payee that
he has not become
bankrupt, or assigned,
or charged, or done
some act or thing
whereby, or by opera-
tion of law, the said
interest on, &c., has be-
come vested in some
other person or persons,
or some other person or
persons have acquired
an interest therein.
A. B., of, &c.
17. Until disqualified hy
becoming a Roman
Catholic.
In re Kneeshaw, Bohson
V. Loxley, 28th June, 1884,
Pearson, J., refused to dis-
pense with the affidavit
being made by the payee
herself.
Upon production of an
affidavit by payee that
he has not con-
formed to or professed
the Roman Catholic
religion, pay interest as
it accrues during life of
payee.
A. B., of, &c.
;i2
Lodgment and Payment of Funds. [chap. xvi.
Particulars of Payments,
Transfeia, or other Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
18. To a married woman
restrained from anti-
cipation.
Pay interest as it accrues
during life of payee, but
(she being restrained
from anticipation) not
to any Attorney, ex-
cept upon production of
an affidavit by her that
she has not assigned or
purported to assign such
interest.
A. B., married
woman.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
19. Quarterly payments.
See S. C. F. R. 1905, r.
19; D. C. F. 908.
Out of interest as it
accrues, if so during life
of A. B., pay £ — a year,
if so, without deducting
income tax, by equal
quarterly payments of
£ — on the — day of — ;
the — day of — ^ ; the
— day of — ; and the
— day of — ; in every
year beginning on,
&c.
Pay residue of interest . .
0. D., of, &o.
E. F., of, &o.
20. Toamortgageeuutil a
given sum and inter e st
has been made up.
Pay interest as it accrues
during Ufe of A. B.,
and until payee shaU
have received £ — , and
interest thereon at the
rate of £ — per centum
per annum from the
— day, &c., or on so
much of the said £ — as
shall for the time being
remain unpaid.
C. D., of, &o.
21. To the life tenant,
subject to the above.
Subject to the above pay-
ment, pay the said in-
terest.
A. B., of, &o.
22. Maintenance of in-
fants.
Pay interest as it accrues
during minority of A.
B.
C. D., of, &c.
23. Maintenance of in-
fants, another form.
Pay interest as it accrues
up to the — 1905, if the
infant A. B. shall so long
live.
C. D., of, &c.
SECT. II.] Payment of Dividends and Interest, ^'C.
213
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
24. Maintenance of in-
fanta — periodical
payments.
Out of interest as it accrues
during minority of A.
B. {or up to the — 1905,
if the irifant A. B. shall
60 long live), pay on
the — day &c., and
the — day &c., in every
year beginning on the
— day of — if so [free
of income tax].
C. D., of, &c.
£ s. d.
100 0 0
£ .. d.
25. Payment of annuities
(receipts for duty to
he produced to the
Paymaster).
Outof interest as itaoorues
during lives of respec-
tive payees, pay, sub-
ject to duty, on the —
day &c., the — day
&o., the — day &o.,
and the — day &c., in
every year, in discharge
of their respective an-
nuities
A. B., of, &o. . .
0. D., of, &c. . .
25 0 0
10 0 0
26. Payment of legacy,
receipt for duty to be
produced to the Pay-
master.
Pay, subject to duty . . .
A. B., of, &o. . .
100 0 0
27. Duty payable by in-
stahnents.
Out of interest as it ac-
crues during lite of
payee.
Pay duty by four equal
annual instalments, the
first of such instalments
to be paid on the — day
of —
Pay residue of interest.
H., widow.
28. Payment of duty .. .
Duty includes all duty
payable to the Commis-
sioners of Inland Bevenue,
S.C.F.B. 1905, 3.
Pay duty.
29. The like, duty having
been assessed.
Pay assessed amount of
duty.
■■
250 0 0
214
Lodgment and Payment of Funds. [chap. svi.
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
30. Payment of duty at
different rates out of
whole fund.
Pay duty.
Add to residue of funds
for the purpose of com-
putation amount of
duty.
Pay aggregate as under : —
One-third, less duty
payable in respect
thereof.
One-third, less duty
payable in respect
thereof.
Remaining one-third,
less duty payable in
respect thereof.
A. B.
CD.
E. F.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
31. Payment of costs . .
Certificate of taxation to
be produced to the Pay-
master. See D. C. F. 919.
Pay costs to be taxed
under this order.
32. The nice, where costs
have been assessed in
Chambers.
Pay assessed costs of A. B.,
of, &o.
Messrs. C. D., of,
&c., his solici-
tors.
24 0 4
33. The like, where costs
are to be apportioned
between two or more
funds.
Pay costs to be taxed
under this order and
apportioned totheabove
funds.
34. The liJce, where fund
to be apportioned.
Pay sums to be appor-
tioned by the Tayinj
Master's certificate in
respect of the costs to
be taxed under this
order.
35. Payment of difference
between costs taxed as
between party and
party arid solicitor
and client.
Pay difference of costs of
(Pit) to be taxed under
this order as between
party and party and as
between solicitor and
client.
36. Payment of fees of
taxation:S.G.F.B.
1905, 67 (o). .
Carry over fees on pro-
ceedings and taxation.
••
9 5 0
SECT. II."] Payment of Dividends and Interest, dc.
215
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
37. Transfer out of Court.
Transfer Consols.
A. B
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
250 0 0
38. Transfer and carry-
ing over of portions
of railway stock.
Transfer Lancashire and
Yorkshire Railway Co.
4 per centum Debenture
Stock.
Carry over like stock. . . ,
A. B
" Account of C.
D., an infant
bom 25 Feb.
1879."
■•
1,500 0 0
1,500 0 0
39. Transfer of residue of
Consols and payment
of interest on other
funds in proportion-
ate parts.
Transfer and pay residue
of Consols and any in-
terest as under : —
One-tenth
A. B.
CD.
E. F.
Three-tenths
Six-tenths
40. Transfer to trustees
when appointed and
to ie named in Mas-
ter's certificate.
Transfer Consols
The persona to be
named in Mas-
ter's certificate
as having been
appointed trus-
tees of the will
of A. B.
500 0 0
41. Invest in different
stocks.
See D. C. F. 941, 942.
Invest as near as practicable
the following amounts in
the following securities :
(1) In Great Western Rail-
way £5 per centum De-
benture Stock.
(2) In Midland Railway, £2i
per centum Debenture
Stock.
Invest residue in Consols.
••
3,500 0 0
3,500 0 0
42. Delivery out of secu-
rities passing by de-
livery.
See D. C. V. 928.
Deliver out the following
Brazilian £4 per centum
Bonds, 1883 :
No. — , dated — .
No. — , dated— , &c.,
&o.
100 0 0
100 0 0
43. Conversion of bonds
info stock.
Paymaster-General to take
all necessary steps for con-
verting the N. Z. bonds in
Court into £ — 4 per cen-
tum N. Z. stock inscribed
at the Bank of England in
exercise of the option men-
tioned in the notice issued
by the Bank of England,
dated, &c.
Pay interest as it accrues on
said N. Z. stock.
CD.
216
Lodgment and Payment of Funds. [chap. xvi.
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or otlier Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
44. Conversion of Cheat
Indian Peninsula
By. Co. Stock.
Paymaster-General to take
all necessary steps to apply
for the sum of £ — New
Stock of the Great Indian
Peninsula Railway Co.,
offered in part satisfaction
of the annuity in respect
of the above-mentioned
£— Capita] Stock of the
said Co. under circular
letter dated, &c., and to
accept **B" annuities for
the unconverted residue of
the cash value of the said
Capital Stock.
£ s. d.
£ <,. d.
45. Conversion of Indian
Railway Stock to
India £3 10«. per
centum Stock,
Paymaster to take all neces-
sary steps to exchange £ —
Capital Stock Scinde Pun-
jaub and Delhi Bailway Co.
for India £3 lOg. per cen-
tum stock in accordance
with the offer of the Secre-
tary of State for India con-
tained in the notice dated,
Ac, from the secretary of
the above railway company.
46. Payment to a person
not in his own right.
Pay
A. B., of, &c., as
legal personal re-
presentative of,
&c., or as trustee
of, &c., or as
guardian of, &c.
47. Payment to official
persom : S. C. F. R.
1905, r. 52.
Pay
The official trus-
tees of charit-
able funds.
600 0 0
48. To the Treasury . . .
Pay
His Majesty's
Paymaster-Ge-
neral " cash
account."
365 6 8
49. Payment to a person's
account at the Post
Office Savings Bank.
Pay
The Paymaster-
General for the
Savings Bank
account of A.B.
50 0 0
50. Carrying over securi-
ties of a certain value
at a certain day.
Carry over so much Con-
sols aa at the Bank
average price of the day
[or if not a Qovemment
Security) as at the aver-
age market price of the
day shall be equivalent
to£— .
SECT. II. ] Payment of Dividends and Interest, dc.
217
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
Payees and Trans-
Amounts.
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Money.
Securities.
£ «. d.
£ «. d.
51. Transfer of Securi-
Transfer Consols
The Commission-
, ,
200 0 0
ties ore account of re-
ers for the Re-
demption of Land
duction of the
Tax.
National debt
on account of
redemption of
. the Land Tax
pursuant to
Act;22. 12.1798
Contract Ac-
count.
62. Transfer of stock and
Transfer Consols
The Accountant-
2,000 0 0
payment of cash to
General of the
the ChanuryDivision
Supreme Court
of the High Court in
of Judicature
Ireland.
in Ireland for
the credit of
the account of,
&c.
Pay cash
The same.
115 0 0
63. Payment to a married
Pay
A. B., of, &o.,
woman, not in her
married woman,
own right.
as legal per-
sonal represen-
tative of, &o.,
or as trustee of,
&c., or as guar-
dian of, &c.
64. Payment to an infant
On or after the — day of.
on coming of age on a
&c.
given date.
Pay.
A. B., of, &o.
65. Bringing advances into
Add to residue of funds and
hotchpot.
any interest £ — (totoi of
advances) for purpose of
computation.
Divide aggregate into four
equal parts and deal with
as under :
Pay l-4th
A. B.,of —
C. D., of —
Pay l-4th, less £— iammmi
advamced to C. J).).
Out of l-4th—
Pay £— , principal due under
X. Y. {mortgagee of
mortgage dated, &o., and
E. F.'s share).
interest thereon at the rate
of £ — per centum per
annum from, &c.
Pay residue of such 4th.
E. F., of —
Deal with l-4th as under : —
Pay l-8th less £ — {ammJint
G. H., of —
advanced to G. H.)
Carry over l-8th.
Account of J. K.
Carry over l-8th.
Account of L. M.
Pay l-8th.
0. P., of —
Pay l-8th.
Q.E.,of —
Pay l-8th.
S. T., of —
Pay l-8th.
TJ. V.,of —
Pay l-8th.
X. Y., of—
218
Lodgment and Payment of Funds. [chap. xvi.
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities,
56. Payment for erection
of buildings upon a
Master's certificate.
Pay such sums as shall
from time to time be
certified to be proper to
be paid in respect of the
buildings in this order
mentioned.
The person or
persons to be
certified to be
entitled to re-
ceive the same.
£ s. d.
£ *. d.
57. Settlement money in
Court tobe invested in
land to he registered
mth an indefeasible
title.
Upon production of an affi-
davit showing that the
defendants A. & B. are
registered as absolute
owners of the heredita-
ments at, &c., sell suffi-
cient Consols to raise
£2,200.
Pay
C. B.
2,200 0 0
58. Payment of premium
on apprenticeship of
infant and of sum
for outfit.
Upon the execution of the
indenture of apprentice-
ship directed by this
order by such parties
thereto as the Judge
shall direct being cer-
tified—
Sell sufficient Consols to
raise £350.
Pay to such person or per-
sons as shall be certified
as entitled to receive the
same.
Pay
A. B. as guardian
of C. D.
300 0 0
50 0 0
59. Transfer out of Court
to trustees of settle-
ment on marriage of
a ward.
Upon the execution of the
indenture of settlement
directed by this order by
such parties thereto as
the Judge shall direct,
and upon the solemniza-
tion of the marriage
between E. & !F. being
certified —
Transfer Consols —
A. B. and C. D.
as trustees of
the said inden-
ture of settle-
ment.
••
10,000 0 0
60. Further consideration;
assets sufficient; pay-
ment ofcreditorSfWith
subsequent interest.
No direction for payment
of Income Tax is necessary
when the interest is to be
calculated by the Pay-
master. Semble, when the
Interest is an ascertained
amount there must be a
direction for payment of
Income Tax deducted there-
from.
Sell sufficient Consols to
raise £ — , together with
interest thereon at the
rate of £ — per centum
per annum from the —
day of — .
Pay £ — , together with in-
terest as above.
A. B., of, &o.
SECT. II. j Payment of Dividends and Interest, <^-c.
219
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by tlae
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
61. FurOier consideration;
assets deficient ; ap-
portionment among
creditors.
Pay Slims to be ap-
portioned to credi-
tors by Master's certi-
ficate.
(// any part of above sums
is interest add) Pay cer-
tified amount of Income
Tax.
The persons to
whom they
shall be certi-
fied to be pay-
able.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
62. TJie like, wiihout a
certificate.
Pay residue to creditors
named in second column,
rateably in proportion
to the amounts set op-
posite to their names in
this column —
(// so) no part thereof
being in respect of in-
terest.
£27 : 18s. %d.
£18 : 2s. 5d.
W. S., of, &o.
J. J., of, &c.
63. Purchase of govern-
ment annuity by
transfer of stock.
Transfer such a sum of
Consols as shall be the
amount at which the
plaintiff shall contract
for the purchase of a
government annuity of
£ — , or aa near as may
be to, but not less than,
that sum on the life of
A. B.
The Commission-
ers for the Re-
duction of the
National Debt.
64. Accumulation beyond
legal limits.
Transfer to Crown under
39 & 40 Vict. c. 18.
Transfer Consols (repre-
senting accumulation of
rents and profits of
real estate since — ).
The Treasury soli-
citor, and the
assistant pay-
master-general,
per Act 39 & 40
Vict. c. 18, "The
Crown's Nomi-
nee Securities
Account."
65. Investment of funds
in Court in land.
Upon the execution of the
conveyance directed by
this order, by such par-
ties thereto as the Judge
shall direct being cer-
tified—
Sell sufficient Consols to
raise £1,500.
Pay such person or persons
as shall be certified to
be entitled to receive
the same.
1,500 0 0
220
Lodgment and Payment of Funds. [chap. xvi.
Particulars of Payments,
Transfers, or other Operations
to be carried out by the
Paymaster.
Payees and Trans-
ferees, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
66. The nice, without a
certificate.
S. C. P. R. r. 18.
See D. C. F. 937.
Upon the execution by,
&c., of the conveyance
dated, &o., and made
between, &c., and identi-
fied by the signature of
the master, being veri-
fied by affidavit.
Sell, &o.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
67. Investment of money
paid in under Lands
Clauses Consolidation
Act.
See D. C. I". 942.
Invest in Consols (or
other investment) without
deducting brokerage.
1,700 0 0
68. Investment and ac-
cumulation.
Invest and accumulate in
Consols.
••
1,500 0 0
69. Investment and carry-
ing over to separate
account.
Invest in Consols.
Account of X.Y.Z.
70. Where stop order on
the fund requires
notice to he given.
Notwithstanding restraint
dated, &o. (or if Stop
Order is discharged) The
restraint dated, &o., is
hereby discharged.
71. Where the order alters
the destination, or
mode of distribution
of the fund.
Notwithstanding the order
dated, &c., and in lieu
of the direction for (state
direction) therein con-
tained.
72. When under S.20 ..
S. C. F. E. 1905, 72 (a).
Invest in Consols, not-
withstanding smallness
of amount.
73. Where a dormant
fund is dealt with
otherwise than as pro-
vided for in S.C.F.B.
r. 101.
Notwithstanding that the
funds have not been dealt
with during the last
fifteen years.
74. Transfer of funds in
Court to (Manchester)
District Registry.
On a requisition from the
Registrar of the (Man-
chester) District of the
Chancery of the County
Palatine of Lancaster.
Transfer Consols.
The Chancery of
of Lancaster's
General Suitor's
Fund Account
at the Man-
chester Branch
of the Bank of
England.
2.000 0 0
SECT. ii.J Payment of Dividends and Interest, <^c.
221
Lodgment and Payment Schedule.
In the High Court of Justice,
Chancery Division. Title of cause or matter. A. v. B. 1900. A. 15.
Ledger Credit. [// same title of cause or matter] As above. [Add account, if any.]
I. — Lodgment.
Persons to make the Lodgment.
Amounts.
Particulars ot Funds to be Lodged.
Money.
Securities.
Cash
Consols
C. D. and E. F
Y.Z
£ s. d.
100 0 0
£ s. d.
6,000 0 0
II. — Payment.
£1000. Consols in Court.
Eunds to be dealt with. — Funds to be lodged as above.
Particulars of Payments, Transfers,
or other Operations to be carried
out by the Paymaster.
Payments, Transfers, or Titles of
Separate Accounts.
Amounts.
Money.
Securities.
Invest cash to be lodged in
Consols.
Pay interest as it accrues during
the life of, &c., on Consols and
on Consols to be purchased.
X., of, &c.
£ s. d.
£ o. d.
222 Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
SPECIAL FORM SETTLED BY PAYMASTER-GENERAL.
FoEM OF Order authorizing Paymaster-General to sign Proxy in
favour of the Plaintiff's Solicitor to Vote in respect of Stock
in Court and for Sale by the same out of Court of shares not in
Court.
Upon the application (by summons dated 7th January, 1901) of
E. Y. W., and upon hearing the sobs for the applicant and for the
Pit and for the Deft G., and upon reading two orders both dated the
13th July, 1900 [enter other evidence], and the certificate of the funds;
And J. W. P. and others [naming them] (who with the Pit S. and the
Deft E. Y. W. are the trustees of the B. Museum) appearing by their
solrs and consenting ; It is ordered that the applicant be at liberty to
sell out of Court by private contract through a stockbroker the 7500
" B " shares of £1 each, 16«. 8d. per share paid up, in the [name] Co.,
Limited (such shares forming one of the securities for the debt of
£10,171 : Os. 5d., with £323 : Os. lOd. arrears of interest thereon to
23rd November, 1900, and subsequent interest due from C. M. P. to
the testator's estate) in lots as and when purchasers can be found for
the same, at such prices as the applicant shall think fit, not being less
than lis. per share ; And it is ordered that the Paymaster-General do
sign until further order a standing proxy in favour of the applicant
E. Y. W. to the purport or effect of the form contained in the Order
Schedule hereto. And it is ordered that the funds in Court be
dealt with as directed in the Payment Schedule hereto.
Order Schedule.
Form of Standing Proxy.
I, — , of the Supreme Court Pay Office, Royal Courts of Justice,
London, Deputy Assistant Paymaster-General for Supreme Court
business on behalf of His Majesty's Paymaster-General, being a
member of J. B. and Partners, Limited, in respect of £42,465 : Is. lOd.
stock in that co. which pursuant to an order dated the 13th July, 1900,
of the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) in the action of " Re
John Bowes, deceased. Earl of Strathmore v. Vane, 1885, B. 5880,"
has been transferred into Court " The said action ' The security from
SECT. II.] Pay7nent of Dividends and Interest, etc.
C. M. P., dated — , 18—,' " do hereby in pursuan.ce of an order of the
said Court made in the said action dated the 11th day of January,
1901, appoint B. Y. W. of &c., solr, or failing him such person as he
may from time to time appoint as his substitute as the proxy of the
said Paymaster-General to vote for him and on his behalf in respect
of the said stock at all general meetings of the co., whether ordinary
or extraordinary, and at all adjournments thereof which may hence-
forth be held until this instrument of standing proxy shall be revoked,
which it may be either by any written notice to the said co. given on
behalf of the said Paymaster-General for the time being or by any
order of the High Court of Justice to be made in the said action.
As witness my hand this — day of — , 1901.
223
Payment Schedule.
nth January, 1901.
In the High Court of Justice,
Chancery Division.
Re J. B., deceased, Earl ofS. v. V. 1885. B. 5880.
Ledger Credit. As above. " The Security from C. M. P., dated —
18—."
Funds in Court. £42,465 : Is. lOd. Stock of J. B. and Partners,
Limited.
Particulars of Payment, Transfers,
or othei- operations to t>e carried
out by the Paymaster.
Payees and Transferees, or Titles
of Separate Accounts.
Am
Money.
ounts.
Securities.
The Assistant Paymaster
or Deputy Assistant Pay-
master is to sign a stand-
ing proxy in favour of
the Deft E. Y. W. to the
purport and effect con-
tained in the Order Sche-
dule hereto.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
Re Bowes, deceased, Strathmore v. Vane, Cozens-Hardy, J., 11 Jan.
1901, A. 79.
224
Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [ohap. xvi.
NOTES.
SUPEEME COURT JfUSTDS RTJLBS, 1905.
Instructions By S. C. P. R. 1905, r. 10, the instructions and particulars contained in
to Paymaster. ^ lodgment or payment schedule shall not be set forth in the body of the
order, but shall only be therein referred to as appearing by the schedule,
unless for any special cause it shall in the opinion of the Judge or registrar
be necessary to set forth some part of such instructions or particulars both
in the body of the order and in the schedule.
Payment to Where pajrment is directed to a woman, she must be described as
a woman, " spinster," or as " married woman," or as "widow," or as "single woman,"
description, jf divorced.
Certificate for By r. 12, when an order directs payment out of a fund in Court of any
payment of
taxed costs.
Interest, how
ascertained.
Dealing con-
tingent on
execution of
some docu-
ment.
Periodical
payments.
Funds sub-
ject to duty.
Payment,
transfer, or
delivery to
trustees, &o.
Particulars to
be inserted.
Separate
account.
costs directed to be taxed, the taxing officer is to state the name and address
of the person to whom such costs are payable. See D. C. F. 939.
Rules 13 to 16 provide as to the manner in which interest is to be ascer-
tained, both on lodgments in Court and payments out ; and by r. 17 income
tax is always to be deducted, unless otherwise ordered. See D. C. F. 939.
By r. 18, whenever the dealing by the Paymaster with funds in Court is,
by an order, made contingent upon the execution of some document, it must
be so expressed in the payment schedule. The execution of such docu-
ment is to be certified by a Master in Lunacy, or by a Master : provided
that in the case of a document in existence at the date of the order, and
sufficiently identified in the schedule, the execution may be directed to be
verified by affidavit. Such certificate or affidavit is to state the particular
amount of funds to be dealt with, and is to be printed, or partly printed, and
as nearly as may be in the Form No. 6 appended to the rules. For forms,
see D. C. F. 937.
By r. 19, when an order directs payment of dividends, annuities, or
other periodical payments, there is to be stated in the payment schedule
(except in the case of dividends payable as they accrue due), the time when
the first of such payments and all subsequent periodical payments, whether
quarterly, half-yearly, yearly or otherwise, are to be made.
By r. 20, when an order directs payment, transfer, or delivery of funds
in Court, in respect of which legacy or estate or succession duty is payable,
and does not direct payment of such duty, it is to be stated in the payment
schedule that such payment, &o., is subject to duty, and in such case the
Paymaster is to have regard to the circumstance that such duty is payable ;
and when funds in respect of whichsuch duty may be chargeable are directed
to be invested, carried over, or placed to a separate account, the words
" subject to duty " are to be added in the schedule to the separate account
directed to be opened.
By r. 66 the Paymaster before acting upon an order under r. 20 is to
require the production of the receipt or certificate of payment of duty.
On payment out of a settled fund it is not the practice to provide for
future duties which have not become payable : Re Bowes, 1907, W. N. 198.
By r. 21, when a person to whom payment, transfer, or delivery of funds
id Court is directed is entitled thereto as real estate, or as trustee, exor, or
admor, or otherwise than in his own right or for his own use, the fact that
he is entitled to the same as real estate, or the character in which he is so
entitled, is to be stated in the payment schedule, or in the certificate of a
chief clerk, or of a Taxing Master, or of a Master in Lunacy.
Generally as to the form of and particulars to be inserted in Lodgment and
Payment Schedules, see rr. 5 & 6 in S. C. F. R.
By r. 7, when funds in Court are by an order directed to be carried over
to a separate account, the title of the ledger credit to be opened for the
purpose unless the order otherwise directs, is to commence with the title
of the cause or matter to which such funds are standing; and by r. 9,
SECT. 11.] Payment of Funds and Dividends, 225
when funds standing to two or more ledger credits are dealt with by the
same order, separate payment schedules shall be made out for such ledger
credits respectively.
By r. 48, payments may be made by post, subject to the conditions con- Payments
tained in such rule. For forms, see D. C. F. 925 et seq. by post.
By r. 52, when money in Court is by an order directed to be paid to any Payments to
public officer or department, or to the official liquidator, of any company, or public officer,
any other official person for whom an account is kept at the bank, payment
thereof shall, on a request to that effect, be made by a direction to the bank
to transfer the amount of such payment to the proper account at the bank
accordingly. When any duty is directed to be paid out of funds in Court,
such duty shall, without any words in the order to that effect, be assessed,
and on a request made by or on behalf of the Commrs of Inland Revenue,
transferred to the proper account at the bank.
Rules 55, 56, 57, and 58 provide for the application of dividends accruing Accruing
on securities directed to be dealt with. dividends.
Rules 59 and 60 provide for the application of money or dividends placed Money on
on deposit after the date of the order, and of any interest credited deposit,
thereon.
As to payment of small sums (under £100) without admon to persons
entitled to admon to an intestate, see O. xxii, 18a.
Rule 61 provides for funds ordered to be paid, transferred or delivered Woman
to a woman, who afterwards marries. marrying
Money directed to be paid to persons described as co-partners may be paid order,
to any one or more of them, or the survivor of them (see r. 63) ; and funds Survivor,
directed to be paid, &c. to any persons as legal pers. represves may, on proof
of the death of any one of them, be paid, &c. to the survivors or survivor of
them : see r. 64 ; but no funds will be paid under this rule and under r. 62
unless the probate or letters of admon have been granted within six years
from the date of the order, or, in case such funds consist of interest or
dividends, from the date of the last receipt thereof : see r. 65. For forms of
affidavit, see D. C. F. 934, 935.
As to dispensing with letters of admon on payment out of small sums, Dispensing
see r. 62 and O. xxrt, 18a. with letters
As a general rule funds in Court belonging to the estate of a deceased °^ admon.
person will not, after the expiration of ten years from his death, be paid to Notice to
his legal pers. represve without notice to beneficiaries : Practice Note, beneficiaries.
1904, W. N. 135.
It is the settled practice of the Court not to pay out to nominees of or to Nominees,
persons other than the persons actually entitled except on the usual power
of attorney required by the Paymaster-General ; except (1) in the case of
corporations, where the petition has been sealed with the corporate seal ;
and (2) in the case of the Mayor and Corporation of the City of London,
on whose unsealed petition it is the practice to pay out to the Chamberlain
of the City. There is now no exception in case of small sums under £10 :
Be Brettingham, 1904, W. N. 168.
An application for payment out of Court by a person claiming to be Affidavit of
absolutely entitled to money in Court, representing real estate, should be "° inoum-
supported by an affidavit of no incumbrances, which prima facie should be '"■^"<'^-
made by the applicant : Williams v. Ware, 57 L. J. Ch. 497 ; 58 L. T. 876
(as to personalty, see post, p. 310). This rule does not apply to personal
estate: EdwardsY. Qrove, 1906, W. N. 191.
As to the right of the Master in Lunacy in New South Wales, in respect Person of un-
of a fund in Court belonging to a person of unsound mind, not so found, sound mind
resident in that colony, see Re Barlow's Will, 36 Ch. D. 287, C. A. ; and that resident in
the Court in such a case would be justified in paying to the colonial Master colony,
in Lunacy any sums which the competent authority in the colony decided to
be necessary for the maintenance or benefit of the non compos, lb. ; and
V. inf. Vol. II. p. 967.
Where a person absolutely entitled to a fund in Court came of age, the ^'"°'' coming
VOL. I. Q ° '^^^'
226
Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
Persons
entitled in
succession.
Procedure.
Payment out
to person not
entitled.
Court declined to allow the fund to remain in Court, and to order payment
of the interest only : Isaac v. Oompertz, 1 Ves, jun. 44.
Where several persons are entitled to interests for life in succession,
the Court usually only directs payment to the first for life, with liberty to
apply on his death, when a further order must be obtained , but if husband
and wife are so entitled, the Court directs payment to them in succession,
and the Paymaster continues the payment to the survivor upon proof of
the death of the other.
A fund in Court held on such trusts as two persons should by deed jointly
appoint, and subject thereto upon trust for one of them for life, with re-
mainder to the other, was paid out to them without execution of a deed of
appointment : Be Winstanley's Settlement, 1886, W. N. 92 ; 54 L. T. 840.
As to when applications for payment out of Court should he by summons
in Chambers, v. inf. Chap. XVIII., " Chambebs."
As to mode of procedure where money was paid out of Court to persons
not entitled, upon a forged affidavit, see Slater v. S., 58 L. T. 149 ; 59 L. T.
315 ; [1896] 1 Ch. 222, n. ; and as to the liability of the Treasury under s. 5
of 35 & 36 V. c. 44, to make good default out of the Consolidated Fund, see
In re Williams Settled Estate, [1910] 2 Ch. 481 ; Bath v. Bath, [1901] 1 Ch.
460 ; Jones v. Jones, [1901] 1 Ch. 464, n.
For form of order for making good a loss occasioned to the Consolidated
Fund through payment of a fund out of Court to the wrong person, see
Marsh v. Joseph, [1897] 1 Ch. 213.
DEALINGS WITH ffUNDS IN COURT.
By the Supreme Court of Jud. (Funds, &c.) Act, 1883 (46 & 47 V. c. 29),
s. 7, " any rules made by the L. C., with the concurrence of the Treasury,
under the provisions of the Ch. Funds Act, 1872, or this Act, may determine
what evidence of an order of the High Court of Justice, or Court of Appeal,
and of the directions contained in such order, shall be necessary or sufficient "
to authorize the transfer, or sale, or delivery out of funds standing to the
credit of the account of the Paymaster.
All dealings with funds in Court are now regulated by the S. C. F. R.
1905, made in pursuance of tliis and previous Acts.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 905 et seq.
Investment
of accruing
dividends.
Authorized
investments.
INVESTMENTS.
By r. 69, when an order directs investment and accumulation of funds in
Court, the Paymaster, upon receipt of a copy of the order, is to invest the
dividends from time to time until he receives an order or request to the
contrary ; if a subsequent order is made dealing with any part of the
funds the direction to invest and accumulate should be inserted. Under
r. 70 the proceeds of Exchequer bills will be reinvested in Exchequer bills.
A sum of money in Court less than £20 (r. 72) is not to be invested in
securities unless an order directs such investment notwithstanding the
smallness of the amount.
By r. 75, the Pajrmaster is at liberty in all cases to cease to invest upon a
request of the solr for the person claiming to be entitled to or interested
in the fund in Court. See D. C. F. 941.
The investment cannot be made through private brokers : Exp. BoUon
Junction Ely., 24:Vf. R. 451 ; 34 L. T. 230; 1876, W. N. 80 j Be West
Biding, &c. By., 24 W. R. 357 ; 34 L. T. 168.
Cash under the control of or subject to the order of the Court may be
invested (0. xxii, 17) in the following stocks, funds, or securities, namely —
Two and three-quarters p. o. consolidated stock (to be called after the
5th April, 1 903, 2^ p. c. consolidated stock) ; consolidated £3 p. o. annuities ;
reduced £3 p. c. annuities; £2 : 15a. p. c. annuities; £2 : lOa. p. c. annuities ;
Local Loans stock under the National Debt and Local Loans Act, 1887 ;
Exchequer bills ; Bank stock ; India 3J p. c. stock ; India 3 p. c. stock ;
Indian guaranteed railway stocks or shares, provided in each case that such
SECT. II.] Investments. '2,27
stocks or shares shall not be liable to be redeemed within a period of fifteen
years from the date of investment ; stocks of colonial governments guaran-
teed by the Imperial Government, or in respect of which the provisions
of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, and of sect. 2 (2) of the Trustee Act, 1893,
are for the time being complied with ; mortgage of freehold and copyhold
estates respectively in England and Wales ; Metropolitan Consolidated
Stock, £3 : 10s. p. c. ; 3 p. o. Metropolitan Consolidated Stock ; 2J p. o.
Metropolitan Consolidated Stock ; 2^ p. o. London County Consolidated
Stock ; 3 p. c. London County Consolidated Stock ; 3^- p. c. London County
Council Stock ; inscribed 2J p. c. debenture stock issued by the Corporation
of London, and secured by a trust deed dated 24th June, 1897 ; inscribed
3 p. 0. debenture stock issued by the Corporation of London, and secured
by supplemental trust deed dated 1st June, 1905 ; debenture, preference,
guaranteed, or rent-charge stocks of railways in Great Britain or Ireland
having for ten years next before the date of investment paid a dividend
on ordinary stock or shares ; debenture preference guaranteed, or rent-
charge stocks of railways in Great Britain or Ireland guaranteed by Railway
Companies owning railways in Great Britain or Ireland which have for ten
years next before the date of investment paid a dividend on ordinary stock
or shares ; nominal debentures or nominal debenture stock under the Local
Loans Act, 1875, or under the Isle of Man Loans Act, 1880 : provided in
each case that such debentures or stock shall not be liable to be redeemed
within a period of fifteen years from the date of investment.
Money paid into Court under the Lands Clauses Act and Settled Estates
Act is " cash under the control of the Court " : Exp. St. John's Coll.,
Oxford, 22 Ch. D. 93, C. A. ; and see Be Byron's Charity, 23 Ch. D. 171.
Where the fund in Court is subject to a trust for investment, the invest-
ments authorized by the trust will, if otherwise unobjectionable, be allowed.
As to providing against excessive payments of income to tenant for life on
a change of investment, see Re Ingram, 11 W. R. 980 ; 8 L. T. 758 ; Lowin,
371.
And as to investment of lunatic's property. Be Lord Bossmore, It, Rep.
8 Eq. 367.
INVESTMENT OV MONEY LODGED TJNDEE TRUSTEE ACT, 1893.
S. C. P. R. 1905, r. 73, provides for the investment in Consols without any
order or request, of money lodged in Court as provided in r. 41, v. sup.
pp. 205, 206, if or so soon as such money and the interest, if any, to be
credited in respect thereof shall amount to or exceed £20, and the
dividends accruing on any securities so lodged, if and when they shall
amount to or exceed £20.
INVBSTINa IN EXCHEQUER BILLS.
Where the amount to be invested in Exchequer bills is large, the ordersome-
times directs the investments to be made in parcels of a certain amount.
S. C. P. R. r. 70, provides for the reinvestment of principal and interest
of any Exchequer bills or Exchequerbonds deposited in Court which may be
paid off.
Money paid into Court and invested in Exchequer bills under a private
Act which directs such investment, may be invested in any securities in
which cash under the control of the Court may be invested : Jackson v.
Tyas, 52 L. J, Ch. 830,
MONEY ON DEPOSIT.
As to the cases in which money will be placed on deposit, see S. C. P. R.
76—85 ; D. C. P. 943 et aeq.
Interest on money on deposit so soon as it amounts to £20 will be placed
on deposit : unless otherwise directed by an order, r. 85,
As to the time for placing money on deposit, see r. 79.
By r. 77, money lodged under O. xxn, or under 0. xxxi, 26, is not to bo
228
Lodgment and Payment of Fundts. [chap. xvi.
Withdrawal.
Calculating
interest.
placed on deposit, nor where the amount is less than £20 ; and by r. 81, no
interest is to be computed on a fraction of a pound.
R. 78 provides for the withdrawal of money on deposit to meet the require-
ments of an order, and when the amount is reduced below £20, and upon
request countersigned by a registrar or chief clerk.
As to the periods for which and when interest is to be computed, and as to
the mode of calculating interest on money withdrawn, see rr. 82^ — 85.
Proof of
power of atty.
executed
abroad.
Evidence
taken in
Scotland, Ire-
land, Channel
Islands, and
abroad.
HOTAEIAL ACTS — -POWBBS 01" ATTORNEY.
A "notarial act" is described as either the act of authenticating or
certifying a document, endorsement, certificate or entry by a written
instrument under the signature and official seal of a notary ; or an
instrument attestation or certificate made or signed by a notary in the
execution of the duties of his office : see Brooke's Notary, p. 61 (6th edn. ).
Thus, a notarial certificate authenticating a power of attorney under the
signature and seal of a notary is a notarial act ; but a mere note or memo-
randum of reference at the foot of the power of attorney, for the purpose of
identifying it, is not, and does not require an additional stamp : Brooke,
156 {5th edn.).
As to the authentication of powers of attorney, executed here for the
purpose of being acted upon abroad, as for the transfer of American or
French stock, and for other purposes, see Brooke, 148 et seq. (6th edn.).
By the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835 (5 & 6 W. IV. c. 62), ss. 14, 15,
16, 18, a notary is empowered, in certain specified cases, to receive the solemn
declarations now substitutedf or oaths. Under s. 14, the Bank will act upon
a declaration made before a notary : Brooke, 151, 152 (6th edn.).
The Paymaster acts only on powers of attorney issued out of his office.
Other powers must be referred to in the order, and the payment or transfer
directed to be made to the attorney named therein.
Where the order directs payment or transfer out of Court a power of
attorney will, on the request of the solr, be issued at the Pay Office ; such
power of attorney must be attested by two witnesses, who must state their
full addresses and professions or occupations.
For form of request for power of attorney, see D. C. F. 909.
In the case of a power of attorney not issued from the Pay Office, executed
abroad, the Court requires the signature by the grantor to be proved in one
of the following ways : —
(1) By the affidavit of an attesting witness.
(2) By an affidavit of an impartial person verifying the grantor's signature.
(3) By a notarial certificate of due execution annexed to the power, the
signature of the notary, and that he holds the office, being verified by
affidavit, or in the case of a foreign notary, being authenticated by a
diplomatic person under the Commrs for Oaths Act, 1889, s. 6, v. sup.
p. 110.
By 0. XXXVIII, 6, all examinations, affidavits, declarations, affirmations,
and attestations of honour in causes or matters depending in the High
Court, and also acknowledgments required for the purpose of enrolling
any deed in the Central Office, may be sworn and taken in Scotland or
Ireland or the Channel Islands, or in any colony, island, plantation, or place
under the dominion of his Majesty in foreign parts, before any Judge,
Court, notary public, or person lawfully authorized to administer oaths in
such country, colony, island, plantation, or place respectively, or before
any of his Majesty's consuls or vice-consuls in any foreign parts out of his
Majesty's dominions ; and the Judges and other officers of the High Court
are to take judicial notice of the seal or signature, as the case may be, of
any such Court, Judge, notary public, person, consul, or vice-consul,
attached, appended, or subscribed to any such examinations, affidavits,
affirmations, attestations of honour, declarations, acknowledgments, or
to any other deed or document.
SECT. 11.] Notarial Acts, d-o. 229
Similar provisions are contained in the Commrs for Oaths Act, 1889
(52 V. c. 10), s. 6, as amended by Commrs for Oaths Act, 1891 (54 & 55
V. c. 50), s. 2, V. sup. p. 110.
An affidavit sworn out of the dominions before a notary public was
allowed to be filed, the nearest consul being 150 miles away : Cooke v.
Wilby, 25 Ch. D. 769 ; see also Brittlebank v. Smith, 32 W. R. 675 ; 50 L. T.
491, where the nearest British consul was 250 miles away, but certified that
the clerk of the circuit Court before whom the affidavit was sworn was
authorized to administer oaths.
Where a notarial certificate was produced in lieu of an affidavit of due Verifymg
execution by the attesting witness, or of one verifjdng the grantor's sig- notary s
nature, it was held necessary to verify the notary's signature ; and an Biguature.
affidavit of comparison of the notary's signature with that in the book kept
at Doctors' Commons was not sufficient : Re Barton, V.-C. W., 31 July,
1858, A. 1527.
The Court declined to act on an affidavit of the person named to receive
money verifying the signature of the party executing such a power of
attorney from the colony of Victoria, or on a notarial certificate of the
due execution annexed thereto, the notary's signature not being verified :
Smith V. Wright, V.-C. S., 23 Nov. and 3 Dec. 1855, B. 99 ; Me Owen,
V.-C. W., 13 Dec. 1855, B. 211. The Court would have acted on the
affidavit of an impartial person verifying the signature to the power ; as a
power of attorney to receive money, though usually under seal, need not be
so ; otherwise as to a power to execute a deed : S. C.
A deed signed in the presence of a notary was treated as a document to be
used in Court under 15 & 16 V. c. 86, s. 22 (corresponding with O. xxxvm,
6), and judicial notice taken of the notary's signature, although there was no
evidence of an intention to use it in Court : Brooke v. B., 17 Ch. D. 833 ;
and see Be Davies, 1909, W. N. 212.
In Armstrong v. Stochham, 24 L. J. Ch. 176 ; 3 Eq. Rep. 130, payment
out was ordered under a power of attorney executed at Belize, in British
Honduras, before a notary there, and certified under his hand and seal, and
on an affidavit of a person residing here, verifying the notary's handwriting,
and that he held that office.
As to the authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn, v. sup.
pp. 110, 111.
And see, as to the law of Lower and Upper Canada on this subject,
Nye V. Macdonald, L. R. 3 P. C. 331.
If any considerable time has elapsed, an affidavit that the person who Evidence of
executed the power is alive, and that the power is unrevoked, will be grantor
required : Bailey v. Collett, 18 Beav. 179 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 230. ^ving.
A transfer of stock made under a bank power of attorney two days after
the death of the grantor was held valid : Kiddill v. Farnell, 3 S. & G. 428.
An affidavit verifying the execution of a power of attorney, but not Title of
intituled in any cause or matter, will not be acted upon : Re Wood, V.-C. K., affidavit.
4 Dec. 1857, Reg. Min. f. 117.
By S. C. ¥. R. r. 48, provisions are made for the transmission of sums of Transmission
money through the post, including a special provision applicable to sums by post,
under £10, and in view of these provisions the practice which formerly
existed (see Seton, 5th ed., p. 203) of making small sums under £10 payable
to the solrs has been discontinued : see ante, p. 225.
As to payments under powers of attorney, see the Conveyancing Acts, Convey. Acts.
1881 (44 & 45 V. c. 41), ss. 46, 47 ; 1882 (45 & 46 V. c. 39), ss. 8, 9.
As to the mode of ascertaining the true construction of a foreign power Construction
of attorney, see Ohatenay v. Brazilian Tel. Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 79, C. A. of foreign
As to the practice on the appointment of notaries public under the po^^'.
District Notaries Act, 1833 (3 & 4 W. IV. c. 70), see Eaton v. Watson, 1904, District
W. N. 24 ; and see Bailleau v. Victorian Socy. of Notaries, [1904] P. 180. Notaries Act.
As to the jurisdiction to strike a notary public off the roll, see Re Striking off
Cham/pion, [1906] P. 86. the roll.
230
Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
STAMPS ON POWERS OP ATTORNEY.
By the Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 V. o. 39), schedule, the stamps on powers
of attorney are as follows : on a power for receipt of principal money not
exceeding £20, or of any periodical payments (including dividends) not
exceeding the annual sum of £10, five shillings ; on a power for receipt of
principal money exceeding £20, or of any periodical payments (including
dividends) exceeding the annual sum of £10, ten shillings, impressed on the
power ; on a power to receive a single payment of interest, one shilling, but
no duty is payable where the yearly dividend is under £3. And see Dan.
1502. In addition to the above revenue stamps, there is a fee stamp (not
required in Lunacy oases) of three shillings for preparation.
By the Stamp Act, 1891, s. 90, and schedule, the duty upon a notarial act
is one shilling, which may be denoted by an adhesive stamp to be cancelled
by the notary.
DEATH DUTIES.
The principal Acts relating to death duties are the Legacy Duty Act,
1796 (36 G. III. c. 52) and 1805 (45 G. III. c. 28) ; the Succession Duty
Act, 1853 (16 & 17 V. c. 51), the PinanceAot, 1894 (57 & 58 V. o. 30), and
the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910 (lOEdw. VIL c. 8),as to which see Hanson's
Death Duties and Austen-Cartmell's Finance Acts ; and for a summary of the
law relating to death duties, see Ingpen on Executors, Chap. XII.
The C!rown Suits Act, 1865 (28 & 29 V. c. 104), Pt. v. ss. 53-64, relates
to the recovery of succession legacy and probate duties in certain cases.
Evidence of The 36 G. III. c. 52, s. 27, makes the stamped receipt of the office the only
payment. evidence of payment. But a copy of the entry from the books is sufficient,
if duly proved : Harrison v. Borwell, 10 Sim. 380.
The controller's certificate is sufficient evidence : E. Howe v. E. Lichfield,
2 Ch. 155. The solr's affidavit is not : Re Marsham, 12 W. R. 45 ; 9 L. T.
533.
If the duty has been paid, the official receipt or the certificate of the
controller should be produced and entered as read in the judgment or order ;
but not on a nomination by will to the benefits of the Customs Annuity
Fund, as it is in the nature of an appointment under a special power and not
of a legacy : A. O. v. Rowsell, 36 Ch. D. 67, n.
Payment to Where payment is directed to thelegalpers. represve of a deceased person,
legal pers. no receipt for duty on the fund as part of such deceased person's estate is
represve. requisite, the represve being accountable.
Domicile. And as to domicile, v. inf. Chap. XLIV., " Administkation," pp. 1515
et seq. ; Ingpen on Executors, Chap. XL
Acceleration Where under sect. 15 of the Succession Duty Act, 1853 (16 & 17 V. c. 51),
of succession, the succession is accelerated, the Court, before parting with the fund, has
required the parties either to arrange with the office as to the payment
of duty, by commuting it for a present payment {Bailey v. Tindal, 17 Dec.
1853, A. 252 ; 18 Jur. 668), or to leave in Court a sufficient amount to
answer it : Be Baikes, V.-C. K., 18 Jan. 1856, B. 304.
As to whether the execution of a power is to be deemed to confer a new
title or to accelerate the title to a succession, see A. O. v. Selbome,
[1902] 1 K. B. 388.
Where a settled fund during the lives of the tenants for life is paid to
their children under an appointment and power of advancement, there is
an acceleration of succession in respect of which duty is payable under s. 15 :
Exp. Sitwell, Be Drury-Lowe's Settlement, 21 Q. B. D. 466.
SECT. iii.J Carrying over Securitleft and Cash.
231
Section III.— Carrying over Securities and Cash.
1. Carrying over Securities, Money on Deposit, Dividends, and
Interest.
Order that tlie funds in Court be dealt with as directed in the
schedule hereto.
Payment Schedule.
In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. Date of Order, 1 Aug. 1911.
Title of Action. A. v. B. 1889. A. 120.
Ledger Credit, as above.
Funds in Cour1^£10,000 Consols ; £5,650 Cash.
Particulars of Payments, Traus-
fers, or other operations to be
carried out by tlie Paymaster.
Payees, Trausferees,
or Ti ties of Separate
Accouut.
Amounts.
Cash.
Securities.
£ s. d.
£ s. d.
1. To account of legal
Carry over cash
" The account of
500 0 0
personal reprenentative
when constituted, or to
the legal per-
sonal represen-
another account in the
tative of A. de-
same action.
ceased when
constituted."
To another action
Carry over Consols to the
ledger credit mentioned
in the second column.
"J ones Y. Brown,
1911, J. 27."
4,200 0 0
NOTES.
The Bank average price of Government securities appears in the account
transmitted by the Bank to the Comptroller General of the National Debt
Office, a copy of which is sent daily tothe Pay Office : see S. C. P. R. r. 87.
In the case of securities other than the above, " the average market price of
the day " is the proper expression, and then an affidavit by a stockbroker
will be required by the Paymaster.
No money or securities in Court will be carried over except in pursuance
of an order ; and the rules apphoable to the form, &c. of orders for transfer,
&c. out of Court apply generally to orders for carrying over.
SBPABATB ACCOUNT.
Where practicable, funds ought always to be paid in or carried over to
separate accounts, so as to avoid the expense of service on unnecessary
parties.
Care must be taken in wording the heading of a separate account, because
when a fund is placed to such an account, it is released from the general
questions in the action, and becomes marked as being subject only to the
questions arising upon the particular matter referred to in such heading, so
that, in all subsequent dealings with it, those parties only need be served
who are interested in the particular fund ; and the Court, from the heading
of the account, sees to what extent the fund has been severed from the other
questionsin the action : Laprimaudaije y. Teissier,12Bea:.206 ; Re Jervoise,
232
Lodgment and Payment of Funds, [chap. xvi.
Service on
represvea.
Ssrvice on
trustees.
Incum-
brances.
Distinction
between
" share of "
and "ac-
count of."
Costs of
appealing.
Title of
account
not to ex-
ceed 36
words.
Division
of stock.
Government
stock.
ib. 209 ; Re Eyton, Bartlett v. Charles, 45 C!h. D. 458 ; Edgar v. Plomley,
[1900] A. C. 431, P. C. ; and see Re Tillstones, 9 Ha. lix. The separate
account is merely the machinery by which the Court carries its declara-
tion into effect, and so long as the fund remains in Court that machinery
is under the control of the Court : Cloutte v. Storey, [1911] 1 Ch. 18. In
Noble V. Stow, 29 Bea. 409, it was held that carrying over the fund to the
separate account of a person was not equivalent to a declaration that she
was absolutely entitled, and in Cloutte v. Storey, sup., that the carrying
over in admon action of a fund to the separate account of a purchaser,
subject to a life interest, was not equivalent to transfer so as to
give him a legal title. But see as to funds paid into Court under the
Trustee Act, 1893, s. 42, Re Jenkins, 3 N. R. 408 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 332 ;
et inf. Chap. XLI., " TBrsTEES."
Until a fund is carried to a distinctly separate account the represve of the
deceased person, whose estate is being administered, is a necessary party to
any application respecting it : Salmon v. Anderson, 9 Bea. 445, 449.
Although it is unnecessary to serve trustees in case of payment out of
money standing to the credit of the " account of A. B." merely, yet they
must be served where the credit is "account of A. B. with remainder over":
Prac. Note, (1907) W. N. 44.
A fund should not be carried over to " the account of A. or his incum-
brancers " when there is no suggestion that incumbrances exist : Hargrave v.
Kettlewell, 33 W. R. 136 ; 55 L. T. 674. Where an incumbrance is proved,
the account should be " account of A. B. and C. D. his incumbrancer."
" The share of A. B." is not the same as " the account of A. B.," and the
former should not be used when A. B. is absolutely entitled, and senible, the
trustees should be served on an application to deal with the fund where
standing to the credit of the " share of."
The costs of persons appearing unnecessarily, though properly served,
may be refused : Re The Justices of Coventry, 19 Bea. 158.
The purchaser under the judgment or order,and a person as against whom
proceedings had been stayed, were allowed their costs of appearing on appli-
cation to carry over the funds to particular accounts : Rowley v. Adams, 16
Bea. 312 ; Noble v. Stow (2), 30 Bea. 272. But not a purchaser who has got
his conveyance : Barton v. Latour, 18 Bea. 526.
The title of an account directed to be opened must not exceed thirty-six
words, exclusive, in the case of a separate account in a cause or matter, of
the title of the cause or matter in which such separate account is opened,
unless a sufficient reason be assigned to the satisfaction of the registrar in
the case of orders, or of the paymaster in the case of requests, who, in such
case, is to add to the direction to raise such account the words " notwith-
standing r. 103 ; " four figures are reckoned as one word : S. C. F. R.
r. 103.
In dealing with securities, it should be borne in mind that railway and
other public companies have generally a limit below which they do not
permit a division of their stocks. For the purposes of division, therefore, it
may in some cases be necessary to sell the stock, or some portion of it. As
a rule, railway stocks cannot be carried over on account of the stock certifi-
cates, which are lodged at the Bank by the paymaster when the stock is
brought into Court : see Piper v. Bateman, V.-C. B., 24 July, 1875, B. 2690,
where two sums of railway stock, parts of larger sums, could not be carried
over for this reason. The Court directed that they should be deemed to
have been set apart to answer a certain legacy, and that the dividends
should be paid to the tenant for life of the legacy.
A sum of railway stock ordered to be carried to six separate accounts had
to be apportioned with the aid of cash paid in at the same time, so as to
prevent fractions of £1 : Re Perry, 22 W. R. 433.
The Bank of England could'not be required to transfer Consols into the
joint names of a Corp. and individuals : Law Cfuaraniee Society v. Hunter,
24 Q. B. D. 406 ; but see now the National Debt (Stockholders' Relief) Act,
SECT. iii.J Carrying over Securities and Cash. 233
1892 (55 & 56 V.c. 39), s. 6; and the Bodies Corporate (Joint Tenancy )Act,
1899 (62 & 63 V. o. 20).
Since 51 V. c. 2, s. 18, the Bank of England allows not more than four
accounts of government stocks to be opened in the same name or names :
see Lewin, 361.
Cash or money on deposit in Court to the credit of an action or matter Money on
may be invested to the credit of a separate account or of another action or deposit,
matter without being previously carried over ; but as the money on deposit
must be withdrawn from deposit before it is carried over, the order must
provide for any interest to be credited.
Fees of taxation are carried over by the paymaster under r. 67, without Fees of
any direction in the order ; but if the order is dated after the taxing master's taxation,
certificate, there ought to be a direction : see Payment Schedule, Form 36,
p. 214.
If the fund is liable to duty, the words " subject to duty " must be added Duty,
to the title of the account : r. 20.
( 234 ) [chap. XVII.
CHAPTBE XVII.
COSTS.
Section I. — Costs between Parties.
1. Taxation and Payment of Costs by one Party to another.
Order that the Pit (Deft) do pay to the Deft (Pit) B. his costs of
this action [or application], such costs to be taxed by the taxing
master.
2. Action and Counterclaim Dismissed.
Order that this action do stand dismissed out of this Court with
costs to be paid by the Pits to the Defts, and that the counterclaim
do stand dismissed out of this Court with costs to be paid by the
Defts to the Pits. And it is ordered that it be referred to the taxing
master to tax the costs of the Defts of this action and the costs of the
Pits of the counterclaim. And the taxing master is to set ofi the
said costs of the Pits and Defts and certify to which of them the
balance after such set ofi is due. And it is ordered that such balance
be paid by the party from whom to the party to whom the same shall
be certified to be due, — See James v. Jackson, 28 Feb. 1910, A. 1486.
The above form should be used in a judgment dismissing both action
and counterclaim. For form of order reviewing a taxation in pursuance of
such a judgment, see Saner v. Bilton, post, p. 285.
3. Costs occasioned by Adjournment of Summons into Court.
Order that the Pit do pay to the Deft his costs occasioned by the
adjournment into Court of this application, such costs to be taxed &c.
—In re General Estates Co., M. E., 16 Feb. 1869, A. 1725 ; 8 Eq. 123.
In Holden's case, L. R. 8 Eq. 444, it was held that where a summons is
adjourned into Court, " the costs of the application " directed to be paid by
the unsuccessful party are ordinarily the costs of the adjournment into Court
only.
4. Costs of adjourned Summons in Court and in Chambers.
Order that the Deft do pay to the Pit his costs of this application m
Chambers, and occasioned by the adjournment thereof into Court,
such costs to be taxed &c.
SECT. I.] Costs between Parties. 235
5: Taxation and payment of Costs without prejudice how
ultimately to be borne.
Tax the costs of the Pits and the Defts of this action ; And it is
ordered that the Pit do pay to the Defts B. and C. respectively their
costs when taxed, without prejudice to the question how such costs
are ultimately to be borne.
Where a party is entitled to costs, but it is not ascertained who ought
ultimately to bear them, the judgment or order often directs payment to be
made by one of the parties, or out of a fund in Court available for the pur-
pose, " without prejudice to the question how the same are ultimately to be
borne " : Smith v. Hammond, 6 Sim. 10, 15.
Defts disclaiming all interest may be dismissed with costs on motion by
Pit ex parte, without prejudice to the question how the costs shall ultimately
be borne as between Pit and the other Defts : Clements v. Clifford, 14 W. R.
22; Baily v. Lambert, 5 Ha. 178. As to the costs of disclaiming Defts
generally, v. inf. Chap. XLVII., "Mortgages."
6. Costs specially reserved.
This Court specially reserves the question how and by whom the
costs of this action are to be borne. — doughy. Reddish, Chitty, J.,
31 July, 1882, A. 1568.
7. Costs made a Charge.
Order that the Pit's costs be a charge on the estate of the testator
in question in this action.
As to making costs a charge with interest, see p. 253, post,
8. No Costs given as to Part on either side.
And this Court does not think fit to give any costs on either side, as
to so much of the costs of this action [or application] as have been
occasioned by &c. [or as relate to &c., or so far as such costs have been
increased by &c.].
9. Taxation of Plfs and Deffs respective Costs of Parts of
A ction — Set-off.
Tax the costs of the Pit of this action, except so much thereof as
relates to the claim set up by him to &c. ; Tax the costs of the Deft of
so much of this action as relates to the said claim ; And the taxing
master is to set off the said costs of the Pit and of the Deft, and
certify to which of them the balance after such set-ofi is due ; And
it is ordered that such balance be paid by the party from whom
to the party to whom the same shall be certified to be due.
As to set-off, V. O. Lxv, 14 and 27 (21), and inf. pp. 249, 252.
An order in this form involves an apportionment of the costs of every
general proceeding in the action : v. inf. p. 260.
2^^ Costs. [chap. XVII.
10. Taxation of Costs, except so far as increased by particular Claim.
Tax the costs of the Pit of this action, except so far as such costs
have been increased by the Pit's claim to, &c. ; Tax the costs of Deft
of this action so far only as the same have been increased by the said
claim. Directions for set-off and payment of balance.— See Form 9,
ante.
An order in this form does not involve an apportionment of the costs of
the general proceedings : v. inf. p. 250.
For order in favour of one or two Pits with costs, and dismissing the
bill as to the other with costs, so far as occasioned by his being a Pit,
see Umfreville v. Johnson, 10 Ch. 581.
11. Costs up to a particular Time.
Order that the Pit do pay to the Deft his costs of this action up to
and including this hearing [or the trial of this action, or the — day of
— (when the Deft offered by &c., in writing, to pay the amount
sought to be recovered by Pit &c.)], such costs to be taxed &c.
Where costs are given up to a particular date they will include costs of
briefs, affidavits, &o., actually and properly incurred previous to that date,
although the application in support of which they were prepared was not
heard until after : and see Webster v. Manby, 4 Ch. 372.
12. Where Action defective, and Leave to amend given at Trial.
This action coming on for trial, &c.. Leave to amend writ and state-
ment of claim ; And it is ordered that the Pit do pay to the Deft his
costs of this action so far as they may have been thrown away by
reason of the said amendments. — Wethered v. Cox, Kay, J., 6 Dec.
1888, B. 1598.
13. Costs taxed and set off against Sum due.
Tax the Pit his costs of this action &c. ; And it is ordered that such
costs be set ofi against the sum of £ — , due from the Pit to the Deft ;
And the taxing master is to certify to whom, after such set off, the
balance is due ; And it is ordered that such balance be paid by the
party from whom to the party to whom the same shall be certified
to be due.
14. Taxing Master to looh into Affidavits, and if improper or of
unnecessary length, to distinguish and set off Costs. — 0. lxv,
27 (20).
Tax the costs of the Pits of this action (including the costs of the
Pits' motion made unto this Court on the — day of — ) ; And in
taxing such costs the taxing master is to look into the affidavits filed
in this action on behalf of the Pits, and disallow the costs thereof or
SECT. I.] Costs between Parties. 237
of such part thereof as lie shall find to be improper, unnecessary, or
vexatious (or to contain unnecessary matter, or to be of unnecessary
length, or caused by misconduct or negligence), and to ascertain the
costs (if any) occasioned to the Deft thereby as may be so disallowed ;
And it is ordered that such last-mentioned costs be deducted from the
Pits' said costs and the balance certified. Directions for payment,
or, if necessary, directions for set-off and payment. — And see Cracknall
V. Janson, Fry, J., 27 June, 1878, A. 1315 ; 11 Ch. D. 1, 14.
15. Costs of Affidavit to he disallowed.
Direction to tax, and the Defts are to be allowed no costs of the
following affidavits, that is to say, an affidavit of &c.
16. Reference to Tax under 0. lxv, 11.
Tax costs of Pits and Defts, and in such taxation the taxing master
is, under 0. LXV, 11, to inquire whether any costs have been im-
properly or without any reasonable cause incurred, and as to the
cause of delay in the proceedings in this cause between the years —
and — , and to make such disallowance as he may think fit for costs
(if any) which have been so improperly or without any reasonable
cause incurred, or which have been occasioned by the improper delay
(if any), and to call on the solrs engaged in this action to show cause
why such disallowance should not be made. — See Furness v. Davis,
Kay, J., 19 Jan. 1885, A. 615.
17. Taxation of Exor's Costs between Party and Party, and also
between Solr and Client — Payment of Party and Party Costs by
Pit and Balance out of Funds in hand.
Tax as between party and party, and also as between solr and
client, the costs of the Deft of this action, including in such last-
mentioned costs any charges and expenses properly incurred by him,
and not already taxed or allowed relating to the admon of the
estate of the above-named testator A. beyond his costs of this action.
And it is ordered that H., the next friend of the infant Pits, do pay
to the Deft &c., his said costs as between party and party. And the
Deft is to be at liberty to retain and pay out of the funds in his hands,
or which may hereafter come into his hands, as the exor of the will
of the testator, so much of the said party and party costs as he shall
not recover and actually receive from the said H., and also what shall
be certified to be the difference between the said costs as taxed
between party and party, and as between solr and client. — ^Adapted
from Re Garmeson, Garmeson v. Sharrod, V.-C. M. at Chambers,
7 June, 1872, A. 1451.
Por order when the costs are to be paid out of fund in Court, see Chap,
XVI., " Lodgment and Payment ov Funds."
238 Costs. [chap. XVII.
In admon actions where a Deft or Pit is liable to pay a portion
of the costs but not the whole, it simplifies taxation to direct, if possible,
the party to pay a certain proportion of the whole costs ; and where it is
necessary to distinguish between solr and client costs and ordinary costs
of action, the expression "party and party" costs should be used in contra-
distinction to " solr and client " costs : Re Pollard, (1902) W. N. 49.
18. Order as to Costs where one of the Executors or Trustees is in
default or a Debtor to the Estate.
Order that the taxation &c. do proceed, but the Defts C. E. G.,
W. N., and S. W. W., the exors [or the trustees] of the testator's
will, are not to pay any of the costs of the Deft J. C. or of the Deft
N. E. S. under those orders until the moneys directed to be paid into
Court by the said Defts J. C. and N. E. S. pursuant to the order
dated &c. shall have been paid into Court. The costs of this appli-
cation in Chambers, and occasioned by the adjournment thereof into
Court, are reserved. Liberty to apply and to appeal. — In re Scowby,
S. V. S., Kekewich, J., 17 Dec. 1896, B. 4713 ; S.G. in C. A., (1897)
1 Ch. 741.
19. Costs payable hy Co-Defendants where only one Defendant has
delivered a Defence.
Order that the Defts do pay to the Pit his costs of this action,
such costs to be taxed by the taxing master and execution in respect
of such costs so far as regards the Deft A. B. is to be limited to so
much thereof as would have been incurred had this action been tried
on motion for judgment in default of defence against both Defts. —
Smith V. Stanley, Parker, J., 16 Jan. 1908, B. 40.
In the above case the taxing master certified the costs of the Deft
A. B. separately and the costs of both Defts jointly.
20. Costs in any event.
And the Pits' (Defts') costs of this application are to be borne by
the Defts (Pits) in any event.
For costs, charges, and expenses of exors and trustees, see post, p. 1126 ;
and for costs payable to or by the Crown under Crown Suits Act, 1855,
see post, p. 1250.
Section II. — Taxation of Costs, and Payment out of
Funds in Court.
1. Taxation and Payment of Costs.
Refer it to the taxing master to tax [If ordered as between solr
and client] the costs of the Pit and the Defts of this action, or applica-
tion [If ordered, as to exor or trustee only, the costs of the Deft B.,
SE(jT. II. J Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Funds. 239
as between solr and client] ; And it is ordered that tlie funds in
Court be dealt with as directed in the schedule hereto. {AM
Payment Schedule, Form No. 31.]
The amount raised includes the fees of taxation.
Where the costs are payable out of a fund in Court, they are paid to the
solrs of the parties, but in other cases tliey are always ordered to be paid to
the parties themselves.
2. Taxation of Costs with direction to deduct Amount due.
Tax costs of Pits and Defts of this action. And the taxing master
is to certify the residue of the costs of the Defts after deducting
£ — certified to be due from them, or the residue of the said sum of
£ — as the case may be. And it is ordered that the Defts do lodge
in Court as directed in the Lodgment part of the schedule hereto what
shall be certified to be the residue (if any) of the said sum of £ — .
And it is ordered that the funds in Court and to be lodged be dealt
with as directed in the said schedide. [Add Lodgment and Payment
Schedule.^
3. Fund deficient — Apportionment.
Direction to tax costs ; And it is ordered that the funds in Court
be dealt with as directed in the schedule hereto, and in case the said
funds shall be insufficient to pay such costs, the taxing master is to
apportion the said funds among the said parties rateably in proportion
to the respective amounts of their said costs when taxed. [Add
Payment Schedule, Form No. 34:.]
For direction for the apportionment of costs between pure and impure
personal estate and real estate, v. inf. Chap. XLIL, " Charities."
For direction to apportion costs between two estates, t;. inf. Chap. XLIV,,
" Administeation."
4. Order to include Costs in Certificate under former Order.
Order that the costs of the Pits and Defts be included in the
taxation directed by the said order dated &c., and be raised and paid
as thereby directed.
5. Taxation as between Party and Party, and as between Solr
and Client, and Payment.
Tax the costs of the Pit of &c., as between party and party, and
also as between solr and client, and certify the difEerence ; And it is
ordered that the Deft do, out of the testator's residuary personal
estate, pay to the Pit his said party and party costs ; And it is ordered
that the funds in Court be dealt with as directed in the schedule
hereto. [Add Payment Schedule, Form No. 35.]
240
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
6. Costs to he apportioned between two Funds.
Direction to tax costs ; And the taxing master is to apportion the
said costs, when taxed, between the funds mentioned in Schedule I.
hereto and the funds mentioned in Schedule II. hereto, in proportion
to the respective amounts therein mentioned, and to certify the
amounts so apportioned ; And it is ordered that the funds in Court
be dealt with as directed in the said Schedules. [Add Payment
Schedules, Form No. 33, for each account.]
NOTES.
JTJEISDICTION AND PBOCEDUEE QENERALLY.
Discretion. O- ^^^' ^' provides that, " subject to the provisions of the Acts and these
rules, the costs of and incident to all proceedings in the Supreme Court, in-
cluding the admon of estates and trusts, shall be in the discretion of the
Court or Judge ; Provided that nothing herein contained shall deprive an
exor, admor, trustee, or mortgagee who has not unreasonably instituted or
carried on or resisted any proceedings, of any right to costs out of a particular
estate or fund to which he would be entitled according to the rules hitherto
acted upon in the Chancery Division : Provided also that, where any action,
cause, matter, or issue is tried with a jury, the costs shall follow the event,
unless the Judge by whom such action, cause, matter, or issue is tried, or the
Court shall, for good cause, otherwise order."
The effect of this rule and the Acts is not to give any new jurisdiction to
award costs, but only to regulate the mode in which costs are to be dealt with
where the Court previously had jurisdiction, original or statutory : Re Mills'
Estate, Exp. Commr of Worhs, 34 Ch. D. 24, C. A. ; questioning Exp.
Mercers' Co., 10 Ch. D. 481 ; and see Be Lee and Hemingway, 24 Ch. D. 669.
No hard-and-fast rule as to costs can now be laid down in any division of
the Court, but discretion must be exercised according to the circumstances
of each particular case : The. Friedeberg, 10 P. D. 113.
The rule does not apply to costs specially given by statute as matter of
right, ex. gr., double costs, or a reasonable indemnity in lieu thereof : Hasker
V. Wood, 54 L. J. Q. B. 419 ; 33 W. R. 697 ; Beeves v. Gibson, [1891] 1 Q. B.
652, C. A. But it is inconsistent with and overrules the provisions of the
County Courts Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, 1868 (31 & 32 V. c. 71, ss. 3, 9),
depriving parties of costs in the Superior Courts unless the Judge certifies
that the cause was proper to be tried there : Rockeit v. Chippendale, [1891]
2 Q. B. 293, C. A.
Threefold As to the threefold jurisdiction of the Court in respect to costs, (1)
iurisdiotion. statutory ; (2) general, over its own officers ; and (3) in dealing with con-
tested claims, see observations in Be Park, Cole v. P., 41 Ch. D. 326, 331,
C. A. ; and that, under the general jurisdiction, taxation of part of a bill
may be ordered, see Storer & Co. v. Johnson and Wealherall, 15 App. Ca.
203 ; affirming S. C, In re Johnson and Weatherall, 37 Ch. D. 433, C. A.
As to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to order payment of costs by
unsuccessful applicant under a statute silent as to costs, see Be Bombay
Civil Fund Act ; Pringle v. Secretary of State for India, 40 Ch. D.
288, C. A.
Where Pit sues to enforce a legal right, and there is no misconduct on his
part, the Court cannot withhold costs : Cooper v. Whittingham, 15 Ch. D.
501 ; and see Florence v. Mallinson, 65 L. T. 354 ; Upmann v. Forester, 24
Ch. D. 231 ; Wittman v. Oppenheim, 27 Ch. D. 260 ; Ooodhart v. Hyett, 25
Ch. D. 182 ; and, conversely, there is no power to give costs to an un-
successful Pit : Be Foster and G. W. Ry. Co., 8 Q. B. D. 515, C. A. ; Dicks
v. Yates, 18 Ch. D. 76, C. A. ; but the Court may direct that the costs
SECT. II. J Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Funds. 241
payable by a Pit to a successful Deft shall be added to the costs recoverable
from an unsuccessful Deft : Bullock v. The London General Omnibus Co.
and others, 1906, W. N. 224.
A successful Deft cannot be deprived of costs on the ground of improper
conduct not connected with the issue between himself and the Pit : F. King
& Co. V. Gillard dk Co., [1905] 2 Ch. 7 ; and see Westgate v. Crowe, [1908]
1 K. B. 24.
As to what is " good cause " for depriving a successful party of costs, see
Huxley v. West London Extension By. Co., 14 App. Ca. 26 ; Forster v.
Farquhar, [1893] 1 Q. B. 564, C. A. ; Bostock v. Ramsey Urban District
Council, [1900] 2 Q. B. 616, C. A. ; as to the necessity of such cause being
shown, Wight v. Shaw, 19 Q. B. D. 397, C. A. ; Baines v. Bromley, 6 Q. B. D.
691 ; that the power of the Judge may be exercised without application
being made to him at the trial, Turner v. Heyland, 4 C. P. D. 432 ; Collins v.
Welch, 5 C. P. D. 27, C. A. ; or upon application after verdict, Kynaston v.
Mackinder, 47 L. J. Q. B. 76 ; 37 L. T. 390 ; and that by declining at the
trial to exercise his discretion he does not necessarily become /wMctes officio,
Haxley v. W. L. By. Co., sup.
A successful Pit may be deprived of costs where he obtains merely a
declaratory judgment, having no other cause of action against the Deft :
Jenkins v. Price, No. 1, [1907] 2 Ch. 229 ; Evans v. Levy, [1910] 1 Ch. 452.
Even in an action tried by a jury, the Court has power, upon good cause
shown, to deprive a successful party of costs : Myers v. Defries, 4 Ex. D-
176, C. A. ; Harnett v. Vyse, 5 Ex. D. 307, C. A. ; and in exercising its
discretion may consider his conduct previously to, as well as during, the
litigation : Harnett v. Vyse, sup. at p. 311 ; but see Westgate v. Crowe, sup. ;
but not letters or conversations written or declared to be " without pre-
judice " : Walker v. Wilsher, 23 Q. B. D. 335, C. A. ; and a Pit partially
successful may be ordered to pay costs : Harris v. Petherick, 4 Q. B. D.
611, C. A.
An order giving Deft against third parties such costs as he is " entitled to
by law " is not an exercise of discretion under the rule : Lewin v. Trimming,
21 Q. B. D. 230.
The Court may direct payment out of a fund of the costs of an unsuccess-
ful application reasonably incurred for the ascertainment of the fund :
Butcher v. Pooler, 24 Ch. D. 273, C. A.
By the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1890 (63 & 54 V. c. 44), s. 6, Judicature
subject to the Judicature Acts, " and the rules of Court made thereunder. Act, 1890.
and to the express provisions of any statute, whether passed before or
after the commencement of this Act, the costs of and incident to all pro-
ceedings in the Supreme Court, including the admon of estates and trusts
shall be in the discretion of the Court or Judge, and the Court or Judge
shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent such costs
are to be paid."
This section confers jurisdiction in cases where it had not previously
existed, and applies to the costs of and incident to all proceedings in the
Supreme Court not dealt with by Statute or rules, e.g.,ih6 issue of a writ
of possession : Dartford Brewery Co., Ld. v. Moseley, [1906] 1 K. B. 462 ;
or where an Act enabling a public body to take land compulsorily contains
no provision as to the costs of payment out of Court of moneys paid in
under the Act : In re Fisher, [1894] 1 Ch. 450, C. A. ; and see as to the far-
reaching effect of the section. Re Wrexham, Sc. Ry. Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 261,
C. A. ; and that the section enables the Court, when granting an application
for a habeas corpus, to order payment by the Deft of the costs of the applica-
tion (and that such jurisdiction is not affected by the provisions of sect. 4) :
see Reg. v. Jones, [1894] 2 Q. B. 382.
An examination under sect. 174 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act,
1908, is a " proceeding in the Supreme Court " within the meaning of this
section.
Where there are distinct issues, the words "the costs shall follow the "Costs to
VOL. I. E
242
Costs.
[chap. xvii.
follow the
event."
Third parties,
Fourth
party.
Juriadiction
of taxing
master.
" In case
the parties
differ."
Appeal.
Pauper.
County
Court.
District
Registry.
event " must be read distributively : Myers v. Defries, 5 Ex. D. 180, C. A. ;
and see Ellis v. Desilva, 6 Q. B. D. 521, C. A. ; Shrapnel v. Lainq, 20 Q. B. D.'
334, C. A.
By O. XVI, 54, " the Court or a Judge may decide all questions of costs
as between a third party and the other parties to the action, and may order
any one or more to pay the costs of any other or others, and give such
direction as to costs as the justice of the case may require."
Third parties, who had in reality fought the Pits and failed, were ordered,
together with Defts to pay costs both of successful appeal and in Court
below : Edison and Swan United Electric Light Co. v. Holland, 41 Ch. D.
28, C. A.
In Hornby v. Cardwell, 8 Q. B. D. 329, C. A., a third party was ordered to
pay all the costs of the action, including the costs of the proceedings between
Pit and Deft.
Where a third party was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings taken
to bring him before the Court, the order could not be varied on appeal,
though by the subsequent judgment the action had been dismissed against
him with costs : Beynon v. Godden, 4 Ex. D. 246, C. A. ; but, senMe, the
costs of the interlocutory proceedings should have been reserved.
Eor oases in which Deft has been ordered to pay costs to third party, see
Dawson v. Shepherd, 49 L. J. Exch. 529 ; 28 W. R. 805 ; 42 L. T. 611 ;
Yorkshire Wagon Co. v. Neivport Coal Co., 5 Q. B. D. 268.
R. 54 gives the Court jurisdiction to decide all questions of costs as
between any party brought in under the earlier rules of 0. xvi and the
other party to the action, and the Court can therefore determine as be-
tween the parties to the action and a, fourth party how the costs of a
fourth party are to be borne: Klawanshy v. Premier Petroleum Co., Ld.,
1911, W. N. 94.
The Court has power to order costs — as distinguished from the expenses —
of a person examined under sect. 174 of the Companies (Consolidation)
Act, 1908, to be paid by the person procuring the examination, unless
the examinee is a mere witness: Appleton v. French <fe Scrafton, Ld.,
[1905] 1 Ch. 751.
By O. Lxv, 27 (33), the taxing master may tax the costs payable by any
party without any order referring them for taxation, unless the Court
prohibits it, and costs so taxed are recoverable by fieri facias or elegit.
But as this rule is only permissive, the taxing masters do not generally
act upon it, and it is still the practice to insert the direction for taxation.
By r. 27 (35), where any costs are by any judgment or order directed to be
taxed, and to be paid out of any money in Court, the taxing officer, in his
certificate, is to state the total amount of all such costs as taxed, without
any direction for that purpose in such judgment or order.
By r. 27 (34), the course of proceedings is regulated where costs are
directed to be taxed " in case the parties differ."
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 49, no order made by the High Court as to costs only,
which by law are left to the discretion of the Court, shall be subject to any
appeal, except by leave of the Court or Judge making such order.
As to cases within this section, and as to costs of appeal generally, v.inf.
Chap. XXXVI., " Appeals."
By O. LXV, 27 (37), the rules, orders, and practice as to costs existing
before the Act are, so far as not inconsistent with the Acts and rules, to
remain in force.
By 0. XVI, 31, unless otherwise directed, costs ordered to be paid to a
person admitted to sue or defend as a pauper, shall be taxed as in other cases.
The discretion given by sect. 1 13 of the County Courts Act, 1888, to County
Court Judges is the same as given to the Judges of the High Court by 0.
LXV, 1, and must be exercised judicially: Elms v. Hedges, 1906, W. N.
114 ; see also Andrew v. Grove, [1902] 1 K. B. 625.
By r. 27 (43), costs of actions commenced or proceedings in a District
Registry are to be the same as in London.
SECT. II.] Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Funds. 243
Where final judgment is entered in the District Registry, costs are to be
taxed in such registry, unless the Court or a Judge shall otherwise direct ;
O. XXXV, 4 ; but any party may appeal from the District Registrar's
decision under r. 9.
The Court, however, will not, except under special circumstances, direct
the costs of an admon action to be taxed in the District Registry, though
prosecuted there down to further consideration. But if such an order is
made the Paymaster is bound to act upon the certificate of the District
Registrar : Re Wilson, Wilson v. AlUrfie, 27 Ch. D. 242.
The taxation of party and party costs in the Liverpool and Manchester
District Registries proceeds on the same principles as obtain in London
taxing master's offices where the costs in other District Registries are taxed :
Re Dixon, Tousey v. Sheffield, [1898] 2 Ch. 443, C. A.
Where judgment has been entered in the District Registry, the Judge,
under 0. xxxv, r. 4, and 0. lxv, r. 27, sub-r. 41, has jurisdiction in the
exercise of his discretion to refer objections on taxation, which has been
dealt with by the District Registrar, to a taxing master of the Supreme
Court for re-taxation : Stevens v. Griffin, [1897] 2 Q. B. 368, C. A. And
see 0. xxxv, 2, 6a ; Stead v. Smith, [1911] A. C. 688.
TAXATION — PARTY AND PAKTY AND SOLE AND CLIENT COSTS.
Where costs are directed to be taxed simpUciter, this means as between What in-
party and party. Party and party costs are only given by way of eluded in
indemnity. A successful Pit, who has an agreement with his solis to order of tax.
pay no costs, cannot get costs from the Deft: Gnndry v. Sainsbury,
[1910] 1 K. B. 645.
Where a sale is directed, the costs of sale are costs of action. Where the
costs are not reserved, the successful party will get, as costs of action, his
costs subsequent to the hearing, such as costs of a sale, or of inquiries
for working out the judgment (but not of other matters wrongly brought
in under it : Krehl v. Park, 10 Ch. 334) ; but the taxing master will not
tax the costs twice. If the costs are taxed immediately, subsequent costs,
which cannot be taxed by anticipation, must be waived, or a fresh order
obtained: see How v. Earl Winierton, 1904, W. N. 204. If the costs are to
be taxed as between solr and client, or if any costs, charges, and expenses
not strictly costs of action are to be allowed, or the taxation is in any
respect to vary from taxation as between party and party, this should
be expressed in the judgment or order.
As to costs of hearing adjourned, or on further consideration, see ante,
p. 182.
Where trustees are held entitled to costs from parties for whom they are Juriediction
not trustees, it is generally as between party and party, but may be given to give solr
them as between solr and client : Turner v. Collins, 12 Eq. 438 ; though and client
there is no fund to take them from : Edenhorough v. Archbishop of Canter- costs.
bury, 2 Russ. 112. But the Court has a general jurisdiction to give solr and
client costs : Andrews v. Barnes, 39 Ch. D. 133, C. A., questioning Cochburn
V. Edwards, 18 Ch. D. 449, C. A.
Solr and client costs can be given though the parties are before the Court
only by means of a representation order : Re Davies, Jenkins v. D., 1891,
W. N. 104 J 64 L. T. 824.
In ordinary cases, where there are no fiduciary relations, only party and
party costs will be given, unless there is something scandalous, or gross
charges of fraud which have not been sustained: Turnery. Collins, 12 Eq.438.
Where there was such a relation between the parties, and the Court by
consent referred all matters in dispute, including costs, to an arbitrator, he
had, without special authority, power to give solr and client costs : Mordue
V. Palmer, 6 Ch. 22.
Relators in charity cases generally have sob and client costs : Morg. & D. Charity cases.
139 ; Dan. 59.
J44
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
Sequestra-
tion.
Represen-
tative case.
Official solr.
Extent of
An unfounded action to recover a charity fund of small amount in the
hands of trustees was dismissed with solr and client costs : Andrews v.
Barnes, sup.
The costs of a sequestration were not given as between solr and client :
Re Shapland, 23 W. R. 40.
In a representative case for the opinion of the Court in a winding-up,
party costs only were allowed out of the assets : Be Mutual Soc., Orimwade
V. Mutual Soc, 18 Ch. D. 530.
Prima facie, where the official solr is appointed guardian ad litem, he gets
party and party costs only : Eady v. Elsdon, [1901] 2 K. B. 460, C. A. ;
Goatly V. Jones, 1907, W. N. 161.
When costs are directed to be taxed as between solr and client, it does not
allowance on necessarily mean that all costs which the solr is entitled to against his client
tax t" "* ^^^ *° ^^ ^I'o^ed, but the allowance will vary according to the circumstances
of the case ; regard being had to the position of the parties, and the fund
out of which the costs are to be paid ; and a distinction is made : 1st, where
such costs are payable out of a fund belonging to other parties ; 2ndly, where
such costs are payable out of a common fund, in which the party has only a
limited interest ; and, 3rdly, where such costs are payable out of a fund
belonging exclusively to the party himself.
The addition of the words " and consequent thereon," or " and relating
thereto," or both sets of words, to the words " as between solr and client,"
give respectively a wider range to the taxation. Where the costs are to be
paid out of a party's own fund, all the above words may properly be inserted ;
and in acting upon them the taxing master will use his discretion according
to the circumstances as to the extent of the allowance.
Costs of action as between solr and client do not include costs of appeals,
rehearings, and exceptions : Agdbeg v. Hartwdl, 5 Beav. 271, 273 ; nor of a
case sent to another Court : Salheld v. Johnston, 1 M. & G . 533 ; but only costs
reasonably incurred in ordinary course : Hill v. Peel, L. R. 5 C. P. 172.
As to the costs of trustees served with notice of appeal, see Carroll v.
Graham, [1905] 1 Ch. 478.
Where an action for alleged infringement of copyright is dismissed with
" full costs," the costs are to be taxed in the ordinary way as between
party and party : Avery v. Wood, [1891] 3 Ch. 116, C. A.
An order imposing costs by way of penalty is irregular, but may be
upheld if right in substance: Willmoitv. Barber, 17 Ch. D.772, C. A.; and
that solr and client costs should not be awarded by way of damages, see
Cockhurn v. Edwards, 18 Ch. D. 449, 459, C. A.
On inquiry as Where an inquiry as to damages is directed, the costs of the inquiry will
to damages, in general be reserved, so that the Court may retain control over them :
Slack V. Midland By. Co., 16 Ch. D. 81.
See S. C. F. R., r. 67, as to providing for fees of taxation out of a fund in
Court.
Costs of
appeal.
" Full costs '
in copyright
action.
By way of
penalty.
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS — COSTS RESERVED.
Where interlocutory applications have been ordered to stand to the trial
and are not then mentioned to the Judge, the costs of such applications
are to be treated as costs in the action and taxed accordingly, and need
not be mentioned in the judgment. Where interlocutory appUcations
have been disposed of, but the costs have been reserved, such costs are not
to be mentioned in the judgment or order, or allowed on taxation, without
the special direction of the Judge : British Natural Premium Assoc, v.
Bywater, [1897] 2 Ch. 531. As to the precise effect of an order giving costs
of an application "in any event" or reserving such costs, see Howe v.
Winterton (Earl of), 1904, W. N. 204.
Where the order on the motion is silent as to costs, the following rules
apply : (1) the party making a successful motion is entitled to his costs as
C09ts in the cause, but the party opposing it is not ; (2) the party making a
SECT. II.] Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Funds. 245
motion which fails is not entitled to his costs as costs in the cause, but the
party opposing is ; (3) when a motion is made by one party and not opposed
by the other, the costs of both parties are costs in the cause: per Leach,
V.-C, 1 S. & S. 357 ; 1 M. & G. 659, 667.
Where a motion is treated as the trial of the action attendances are
allowed as at the trial : Dyer v. London School Beard, 1903, W. N. 83.
By O. Lxv, 23, on interlocutory applications, the Court may direct
payment of a sum in gross, in lieu of taxed costs. This rule is frequently
acted upon in Chambers.
See further as to costs of motion, inf. p. 379.
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES PKOTECTION ACT, 1893.
By this Act (56 & 57 V. c. 61), s. 1, where after the commencement
of that Act (1 Jan. 1894), any action, prosecution, or other proceeding is
commenced in the United Kingdom against any person for any act done in
pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament, or
of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or
default in the execution of any such Act, duty, or authority, and whenever
in any such action a judgment is obtained by the Deft, it shall carry costs
to be taxed as between solr and client.
This enactment applies to judgments in all actions brought in the Ch. D.
in whole or in part for injunction or damages, but not to appeals or inter-
locutory appHoations : Fielden v. Morley Corp., [1900] A. C. 133, H. L. ;
[1899] 1 Ch. 1, C. A. ; Jeremiah Ambler & Sons, Ld. v. Bradford Corporation,
[1902] 2 Ch. 585 ; and see Boberts v. Qwyrfai District Council, [1899]
1 Ch. 583 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 583, C. A. ; and to an action brought for the purpose
of obtaining a declaration only : Grand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton
U. D. Council, 15 Times L. R. 412 ; 107 L. T. 187 ; 43 S. J. 570 ; or an
action of trespass against a district council who, by their officials, used a
public highway : Greenwell v. Howell, [1900] 1 Q. B. 535, C. A. ; and in
general wherever a corporation are acting in pursuance of any " public
authority " : Chamberlain v. Bradford Corp., 83 L. T. 518 ; and see
Markey v. Tolworth Hospital Board, [1900] 2 Q. B. 454 ; but it is confined
to cases in which the action is " proceeded with " to judgment, and does
not apply to a discontinuance under O. xxvi, 1, where money is paid into
Court under 0. xxn, with denial of liability and not in satisfaction : Smith
V. Northleach Rural Council, [1902] 1 Ch. 197. A company incorporated
for purposes of profit as well as public utility is not entitled to the benefit
of the Act : A. G. v. Margate Pier Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 749 ; The Ydun, [1899]
P. 236, 239. Moreover, the Act does not apply to an action of deceit for
damages for fraudulent representations made by the agent of the public
authority to an intending contractor : S. Pearson <b Son, Ld. v. Dublin
Corporation, [1907] A. C. 351; or where the claim is in respect of a private
duty arising out of a contract : Sharpington v. Fulham Guardians, [1904]
2 Ch. 449. But the Act applies to whatever is done by a Corporation in
pursuance of statutory power for the public convenience although there
was no positive duty to do it : Jeremiah Ambler d> Sons, Ld. v. Bradford
Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 585 ; Parker v. London County Council, [1904]
2 K. B. 501. Judgment for the Defts carries the right to costs as between
solr and client, and the Court has no discretion to direct the taxation other-
wise : Harrop v. Mayor of Ossett, [1898] 1 Ch. 525 ; and see Toms v. Clacton
Urban Council, 1898, W. N. 61 ; and the right subsists although the judg-
ment as drawn up contains no direction as to taxation, and does not show
ex facie that the case falls within the Act : N. Met. Trams. Co. v. London
County Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 145 ; and an order in Chambers by consent
dismissing the action with costs is a " judgment obtained " by Defts
entitling them to the benefit of the Act : Shaw v. Hertfordshire County
Council, [1898] 2 Q. B. 282, C. A.
The Act does not take away the discretionary power of the Court to
246 Costs. [chap. XVII.
deprive the Defts of costs " for good cause " under O. lxv, 1 : Bostoch v.
Ramsey Urban Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 357.
ALLOWANCES.
The practice on taxation of costs, as regards special allowances as well as
general regulations, is now governed by 0. lxv, 27; and sub-s. (29)
provides that on every taxation the taxing master shall allow all such
costs, charges, and expenses as shall appear to him to have been necessary
or proper.
Rule 27 (29) applies to taxation of costs both as between party and party
and as between solr and cUent : Mclver & Co. v. Tate Steamers, Ld.,
[1902] 2 K. B. 184 ; also to Revenue cases : Manchester Corporation v.
Sugden, [1903] 2 K. B. 171.
Rule 27 (37) making the former practice applicable where not incon-
sistent with these rules gives the taxing masters power to revise and
regulate the practice in regard to taxation of costs and to the allowance
of fees so as to assimilate the allowances of costs, and to secure uniformity.
But the Practice Notes issued by the masters under this rule have no
statutory authority, and do not abrogate or fetter the discretion given
them by the R. S. C. : Be Ermen, [1903] 2 Ch. 156 ; and see Price v.
Clinton, [1906] 2 Ch. 487, as to the jurisdiction of the masters under r.27 (29).
See further as to allowances, post, p. 287 et seq.
HIGHER AND LOWBK SCALE.
By 0. LXV, 8, 9, in causes and matters commenced after the rules came
into operation, costs are to be taxed according to the lower scale in App. N.,
but the fees in the column headed " higher scale " in that appendix may be
allowed, either generally, or as to particular business in any cause or matter,
if " on special grounds, arising (1) out of the nature and importance, or
(2) the difficulty, or (3) urgency of the case," the Court or a Judge shall so
order, or if the taxing officer, under directions given to him by the Court
or a Judge, shall think such allowance ought to be made upon such special
grounds.
By r. 10, upon any reference to tax, as between solr and client, including
charges for business done in any cause or matter, the taxing master may
allow the higher scale fees if, on such special grounds, he thinks the allowance
ought to be made.
In order that the higher scale should be allowed, it is not sufficient that
the case is one of importance and difficulty, but there must be " special
grounds arising " in one of the three ways mentioned in the rule : William-
son V. North Staffordshire By. Co., 32 Ch. D. 399, C. A. (containing observa-
tions on Lydney & Wigpool Co. v. Bird, 31 Ch. D. 328) ; The Horace, 9
P. D. 86 ; Paine v. Chisholm, 39 W. R. 353 ; and if none of those conditions
exist appeal will lie : S. C.
Difficulty and complication, and the fact that a case has been conducted
with extreme ability, are not special grounds for allowing costs on the
higher scale : Bivington v. Oarden, [1901] 1 Ch. 561 (a partition action) ; nor
an allegation of fraud : Assets Development Co. v. Close Bros., [1900] 2 Ch.
717 ; r. 9 being designed to meet cases where an expensive class of witnesses
are required, as in patent actions : 8. C, and see Fraser v. Brescia Steam
Tram. Co., 56 L. T. 771 ; Hophinson v. St. James, <Scc. Electric Co., 1893,
W. N. 5, C. A.
Where the higher scale was allowed in the Court of first instance, it was
allowed also by the C. A., on reversing the decision and dismissing the
action : Turton v. T., 42 Ch. D. 128, 149, C. A.
The amount of the fund in question cannot, per se, be a special ground :
Re Spettigue's Trusts, 32 W. R. 385 ; nor the fact that Deft submits to an
injunction for a deliberate infringement of Pit's rights (as so to rule would
be to impose a penalty on him for submitting) : Hudson v. Osgerby, 32 W. R.
566 ; 50 L. T. 323 ; nor on motion for interlocutory injunction that im-
portant questions are raised : Grafton v. Watson, 51 L. T. 141 ; nor the mere
SECT. II. J Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Funds. 247
fact that an issue of fraud is raised : Be Terrell, 22 Ch. D. 473, C. A. ; secus,
as against a party making unfounded charges of fraud : Harrison v. Leutner,
24 Ch. D. 594 ; and the fact that the Pit in issuing the writ has certified the
lower scale does not interfere with the discretion : 8. C. And see Moseley v.
Victoria Rubber Co., 57 L. T. 143, 148 ; Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham, 33
Ch. D. at p. 120 ; Be Ohaytor's Settled Estates Act, 25 Ch. D. 651 ; Cardiff
Steamship Co. v. Berwick, 53 L. T. 56 ; EUington v. Clark, 38 Ch. D. 332 ;
58 L. T. 818 ; Horner v. Oyler, 49 L. J. C. P. 655.
As to the discretion of the taxing officer on taxation on lower scale in
County Court, see Be Langlois and Bidden, [1891] 1 Q. B. (C. A.) 349 ; and as
to the scale of fees in the Chancery Court of Lancaster in cases under the
amount or value of £300, see Be Manchester Beal Ice, dhc. Co., [1900] 1 Ch.
573, C. A.
COUNTY OOUBT SCALE.
By 0. LXV, 12, " in actions founded on contract, in which the Pit recovers, Contract,
by judgment or otherwise, a sum (exclusive of costs) not exceeding £50, he
shall be entitled to no more costs than he would have been entitled to had
he brought his action in a County Court, unless the Court or a Judge other-
wise orders."
By the County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 43), s. 116 (substituted
for sect. 5 of the County Courts Act, 1867), a Pit in an action founded on
contract, which could have been commenced in a County Court, recovering
less than £20, is not to be entitled to any costs, and recovering less than
£50, only to County Court costs ; subject to a proviso that if, within twenty-
one days after service of writ, or further time, if ordered, he obtains an
order, under 0. xiv, empowering him to enter judgment for £20 or upwards,
he is to be entitled to High Court costs. The power to extend the time is
given only to a Judge of the High Court : Haycocks, Ld. v. Mulholland,
[1904] 1 K. B. 145.
A Pit bringing himself within the proviso insect. 116, by obtaining judg-
ment for £20 or upwards under O. xiv, is entitled to High Court costs of the
whole action, though he recovers less than £50(or £50 and no more ; 0. lxv,
12) : Millingtm v. Harwood, [1892] 2 Q. B. 166, C. A. ; as (per Field, J. ) the
policy of the Act is to encourage proceedings in the High Court when the
benefit of O. xiv can be obtained : Barker v. Hempstead, 23 Q. B. D. 8.
By the same section in an action founded on tort the Pit recovering a Tort,
sum less than £10 is not entitled to any costs, and recovering less than £20
only to County Court costs, unless the Court otherwise orders. But if
an action includes a claim for an injunction as the main part of the relief
sought, the section does not apply : Keatesv. Woodward, [1902] 1 K. B. 532.
Under sect. 5 of 53 & 54 V. c. 44, and O. lxv, 1, the Court has a complete Discretion of
discretion not only as to the incidence, but as to the quantum of costs to Court,
be allowed : Neaves v. Spooner, 58 L. T. 164 ; 36 W. R. 257 ; and will allow
costs on the High Court scale where the action proves a proper one to bo
there decided : Williams v. Allen, 60 L. T. 103 ; 1889, W. N. 48 ; and see
Oppenheimerv. Davenport, 1884, W. N. 57 ; Copley v. Jackson, 1884, W. N. 94.
The section applies to an action in whichasolr is Pit : Blair v. Eisler, 21
Q. B. D. 185 ; and wherever the action is of a kind which a County Court
can entertain (whatever the amount claimed) : Solomon v. Mulliner, [1901]
1 Q. B. 76, C. A. ; but not where costs are given by statute, e.g., under the
Dramatic Copyright Act, 3 & 4 W. IV. c, 15, by way of full and reasonable
indemnity : Beeves v. Gibson, [1891] 1 Q. B. 652, C. A.
As to the application of sect. 5 of the County Courts Act, 1867, where the Reduction by
Pit's claim was reduced by set-off or counter-claim, see Potter v. Chambers, set-off or
4 C. P. D. 69 ; Chatfield v. Sedgwick, 4 C. P. D. 459 ; Neale v. Clarke, 4 counter-
Ex. D. 286 (where the original claim exceeding £50, the Pit was held ''^^''U'
entitled to High Court costs) ; Lundv. Campbell, 14Q. B. D. 821 ; Ahrhecker
V. Frost, 17 Q. B. D. 606 ; Stooke v. Taylor, 5 Q. B. D. 576 (q. v., as
distinction between set-ofE and counter-claim). to
248 Costs. [chap. XVII.
Where by reason of an " admitted set-ofi " within sect. 57 of the County
Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 43), the action could have been brought in
the County Court, the Pit under 0. lxv, 12, is only entitled to costs on the
County Court scale : Lovejoy v. Cole, [1894] 2 Q. B. 861.
Reference to As to the application of O. Lxv, 1 2, where an action of contract is referred
arbitration, to arbitration, costs abiding event, see Hyde v. Beardsley, 18 Q. B. D.
244 ; Emmotl v. Heys, 36 W. R. 237 ; 1887, W. N. 243.
Transfer of Where judgment is signed as to part of the claim in the High Court
to Countv ^^^- *^^ ^^^^ °^ *^® ^''*'°° '® *^®" transferred to the County Court, the Pit is
Court entitled to have his costs taxed upon the scale applicable to the aggregate
amount recovered : White v. Headland's Patent Electric Storage Battery Co.,
[1899] 1 Q. B. 507, C. A,, approving Keeble v. Bennett, [1894] 2 Q. B. 329 ;
and disapproving Bailey v. Watson & Co., [1898] 2 Q. B. 270 ; and see
Wright di Son v. Bull, [1900] 1 Q. B. 124.
DELAY OB MISCONDUCT.
By O. LXV, 11, " if in any case it shall appear to the Court or a Judge
that costs have been improperly or without any reasonable cause incurred,
or that by reason of any undue delay in proceeding under any judgment or
order, or of any misconduct or default of the solr, any costs properly incurred
have nevertheless proved fruitless to the person incurring the same, the
Court or Judge may call on the solr of the person by whom such costs have
been so incurred to show cause why such costs should not be disallowed as
between the solr and his client, and also (if the circumstances of the case
shall require) why the solr should not repay to his client any costs which the
client may have been ordered to pay to any other person and thereupon may
make such order as the justice of the case may require. The Court or Judge
may, if they or he think fit, refer the matter to a taxing officer for inquiry
and report ; and direct the solr in the first place to show cause before such
taxing ojBficer, and may also, if they or he think fit, direct or authorize the
official solr of the Supreme Court to attend and take part in such inquiry.
Such notice (if any) of the proceedings or order shall be given to the client
in such manner as the Court or Judge may direct. Any costs of the official
solr shall be paid by such parties or out of such funds as the Court or a
Judge may direct ; or, if not otherwise paid, may be paid out of such
moneys (if any) as may be provided by Parliament."
This rule extends to costs payable out of a fund, and applies notwith-
standing a previous order for taxation of costs of an action. The powers
conferred by it may be exercised by the Judge of his own motion without
any request from any of the parties : Broum v. Burdett, 37 Ch. D. 207,
C. A. ; and for observations as to the jurisdiction of the Court as to
disallowing costs improperly incurred in an admon action, see Ee
Scowby, S. V. ;Sf., [1897] 1 Ch. 741, C. A. ; as to saddling solrs with costs
of the day where they know of the illness of a material witness and neglect
to give notice in time to keep the case out of the list, see Shorter v. Tod-
Heatley, 1894, W. N. 21.
Where an admon suit was commenced in 1873, and the chief clerk's certifi-
cate not made until 1884, the Court on further consideration directed the
taxing master to inquire as to the cause of the delay, and disallow any costs
occasioned by improper delay : Furness v. Davis, 33 W. R. 320 ; 51 L. T. 854.
See Form, sup. No. 16, p. 237 ; and see In re Ormston, Ooldring v. Lancaster,
58 L. T. 74 ; 59 L. T. 594 ; 36 W. R. 216 ; Be Dale, Stubbs v. D., 62 L. T. 28.
It is not ground for depriving a successful Deft of his costs that, having
the necessary information to enable the Pit to ascertain who was the proper
party to be sued, he neglected to give it to the Pit : Westgate v. Crowe, [1908]
1 K. B. 24.
PROLIXITY, ETC.
By O. LXV. 27 (20), the Court or Judge may direct the costs of any pro-
ceeding (whether the same is objected to or not) which is improper.
SECT. II,] Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Funds. 249
vexatious, unnecessary, or contains vexatious or unnecessary matter, or is
of unnecessary length, or caused by misconduct or negligence, to be dis-
allowed ; or may direct the taxing officer to look into the same, and dis-
allow the costs thereof, or of such part thereof as he shall find to be improper
or unnecessary or vexatious, or to contain unnecessary matter, in which
case the party whose costs are so disallowed is to pay the costs thereby
occasioned to the other parties ; and where the question has not been raised
before the Court or Judge, the taxing officer is to look into the same (and
as to evidence, although the same may be entered as read), and thereupon
the same consequences shall follow as if he had been specially directed
to do so : see Form 14, p. 236. As to the discretion to be exercised by the
taxing master on taxation, see 0. lxv, 27 {38a), and inf. p. 271.
By 27 (21) the taxing officer may adjust costs, certifying for payment
or set-off, or may delay their allowance ; and by 27 (22), where questions
as to such costs are dealt with at Chambers in the Ch. D., under (20), the
Master is to make a note thereof for the information of the taxing officer.
By 0. xxxvm, 3, the costs of every affidavit which shall unnecessarily
set forth matters of hearsay, or argumentative matter, or copies of or
extracts from documents, shall be paid by the party filing the same.
In taxing costs of respondent in the House of Lords, the appendix being
of undue length, no costs were allowed for drawing, and all costs of so much
as consisted of shorthand notes of arguments were disallowed : Singer
Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, 8 App. Ca. 15.
In order that a party may be allowed under this rule costs occasioned to
him by improper proceedings by another party, there must have been a
disallowance of such costs either by the Court or by the taxing master on
one of the grounds mentioned in the rule. Therefore, where costs of
particulars in a patent action are disallowed for want of the statutory
certificate of reasonableness, the Pit is not entitled to the costs occasioned
to him by them, and the taxing master cannot enter into the question
whether they were improper : Oarrard v. Edge, 44 Ch. D. 224, C. A.
As to the inherent power of the Court to take pleadings or affidavits off
the file for prolixity, see Hill v. Hart-Davis, 26 Ch. D. 470, C. A., where, an
affidavit of documents being of oppressive length, the Court, to avoid delay
and expense, allowed it to remain on the file, but ordered the party filing it
to pay the costs : and see Crachmll v. Janson, 11 Ch. D. 1.
By O. LXV, 27 (8), the necessity for or propriety of separate proceedings by
several Defts appearing by the same solr is to be inquired into by the
taxing officer ; there is no appeal from his decision : Beattie v. L. Ii!bury,ji2
W. R. 68; 43 L. J. Ch. 80 ; and see Woods v. W., 5 Ha. 229 ; Greedy v.
Lavender, 11 Beav. 417 ; et inf. Chap. XLIV., " Administbation " ; and
as to trustees severing in defence, inf. Chap. XLI., " Trustees " ; and
generally, Morg. & D. 88, 262.
The Court would not deprive of their costs Defts who were successful at
the hearing, on the ground that they might have raised the defence by
demurrer : Bush v. Trowbridge, die. Co., 10 Ch. 459 ; but see Be Star and
Garter Hotel, 42 L. J. Ch. 374.
COSTS OF PART OF ACTION — APPORTIONMENT — SET-OFF.
Where a Deft has put himself in the right by a tender or payment into Tender or
Court, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion in a fit case, allows Pit his payment into
costs up to time of tender or payment, and gives the Deft the subsequent Court,
costs of action : see Buckton v. Higgs, 4 Ex. D. 174 ; The William Syming-
ton, 10 P. D. 1. And as to the efieot of an offer by Deft to settle or com-
promise, see Trotter v. Maclean, 13 Ch. D. 574 ; Fennessy v. Day, 55 L. T.
161 ; Birmingham Land Co. v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 57 L. T. 185 ; 36 Ch. D.
650 ; Jenkins v. Hope, [1896] 1 Ch. 278.
Where a Pit obtains a judgment with costs as to one object of the action. Pit only
but entirely fails as to another object, and as to that his action is dismissed partly
successful.
250
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
Deft failing
on some de-
fences.
Particular
fund,
primarily
liable.
with costs, the costs are apportioned, and the costs of one part set off against
the costs of the other : A. Q. y. Oarrmgton, 6 Beav. 458.
A Deft being entitled "to fight from every available point of advantage,"
if he succeeds generally, ought not to be deprived of costs merely because he
has failed on some defences ; secus, if he raises and contests a distinct issue
on which he fails : Blank v. Footman, Pretty & Co., 39 Ch. D. 678 ; Hubhack
V. British North Borneo Co., [1904] 2 K. B. 473 ; Hoyes v. Tate, [1907]
1 K. B. 656.
Where costs are ordered to be paid out of a particular fund, that does not
determine that that fund is ultimately to bear them ; and where any
question remains, it is proper to add the words " without prejudice to the
question as to what fund is primarily liable to bear such costs ' ' : Sheppard v.
S., 33 Beav. 130 ; Dan. 1009.
Apportion-
ment of
general
charges.
Apportion-
ment so far i
costs in-
creased.
APPORTIONMENT.
When the Court gives part of the costs of the action it may do so in two
ways : the one will involve an apportionment of the whole of the general
charges ; the other will extend only to the excess of expense incurred in
consequence of the particular matter directed to be excepted. For an
instance of the application of both modes in an original and cross suit, see
Begbie v. Fcnwich, 6 Ch. 869.
In the former case, where the Court directs taxation of the costs of one of
several objects of the action, that direction according to the settled practice
in the Ch. D. carries not only so much of the costs of the action as relates
exclusively to that particular object, but also a portion of the costs of every
general proceeding in the action : Heighington v. Qrant, 1 Beav. 230 ;
Hardy v. Hull, 17 Beav. 355 ; Proud v. Bates, 14 W. R. 306 ; 35 L. J. Ch.
341 ; 14 L. T. 14. The costs relating exclusively to one object are charged
to that alone, and those common to both apportioned between them :
A. G. V. Carrington, 6 Beav. 458 ; Knight v. PursseU, 28 W. R. 90 ; 49
L. J. Ch. 120 ; 14 L. T. 581 ; Jenkins v. Jackson, 60 L. J. Ch. 45; 8. C, in
C. A., [1891] 1 Ch. 89 ; though, semble, it might be otherwise in Q. B. D. ;
and see Throckmorton v. Crowley, 3 Eq. 196. For the actual mode of
apportioning in such oases, see the certificate of the clerks in Court in
Heighington v. Grant, sup. In re Pollard, 1902, W. N. 49, Kekewich, J.,
pointed out the advantage in admon proceedings of apportioning the costs
when possible by the order, by ordering the party who is to pay costs to
pay a certain proportion of the whole costs.
A decree in two suits (original and cross) directed, as to the second, that
s it should be dismissed with costs so far as it sought to set aside a certain
security, and that the Pit in that suit should pay to B. (the Pit in the first
suit) his costs in the first suit, " so far as the same have been increased by
the answer of P.," the Pit in the second suit. The latter costs were held to
include so much of the bill as was framed to anticipate the answer, and
carried a proportion of the costs of the hearing. As to the costs of the cross
suit, F. had to pay the proportion of the general costs (as in Heighington v.
Grant, 1 Beav. 228 et sup.) : Begbie v. Fenwick, 6 Ch. 869.
In the latter of the two cases above referred to, where it is intended,
either in directing payment of certain costs, or in excluding them from the
costs of the suit, that the amount only should be paid or excluded by which
the costs have been increased by that particular matter, it should be dis-
tinctly so expressed. The effect of the terms in which the orders have
been expressed with reference to these two modes of taxation has been
sometimes doubted ; but it has been settled that orders involve an
apportionment of the general charges, by the use of the expressions " relate
to " or " occasioned by " ; and that orders in which the words used are
" except so far as such costs have been increased by," do not involve such
apportionment.
But where a Deft was allowed to withdraw his defence on paying Pit's
SECT. II. ] Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Funds. 251
costs, " so far as they were oooasioned " by the defence, the Deft was only
liable to pay the increased costs, and not an apportioned part of the general
costs ; the Master of the Rolls observing that the general rule above stated
was applicable where the costs were occasioned by a particular charge or
matter, but not to costs occasioned by a defence : Real and Personal
Advance Go. v. McCarthy, 18 Ch. D. 362, C. A.
Where Pit, succeeding as to one only of three items claimed, was to When Pit-
recover against Defts costs rightly incurred in recovering the amount, and entitled to
the Defts to recover from Pit costs rightly incurred in defending themselves, g^n^™ 0°^ ^•
Pit was held entitled to general costs : Sparrow v. Hill, 9 Q. B. D. 675, C. A. ;
but this case does not lay down any general rule applicable to Chancery
actions : Harley v. Hunt, 1887, W. N. 184 ; and see Jenkins v. Jackson, 60
L. J. Ch. 45 ; S. C. in C. A., [1891] 1 Ch. 89, where, the order being in
similar terms as to costs relating to separate claims, Pit was not entitled to
the general costs.
Where a party was successful on one point and not on others, the taxing
master apportioned the costs by taxing them as a whole and dividing them
in thirds : Knight v. Purssdl, 28 W. R. 90 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 120 ; 41 L. T. 581 ;
followed in Jenkins v. Jackson, sup.
By O. i-xv, 2, where issues in fact and law are raised upon a claim or
counter-claim, the costs of the several issues respectively, both in law and
fact, shall, unless otherwise ordered, follow the event.
In general, costs which have been saved by a counter-claim being brought Counter-
instead of a cross action are not to be taken into account ; and therefore, in claim,
the absence of special direction, where there is a counter-claim, costs
incurred in the action, which have not been increased by reason of the
counter-claim ought not to be apportioned : Atla^ Metal Co. v. Miller,
[1898] 2 Q. B. 500, C. A., explaining previous cases — ex gr.. Saner v.
Bilton, 11 Ch. D. 416 (and see Form 9, p. 235) ; Mason v. Brentini, 15
Ch. D. 287, C. A. ; although the result on the whole may be in favour of
the Deft : Be Brown, Ward v. Morse, 23 Ch. D. 337, C. A. ; Baines v.
Bromley, 6 Q. B. D. 691, C. A. ; and see James v. Jackson, [1910] 2 Ch. 92.
Where claim was dismissed without costs, and counter-claim with costs,
and if costs of counter-claim should not amount to half the entire costs of
action. Deft was to pay the difference, the latter direction was, on appeal,
held irregular as imposing costs by way of penalty, but the whole order was
substantially within the discretion of the Judge as amounting to dismissal
of claim and counter-claim with direction for Deft to pay half the costs of
action : Willmott v. Barber, 17 Ch. D. 772, C. A. ; and see Mayor of Bradford
V. Pickles, [1894] 3 Ch. 53, n.
On trial with jury, where the judgment was that Pit should recover
against Deft his costs of suit, and Deft recover costs of counter-claim, the
Pit was entitled to the general costs : Baines v. Bromley, 6 Q. B. D. 691,
C. A. ; and in such a case it is immaterial whether the judgment is drawn
up for Pit on claim and Deft on counter-claim, or for Deft for balance under
O. XXI, 17 : Shrapnel v. Laing, 20 Q. B. D. 334, C. A.
On trial without jury, where the claim was admitted subject to the
counter-claim, the costs of claim and counter-claim were to be taxed as if
they were separate actions : Finska Angfartygs Aktiebolaget v. Brown,
1891, W. N. 116.
As to the application of the same principles where the action is referred
and the costs are to abide the event of reference, see Ellis v. Desilva, 6
Q. D. B. 521, C. A. ; Stookey. Taylor, 5 Q. B. D. 569 ; and inf Chap. XXVI.,
" Arbitrations."
Where on trial of issues, official referee found for Pit on claim and Defts
on counter-claim for larger sum, the action being for work done, and the
counter-claim being in thenatureof a defence on the ground of the inferiority
of the work, judgment was given for the Defts with costs, as having sub-
stantially succeeded : Lowe v. Holme, 10 Q. B. D. 286.
But where there is an appeal and cross appeal they are to be treated Cross appeal
252 Costs. [chap. XVII.
as independent proceedings for the purpose of taxation where the points
they deal with are distinct : Jones v. Stott, [1910] 1 K. B. (C. A.) 893.
Two Pits, one Where two Pits claimed in respect of two different causes of action, and
only success- one succeeded and the other failed, the successful Pit was entitled to his
general costs, and the other was to pay to the Deft the costs occasioned by
his being joined : Viscount Oort v. Bowney, 17 Q. D. B. 625, C. A.
The Court has jurisdiction to direct that the costs payable by a Pit
to a successful Deft shall be added to the costs recoverable by the Pit
from an unsuccessful Deft : Bulloch v. London General Omnibus Co. <fc
others, 1906, W. N. 224.
Two Defts, Where two Defts are jointly represented by the same solr, and
s"o ""sf 1 i^idgment with costs is given in favour of one Deft and against the other,
the successful Deft is, in the absence of any agreement between him and
his co-Deft, entitled to recover from the Pit half the costs of the defence :
Beaumont v. Senior, [1903] 1 K. B. 282.
As between As to apportioning costs of admon action between different estates or
difiereut assets, v. inf. Chap. XLIV., " Administbation " ; and Be Allen, Davies v.
estates. Chatwood, 11 Ch. D. 244; Be Whitaher, Denison- Pender v. Svans, 1910,
W. N. 236.
As to apportionment of costs of action to administer trusts of a settlement
between appointed and unappointed shares, see Moore v. Dixon, 15 Ch.
D. 566.
SET-OFF.
Several points Where several points are in dispute, and each party succeeds on some or
in dispute. ong Qf them, the costs may be set off one against the other, and Pit or Deft
ordered to pay the balance : Bankart v. Tennant, 10 Eq. 141, 150 ; see
Forms 9, 13, sup. pp. 235, 236. And as to such direction, see Taylor v.
Popham, 15 Ves. 72 ; Dan. 983, 984.
Where, however, so much of an information as related to one of two
objects was dismissed without costs, and the A. G. was directed to be paid
his costs of the other part, this was held to be an exception to the general
rule : A. 6. v. Carrington, 6 Beav. 454.
As to the jurisdiction of the taxing officer to adjust costs by way of
deduction or set-off, see O. lxv, 27 (21).
Solr's lien. By 0. lxv, 14, a set-oif for costs between parties may be allowed, not-
withstanding the solr's lien for costs in the particular cause or matter in
which the set-ofif is sought.
Independent These rules do not apply to costs in independent proceedings, but only
proceedings, to costs in the same action, notwithstanding after taxation of some costs
two actions are consolidated : David v. Bees, [1904] 2 K. B. 435 ; Bake v.
French, [1907] 1 Ch. 428. Costs incurred in the High Court cannot be
set off against costs obtained in the County Court, although the proceedings
are between the same parties : Hassell v. Stanley, [1896] 1 Ch. 607.
The Court of Bankruptcy will not allow costs of proceedings in the
High Court to be set off against costs in bankruptcy : Exp. Oriffin, Be
Adams, 14 Ch. D. 37, C. A.
The right to set off damages under judgments in different actions is
unaffected by the rule : Ooodfellow v. Gray, [1899] 2 Q. B. 498, C. A.
Costs out of a Costs which a party is ordered to pay personally may be set off against
fund or out of costs which he is entitled to receive out of a fund in Court : Batten v.
the estate. Wedgwood Coal Co., 28 Ch. D. 317 ; but there is no right of set-off, either
of costs or money recovered, against costs or money payable in another
and distinct proceeding : Be Harrald, Wilde v. Walford, 31 W. R. 518 ;
51 L. T. 441.
Where an appeal by a party entitled to costs out of the estate (the
certificate of taxation being ready for signature) was dismissed with costs,
the Court of Appeal declined to order a set-off, but stayed payment of costs
to the appellant for a fortnight so as to give time for the consideration of
the set-off by the taxing master : Be Crawshay, Dennis v. C, 45 Ch. D.
318, C. A.
SECT. II.] Taxation of Costs and Payment out of Funds. 253
As to set-off of costs caused by Deft to Pit in an action for infringement Patent
of a patent, dismissed with costs, and where the Deft did not receive a action,
certificate under 46 & 47 V. c. 57, s. 29 (6), see Garrard v. Edge, 44 Ch. D.
224, C. A.
The order to set ofE may be obtained at Chambers : see Robarts v. Buee,
8 Ch. D. 198, 200.
In Umfreville v. Johnson, 10 Ch. 580, on appeal, the bill was dismissed Several Pits,
with costs, so far as concerned one Pit, and a decree with costs made in
favour of the other, and Deft was only to pay the balance.
As to the liability of several Defts employing the same solr, see Be Several Defts.
Colquhoun, 5 M. D. & G. 35 ; and Mr. PoUett's certificate, Id. 36 ; and see
Mortgage Ins. Corp. v. Canadian, &c. Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 377. As to any
separate costs of a company, where the trustees of trust deed for securing
debentures and the company appear by the same solr, see Mortgage
Insurance Corpn., Ld. v. Canadian Agricultural Coal and Colonization
Co., £rf..[1901] 2 Ch. 377; and see Be Clayton Engineering and Electrical
Construction Co., Ld., 1904, W. N. 28.
INTEREST ON COSTS— COSTS MADE A CHARGE.
The Pit's costs of suit, not having been paid by Deft pursuant to decree
for sale of property subject to Pit's lien, were ordered to be paid to Pit's
solr out of the proceeds of the sale, with interest at £4 p. c. from the date of
certificate of taxation, subject to recouping the estate to the extent of any-
thing recovered from Deft : Tovmshend v. Martin, V.-C. S., 5 Dec. 1853,
B. 241 ; and see decree in Lock v. Lomas, V.-C. S., 24 Nov. 1855, giving
interest on costs.
In Matthias v. M., V.-C. S., 16 Jan. 1858, B. 588, costs were directed to
be a charge on settled estates, with interest at £4 p. c, which the life
tenant was to keep down. In Morley v. Mendham, V.-C. W., 5 June, 1858,
B. 1232, trustees were to be at Uberty to advance a sum out of the personal
estate for repairs on the real estate, such sum and the costs to be a charge
on the latter, with interest at £4 p. c. Where a mortgagee's costs are ordered
to be added to his security, the amount so charged carries interest at 4 p. c.
from the date of the allocatur : Lippard v. Bicketts, 41 L. J. Ch. 595. And
for direction that costs shall be a charge on real estate, v. inf. Chap. XLIV.,
" Administeation," and Chap. XXXVIII., "Infants." An order for
taxation and payment of costs by Deft was a charge on his realty from the
date of the taxing master's certificate ; but as against purchasers, &c.,
only from its registration under 1 & 2 V. c. 110 : Hargrove v. H., 23 Beav.
484 ; and for the decree, see Chap. XLVII., " Moktgagbs." The allocatur
of a taxing master, though registered, was no charge, but a final order for
payment, when registered, was : Shaw v. Neale, 20 Beav. 157 ; 1 Jur.
N. S. 666 ; 6 H. L. C. 581. To make the costs bear interest under that
Act (sects. 17, 18), there must be an order for their payment by some
person, and it will not be payable on costs to be raised from an estate :
A. O. V. Nethercote, 11 Sim. 529 ; and see Taylor v. Jardine, 1 Ha. 316 ;
Chadmck v. Holt, 4 W. R. 791 ; D. Beaufort v. Phillips, 1 D. & S. 321.
And as to certificates of taxation between solr and client, under the 6 & 7
V. c. 73, see sect. 43 of that Act.
Interest was not given on costs paid on an undertaking to refund if
appeal successful, which event had happened, and in such a case the
direction for payment of interest ought not to be inserted as a common
form : Edge v. Gallmi, 1899, W. N. 137, C. A.
By the Solicitors Act, 1860 (23 & 24 V. c. 127), s. 27, where payment is
ordered of costs previously taxed, the Court or Judge may give interest at
£4 p. c. from the date of the certificate of taxation. This only applies to
solrs : Jenner v. Morris, 11 W. R. 943 ; 2 N. R. 479.
As to the allowance of interest on costs on taxation in the absence of
special direction, and under the Solicitor's Remuneration Act, v. inf. p. 299
et seq.
254 Costs. [chap. XVII.
Section III. — Taxation.
The forms in this and subsequent sections have been framed to
meet the decision in Re Brockman, [1909] 2 Ch. 170, and have
been submitted to and approved by the Master of the Eolls.
1. Order of Course to Tax Bill delivered within One Month where
Client ashsfor delivery of Papers — Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7
V. c. 73), s. 37.
Upon the petition of B. of &c., this day preferred unto this Court, it
was alleged that the Petr employed the above-named A. as his solr in
[state business in which solr was employed] ; that the said solr, on or
about the — day of — (i.e., within one calendar month, s. 48), de-
livered unto the Petr his bill [or stale number bills] of fees and
disbursements, which, as the Petr is advised, [If so, contains
charges for work not done on his retainer, and which the Petr is
not liable to pay, and the same does or do not contain any item
for business done in any Court ; as to these allegations, see s. 37],
ought to be taxed ; that the Petr submits to pay what shall be
certified as payable to the said solr on the taxation of his said bill
[or bills] ;
(i) It was therefore prayed, and it is accordingly ordered, that it
be referred to the taxing master to tax and settle the said bill [or
bills], and that the Petr, and also the said solr, do produce before
the said master, upon oath, as he shall direct, all books, papers, and
writings in their custody or power respectively relating to the matters
hereby referred, or any of them ; And that they be examined touching
the same matters, or any of them, as the said master shall direct ;
(ii) And it is ordered that the said solr do give credit for all sums
of money by him received of or on account of the Petr, and be at
liberty to charge all sums of money paid by him to or on account of
the Petr ;
(iii) And it is ordered that if the said bill [or bUls], when taxed, be
less by a sixth part than the said bill [or bills] as delivered, the said
master do tax the costs of the Petr of this reference, and if the said
bill [or bills], when taxed, shall not be less by a sixth part than the
said bill [or bills] as delivered, the said master do tax the costs of
the said solr of this reference ; And the said master is to certify the
amount payable by and the amount due from the Petr to the said
solr, or from him to the Petr, as the case may be, having regard to the
costs of this reference so to be taxed as aforesaid, and any sum or
sums of money which may have been so received or paid as aforesaid ;
(iv) And it is ordered that the amount so to be certified as payable
be paid, within twenty-one days after service of this order, and of the
SECT. III.] Taxation. 255
taxing master's certificate, to be made in pursuance thereof, by the
party from whom to the party to whom the same shall be certified to
be payable, unless the Court shall, upon special circumstances, to be
certified by the said master, otherwise order, upon application to be
made within one week after the date of the said master's certificate,
by the party liable to pay such amount ;
(v) And it is ordered, that upon payment by the Petr to the said
solr of what may be certified to be due to him as aforesaid, or in case
it shall appear that there is nothing due to him, he, the said solr, do
deliver to the Petr upon oath all deeds, books, papers, and writings in
his custody or power belonging to the Petr ; And it is ordered that
no proceedings be commenced against the Petr in respect of the said
bill \or bills] pending this reference. — Re Brockman, [1909] 2 Ch. 170.
The above form has been divided into numbered paragraphs to facilitate
reference hereafter.
The direction for delivery up of the client's papers, &o. is discretionary,
and should not be inserted in the order when the action in which the bill
of costs has been delivered is still pending : Exp. Jarman, 4 Ch. D. 835
(following Re Byreh, 8 Beav. 24 ; disapproving Be Teague, 11 Beav. 318).
In any case in which the client seeks delivery of papers the order should
direct the taxing master to certify the amount "due from" as well as the
amount " payable by," so as to ascertain the amount for which the solr has
a hen upon the papers : Re Brockman, sup.
For forms of application, see D. C. P. 1045 et seq.
2. Like Order, where Client does not ask for Delivery of Papers.
Upon the petition of B. of &c., this day preferred unto this Court,
it was alleged that the Petr employed the above-named A. as his
solr {state business on which solr was em/ployed) ; That the said solr,
on or about the — day of — (i.e., within one month), delivered unto
the Petr his bill of fees and disbursements which, as the Petr is advised
&c., ought to be taxed ; It was therefore prayed, and it is accordingly
ordered, that it be referred to the taxing master to tax and settle the
said bill, and that the Petr and also the said solr do produce before
the said master upon oath as he shall direct all books, papers, and
writings in their custody or power respectively relating to the matters
hereby referred or any of them, and that they be examined touching
the same matters or any of them as the said master shall direct ;
And it is ordered that the said solr do give credit for all sums of
money by him received of or on account of the Petr, and be at liberty
to charge all sums of money paid by him to or on account of the Petr.
And it is ordered that if such bill when taxed be less by a sixth part
than the said bill as delivered, the said master do tax the costs of the
Petr of this reference, and if such bill when taxed shall not be less by
a sixth part than the said bUl as delivered, the said master do tax the
costs of the said solr of this reference. And the said master is to
certify the amount payable by the Petr to the said solr or from the said
solr to the Petr as the case may be, having regard to the costs of this
256 Costs. [chap. XVII.
reference so to be taxed as aforesaid, and any sum or sums of money
whicli may have been so received or paid as aforesaid.
In the above order no submission to pay will be inserted, and this order
would not appear to be enforceable under sect. 43, which refers to " the
amount certified to be due and directed to be paid."
3. Order of Course, by Consent.
Upon the petition of B. of &c., it was alleged that the Petr employed
the above-named A. as his solr in &c. [Form 1, sup.] ; That the said
solr, on or about the — day of — , delivered unto the Petr his bill of
fees and disbursements which the Petr desires to tax ; [// the solr
employed in presenting the petition is not the solr in whose matter the
petition is headed, add That the Petr submits to pay what shall appear
to be due to the said solr on the taxation of his said bill] ; It was
therefore prayed, and the said solr having signed the petition and
consented to this order, it is accordingly ordered, that it be referred to
the taxing master to tax and settle the said bill, and that the Petr and
also the said solr do produce before the said master upon oath as he
shall direct all books, papers, and writings in their custody or power
respectively relating to the matters hereby referred or any of them,
and that they be examined touching the same matters or any of them
as the said master shall direct ; And it is ordered that the said solr do
give credit for all sums of money by him received of or on account of
the Petr, and that he be at liberty to charge all sums of money paid
by him to or on account of the Petr ; and the said master is to certify
the amount due from the Petr to the said solr, or from him to the
Petr, as the case may be (and to tax the costs of this reference and
certify the amount thereof, and whether more than one-sixth of the
amount of the bill has been taxed ofi).
The words in brackets were added by direction of the Judges of the
Chancery Division, 8th May, 1896.
4. Order of Course to tax Bill delivered more than one and less than
twelve months on Client's application. — Sect. -37.
Upon the petition of B. &o., this day preferred unto this Court, it
was alleged that the Petr employed the above-named A. as his solr
{state business on which solr was employed) ; That the said solr, on or
about the — day of — (state date of delivery), delivered unto the Petr
his bill of fees and disbursements which, as the Petr is advised, ought
to be taxed. That the Petr submits to pay what shall be certified as
payable to the said solr on the taxation of the said bill. It was
therefore prayed, and it is accordingly ordered, that it be referred to
the taxing master to tax and settle the said bill, and that the Petr
and also the said solr do produce before the said master upon oath as
he shall direct all books, papers, and writings in their custody or
power respectively relating to the matters hereby referred or any of
them ; and that they be examined touching the same matters or any
of them as the said master shall direct ; And it is ordered that the
SECT. III.] Taxation. 257
said soil do give credit for all sums of money by liim received of or
on account of the Petr ; And that he be at liberty to charge all sums
of money paid by him to or on account of the Petr ; And it is ordered
that if such bill when taxed be less by a sixth part than the said bill
as delivered, the said master do tax the costs of the Petr of this
reference, and if such bill when taxed shall not be less by a sixth
part than the said bill as delivered, the said master do tax the costs
of the said solr of this reference ; And the said master is to certify
the amount payable by [and if client asks for papers the amount
due from] the Petr to the said solr or from him to the Petr as the
case may be, having regard to the costs of this reference so to be
taxed as aforesaid, and any sum or sums of money which may have
been so received or paid as aforesaid. And it is ordered that the
amount so to be certified as payable be paid within twenty-one
days after service of this order and of the taxing master's certificate
to be made in pursuance thereof by the party from whom to the
party to whom the same shall be certified to be payable unless
the Court shall upon special circumstances to be certified by the
said master, otherwise order upon application to be made within
one week after the date of the said master's certificate by the
party liable to pay such amount [If client asks for papers, And it
is ordered that upon payment by the Petr to the said solr of what
may be certified to be due to him as aforesaid or in case it shall appear
that there is nothing due to him, he the said solr do deliver to the
Petr upon oath all deeds, books, papers, and writings in his custody
or power belonging to the Petr] ; And it is ordered that no proceedings
be commenced against the Petr in respect of the said bill pending this
reference, but the said master is to make his certificate in a month
(unless the said master shall extend the time to enable him to make
his certificate) or this order is to be of no efiect.
5. Like Order on Solicitor's Application.
Upon the petition of the said A. &c., it was alleged that the Petr
was employed by B. of &c. in &c. [Form 1, sup.] ; that the Petr
transacted such business, and on the — day of — {i.e., after one, and
within twelve months) caused a bill of his charges, accompanied by a
letter subscribed with his own hand, to be personally delivered [or
sent by the post] to the said B. ; that the said B. has not paid the
Petr's said bill, nor taken any steps to get the same taxed ; It was
therefore prayed, and it is accordingly ordered, that it be referred to
the taxing master {Insert paragraphs (i) and (ii). Form 1, ante, p. 254) ;
And it is ordered (in case the said B. shall attend upon such taxation)
that if the said bill when taxed be less by a sixth part than the said
bill as delivered, the said master do tax the costs of the said B. of this
reference ; and if the said bill, when taxed, shall not be less by a sixth
part than the said bill as delivered, the said master do tax the Petr's
VOL. I. S
258 Costs. [chap. XVII.
costs of this reference ; And the said master is to certify the amount
payable by the said B. to the Petr, or from the Petr to the said B., as
the case may be, having regard to the costs of this reference (if taxed
as aforesaid), and any sum or sums of money which may have been so
received or paid as aforesaid {Insert fwragrafh (iv), Form 1, arde,
p. 254) ; And in case the said B. shall payto the Petr such sum as may
be certified to be due to him without further order, or in case the said
master shall certify that there is nothing due to the Petr, or that he
has been overpaid. It is ordered that the Petr do deliver to the said
B., upon oath, all deeds, books, papers, and writings in his custody or
power belonging to the said B. ; And it is ordered that no proceedings
be taken by the Petr against the said B. in respect of the said bill
pending this reference ; And it is ordered that a copy of this order be
personally served on the said B. one week, at the least, before any
appointment is taken out for the taxation of the said bill.
For form of application, see D. C. P. 1042.
6. Special Order to tax limited to particular Items.
" Refer &c. to tax and settle the following disputed items in the
bill of fees and disbursements, and for business done by G., as the
solr of the Petr, amounting to £ — , in the (petition) mentioned [state the
items here or by reference to a schedule]." — Parties to produce, and be
examined ; {para. (1), Form 1, ante, p. 254) Costs reserved ; No
direction as to costs of reference, or for payment. — See Re Tryon,
M. E,., 22 March, 1844, B. 761.
For order for leave, pending taxation, to deliver additional bills, altering
items by enlarging only, see Re Walters, 9 Beav. 303, n. ; but this can only
be by special leave : 76. 302, n. ; and see post. Section IV. Form 2, p. 272.
And for order for taxation, limited to items to be specified, with con-
sequent directions, see Scougall v. Campbell, L. C. 3 Feb. 1827, B. 499 ;
3 Russ. 554.
For order for taxation of so much of bill of London agents delivered to
country solrs as related to a particular action, upon terms of payment into
Court by the applicants of the whole amount claimed by the agents to be
due to them, see In re Johnson and Weatherall, 37 Ch. D. 433, at p. 443,
C. A. ; S. C, in D. P., nom. Storer & Co. v. Johnson and Weatherall, 15
App. Ca. 203, at p. 209 ; ReidY. Burrows, [1892] 2 Ch. 413, 415, C. A. (but
this is not necessary when the whole bill is to be taxed: Re Wilde, [1910]
1 Ch. 100). But an order to tax part of a bill cannot be made on petition
of course.
7. Order of Course for Taxation of Conveyancing Costs under
Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, s. 83.
Upon the petition of the — Rly Co., this day preferred &c., it was
alleged {state circumstances as, thatthePetrs byand imder the authority
of the Acts of Parliament empowering them so to do, purchased from
B. of &c., certain lands situate in the parish of &c., and which said
purchase, so far as regards the payment of the purchase money, and
the execution of the deed of conveyance, was completed, and the
said lands have been duly conveyed to the Petrs, but the costs of the
vendors in the said matters have not been paid ; that the said B.
SECT. iiLJ Taxation. 259
employed A. to act for him as his solr, and C. and D. as his town
agents, in relation to the said sale to the Petrs ; that the said C. and
D. in the month of • — delivered unto the Petrs their bill of fees and
disbursements in relation to the said sale and conveyance ; That the
Petr and the said A. cannot agree as to the amount of the said bill
of costs, and are therefore desirous of having the same taxed under
the provisions of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 ;] It
was therefore prayed, and it is accordingly ordered, That it be
referred to the taxing master to tax and settle the said bill, and that
the Petr and also all other parties do produce before the said master
upon oath as he shall direct all books, papers, and writings in their
custody or power respectively relating to the matters hereby referred,
or any of them, and that they be examined touching the same matters
or any of them as the said master shall direct ; And it is ordered that
if one sixth part of such bill shall be disallowed on such taxation the
said master do tax the Petr his costs of such taxation, and if one
sixth part of such bill shall not be disallowed on such taxation, the
said master do tax the said A. his costs of such taxation ; And the
said master is to certify the amount due in respect of the said bill,
having regard to the costs of such taxation so to be taxed as aforesaid.
8. Taxation with Leave to question Retainer.
" The Petr by his counsel submitting to pay what, if anything, shall
be certified as payable to the said L. {solicitor) on the taxation of the
bUl of fees and disbursements delivered to the Petr by the said L. on
the — day of — , order that it be referred to the taxing master to tax
and settle the said bill ; but the Petr is to be at liberty to dispute the
retainer (by him) of the said L. as his solr in respect of, &c." {Insert
paragraphs I. to V. inclusive. Form 1, ante, p. 254. See Re Lindus,
M. R., 1 June, 1861, B. 1154.
If the whole retainer is disputed the common order to tax should not be
obtained, the above form is therefore only applicable where the retainer as
to particular items is disputed : see Be Thurgood, 19 Beav. 548 ; Be Hair, 10
Beav. 187 ; Be Kitten, 35 Beav. 369 ; and Be Jones, infra, p. 262.
NOTES.
TAXATION TTNDEK THE SOLICITORS ACT, 1843 (6 & 7 V. 0. 73), S. 37
APPLICATION FOE TAXATION.
Within one calendar month from the delivery of the bill, exclusive of the Order of
day on which the bill is delivered {Blunt v. Heslop, 8 Ad. & Ell. 577), an course:
order for taxation, under 6 & 7 V. o. 73, s. 37, may be obtained ex parte and within one
of course : Be Becke, 5 Beav. 409 ; Be Bromley, 7 Beav. 488 ; Holland v. calendar
Owynne, 8 Beav. 124. month.
After one month, and before the expiration of twelve from delivery — pro- before the
vided there has not been a verdict or writ of inquiry in an action by the expiration of
solr to recover the amount, nor payment of the bill (not being a mere 12 months,
payment on account : see Be Woodard, 18 W. R. 37) — ^the order, though
accompanied with such special directions as the Court may think proper to
impose, is still of course, and obtained ex parte i Be Oaitskell, 1 Phill. 576 •
Be Pender, 2 Phill. 69.
260
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
Summons. After twelve months from delivery, and, within that period, after verdict,
writ of inquiry, or payment, a special application on notice must be made,
and the order will not be made except under special circumstances to bo
proved to the satisfaction of the Judge to whom the application shall be made.
All applications under 6 & 7 V. c 73, s. 37 (not being applications for
orders of course), for the taxation and delivery of bills of costs, and for the
delivery by any solr of deeds, documents, and papers, must be made to a
Judge at Chambers by summons, instead of, as formerly, by special petition :
see 0. LV, 2 (15) ; but an application by petition may be dealt with under
O. Lxx, 1, on payment of difference of costs by Petrs: Re Kelloch, 56 L. T. 887 ;
35W.R. 695; 1887, W.N. 110 ; iJejPemiow, 1894, W.N. 128 ; Cordery, 331.
Formerly leave to serve the summons out of the jurisdiction would not
be granted : Exp. Brandon ; Re Bouron, 54 L. T. 128 ; 34 W. R. 352 ; but
see now 0. xi, 8a, ante, p. 19.
Costa of '^'^^ person applying for a special order to tax, when the common order
irregular would have sufificed, pays the costs though he succeeds : Be Bracey, 8 Beav.
proceedings 338 ; Re Bignold, 9 Beav. 269 ; Re Atkinson, 26 Beav. 151.
But the objection must be taken in time : Re Hair, 11 Beav. 96.
And conversely, an order of course, obtained where a special application
is necessary, is liable to be discharged for irregularity, though there may be
a case for granting taxation : Harris v. Start, 4 M. & Or. 261 ; drove v.
Sansom, 1 Beav. 297.
So, also, where a special petition to tax two bills failed as to one, and the
other might have been taxed under the common order, the Petr had to pay
the costs : Re Oattlin, 8 Beav. 121.
when com- '^^^ common order to tax cannot be obtained by the client where re-
mon order muneration is claimed for work alleged by the solr to be non-professional ;
irregular. and this rule is not affected by the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881,
s. 8 : Re Inderwick, 25 Ch. D. 279, C. A. ; nor where the work relates
exclusively to business done in the capacity of a parliamentary agent :
In the matter of Baker, Lees & Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 189 ; nor where a right
to withdraw the bill as originally sent in has been claimed by the solr :
Re Thompson, 30 Ch, D. 441, C. A. ; nor can the order be obtained when the
application is to tax the last only of a series of bills : Re Yetts, 33 Beav.
412 ; or on the application of two out of three persons who are jointly
liable : Re Ilderton, 33 Beav. 201 ; Be Lewin, 16 Beav. 608 (and see inf.
Section VII., Form 2) ; unless one of the parties liable refuses to consent :
Re Hair, 10 Beav. 187 ; or there has been a separate retainer : Exp. Ford,
5 D. M. & G. 35.
And the Court has no power under sect. 37 to direct taxation of a part
only of a solr's bill of costs, but can do so under its inherent jurisdiction :
Stoner & Co. v. Johnson and Weatherall, 15 App. Ca. 203 ; S. C, 37 Ch. D.
433, C. A., nom. Re Johnson and Weatherall. The bill of fees, charges, and
disbursements contemplated by sect. 37 is a complete bill of the whole of the
fees, charges, and disbursements in respect of the particular business done,
and where there has been a taxation as between party and party, the
solr cannot deliver to the client a bill of the items not allowed on that
taxation as a separate bill : Cobbett v. Wood, [1908] 2 K. B. 420.
An order of course obtained by the clients for the taxation of one only of
several bills delivered (the solr having admitted that nothing is due to him,
so that he can have no lien on the clients' documents, and the only question
therefore being whether he has been overpaid) is not irregular : Re Ward,
[1896] 2 Ch. 31, C. A.
Assignee of Although the right of action for recovery of costs, given subject to con-
costs, ditions by sect. 37, is not limited to an assignee in bankruptcy, and can be
assigned by the solr, so as, since the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (6), to give the
assignee the right to sue in his own name {Ingle v. McCidchan, 12 Q. B. D.
518 ; and see Penley v. Anstruther, 52 L. J. Ch. 367 ; 48 L. T. 669), it seems
doubtful whether an assignee of costs can obtain taxation : see Re Ward,
28 Ch. D. 719 ; but in any case taxation of one out of several bills cannot be
Parts only
of solr's bill.
SEOT.
III.] Taxation. 261
obtained, under the common order of course, by the assignee of the par-
ticular bill only : S. G.
If the relation of solr and client exists, the fact of there being an agree- Effect of
ment does not prevent the common order being made : Ward v. Lawson, agreement.
8 Ch. 65 ; Be Inderwick, 25 Ch. D. 279, C. A.
The authority to a Judge to authorize a solr to commence an action or Liberty to
suit for recovery of his fees, &c., against the party chargeable, and also to ''^'"8 action
refer his bill for taxation witliin one month from delivery of the bill on proof "^^^^"l j^J'^^
to the satisfaction of the Judge that the party chargeable is about to quit j i j„„jy
England,is by the Legal Practitioners Act, 1875 {38 & 39 V. c. 79),repealing ■''
this part of 6 & 7 V. c. 73, is. 37, extended to the case where there is probable
cause for believing that such party is about to become bankrupt, or a liqui-
dating or compounding debtor, or to do any other act which, in the opinion
of the Judge, would tend to defeat or delay the solr in obtaining payment.
The order to tax under sect. 37 may be obtained by a married woman Married
employing a solr and making her separate estate, though not herself woman,
personally, liable : Waugh v. Wadddl, 16 Beav. 521 ; and payment of the
amount found due on taxation may be enforced by the appointment, subject
to the rights of the trustees, of a receiver of the separate estate to which
she is entitled without restraint on anticipation : Be Peace and Waller,
24 Ch. D. 405 (in which case, on an application to discharge an order for
irregularity, it appearing that the married woman's separate estate was
liable, she was put upon an undertaking to pay out of her separate estate
the debt which was contracted by her wliile single) ; Be Bennett, M. R.,
6 April, 1876, Reg. Min. 167. In the case of an infant the application is
by next friend, pro hdc vice : Be Fluker, 20 Beav. 143.
The order may be obtained by a party in contempt : Newton v. Bicketts, "arty m
11 Beav. 67. ^ i- J' F contempt.
Where the common order has been obtained irregularly and become After dis-
abortive, a subsequent order to tax can only be obtained upon a. special pharge oi
application and on the terms of paying the solr's costs of the former pro- ^"^^S^ ^^
ceedings : Be Taylor, Sons & Tarhuck, [1894] 1 Ch. 503 (where, however, n-jgj.
the Court, in lieu of discharging the second order, directed the taxing master
to proceed under it to tax the bill, and also the solr's costs of the former
proceedings, and to bring those costs into account).
Where a client having obtained one common order to tax afterwards Second order
obtained another without mentioning the first, or that he was bringing an ■"^thout
action against the solr to recover moneys received by the solr for his use, the ^^J„n
order was held irregular and varied by the Court: iJelfe6,siej-, [1891]2Ch. 102. or^gr
The defence that no signed bill was delivered can only be raised by the _ , ,
client, and not by a third person sued under an agreement to pay, who is g;„„„j \,^\
entitledonly to taxation under sect. 38 (see jm/. p. 281) : Greening Y.Beeder,
67 L. T. 28 ; 40 W. R. 623 ; Cordery, 345.
In general, an application to tax by a party to an action need not have Branch of
been in that branch of the Court where the action was heard : Bobins v. *-'?"'^^ *°
Mills, 1 Beav. 227 ; unless the merits of the case must enter into the dis- '^'^'!^ *°
cussion : Wehh v. Orace, 12 Beav. 489 ; or unless, as part of a compromise ^^ ^'
confirmed by the V.-C, it was intended that taxation should take place in
the cause : Be Howard, 8 Beav. 424 ; and see Be Elmslie, 12 Beav. 538.
By O. in, 7, "after stay of proceedings, upon payment of the amount After stay of
claimed for debt or in respect of liquidated demand and for costs, within proceedings,
four days after service, the Deft may, notwithstanding such payment, have
the costs taxed, and if more than one-sixth shall be disallowed, Pit's solr
shall pay the costs of taxation."
A registrar of the Liverpool or Manchester District Registry has no juris- Liverpool or
diction to make an order for taxation on a petition of course : Be Porrelt, Manchester
[1891] 2 Ch. 433, C. A. ; nor is he the " proper officer " to whom a bill for Registry,
non-contentious business can be referred for taxation within sect. 37 of the
Solicitors Act, 1843. Such a bill must be taxed by a Master of the Supreme
Court : Be Stead, [1910] 2 K. B. 713, C. A.
262
Costs.
[chap, XVII.
What in-
cluded in
common
order.
Question of
retainer.
Solr-trustee's
costs.
Submission
to pay.
Withdrawing
or altering
bill.
COMMON ORDER TO TAX.
The common order includes an account of all sums received by the solr as
such, not a general account : Bussel v. Buchanan, 9 Sim. 167 ; Cooper v.
Ewart, 15 Sim. 564 ; 2 Ph. 362, 363, n. ; and also an account of receipts for
interest, though not of profits, on moneys in hand : Be Savery, 13 Beav. 424 ;
but the account is confined to moneys which the solr, in his character of solr
or agent, has received, or is liable to pay over to the client, and against
which (if sued for by the client) the solr could set off his costs when taxed ;
consequently the solr is not bound to give credit for counsel's fees received
by him due to the client as counsel in matters not connected with the bill of
costs : In re Le Brasseur and Oakley, [1896] 2 Ch. 487, C. A.
But in the absence of special directions in regard to payments by the
client, the taxing master should confine himself to simple payments proved
to have been made on account of the bill of costs : Be Smith, 9 Beav. 182 ;
4 Beav. 309 ; Jones v. James, 1 Beav. 307.
A solr employed as a general agent to receive rents or money must keep
proper accounts to entitle him to payment of his bill of costs : see White v.
Lady Lincoln, 8 Ves. 363 ; secus, in case of separate transactions, of which
the client was aware at the time : Be Lee, 4 Ch. 43.
Under the common order costs of proceedings alleged to have been
informal or improperly taken, or costs improperly incurred, may be ques-
tioned : see Wiggins v. Peppin, 2 Beav. 403 ; Clayton v. Meadows, 2 Ha. 26 ;
and see Alsop v. L. Oxford, 1 M. & K. 564 ; Be Clark, 1 D. M. & G. 43.
Under the common order the taxing master has jurisdiction as to retainer,
and it may be questioned as to any items, except so far as admitted by the
petitioners : Be Bracey, 8 Beav. 266 ; Be Hair, 10 Beav. 187 ; Be Thurgood,
19 Beav. 548 ; Be Kitton, 35 Beav. 369 ; and see Be White, 1902, W. N.
114 (where expenses incurred on a retainer from a trustee were disallowed
on the ground that it was too general in its times) ; but a client who has
obtained the common order cannot dispute the retainer as to the whole
bill, though he may do so as to particular items ; secus, where the common
order has been obtained by the solr : Be Jones, 36 Ch. D. 105 ; Be Herbert,
34 Ch. D. 504.
But at common law a special direction was necessary to enable the taxing
master to go into the question of retainer : Be Pyne, 5 C. B. 407.
If the bill contains various charges, as to any of which the petitioner
questions his liability, he should add to his petition, " and for work not
done on his retainer, and for which he is not liable : " Be Springall, 14
L. J. Ch. 12 ; and see sup. Form 8.
The fact that the solr is a trustee may be taken into consideration by the
taxing master without special directions to that effect : Cradoch v. Piper,
I Mac. & G. 664. As to solr-trustee's costs, see Be Barber, 34 Ch. D. 77 ;
and post p. 295.
On an application within one month of delivery of a bill of costs the client
has an absolute right to have the bill taxed without any submission to pay ;
after the expiration of one month there is no such absolute right, but a
submission to pay is not in any case a necessary part of the common order ;
if inserted, it should be for what is payable, having regard {inter alia) to
the defence of the Statute of Limitations : Be Brockman, [1909] 2 Ch. 170.
TAXATION UNDER ORDER — DELIVERY OF BILL.
In general, taxation must be upon the bill as delivered : Be Carven, 8
Beav. 436 ; Be Wells, lb. 416. A solr will not be allowed to alter his bill of
costs after it has been referred for taxation : Be Blakesley, 32 Beav. 379 ; or
to escape taxation by omitting some items objected to : Be Heather, 5 Ch.
694 ; Be Holroyde, 29 W. R. 599 ; Be Mackenzie, Exp. Short, 41 W. R. 530 ;
69 L. T. 751 ; or the costs of the reference, by an offer to accept less than
the amount of the bill delivered : Re Paull, 27 Ch. D. 485, C. A. ; Be
Carlhew, lb. ; or to impose as a condition immediate payment or substitu-
tion of a bill of larger amount : Be Thompson, 30 Ch. D. 441, C. A. ; but
SECT. ni.J Taxation. 263
he may reserve the right to withdraw or alter his bill upon a fair condition
fully stated : Ih. ; and see Re Lett, 31 Beav. 488 ; though liberty has been
given pending taxation to add omitted items and increase those under-
charged : Re Whalley, 20 Beav. 576 ; Re Walters, 9 Beav. 299. (See Form
of Order, Re Walters, sup. p. 303, n. ; and post. Section IV. Form 3, p. 272.)
And before being served with an order for taxation he has been allowed,
under special circumstances, to substitute a second bill of reduced amount on
payment of all costs incurred by client up to the date of obtaining the order :
Re Chambers, 34 Beav. 177 ; 5 N. R. 298 ; 13 W. R. 375 ; see, however, Re
Thompson, 30 Ch. D. 441, C. A. ; Re Holroyde, 29 W. R. 599 ; Re Jones, 54
L. T. 648 ; Re Robertson, 42 Ch. D. 553.
Sect. 37 does not give the solr any statutory right to have the amount of
his charges ascertained by taxation only : Exp. Ditton, 13 Ch. D. 318.
Belivery must be to the party chargeable, i.e., the client : Re Abbott, 4 Delivery.
L. T. 576 ; or to his duly authorized agent ; Re Bush, 8 Beav. 66 ; Re
Robertson, 42 Ch. D. 553 ; and if not at his residence, at the place to which
his letters were to be addressed : Spier v. Bernard, 8 L. T. 396. A mere
constructive dehvery is not sufficient : Rt Robertson, sup.
But delivery to one of several joint contractors or promoters is sufficient :
Mant V. Smith, 4 Hur. & N. 324.
Where a substantial part of a bill of costs is improperly set out, and a
substantial part properly, the whole bill is not bad : Blake v. Hummell, 51
L. T. 430 ; 1 Cab. & E. 345 ; see Haigh v. Ousey, 7 E. & B. 578 ; Wilkinson
V. Smart, 33 L. T. 573 ; 24 W. R. 42.
The Act (6 & 7 V. c. 73) does not authorize the taxation of every pecuniary What items
demand in a solr's bill for any kind of employment ; and though the taxable,
business need not have been done in any Court, it must have been done by
the solr as such : see Allen v. Aldridge, 5 Beav. 401 ; Re Lees. lb. 410,
that fees of a manor steward as such, though a solr, are not taxable ; and
so where the solr was employed as a canvassing agent, and not in his legal
capacity : Re Oliver, 15 W. R. 331 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 261 ; and see Re Shilson,
Coode & Go., [1904] 1 Ch. 837 (commission for collecting rents).
But costs of solr retained as election agent and to advise the committee,
and for business in a revising barrister's court, were taxable : Re Osborne,
25 Beav. 353 ; Re Andrews, 17 Beav. 510 ; and, having regard to the form
of his bill of costs, the charges of a solr as returning officer for a School
Board election : Re Jones, 13 Eq. 336.
Until there has been delivery of a proper bill, delivery and taxation cannot Waiver of
be resisted by the solr on the ground of payment, though some years have delivery,
elapsed since the alleged settlement : Re Stogdon, 56 L. J. Ch. 421 ; 56 L. T. 355.
The client may waive delivery of a signed bill ; and a settlement of
account by striking a balance may be equivalent to payment : Turner v.
Willis, [1905] 1 K. B. 468 ; Re Van Laun, 1906, W. N. 228.
Where a country solr employs a London agent, there is no complete bill
capable of taxation unless the charges of the London agent are stated in
detail, and not as a lump sum : Re Pomeroy and Tanner, [1897] 1 Ch. 284.
Where several persons give separate retainers to the same solr to take Several
proceedings on behalf of all, each is in strictness entitled to have the bill persons
taxed without serving any person other than the solr, but in order to prevent giving
multiplicity of taxations, a single taxation in the presence of all parties separate
interested may be directed. Where it was found impracticable to serve all '^^'^w^'^^-
the parties (thirty-five in number), a taxation was nevertheless ordered in
their absence : Be Salarruin, [1894] 2 Ch. 201, C. A.
ACTION FOB COSTS.
When the common order to tax is made on the application of the solr, and Action by
a balance is certified to be due to him, he cannot enforce payment by sum- solr.
mons, but must proceed by action : Re Debenham & Walker, [1895] 2
Ch. 430.
The restraint by sect. 37 of any action or suit for recovery of fees until the
264
Action by
client.
Action by
country
agent.
Costs^ [chap. XVIl.
expiration of one month after delivery of bill of costs was confined to pro-
ceedings founded on the implied contract arising out of the relation of solr
and client, and was no bar to proceedings to enforce a merely collateral
engagement, e.g., an action on a promissory note given on account of fees,
or a bill to enforce a mortgage security for previous advances and costs •
Jeffreys v. Evans, 14 M. & W. 210 ; Thomas v. Cross, 13 W. R. 166.
"Month" in this section means a clear month : Broume v. Black, [19111
1 K. B. 975. ^
The omission to file the certificate of taxation did not render it void, and
an action by the solr on the bill was restrained as a contempt : Be Campbell,
t •; t S; ^^ \ ^"^ ^'^ °°^ 0- ^^^' 18 ; ?• M. R. (15) ; Bidder v.
Bridges, 37 Ch. D. 406.
The right of a client to file a bill against his solr for an account and taxa-
tion was not excluded by the jurisdiction given by the statute : O'Brien v.
Lewis, 9 Jur. N. S. 321 ; Me Bailey, 34 Beav. 393.
As to such a bill by a country solr against his London agent, see Ward v.
Lawson, 8 Ch. 65 ; Ward v. Eyre, 15 Ch. D. 130, C. A. And where a bill
(action) was the proper remedy, an application under the Solicitors Act or
under the general jurisdiction of the Court, was not enteri;ained : Be
Forsyth, 2 D. J. & S. 509 ; 34 Beav. 140.
What are
special cir-
cumstances.
Time how
reckoned in
respect of
a series of
bills.
TAXATION TTNDEE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AFTEE TWELVE MONTHS EEOM
DELIVERY.
Pressure, overcharge so gross as to amount to what the Court considers
fraudulent, or misrepresentation are special circumstances under 6 & 7
V. u. 73, s. 37, under which taxation may be granted after twelve months
from delivery, on the application of the party chargeable : see JRe Strother,
3 K. & J. 518 ; Be Williams, 15 Beav. 417 ; Re Harper, 10 Beav. 284 ; Be
Hook, 3 Giff. 372 ; Be Norman, 16 Q. B. D. 673, C. A. ; Be Pyhus, 35 Ch. D.
568 ; Be Eley, 36 W. R. 96 ; and see Be Tweedie, 1909, W. N. 110.
Mere overcharge, not involving fraud, is not a ground for taxation, after
twelve months from delivery : Be Harle, 17 W. R. 21 ; 19 L. T. 305 ; secus,
where there are large and unusual charges requiring explanation: Be
Bohinson, L. R. 3 Ex. 4 ; Be Pyhus, 35 Ch. D. 568 ; nor the omission by
solrs to tell their clients (trustees) that if they did not have the bill
taxed they would be liable in cas3 the charges were taxed in subsequent
admon proceedings: Be Layton, 1890, W. N. 112.
A dispute as to the completeness of the bill delivered is a special circum-
stance : Be Bagshawe, 2 D. & S. 205 ; and see Be Nicholson, 3 D. P. & J. 93.
The continuance of the relation of solr and client will not, per se, justify
taxation after twelve months from delivery of the bill : Be Elmslie, 16 Eq.
326 ; but see Be Flower, 18 L. T. 457 ; 16 W. R. 749 ; Be Nicholson, 3
D. E. & J. 93.
And the special circumstances on which taxation is applied for after the
prescribed time must be such as the client could not reasonably have availed
himself of sooner : Be Barnard, 2 D. M. & G. 359 ; and see Be Bagshawe, 2
D. & S. 205 ; Be Strother, sup.
Retention of a bill for twelve months is only prima facie evidence of its
reasonableness ; and the exor of the chent is not estopped from disputing
items : Be Park, Cole v. P., 41 Ch. D. 326, C. A.
Where several successive bills had been made by letter one continuous
account, the time was reckoned from the delivery of the latest, though most
of the series had been deUvered more than twelve months before the appli-
cation : Be Cartu)right, 16 Eq. 469.
But a solr's charges for carrying through a complicated and protracted
business, e.g., admon proceedings, are not necessarily one bill so as to entitle
the client to taxation of the whole series : Re Hall and Barker, 9 Ch. D. 538 ;
Re Hudson, 1904, W. N. 32 ; and as between a country solr and his London
agent, separate bills cannot, at the option of the solr, be treated as one
SECT.
III. J Taxation. 265
continuous bill, so as to escape from the twelve-months' rule : Re Nehon,
30 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
The efieot of a winding-up order is to suspend the operation of the twelve- Effect of
months' rule ; and, accordingly, if the bill is taxable in point of time at the winding-up
date of the winding-up (see Re James, 4 D. & S. 183), the lapse of twelve order,
months from delivery does not bar taxation on behalf of the official
liquidator: Exp. Evans, 11 Eq. 151.
In bankruptcy the jurisdiction of a local registrar to tax costs is inde- Bankruptcy,
pendent of 6 & 7 V. c. 73, and a bill of costs may be taxed by him without
any special order, though twelve months have elapsed since its delivery :
Exp. Blair, 5 Ch. 482.
AGREEMENTS BETWEEN SOLICITOES AND THEIR CLIENTS- — 33 & 34 V. C. 28
(ATTOENEYS and SOLICITOES ACT, 1870).
Although before 33 & 34 V. c. 28, the taxing masters were in the habit. Prior to Act
under the common order, of entertaining the question of agreements by the of 1870.
solr as to costs {Re Philip, 2 Gift. 35, 36), the Court, it seems, had no juris-
diction under the Solicitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7 V. c. 73), to determine upon
motion or petition the construction and effect of a special agreement as to
costs ; although the jurisdiction of the Court was not ousted by an agree-
ment as to particular items : Re Rhodes, 8 Beav. 224 ; Re Thompson, Ibid.
237 ; Re Beale, 11 Beav. 600 ; Re Forsyth, 34 Beav. 140 ; 2 D. J. & S. 509.
Agreements to take a gross sum from a client in lieu of costs were
jealously regarded : Re Whitcomhe, 8 Beav. 140 ; an agreement to receive
5 p. c. commission upon the amount recovered was treated as illegal :
Pince V. Beattie, 11 W. R. 979 ; 2 N. R. 546 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 734 ; 9 Jur. N. S.
1119 ; or a. fixed sum for costs hereafter to be received, upholding the
common order for delivery and taxation of a bill of costs : Re Newman,
30 Beav. 196 ; and see Re Ingle, 21 Beav. 275.
But an agreement with a corporation that a solr, transacting professional
business for no other client, should be paid a fixed yearly salary, clear of all
office expenses and to include all emoluments, was held not to be opposed to
6 & 7 V. c. 73 : Galloway v. Corp. of London, 4 Eq. 90.
For the principles upon which the bill of a railway co.'s solr, charging a
lump sum for attendances and services during a period was to be taxed, see
Re Tilleard, 32 Beav. 476.
And now, under the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870 (33 & 34 V. o. 28), Under Act of
s. 4, a solr may make an agreement in writing with his client respecting the 1870.
amount and manner of pajrment for any past or future services, fees,
charges, or disbursements in respect of business done or to be done by such
solr, either by a gross sum, or by commission or percentage, or by fixed
salary or otherwise — provided that, when any such agreement shall be made
in respect of business done or to be done in any action or suit, the amount
payable under the agreement shall not be received until the agreement has
been examined and allowed by a taxing officer of a Court having power to
enforce the agreement, who may require the opinion of a Court, &c. to be
taken upon the agreement by motion or petition, with power to the Court,
&c., either to reduce the amount payable under the agreement, or to order
the agreement to be cancelled, and the costs, &c. to be taxed, in the same
manner as if no such agreement had been made.
An agreement under this section must be in writing, and should be signed
by both parties : Re Lewis, Exp. Munro, 1 Q. B. D. 724 ; but an agreement
signed by the client alone may be sufficient as against him : Re Jones, [1895]
2 Ch. 719 ; following Re Thompson, [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 ; but not so a mere
signature of accounts: Re Fernandez, 1878, W. N. 57 ; -Be Baker, 1887,
W. N. 9 ; Cordery, 263 ; correspondence showing an intention of the client
to pay may be sufficient : Bake v. French (No. 2), [1907] 2 Ch. 215 ; doubt-
ing Pontifex v. Farnham, 62 L. J. Q. B. 344 ; 68 L. T. 168 ; 41 W. R. 238 ;
and as to the effect of a verbal agreement by a client to pay a sum in
266
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
Questions as
to validity or
effect of
agreement.
Ke-opening.
Agreement
for payment
in event of
success.
discharge of past costs, see Re Russell, 30 Ch. D. 114; Re Raven, 30
W. R. 134 ; 45 L. T. 642.
The fact that a solr is paid by salary is no ground for disallowing items in
his bill of costs or allowing only costs out of pocket : Henderson v. Merthyr
Tydfil Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 434.
As to the effect of the concluding proviso in sect. 4, when the agreement
relates entirely to payments which the client has already made, see Re
Thompson, Exp. Baylis, [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. 187.
Where there has been a verbal agreement between solr and client as to
costs, such expressions as "costs as agreed" in accounts for costs settled and
signed by the client are prima facie referable to the verbal agreement : Re
Baylis, [1896] 2 Ch. 107, C. A. ; and cannot, as in Re Frape, [1893] 2 Ch. 284,
C. A., be construed as meaning " costs which are hereby agreed."
Sect. 8. No action or suit shall be brought upon any such agreement, but
every question respecting the validity or effect of such agreement may be
examined and determined, and the agreement enforced or set aside, without
suit or action, on motion or petition, by the Court in which the business or
any part thereof was done, or by a Judge thereof ; or if the business was not
done in any Court, then, where the amount payable under the agreement
exceeds £50, by any superior Court, &c. ; where the amount does not exceed
£50, by the County Court Judge.
The expressions " the Court " or " a Judge " in sect. 8 of 1870 do not
include quarter sessions or magistrates, but refer to Courts in which actions
or suits can be brought and to Judges who can try them : Re Jones, [1895]
2 Ch. 719 ; [1896] 1 Ch. 222, C. A. ; so that a question as to an agreement
as to costs in a police court should be brought before the High Court : S. C.
The section was intended to apply to costs for work done, and does not
therefore preclude an action for refusing to allow the solr to do the work
and earn the remuneration : Rees v. Williams, L. R. 10 Ex. 200.
Tlie application to set aside an agreement under the section may be made
in Chambers in Q. B. D. : Re Howell Thomas, [1893] 1 Q. B. 670.
Sect. 9. Upon motion or petition such an agreement, if it shall appear fair
and reasonable, may be enforced, &c. ; and if not deemed to be fair and
reasonable, may be declared void, and ordered to be cancelled, and taxation
of the costs, &c., in respect of the matters included therein, may be directed
as if such agreements had not been made, &c.
The word " reasonable " includes reasonableness of the amount charged,
having regard to the work done : Be Stuart, Exp. Cathcart, [1893] 2 Q. B.
201, C. A.
Sect. 10. Agreements may be re-opened within twelve months after pay-
ment under special circumstances. Agreements made by a client in the
capacity of guardian, trustee, or committee of any person whose estate or
property will be chargeable with the amount, or any part of it, payable
under such agreement, must before payment be laid before the taxing
officer of a Court having jurisdiction to enforce the agreement, for examina-
tion, and any part may be disallowed, or the direction of the Court obtained
on motion or petition ; and if the whole or any part of the amount be paid by
the client without previous allowance, heshall be Uable at anytime to account
to the person whose estate or property is charged with the amount paid; and
if in any such case the solr accept payment without such allowance, he may
be ordered to refund the amount so received by him under the agreement.
Sect. 11. Nothing in the Act contained shall give validity to any purchase
by a solr of the interest or any part of the interest of his client in any suit,
action, or contentious proceeding to be brought or maintained, or give
validity to any agreement by which a solr, retained or employed to prosecute
any suit or action, stipulates for payment only in the event of success in such
suit, &o.
An agreement by which, in the event of success, the solrs are to receive
10 p. c. on the value of the propertyrecovered, amounts to champerty, and
is invalid ; and the taxing master cannot allow the agreement, or take the
SECT. III.] Taxation. 267
opinion of the Court, under sect. 4, before any proceedings liave been taken
thereunder : Be Attorneys Act, 1870, 1 Ch. D. 573.
But an agreement to charge the client nothing if he loses the action, and
to take nothing for costs' out of any money awarded in the action, is not
invalid under sect. 11, and need not be in writing : Jennings v. Johnson,
L. R. 8 C. P. 425 ; nor an agreement to take less than the ordinary rate of
charges : Clare v. Joseph, [1907] 2 K. B. 369 ; and see Chmdry v. Sainsbury,
[1910] 1 K. B. (C. A.) 645.
By the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881 (44 & 45 V. c. 44), s. 8— (1) Under Act of
with respect to the conveyancing and other business to which that Act 1881.
relates (as to which v. inf. pp. 299 et seq.), solr and client may make agree- Conveyancing
ments before or after, or in the course of the transaction of any such business, etc.
business, for the remuneration of the solr, as they think fit, by gross sum,
commission, percentage, salary, or otherwise ; (2) any such agreement is
to be in writing, and signed by the person to be bound thereby, or by his
agent ; (3) the agreement may provide for the remuneration, including,
or not including, disbursements made by the solr ; and (4) may be sued on,
impeached and set aside, in the like manner, and on the like grounds, as
an agreement not relating to the remuneration of a solr. If, on taxation,
the agreement is objected to by the client as mifair or unreasonable, the
taxing master may inquire into the facts and certify them to the Court, and,
on just cause shown, the Court or a Judge may order cancellation of the
agreement, or reduction of the amount payable under it. By sect. 9, the
application of the Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1870, to the business to
which the new Act relates, is negatived.
The agreement under sub-s. 2 is sufficient if signed by the party who seeks
to enforce it : Be Frape, Exp. Perrett, [1893] 2 Ch. 284, C. A. (not merely by
his clerk) ; but if it is impeached as unfair and unreasonable, the question of
its validity may be referred directly to the taxing master : S. C.
An agreement by mortgagor with his solr to pay a fixed sum for re-
muneration, so as to include the mortgagee's costs, is an agreement between
solr and " client " within the definition in sect. 1 of the Act, and the Court
would not, in the absence of evidence that the agreed sum was an unfair
charge, order taxation for the purpose of giving the taxing master juris-
diction to inquire whether such agreement should be set aside : Be Palmer,
45 Ch. D. 291, C. A.
An agreement under the Act must be fair and reasonable : Mearns v.
Knapp, 37 W. R. 685 ; Cordery, 271.
Where an agreement relates to work alleged to be non-professional the Work, non-
common ex parte order for the delivery and taxation cannot be obtained, professional,
and sect. 8 of the Act of 1881 has made no difference in the practice in this
respect ; Be Inderwick, 25 Ch. D. 279, C. A. ; and see ante, p. 263.
As to the power of the taxing master to determine a question of construe- Construction
tion arising on an agreement for compromise as regards costs, see Be of agreement.
Hirst dh Capes, [1908] 1 K. B. 982 ; [1908] A. C. 416.
SIGNATURE AND FOEM.
The signature of the bill of costs required by the Act of 6 & 7 V. being Signature,
for the client's protection, he may obtain the common order to tax an
unsigned bill : Be Pender, 2 Ph. 69 ; 8 Beav. 299, 304 ; and see Be Foster,
2 D. P. & J. 105.
But the provision in sect. 41, that after twelve months from payment a
bill of costs cannot be referred for taxation, is not limited to bills which have
been signed by the solr : Be Sutton, 11 Q. B. D. 377.
Bill of costs delivered, not signed, but with a letter signed, was held to be
signed within the Act, and though delivered to client's agent : Be Bush;
Be Oarven, 8 Beav. 66, 438.
A letter by lessor's solrs to lessee's solrs specifying the amount of their
charges in relation to a lease to be £7 lis. (though followed in reply to the
lessee's solrs by another letter detailing items and adding at foot " say
268
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
£7 lis.") was held to constitute a bill delivered, the second letter being
treated as merely explanatory : Re Hellard and Bewes, [1896] 2 Ch. 229.
Form. No particular heading is necessary : Champ v. Stokes, 6 H. & N. 683 ; but
the bill must be delivered in a taxable shape : PMlby v. Hazk, 8 C. B. N. S.
647 ; otherwise no action can be brought on it : Wilkinson v. Smart, 24
W. R. 42 ; 37 L. T. 513.
Substituting The taxing master has no jurisdiction to substitute for an item admittedly
items. not chargeable an item properly chargeable but omitted from the bill,
but he may correct an error in the casting : Re Grant, Bulcraig & Co.,
[1906] 1 Ch. 124.
Detail state- Where the items were improperly lumped together, the solr was allowed to
ment after supply a detailed statement, but not to increase his demand : Be Tilleard,
delivery. 32 Beav. 476 ; 3 D. J. & S. 519 ; nor can he withdraw his bill when delivered
without condition, or on a condition which is illegal : Re Kelloch, 35 W. R.
695 ; and see Re Thompson, 30 Ch. D. 441, C. A.
In general the solr must abide by the bill delivered, and cannot, except by
consent or special order, reduce his demand or reserve the power to add
charges : see Cordery, 302, 303, and cases there cited.
Separate bills. In Immsden v. The Shipcote Land Co., [1906] 2 K. B. 433, where a solr
brought an action for work done not included in a prior bill of costs for a
less amount, it was referred under the general jurisdiction of the Court
to a taxing master to take both bills into his consideration in arriving
at the amount for which judgment should be entered.
Separate bills should not be delivered in respect of the same transactions,
but where the transactions are separate the bills will be treated as separate,
although delivered at the same time : Re Ward, [1896] 2 Ch. 31, C. A.
As to the distinction between bill of costs and cash account, see Cordery,
295.
SECUEITY FOE COSTS OF TAXATION.
A client resident abroad, applying to tax liis solr's bill, must give security
for the costs of the proceeding : Re Pasmore, 1 Beav. 94 ; and for what
should be found due : Anon., 12 Sim. 262 ; but may be allowed to pay a
sum into Court instead : Cliffe v. Wilkinscm, 4 Sim. 123 ; a client alleged
to be insolvent was directed to give security for the costs of taxation of
a bill already paid : Re Webb, M. R., 17 November, 1876 ; as to waiver of
the right, see Murrow v. Wilson, 12 Beav. 497.
Where taxation was ordered on paying in a sum which accumulated, the
solr was only entitled to payment from the fund of what was found due :
Re Smith, 9 Beav. 342.
Reductions.
Costs of
drawing bill.
Offer to take
less.
COSTS OF TAXATION.
As to what reductions affect the right to the costs of taxation since
6 & 7 V. c. 73, s. 37, which directs that if the bill, when taxed, be more
or less by one-sixth than, when delivered, the client or solr, as the case
may be, is to pay the costs of the reference, see Re Clark, 13 Beav. 173,
180 (taxing master's certificate) ; 1 D. M. & G. 43 ; Re Remnant, 11 Beav.
603, 609 ; Re Haigh, 12 Beav. 307.
The costs of drawing bills of costs are allowed where there is Utigation
or quasi-litigation, but never where the order is to tax a bill already delivered,
or the order is one as between the solr and his own client for dehvery of a
bill and its taxation : Re National Bank of Wales, [1902] 2 Ch. 412.
The bill as delivered is the bill to be taxed, and while new items cannot be
introduced in order to affect the costs of taxation {Re Tilleard, 32 Beav.
476), a bill containing items, together with an offer to take less (e.g., £83,
say £78), is not a bill dehvered, within the meaning of the Act, for the lesser
sum : Re Carthew, 27 Ch. D. 487, C. A. ; Re Paull, lb.
One sixth being taxed ofi, though the reduced amount was more than solr
had offered to accept without delivering bill, he had to pay costs : Re Elwes
and Turner, 58 L. T. 580 ; 1888, W, N. 68,
SECT, iii.j Taxation. 269
Items struck out on taxation as not chargeable against the person to Items not
whom the bill was delivered, will not be omitted from consideration in chargeable,
determining the costs of taxation : Re Clark, sup. ; Re Mackenzie, Exj>.
Short, 41 W. R. 531 ; 69 L. T. 751.
Less than a sixth being taken off on taxation, though more than a sixth Disallowances
was taken off the general account in a suit by the client against his solr on general
for a general account, the solr was allowed the costs of taxation : May v. account.
Biggenden, 24 Beav. 207.
Payments made by the client himself to the solr for counsel's fees and Disburse-
stamps will be considered as part of, and properly be included in, the bill in mcnts.
calculating the amount taxed off : Re Metcalfe, 30 Beav. 406.
Disbursements mean actual payments before delivery of the bill ; fees
to counsel not paid before its delivery must be disallowed : Sadd v.
Griffin, [1908] 2 K. B. 510; except where the bill expressly states they have
not then been paid in accordance with the provisions of O. lxv, 27 (29a).
Stamp duty paid by the solr on the registration of a. company ought
not to be included in the solr's bill as a " disbursement " within the
meaning of sect. 37, but should be entered in the cash account : Re Blair
& Girling, [1906] 2 K. B. 131.
So payments for estate duty ought not to be included in bills of costs for
taxation under sect. 37, Re Kingdon db Wilson, [1902] 2 Ch. 242 ; overruhng
Re Lamb, 23 Q. B. D. 5 ; nor deposits paid by a solr on behalf of his
client as security for costs of discovery : Re Buckwell <fc Berkeley, [1902]
2 Ch. 596 ; and see further as to what may be included in a bill as disburse-
ments. Re Fletcher <fc Dyson, [1903] 2 Ch. 688 ; Re Mercantile Lighterage
Co., Ld., [1906] 1 Ch. 491.
Bills of party and party costs taxed and paid by a solr to a third
party are rightly included in professional charges : Re Mercantile Lighterage
Co., Ld., sup.
A solr who has refused to consent to an order of course for taxation may Solr refusing
be ordered to pay the costs of a special application : Re Lett, 31 Beav. 488. to consent to
Under an ordinary reference to tax costs of a solr to a trustee in bank- order of
ruptcy, the taxation is regulated by the practice in bankruptcy, and 6 & 7 •'"'ii'se.
V. c. 73, has no application : In re Marsh, 15 Q. B. D. 340, C. A. Bankruptcy.
More than a sixth being taxed off, insolvent solr's assignees had to pay Assignee of
the costs : Re Peile, 25 Beav. 561. insolvent
The one-sixth rule as to payment of costs of taxation does not apply to an solr.
ordinary taxation between party and party, where in an ordinary case partv and
the costs of taxation are paid by the party who obtains the taxation : party taxa-
Re Grundy, Kershaw dk Co., 17 Ch. D. 108. tion.
As to the jurisdiction of the Court on party and party taxation to order
payment of costs of taxation by a solr who delivers an extortionate bill in
order to increase such costs, see Re Grundy, Kershaw & Co., sup.
By O. LXV, 27 (38b), " if on the taxation of a bill of costs payable out of
a fund or estate (real or personal), or out of the assets of a company in
liquidation, the amount of the professional charges (exclusive of disburse-
ments) contained in the bill is reduced by a sixth part, no costs shall
be allowed to the solr leaving the bill for taxation for drawing and
copying it, nor for attending the taxation." And by r. 19c, if a solr
having the carriage of an order directing taxation fails to leave copy order,
and statement of names of parties, &c., at the taxing office within seven
days after the order has been perfected, no costs of taxation are to be
allowed him.
As to costs in case of neglect or delay in proceedings before taxing oiBcer, Delay before
see 0. LXV. 27 (55). taxing officer.
DISCHAKGING OEDEE.
On application to discharge the common order (see D. C. F. 1050) for
taxation as irregularly obtained, the Court considers only if the order is
regular : Harris v. Start, 4 M. & Cr. 261 ; Gregg v. Taylor ; Grove v.
270
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
Examination
of parties.
Procedure.
Form of bill.
Jurisdiction
of taxing
officer.
Sansom, 1 Beav. 123, 297 ; Watts v. Penny, 11 Beav. 435 ; Be Lewin, 16
Beav. 608 ; but in Be Ingle, 21 Beav. 275, the order, though irregular, was
under the circumstances upheld ; and in Be Webster, [1891] 2 Ch. 102,
was left standing, with the omission of the latter part directing payment
of what should be found due on taxation.
A solr by acquiescence may preclude himself from objecting to irregu-
larities in obtaining the order : Be Bartrum, 12 W. R. 660, 699.
An order of course to tax costs in one matter, the solr having acted in
several, and on payment for him to deliver all papers, was discharged with
costs : Holland v. Owynne, 8 Beav. 134 ; but see Re Pender, lb. 299.
For cases in which orders of course have been discharged for misstate-
ment or omission in the petition, see Be Perkins ; Be Carven ; Exp. Mobbs,
8 Beav. 241, 436, 499 ; Be Gabriel, 10 Beav. 45 ; Watts v. Penny, sup. ;
Be Bees ; Be Eldridge, 12 Beav. 256, 387 ; Be Oedye, 15 Beav. 254 ; or
irregularity in obtaining the order : Be Yetts, 33 Beav. 412 ; Be IlderUm,
lb. 201 ; Be Taylor, Sons cfe Tarbuch, [1894] 1 Ch. 503, v. ante, p. 261.
Where not : Be David, 30 Beav. 278 ; Be Fluker, 20 Beav. 143 ; and see
Be Flower, 19 W. R. 578, that the common order obtained by an infant's solr
will not be discharged, because the fact that the next friend disputes his
liability has not been stated.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAXING OFriCER — EVIDENCE, &C.
The order for taxation usually directs that the parties be examined : see
Form 1, p. 254.
Under the common order for taxation the solr's cross-examination
may be taken by an examiner as well as by the taxing master : see Be Flux,
44 L, J. Ch. 375.
O. liXV, 18, regulating the distribution of work in the taxing department,
provides that where there has been any former taxation in the same cause
or matter, or on any summons under 0. lv, 3 or 4, relating to the same
estate or trust, the reference is to be made to the same taxing master.
By 0. Lxv, 19b, the proper officer by whom any order directing taxa-
tion of costs is drawn up is to certify upon the order the date on which it
was signed, entered, or otherwise perfected.
By rr. 19c, 19d, the solr having carriage of an order directing taxation is
to be disallowed the costs of taxation if he does not, within seven days after
the order was signed, entered, or otherwise perfected, leave at the office
of the taxing officer a copy of the order, with a statement annexed containing
the names and addresses of the parties appearing in person and solrs of
parties not so appearing ; and the taxing officer is to send to the parties or
solrs notice by post of a date before which papers are to be left, and a
subsequent date on which the taxation will be proceeded with.
In every bill of costs the professional charges are to be entered in a
separate column from the disbursements, and every column shall be cast
before the bill is left for taxation (0. lxv, 19h) ; and every bill left for
taxation is to be endorsed with the names and addresses of solr and London
agent, if any : 0. lxv, 27 (58).
By 0. lxv, 27 (25), the taxing officers of the Supreme Court are em-
powered, in relation to the taxation of costs, to examine witnesses, to direct
production of documents, &c., make separate certificates or allocaturs, to
require any party to be represented by a separate solr, and to direct and
adopt all such other proceedings as could be directed on references for
taxation and adopted by officers of the Courts whose jurisdiction is trans-
ferred by the Act, and to take accounts of what is due in respect of costs,
and such other accounts connected therewith as may be directed by the
Court or Judge. But a taxing master cannot order shorthand notes to be
taken of the evidence before him : Hilleary v. Taylor, 36 Ch. D. 262, C. A. ;
though he has power to allow the costs of such notes taken by consent.
By r. 27 (27), the taxing officer is empowered to arrange and direct what
parties are to attend before him, and to disallow the costs of any party
SECT. IV.] Enforcing Delivery of Bill. 271
whose attendance he shall consider unnecessary in consequence of the
interest of such party being small or remote or sufficiently protected by other
parties interested. Under this rule he may direct a party to attend who
is no longer a party to the action : Be Salmond, 1906, W. N. 6.
R. 27 (34) prescribes the practice on taxation " in case the parties differ."
R. 27 (37) in effect preserves in the Ch. D. the old rules of the Court of Old rules of
Chancery, except so far as they are altered by the new rules : .see Pringle Court of
V. Gloag, 10 Ch. D. 676, 678. Costs of an admon action brought in the Chancery.
County Court may be taxed in the High Court : Be Worth, 18 Ch. D. 521 ;
and see 51 & 52 V. c. 43, s. 118.
An " affidavit of increase " as to payments to witnesses has not been
required in the Chancery Division, there being sufficient evidence for the
purpose of taxation in the recitals in the judgment and otherwise : Smith
v. Day, 16 Ch. D. 726 ; Dan. 1028.
By r. 27 (35), where costs are to be paid out of any money or funds in Certificate of
Court, the taxing officer is, without any directions, to state in his certificate costs out of
the total amount of all such costs. funds in
By 0. LH, 26 (July, 1901), " if, during the taxation of any bill of costs or Court,
the taking of any account between solr and client, it shall appear to the Interim
taxing master that there must in any event be moneys due from the solr certificate,
to the client, the taxing master may from time to time make an interim
certificate as to the amount so payable by the solr. Upon the filing of such
certificate the Court or a Judge may order the moneys so certified to be
forthwith paid to the client or brought into Court."
Under the common form order for taxation on the application of the Extending
client after the expiration of one month but before the expiration of twelve time,
months from the delivery of the bill, the power of the taxing master under
O. LXV, 27 (57), to extend the time within which his certificate is to be made
ought not to be exercised as of course or freely : Be Macintosh cfc Thomas,
[1903] 2 Ch. 394.
As to discretionary fees and allowances under O. lxv, 27 (38), and for
particular items which have been sanctioned or disallowed by the Court, see
post, Section IX., " Review of Taxation," pp. 285 et seq.
Section IV. — Enforcing Delivery of Bill.
1. Order of Course to deliver and tax Bill — Solicitors Act, 1843, s. 37.
Upon the petition of B. of &c., it was alleged that the Petr employed
the above-named A. as his sob, in &c. [state business] ; that the
Petr is desirous of obtaining the papers in the possession of the said
solr belonging to the Petr, but the said solr refuses to deliver up
the same until his bill of costs is paid ; that the said solr, although
applied to, has not delivered his bill of costs against the Petr ; that
the Petr submits to pay what shall be certified as payable in respect
of the said bill ; It was therefore prayed, and it is accordingly ordered,
that the said solr do, within a fortnight after service of this order,
deliver to the Petr a bill of fees and disbursements in all suits, causes,
actions, and other matters of business in which he has been employed
as the solr for the Petr ; And that it be referred &c. [Insert paragraphs
(i) to (v), Form 1, p. 254, ante]— See Re Smith, 19 Beav. 329, 330, n.
For order on special application for delivery and taxation of bill, see Be
Jervis, M. R., 26 June, 1845, A. 2089 ; but the direction for delivery should
be as in the above form. For form of application, see D. C. F. 1046.
272
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
2. Order on Special Application to deliver Particulars where the
Solicitor alleged that he had already delivered the Bills.
Upon motion &c., order that the solr do deliver to the applicant
the particulars of the fees and disbursements comprised in the bills
of costs specified in the schedule hereto, except so far as such par-
ticulars have already been delivered and except so far as such bills
or any of them are the subject of any agreement under the statute,
and their bills of costs of all other matters of business in which the
said solrs have been engaged ; And that it be referred, &c. [Insert
paragraphs (i) and (ii), Form 1, p. 254, ante, and direction to certify
amount payable and due in loiter part of paragraph (iii)]. Costs of
application and reference reserved. — See Re Battams and Hutchinson,
[1897] 1 Ch. 699, Kekewich, J., 19 Feb. 1897, A. 1237.
3. Form of Order giving Liberty, pending Taxation, to deliver an
additional Bill, and to alter Items by Enlargement only.
Order that the Petr be at liberty to bring before the master an
additional bill of any items of business done or money paid omitted
to be charged in his said bill already delivered, and likewise to alter
any of the items already charged in his said bill by increasing or
enlarging the same, but he is not to diminish or make less any of the
items already charged. And it is ordered that it be referred to the
taxing master to tax such additional bill and enlarged items. — See
Foster v. Rayner, L. C, 28 Oct. 1745 (cited in Re Walters, 9 Beav.
302, n.). And see Re Wells ; Re Carven, 8 Beav. 416, 438.
NOTES.
ENFORCING DBLIVEBY OF BrLL OF COSTS.
Procedure By 0. LV, 2 (15), following Gen. Ord. 17 April, 1867, all applications under
by summons. 6 & 7 V. u. 73 (not being applications for orders of course), for the taxation
and delivery of bills of costs, and for the delivery by any solr of deeds,
documents, and papers, are to be made by summons at Chambers instead
of (as formerly) by petition to the Court.
Attachment. An order on the solr for the delivery of his bill might, after personal
service (see Be Catlin, 18 Beav. 510), have been enforced by attachment :
see Lane v. Oliver, 2 Ha. 97.
And now, by 0. xlii, 24, every order of the Court or a Judge, in any cause
or matter, may be enforced in the same manner as a judgment to the same
effect — i.e., in the case of a judgment requiring any person to do any act
other than the payment of money or to abstain from doing anything, by
ivrit of attachment or by committal : 0. XLn, 7.
To enforce delivery, the order should be endorsed under 0. xli, 6.
An order that a solr should pay the pit's costs of a motion to attach
the solr for contempt in not having delivered to the pit a bill of costs
Ijursuant to an order for taxation of costs, is not an order for costs made
in a criminal or quasi-criminal matter, and an action is maintainable
against the solr to recover the amount of the taxed costs of the motion :
Seldon V. Wilde, [1911] 1 K. B. 701.
SEOT. v.] Taxation after Action brought. 273
An order served without theproper endorsement might be re-served, when
properly endorsed, more than fourteen days afterwards, although a motion
for the usual four-day order for non-compliance with the unendorsed order
was irregular : Exp. Oregg, 9 Eq. 137 ; Be Bowen, 11 W. R. 607.
On affidavit by the solr that he had no documents, &o., from which
to make out his bill, the Court refused to commit him for non-compliance
with an order to deliver : Be Ker, 12 Beav. 390.
Delivery was ordered, with costs, against a solr who, when paid, undertook Delivery
to, but did not, deliver his bill : Be Foljambe, 9 Beav. 402 ; and see Be ordered with
Bailey, 34 Beav. 392 ; Be Blackmore, 13 Beav. 154. ^o^*".
As to the jurisdiction to entertain a bill filed by a country solr against Country solr
his London agent for {inter alia) delivery and taxation of his bill of costs, against
the agency being disputed, and a special agreement of partnership alleged, •Londou
see Ward v. Lawson, 8 Ch. 65. ^Sent-
By 0. Lxv, 2, 26a (1903), orders for delivery of bills of costs and for
taxation may be made by the Court or a Judge in any division of the
High Court, notwithstanding such bills relate to non-contentious pro-
ceedings ; but as a general rule the application should be made in the
Chancery Division : see Be Pollard, 20 Q. B. D. 656, C. A.
Where the solr makes no claim for costs, and swears that he has not Solr making
retained any costs out of moneys of his client in his hands, he is not liable no claim for
under the common order to deliver a cash account, though {semble) he may costs,
be accountable under the summary jurisdiction : Be Landor, [1899] 1 Ch,
818 ; and see Cordery, 30.
By 0. HI, 2, 25 (July, 1901), " where the relationship of solr and client exists. Account by
or has existed, a summons may be issued by the client or his representatives solr.
for the delivery of a cash account, or the payment of moneys, or the delivery
of securities ; and the Court or a Judge may from time to time order the
respondent to deliver to the applicant a list of the moneys or securities which
he has in his custody or control on behalf of the applicant, or to bring into
Court the whole or any part of the same within such time as the Court
or a Judge may order. In the event of the respondent alleging that
he has a claim for costs, the Court or a Judge may make such provision for
the pa3rment or security thereof or the protection of the respondent's lien (if
any) as the Court or Judge shall think fit."
This rule does not apply where the transactions in question are loans :
Be J. (1910), 54 Sol. J. 459.
Section V. — Taxation ArTEH Action brought.
The Forms of Order given in this section are seldom used since the
decision in Smith v. Edwards (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 10.
1. Order of Course to tax after Action, hut before Verdict or Writ of
Inquiry executed, or Twelve Months expired — Solicitors Act,
1843, s. 37.
Upon the petition of B., of &c., it was alleged that the Petr em-
ployed the above-named A. as his solr in &c. [state business] ; that
the said solr has commenced proceedings against the Petr in the K. B.
Div. of this Court to recover the amount of the said bill [state shortly
the proceedings taken in the action, sect. 37] ; that the Petr submits to
pay what shall be certified as payable to the said solr on the taxation
of the said bill ; It was therefore prayed, and it is accordingly ordered,
that it be referred to the taxing master [Insert paragraphs (i) and (ii),
VOL. I. T
274 Costs. [chap. xvii.
Form 1, p. 254, ante] ; and in case it shall appear that there is any-
thing due to the said soir, It is ordered that the said master do tax
the said solr his costs of the said proceediags, and that such costs be
added to the amount which shall be so found due [Insert paragraphs
(iii), (iv), and (v), Form 1, p. 254, ante] [If action is brought in an
inferior Court, add, And it is ordered that the said solr be restrained
from further proceeding against the Petr in respect of the said bill
pending this reference] ; but the Petr is to carry this order and the
said bill of costs into the office of the said master on or before the —
day of — [if so, add, and in default the said solr is to be at liberty to
proceed with the said action as if this order had not been made] ;
And it is ordered that either party be at liberty to prosecute this
order ; and the said master is to make his certificate in a fortnight,
unless the said master shall extend the time to enable him to make
his certificate, or this order is to be of no effect ; And in case the said
master shall not state any special circumstance in his said certificate,
and shall certify that there is anythmg due from the Petr to the said
solr, it is ordered that the amount so certified be paid by the Petr to
the said solr ; And in default of such payment being made, the said
solr is to be at liberty at any time after two days from the fiHng of the
said master's certificate, without service of this order or of such cer-
tificate, to sue out execution, against the Petr by writ oi fieri facias,
elegit, or otherwise, for the amount which may be so certified to be
due as aforesaid.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 1045.
2. Taxation at the Instance of a Person jointly liable ajler
Action brought.
And the applicant, by his solr, submitting to pay what shall be
certified as payable to the said A. (solicitor) on the taxation of the bill
of fees and disbursements made out by the said A. against, and
delivered to, C. and the applicant, and in respect of which the said
A. has corrimenced an action in the K. B. Div. of this Court ; Kefer
it to the taxing master to ta,x[Insert paragraph (i), Form l,p. 254,
ante, substituting " Applicant " for " Petr "] ; And it is ordered that
the said solr do give credit for all sums of money by him received of
or on account of the applicant and of the said C, or either of them ;
and in case it shall appear that there is anything due to the said sob.
It is ordered that the said master do tax the costs of the said
solr of the said action, and it is ordered that such costs be added to
the amount which shall be so found due ; And if such bill when taxed
be less by a sixth part &c. ; And it is ordered that the amount so to
be certified be paid accordingly, unless &c. ; And upon payment by
the applicant to the said solr of what may be certified to be due to
him as aforesaid, or in case it shall appear that there is nothing due
to him, it is ordered that the said solr do deliver to the applicant
SECT, v.] Taxation after Action brought. 275
and to the said C. upon oath all deeds, books, papers, and writings
in his custody or power, belonging to the applicant and to the said
C, relating to the subject-matter of the said bill of costs [if action
is brought in an inferior Court, add, And it is ordered that the said A.
be restrained from further proceeding against the applicant in respect
of the said bill pending this reference] ; but the applicant is to carry
this order and the said bill of costs into the office of the said master
on or before the — day of — [if so, and in default thereof the said solr
is to be at liberty to proceed with the said action as if this order had
not been made] ; And either party is to be at liberty to prosecute
this order &c. [Fortn 1, ante, p. 274 to end]. — See Thorneloe v. Skoines ;
Re Silberberg, V.-C. M. in Chambers, 17 Nov. 1873, B. 2993.
The direction to stay proceedings by the solr for the recovery of his bill
formerly inserted is now limited to proceedings in an inferior Court : see
Jud. Act, 1873, s. 24 (5).
3. Special Order to tax — Jvdgment to be entered for Amount claimed
— Undertaking not to issue Execution.
Order that R. (solicitor) be at liberty to enter up judgment for the
sum of £ — (the amount claimed), and costs, to be taxed, in the action
brought by him against the Petrs J., and C. his wife, the said E., by
his counsel, undertaking not to issue execution for a greater amount
than shall appear to be due to him upon the taxation of his bill of
costs (fees and disbursements) hereinafter directed to be taxed, and
interest thereon from &c. to the day of payment, at the rate of —
per ann., such execution not to be issued until ten days after the date
of the master's certificate ; And refer &c., to tax and settle the bill
of costs (fees and disbursements) of the said R., delivered to the said
C. on the — day of — , for business done for the said Petr. — [Usual
directions for parties to produce and be examined ; as to costs of
reference, exclusive of costs of application, and for payment of balance
and delivery of papers. — Petr to pay costs of application.] — Re
Roberts, M. R., 9 March, 1844, B. 593.
This order would now be made on summons : 0. LV, 2 (15).
For order for delivery, taxation, and payment, on notice after action
brought, see Gardner y. M. Tovmshend, M. R., 31 Jan. 1815, B. 207 ; referred
to as the common order: Be Pender (1846), 2 Ph. 74. The "Common
Order " referred to in Re Pender is taken from the 1830 ed. of Seton, and
is practically identical with the general form of order under the Act.
NOTES.
An order of course for taxation may be obtained by the client after action
brought for recovery of costs, but before notice of it : Re Farington, 33
Beav. 346 ; and see Re Hair, 10 Beav. 187.
After final or conclusive judgment in the action there can be no taxation
under the statute without special circumstances : Be Barnard, 2 D. M. &
G. 359; 16 Beav. 5.
But a judgment obtained by default will not, it seems, bar the right to
tax : Be Oedye, 15 Beav. 254 ; unless writ of inquiry executed, aliter, if
by consent : Be Barnard, sup.
In ordering the taxation, after action brought, of a bill claimed against
'^7G Costs. [chap. xvii.
two persons, on the application of one of them, the action was stayed, and
liberty was given to both to question the retainer ; the taxing master being
directed to distinguish by and to whom each sum found due was to be paid :
Be Kitlon, 35 Beav. 369, 1866, A. 193.
In general, if the order to tax is after action brought, the client has to pay
the costs of the action : Re Hair, 11 Beav. 96 ; and see Re Smith, lb. 468.
Section VI. — Spkcial Order for Taxation after Payment,
1. Where Costs of Application and Taxation are reserved.
Order that it be referred to the taxing master to tax and settle
the bill of fees, charges, and disbursements, amounting to the sum of
£ — , delivered by the said solrs to the applicant, and paid by the
applicant to the said solrs \lnsert paragraphs (i) and (ii). Form 1,
p. 254, ants'] ; And in case it shall appear that the said bill is overpaid,
the said master is to certify the amount overpaid ; And it is ordered
that the said solrs (names) do, within twenty-one days after service of
this order and of the taxing master's certificate to be made in pur-
suance thereof, repay to A. what shall be certified to be the amount
so overpaid by him ; And the said master is to be at liberty to state
any circumstance specially at the request of either party, as he shall
think fit. — [Reserve the consideration of costs of taxation and of
application until after certificate.] — Re Winterhottom, V.-C. M. at
Chambers, 11 Nov. 187-2, B. 2871.
For the like order, see Be Sankey, V.-C. W. at Chambers, 12 July, 1872,
B. 2725, where the direction as to costs was : " the costs of the application
and of the said reference are to be dealt with as the Judge shall direct."
In Be Alcoch, V.-C. K. B., 3 May, 1845, A. 1351, the direction for repay-
ment was omitted, and was reserved for further order.
In Re Wells, M. R., 4 March, 1845, B. 536, S. C, 8 Beav. 416, taxation, at
the instance of the mortgagor, was to be as between the mortgagee and his
solr, and the direction to give credit was not inserted ; for further order for
payment to solr of costs of taxation, and of the application, less than one-
sixth being taken off, see 8. C, M. R., 24 July, 1845, B. 1291.
• In Be Winterhottom the costs of taxation were reserved, but in Re
Drummonds, inf., the alternative direction as to such costs was given,
and this is the more convenient form of the order.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 1047.
2. The like Order where Costs of Taxation and Application are
not reserved.
Order that it be referred to the taxing master to tax and settle
the bill of fees, charges, and disbursements, amounting to £ — ,
delivered by the said solicitors to the applicants, and paid by them
on &o. [Insert paragraphs (i) to (iv) inclusive, Form 1, p. 254, ante]. —
Re Druiwmonds, Buckley, J., at Chambers, 12 Jan. 1903, A. 449.
SECT. VI.] Special Order for Taxation after Payment, Til
NOTES.
TAXATION AFTBE PAYMENT.
By 6 & 7 V. 0. 73, s. 41, payment of the bill is not to preclude a reference
for taxation, if the special circumstances of the case appear to require the
same, upon such terms and conditions and subject to such directions as to
the Court shall seem right, provided the application be made within twelve
calendar months after payment. As to the application of the section to
preceding sections, v. inf. p. 281.
Before the Act, to obtain taxation after payment without pressure or
undue influence, the petition had to state, and the evidence to show in
particular, items so gross as to evidence fraud, and not merely items which
would not be allowed on taxation : Horloch v. Smith, 2 M. & Cr. 495 ;
Waters v. Taylor, lb. 526 ; Re Stephen, 2 Ph. 562 ; Massie v. Drake, 4
Beav. 433 ; Nohes v. Warton, 5 Beav. 448 ; and see Dan. 1731 et seq.
Since the Act, "special circumstances " entitling the client to taxation Special cir-
after payment have generally been held to signify either, (a) pressure accom- cumstances.
panied by manifest overcharges ; (b) overcharges or errors so gross as to
amount to fraud : see Re Lacey dk Son, 25 Ch. D. 301, C. A. ; Re Boycott,
29 Ch. D. 571, C. A. ; Re Norman, 16 Q. B. D. 673, C. A. {q. v., as to the
limits of the discretion of the Court) ; Re Chown, 52 L. T. 75 ; (c) undue
influence, misconduct, or fraud on the part of the solr : see Watson v.
Rodwell, 11 Ch. D. 150, C. A. ; 7 lb. 625 ; or, (d) the pendency of a charge
of felony against the solr's managing clerk, on which depends the legality
of the charges in the bill of costs, delivered before such charge was raised,
and settled in account : Re Fisher, 42 L. T. 261 ; but special circumstances
include any circumstances of an exceptional nature which a judge in the
exercise of his discretion may consider to justify a taxation : Re Hirst and
Capes, [1908] 1 K. B. 982, affirmed, [1908] A. C. 416.
(a) If the bill is produced at the last moment, and reasonable facility for Pressure and
taxation is refused after the opportunity for taxation has been asked overcharge.
for, and, looking at the bill, there appears substantial ground for
taxation, though the overcharges may not be so gross as to show
fraud : Re Newman, 2 Ch. 707 ; Re Pugh, 32 Beav. 173 ; 1 D. J. & S.
673 ; Re Wells, 8 Beav. 416 ; Re Bennett, lb. 467 ; Re Heritage,
Exp. Docker, 3 Q. B. D. 726.
— so also payment under protest, in order to obtain possession of
papers: J?eiei<, 31 Beav,488; ReTryonjTBesiY.iQS; ReWilkinson,
2 Coll. 92. As to the meaning of payment "under protest," see Re
Gheesman, [1891] 2 Ch. 289 ; 39 W. R. 497 ; and see inf., p. 279.
— or, as the only means of getting a transaction completed {e.g., the
transfer of a mortgage) : Re Phillpotts, 18 Beav. 84 (and see Re
Abbott, 18 Beav. 393 ; Re Boycott, 29 Ch. D. 571, C. A.) ; or a
purchase : Parker to George, 32 W. R. 222 ; or of preventing a
threatened sale : Re Moseley, 15 W. R. 975.
But payment, on settling a transaction, of a draft bill of costs only then
produced, gives no right per se, without showing fraud, gross overcharge, or
pressure, to taxation : Re Fyson, 9 Beav. 117 ; Re Finch, 16 Beav. 585,
586, n. ; nor payment, owing to a threat by the solr at once to enforce
securities of the client in his possession : Re Foster, 2 D. P. & J. 105 ;
Re Ranee, 22 Beav. 177 ; Re Sladden, 10 Beav. 488 ; Re Kinneir, 5 Jur.
N. S. 423 ; 7 W. R. 175 ; nor generally, where the necessity for pa5dng the
bill without investigation does not arise by act or default of the solr :
Re Boycott, 29 Ch. D. 571, C. A. ; nor payment under a common mistake
that the scale fee under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act was payable :
Re Glascodine, 52 L. T. 781 ; nor the fact that the higher scale instead of the
lower has been charged : Re Durnfwd, 1883, W. N. 29 ; nor refusal by solr
to hand over title deeds, lawfully in his possession, until he is paid : Re
Munns and Longden, 50 L. T. 356 ; 32 W. R. 675 ; nor the fact that on
payment the solr did not tejl the clients (trustees) that the pharges might be
278
Costs.
[chap. xvit.
disallowed if an admon action followed : Ee Layton, Steele & Co., 1890,
W.N. 112; 38 W. R. 652.
Pressure alone is not sufficient, and some specific items of overcharge
must still be alleged and proved : Ee Lacey <fe Son, 25 Ch. D. 301, C. A. ;
Be Boycott, 29 Ch. D. 571, 0. A. ; Ee Thompson, 8 Beav. 237 ; Ee Browne,
1 D. M. & G. 322 ; Ee Finch, 4 D. M. & G. 108 ; Ee Brady, 15 W. R. 632.
And that the doctrine of pressure is not to be extended, see Ee Barrow,
17 Beav. 547 ; Ee Hubbard, 15 Beav. 253 ; nor generally the allowance of
taxation after payment : Ee Browne, 15 Beav. 61, 64, n.
Overcharge (b) If the overcharge is so gross as to amount to fraud, taxation will be
amounting to ordered : Ee Harding, 10 Beav. 250 ; Ee Currie, 9 Beav. 602, 608; and
fraud. see Ee Dickson, 8 D. M. & G. 655. And since the Jud. Acts, items
unreasonably large, charges requiring explanation, or gross blunders,
have been held to be special circumstances entitling the client to
taxation after twelve months from delivery of the bills, and semble,
after payment : Ee Norman, 16 Q. B. D. 673 ; and see Ee Eobinson,
I;. R. 3 Ex. 4.
Instances of overcharge amounting to fraud so as to authorize taxation
after pa5rment, are — (a) a charge by solr for business never done, and known
to have been never done : see Ee Harle, 17 W. R..21 ; 19 L. T. 305 ; (b) or
the charge of a scale fee, not being one of the charges specified in the scale
in the Gen. Ord. under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881 : Ee Pybus,
35 Ch. D. 568 ; Ee W. Eley, 37 Ch. D. 40.
Taxation after payment will not, however, be directed if the items of
overcharge are merely trifling, and there has been no pressure : Ee Drake,
8 Beav. 123 ; or the items are such as would be disallowed or reduced on
taxation : Ee Toiole, 30 Beav. 170.
No rigid rule can be laid down as to what are " special circumstances."
The question is one for the discretion of the Judge, and with that dis-
cretion the C. A. will not readily interfere : Ee Cheesman, [1891] 2 Ch.
289, C. A.
And after payment the onus of showing overcharge is upon the client :
S. C.
Delay in An application for taxation after payment should be speedy, and a very
application, short time has been held suflficient for examination of the bill after delivery :
Ee Towle, 30 Beav. 170 ; Ee Barrow, 17 Beav. 547 ; Ee Browne ; Ee Mash ;
Ee Hubbard, 15 Beav. 61, 83, 251 ; Ee Drew, 10 Beav. 368 ; Be Currie, 9
Beav. 602 ; Be Jones, 8 Beav. 479.
Even though the bill paid under circumstances of pressure contains an
objectionable item, unexplained acquiescence for a period short of twelve
months may preclude taxation : Ee Bayley, 18 Beav. 415 ; Ee Brovme,
1 D. M. & G. 322 ; Ee Pugh, 32 Beav. 173.
The lapse of twelve months will absolutely preclude taxation after pay-
ment : Ee Massey, 8 Beav. 458 ; and this applies to applications under s. 38
(third-party clause) : Ee F. E. Smith, 32 W. R. 408 ; and although it is
alleged that trust money was improperly paid to the solr with notice of
breach of trust : Be Jackson ; BeCottrell; Boughton-Leighr. B., 40 Ch.D.
495 ; Gerty v. Mann, 29 L. R. Ir. 7 ; and although the bill is not signed :
Be Sutton and Elliott, 11 Q. B. D. 377, C. A. ; Ee Falls, 29 L. R. Ir. 1.
Taxation on On application to tax paid bill, taxation must be on it as paid and
biU as paid delivered : Ee Wells, 8 Beav. 416 ; and a previously paid bill could not be
and delivered, ^dded : Ee Oregg, 10 W. R. 127 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 632 ; 30 Beav. 259.
Procedure. The application is now by summons : O. LV, 2 (15) ; and see Be Becke,
5 Beav. 406 ; Ee Carew, 8 Beav. 150, that an ex parte order for taxation
after payment was irregular.
Further evidence of " special circumstances " will not be received in
support of a motion to discharge the refusal in Chambers of an application
to tax after payment : Be Munns, 32 W. R. 675 ; 50 L. T. 356.
Notwithstanding payment, within four days after service of the writ of
summons, of the amount claimed by the indorsement for debt or liquidated
SECT. VI,] Special Order for Taxation after Payment. 279
demand and for costs, the Deft is entitled to have the costs taxed : O. rrt, 7 ;
and see sup. p. 276.
WHAT CONSTITUTES PAYMENT.
As to the legal effect of paying a bill of costs under protest or with Payment
intimation of taxing, see Re Massey, 8 Beav. 462 ; Re Harrison, 10 Beav. 57 ; ""^er protest.
Re Neate, ib. 183 ; Re Stirke, 11 Beav. 305 ; Re Wekhman, ib. 319 ; Re
Browne, 15 Beav. 61 ; 1 D. M. & G. 322 ; Be Bayley, 18 Beav. 415 ; Re
Cheesman, [1801] 2 Ch. 289, C. A. ; which seem to establish that mere
protest on payment is simply a reservation of the right to tax, and does
not give to the payment those incidents of pressure which are required
for taxation after payment, especially when the application for taxation
is delayed. But see contra, Re Williams, Exp. Love, 65 L. T. 68; Re
Tweedie, 1909, W. N. 119, in the case of payment by the client made
expressly subject to the right to tax.
Giving a security, acceptance, or promissory note £or the amount of the Giving
bill of costs is payment : Re Boyle, 5 D. M. & G. 540 ; Re Gurrie, 9 Beav. security.
602 ; Re Harper, 10 Beav. 284 ; but the twelve months from payment
has been reckoned not from delivery but from payment of the note or bill,
unless the giving was treated by the parties as actual payment : Sayer v.
Wagstaff, 5 Beav. 416.
Retention by solr of client's money for the amount of his costs is not Retention of
pa5Tnent within sect. 41 so as to preclude taxation after the lapse of twelve nioney.
months : Re Street, 10 Eq. 165 ; Re Stogdon, 56 L. T. 355 ; 56 L. J. Ch.
4:20; and see Re Cawleydk Whatley, 18W.R. 1125; ReBrady, 15W.R.632;
Re BignoTd, 9 Beav. 269 ; although sums from time to time retained have
been entered in accounts settled and approved by the client : Re Baylis,
[1896] 2 Ch. 107, C. A. ; nor a payment on settlement of a general account :
Re Frape, Exp. Ferret, [1893] 2 Ch. 284, 291 ; nor a settlement in account
with client, a married woman, without independent advice : Re Stogdon,
sup. ; nor, a fortiori, an agreement by a solr with an illiterate client to retain
out of the proceeds of the subject-matter of the suit his bill of costs taken
at a given amount : Re Ingle, 21 Beav. 275 ; nor a settlement in account
between a solr-trustee, entitled by the will to charge expenses, and his
co-trustee : Re Fish, Bennett v. B., [1893] 2 Ch. 413, C. A. ; and delivery
of the bill of costs, under the order of the Court, will not make the retention
amount to payment (within the principle of Exp. Hemming, 28 L. T. 144 ;
Be Thompson, [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 ; and Hitchcock v. Stretton, [1892] 2 Ch.
343) : Be Baylis, sup.
In one case payments made and accepted in the course of a running Running
account regularly balanced were held referable to a bill of costs subse- account,
quently delivered, so as to preclude taxation in absence of special circum-
stances : Hitchcock v. Stretton, [1892] 2 Ch. 343 (explaining and considering
Re Stogdon, 56 L. J. Ch. 420 ; 56 L. T. 355, and Exp. Hemming, 28 L. T.
144 ; and see Re Falls, 29 L. R. Ir. 1) ; but the principle of this decision
must be applied with caution : Be Baylis, [1896] 2 Ch. 107, C. A. ; Cordery,
319 ; and see Be Callis, 49 W. B. 316. If there has been no settlement
of the account the bills entered as items in the account, though delivered
are not paid : Be Nicholson, 3 D. P. & J. 93.
Where Deft's solr accepted cheque of Pit's solr in payment, it was an Payment
accord and satisfaction precluding a subsequent claim by Deft for interest by cheque,
on the costs : Bidder v. Bridges, 37 Ch. D. 406, C. A.
Whether payment by mortgagor to satisfy principal, interest and costs, Payment by
so as to avoid bringing in accounts in a foreclosure action, is payment mortgagor in
within the section, qucere : Re Griffith, Jones & Co., 63 L. J. Ch. 303 ; settlement.
32 W. R. 360 ; 50 L. T. 434.
280 Costs. [chap. XVII.
Section VII. — Taxation at Instance of Third party.
1. Order of Course to tax on Application of Third Party liable —
Solicitors Act, 1843, s. 38.
Upon the petition of B., of &c. [state the circumstances], that the
said solr, on or about the — day of — , delivered unto the Petr his
bill of fees and disbursements which, as the Petr is advised, ought to
be taxed, [If so, and which contains charges for work for which the
Petr is not liable to pay, and the same does not contain any item
for business done in any Court] ; that the Petr submits to pay what
shall be certified as payable to the said solr on the taxation of his
bill [Insert paragraphs (i), (iii), and (iy), omitting the words "due
from," Form 1, p. 254, ante] ; And it is ordered that no proceedings be
commenced in respect of the said bill pending this reference, but
the said master is to make his certificate in a month (unless the
said master shall extend the time to enable him to make his certifi-
cate) ; or this order is to be of no effect.
Taxation under 6 & 7 V. c. 73, s. 38, as above, is by order of course when a
taxation under sect. 37 would be so, unless the actual delivery of the bill to
the third party is in dispute, as in Be Robertson, 42 Ch. D. 553 ; Cordery,
325.
And for special orders in the like form, made on application by summons
at Chambers, see Re Burne, V.-C. W. at Chambers, 8 Dec. 1871, A. 3077 ;
Re Adams, M. R. at Chambers, 30 Nov. 1875, A. 1879.
The directions to give credit or charge for sums received or paid, and to
deliver papers, are not inserted in an order for taxation by a third party
liable.
For form of application, see D. C. P. 1048.
2. Order on Special Application of Third Party interested before
or after payment — s. 39.
Order that it be referred to the taxing master to tax and settle
the bill of costs, amounting to £ — , delivered by the respondents
(solrs) to B. and C. (trustees), and paid by them on the • — day of
■ — [or if not paid which they are entitled to pay] out of property in
which the applicant is interested ; And it is ordered that the applicant
and the respondents do produce [Insert paragraphs (i). Form 1,
p. 254, ante] ; And the master is to certify the amount payable
out of such property as aforesaid, together with any special circum-
stances affecting the matter which he may think fit ; And the costs
of this application and of the said taxation are reserved. — Liberty
to apply.
Taxation under 6 & 7 V. o. 73, s. 39, is by special application : Re
Straford, 16 Beav. 27 ; now made by originating summons : 0. lv, 2 (15).
3. Same — Copy Bill to be delivered — ss. 39, 40.
Order that H. do within one month from this time, deliver to the
applicant a copy of the bill of costs, amounting to £ — , delivered by
him to T. &c., as the trustees of the applicant under the indenture of
&c., upon payment by the applicant of the costs of such copy, to be
SECT. VII.] Taxation at Instance of Third Party. 281
taxed by the taxing master in case the parties differ ; And refer &c.
[follow Form 2, ante\. — Re Higham, 25 June, 1853, A. 1231.
For further order for delivery of a copy of the bill within one week, 8. C,
1 Dee. 1853, A. 144.
For order under sect. 39 for payment by solr to apphcant (assignee of
three-sixths of testator's residuary estate) of three-sixths of amount (if any)
certified due from solr, on taxation of paid bill, see Be Hodgens, Cozens-
Hardy, J., 21 May, 1901, A. 2082.
NOTES.
After payment, an ex parte order to tax, though at the instance of a third
party, is irregular : Be Beche, 5 Beav. 406 ; Be Garew, 8 Beav. 150 (though
there discharged without costs).
Taxation at the instance of a third party interested or liable to pay is
regulated by the agreement or circumstances under which he is liable : Be
Gray, [1907] 1 Ch. 239; Be Longhotham & Sons, [1904] 2 Ch. 152; and
see Be Collyer-Bristow <fe Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 839, as to taxation of bill
of costs of solrs employed by umpire to draw up an award.
The third party stands in the position of the client ; so that if the client is Position of
not entitled to tax the bill as against the solr, the third party could not claim third party,
taxation against the solr, nor, under the Act, without bill filed against the
client who has paid : Be Massey, 34 Beav. 463 (correcting the decision in
Be Jessop, 32 Beav. 406 ; Be Baker, ih. 526, that a bill may be taxed as
against trustees without the solr having any interest or concern in the
taxation) ; and see Be Press and'Inship, 35 Beav. 34 ; Be Forsyth, 2 D. J. &
S. 509 ; 34 Beav. 140 ; Be Gold, 19 W. R. 343 ; 24 L. T. 9 ; Be Holliday
and Godlee, 58 L. T. 301 ; Be Cusach, 21 L. R. Jr. 493 ; Be Donaldson, 27
Ch. D. 544 ; but the third party order does not alter or enlarge the liability
upon which the order is based, and the Court will consider whether the
items are such as the applicant is bound to pay : Be Gray, [1901] 1 Ch. 239 ;
Be Longbotham & Sons, [1904] 2 Ch. 152 ; Be Cohen and Cohen, [1905]
2 Ch. 137. The taxing master is not necessarily tied by the prefatory
words of the order : Be Pettitt and Valentine, 1901, W. N. 112.
Taxation is as between solr and client : Be Neate, 10 Beav. 181 ; the Soh and
clause not being applicable to taxation as between party and party : Be client
Grundy and Kershaw, 17 Ch. D. 108 ; Be Cowdell, 31 W. R. 335 ; 52 L. J. Ch. taxation.
246 ; but in taxation on behalf of c. q. t. the solr will not be allowed to charge
the trust estate for anything not necessary for the admon thereof : and see
Be Garthew, 27 Ch. D. 487 ; Be Miles, [1903] 2 Ch. 518. And if such charges
have resulted from fanciful directions given by the trustee, the solr must
look to the trustee personally for payment : Be Brown, 4 Eq. 464.
For taxation at the instance of c. q. t. before and after payment, see Be Trustee and
Dowries (1844), 6 Beav. 525 ; Be Bees, 12Beav. 256 ; of mortgagee's solr's c. q. t.
bill at the instance of mortgagor or subsequent incumbrancer, Be Lees, 5 Mortgagor and
Beav. 410 ; Be Bignold, 9 Beav. 269 ; Be Bobertson, 42 Ch. D. 553 ; or mortgagee,
trustee in bankruptcy of mortgagor. Be Allingham., 32 Ch. D. 36, C. A.
The proviso in sect. 41, that applications for taxation must be made Within twelve
within twelve months after payment, unless special circumstances are months after
sho^vn as in Be Chowne, infra, applies to applications under sect. 38 : payment.
Be F. E. Smith, 32 W. R. 407 ; Be Massey, 8 Beav. 458 ; and also to cases
under sect, 39 : Be Wellhorne, [1901] 1 Ch. 312, C. A. ; BeChowne, 52 L. T.
75 ; Be Dickson, 8 M. D. & G. 655 ; Be Dawson, 28 Beav. 605 ; 8 W. R.
554 ; Be Drake, inf. ; Be Neate, 10 Beav. 181 ; Be Bees, sup. ; Be Massey,
sup.
The petition {now summons) may be ordered to be served on the mort-
gagee: see Be Jessop, 32 Beav. 406; Be Baker, ih. 526.
Specific items of overcharge must be alleged and proved on an application Overcharge,
under the third-party clause after payment, as in the case of an application
2^2 Costs. [chap. XVII.
by the client: Re Bennett, 8 Beav. 467; Be Dickson, 8 D. M. & G.
655.
And see Dunt v. D., 9 Beav. 146, where mortgagor's petition to tax
mortgagee's solr's bill after payment was dismissed with costs, as alleging
neither pressure nor specific overcharge.
But it is not necessary to show fraudulent overcharge : Be Drake, 22
Beav. 438.
Party in- Before the Married Women's Property Act, 1870, a husband liable for
ereste . ggg^g ^^g ^^.^^^^ j^j^ ^^^ before marriage was entitled to tax : Waring v.
Williams, 2 Beav. 1. But in Be Godfrey, M. R., 1 July, 1875, A. 1228,
an order obtained by husband and wife for taxation was discharged with
costs, on the ground [inUr alia) that the husband was not Uable.
A bankjupt is not, pending the bankruptcy, a " party interested " in the
estate in the hands of the trustee in bankruptcy, so as to entitle him, after
discharge and payment of creditors in full, to obtain delivery and taxation
under sect. 39 of a bill of costs paid by such trustee out of the estate : Be
Leadbitter, 10 Ch. D. 388, C. A. ; and see Bochfort v. Battersby, 2 H. L. C.
388 ; BirdY. PUlpott, [1900] 1 Ch. 822; but a creditor who has obtained
an admon judgment is and can obtain taxation of bill of costs paid by the
exor : Be James, [1904] 2 Ch. 388.
A creditor who has obtained judgment for admon of the estate of a
deceased testator is "a party interested " within sect. 39 : Be Jones <Ss
Everett, [1904] 2 Ch. 363.
Voluntary payment by a party under no liability to pay gives him no
right to tax : Be Beche, 5 Beav. 406 ; Be Heritage, 3 Q. B. D. 726 ; unless
such payment has been made as part of the terms of compromising a suit :
Be Hartley, 30 Beav. 620 (subject to explanation given in Be Grundy, 17
Ch. D. 108) ; and see Vincent y. Venner, 1 My. & K. 212 (sedqu.) ; Waters
V. Taylor, 2 My. & Cr. 556.
Section VIII. — Taxation by or against Eepeesentatives.
1. Order of Course to tax Bill delivered by Solr's Represve.
Upon the petition of B., of &c., it was alleged that the Petr em-
ployed the above-named A. as his solr la &c. [state business] ; that the
said A. is since deceased, and D. as the admor of the effects [or exor of
the will] of the said A., on or about the — day of — , delivered unto the
Petr the bill of fees and disbursements of the said A., which, as the
Petr is advised [contains, if so, charges for work not done on his
retainer, and which the Petr is not liable to pay, and], ought to be
taxed ; that the Petr submits to pay what shall be certified as payable
to the said D. as such admor [or exor] as aforesaid on the taxation of
the said bUl ; It was therefore prayed, and it is accordingly ordered,
that it be referred &c. to tax and settle the said bill ; and that the
Petr and also the said D. do produce &c. ; And that they be examined
touching the same matters, or any of them, as the said master
shall direct ; And it is ordered, that the said D. do give credit for
all sums of money received by him or the said A., of or on account of
the Petr ; And be at liberty to charge all sums of money paid by him
or the said A. to or on account of the Petr ; And it is ordered, that if
such bill when taxed be less by a sixth part &c. [jiaragraph (iii),
SECT. VIII.] Taxation by or against Representatives. 283
Form 1, p. 254, awie] ; And tlie said master is to certify the amount
payable by and the amount due from the Petr to the estate of the said
A., having regard to the costs of such reference so to be taxed as afore-
said, or from the estate of the said A. to the Petr, as the case may be,
having regard to any sum or sums of money which may have been so
received or paid as aforesaid ; And it is ordered, that any amount so
to be certified to be payable by the Petr to the estate of the said A. be
paid by the Petr to the said D. within twenty-one days after service
of this order, and of the taxing master's certificate to be made in pur-
suance thereof, unless the Court shall upon special circumstances to be
certified by the said master otherwise order, upon application to be
made within one week after the date of the said master's certificate by
the Petr ; And it is ordered, that upon payment by the Petr to the said
D. of wliat may be certified to be due to him as such admor [or exor],
or in case it shall appear that there is nothing due to him, he, the said
D., do deliver to the Petr, upon oath, all deeds, books, papers, and
writings in his custody or power as such admor [or exor] as aforesaid,
belonging to the Petr ; And it is ordered that no proceedings be com-
menced against the Petr in respect of the said bill pending this refer-
ence, but the said master is to make his certificate in a month, unless
the said master shall extend the time to enable him to make his certi-
ficate, or this order is to be of no efiect ; And in case the said master
shall certify that any amount is due from the estate of the said A., and
the said bill when taxed shall be less by a sixth part than the said bill
as delivered, It is ordered, that the said D. do pay to the Petr the
amount which the said master shall certify to be due for the costs of
this reference.
The above form is applicable, where the order is to tax a bill delivered by
the trustee in bankruptcy of a bankrupt solr, mutatis mutandis.
Where one of two solrs (partners) is dead, the order should direct
taxation as against the surviving partner, the executors of the deceased
partner submitting to be bound and having liberty to attend the taxation :
Re Curtis and Beits, 1887, W. N. 126.
2. Order of Course to deliver Bill to Client's Represve, and to Tax.
Upon the petition of B. &c., the admor of the effects [or exor of the
will] of C, of &c., deceased, it was alleged that the said C. in his life-
time employed the above-named A. as his solr in &c. ; that the said
C. has since died, and that letters of admon to his effects [or probate
of his will] have [or has] been granted to the said B. ; that the Petr
is desirous of obtaining the papers in the possession of the said solr
belonging to the Petr as such admor [or exor] as aforesaid ; but the
said solr refuses to deliver up the same until his bill of costs is paid ;
that the said solr, although applied to, has not delivered his bill of
costs against the Petr as such admor [or exor] as aforesaid ; that the
Petr submits to pay what shall be certified as payable in respect of the
284
Costs. [chap. XVII.
said bill ; It was therefore prayed, and it is accordingly ordered, that
the said solr do, within fourteen days after notice hereof, deliver to the
Petr a bill of fees and disbursements in all suits, causes, actions, and
other matters of busmess in which he has been employed as the solr
for the said C, deceased ; And that it be referred &c. [Insert para-
graph (i). Form 1, p. 254, arOe] ; And it is ordered, that the said solr
do give credit for all sums of money by him received of or on account
of the said C, deceased, and be at liberty to charge all sums of money
paid by him to or on account of the said C, deceased.— [Zw«er<
paragraphs (iii) and (iv) inclusive, Form 1, p. 254, ante, adding after
" Petr " the words " as such admor, or exor."]
3. Order to continue Proceedings and carry on Taxation after
Payment.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for M., of &c., who alleged that by an
order dated &c., It was ordered that it should be referred to the taxing
master to tax and settle the bill of fees, charges, and disbursements,
amounting to the sum of £ — , delivered by the above-named S. &c.
{the solrs) to T. in the said order named and paid by him to the
said solrs on (fee. (that no proceedings have been taken under the said
order dated &c.), and that the said T. died on &c. intestate, and that
on the &c. letters of admon of his estate were granted to the said M.
whereby she became and now is his legal pers. represve ; This Court
doth order that the said order and the proceedings thereunder be
continued, and the taxation thereby directed be carried on between
the said M. and the said solrs ; And it is ordered that the said M. and
the solrs do produce &c., and be examined &c. ; And give credit &c. ;
and in case it shall appear the said bill is overpaid, order that &c.
[see Section VI., p. 276].— See Re Sankey, V.-C. W., 25th Nov. 1872,
B. 3039.
As to orders to revive proceedings which had abated since taxation was
directed, see Be Nicholson, Me Waugh (1859), 29 Beav. 665, 666.
By the Attorneys and SoUoitors Act, 1870 (33 & 34 V. c. 28), s. 19, "any
person interested under a decree or order " for pa3rment of costs in any suit
may obtain an order to revive such suit, and thereupon to prosecute and
enforce such decree or order.
This section did not enable a solr, to whom costs had been ordered to be
paid, to obtain an order to revive : Hunter v. Woriley, 1873, W. N. 4.
The practice in oases where, formerly, by marriage, death, or bankruptcy,
&c., an order of revivor would have been required, has been simpUfied by
O. xvn, 2, 4, under which an order to carry on proceedings may be obtained
ex parte on application to the Court or a Judge, or by petition of course, or
in Chambers : Walker v. Blackmore, 1876, W. N. 132 ; and v. sup. Chap. IX.,
" Change or Paeties," p. 114.
For order to proceed with a taxation against the surviving Pits in the
absence of a legal pers. represve of one deceased, See Aspden v, Seddon,
1877, W. N. 207 ; 1877, A. 1766,
SECT. IX.] Review of Taxation. 285
4. Costs of a Daceased Solr and Exor moderated, though no
longer Taxable.
[The testator's solr and exor retained his costs out of the assets. Many
years afterwards, under a decree for the usual admon accounts, the soli's
represve claimed such payment as a discharge. Although the bill was no
longer taxable, the beneficiaries were allowed to have it moderated.]
" Vary the order dated &c., by striking out &c., and the direction
to tax and settle &c. ; And instead thereof, It is ordered 'that the
taxing master do inquire and certify whether any and which of the
disputed items marked &c., in the bills referred to are fair and proper
to be allowed, and to (any and) what amount respectively." — No
costs on either side. — Allen v. Jarvis, 4 Ch. 616, 23 June, 1869,
A. 2148.
For order in similar form as to items in bill of costs delivered to testator
which were disputed by exor, see Re Park, Cole v. P., 41 Ch. D. 326, C. A.
As to the power of the Court to direct tlie taxing officer to assist in settling
an account which consists in part of any bill of costs, see O. lxv, 27 (26).
For forms of request, see D. C. F. 612.
Section IX. — ^Review of Taxation.
1. Objections to Taxing Master's Certificate.
Okder that the objections No. 1 &c., left by the applicant with
the taxing master be allowed ; And it is ordered that it be referred
back to the taxing master to vary his certificate accordingly. — Re
Searle, M. R. at Chambers, 4 Dec. 1872, B. 3137.
2. Review of Taxation — Claim and Counter-claim — 0. Lxv, 27 (41).
This Court being of opinion that on the taxation of the costs under
the judgment dated &c. the Pit is liable to pay the whole of the Deft's
costs, except so far as they have been increased by the Deft's counter-
claim, and that the Deft is liable to pay to the Pit only the amount
by which the Pit's costs have been increased by the Deft's counter-
claim ; Doth order that it be referred to the taxing master to review
his taxation accordingly. — See Saner v. Bilton, Fry, J., 19 March,
1879, B. 648, and James v. Jackson, p. 234, ante.
3. Review of Taxation — Order on Objections — Costs apportioned —
Set-off.
Order that the taxing master's certificate do stand and be allowed
as to the subject-matter of the first objection, and be varied as to the
subject-matter of the second objection, by the disallowance of three
counsel to the Deft, and by allowing the Deft two counsel only on the
286
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
trial of this action and counter-claim ; And it is ordered that it be
referred to the taxing master to tax the costs of the Pit and of the
Deft of this application ; And it is ordered that the Pit pay the
amount of three-fourths of the said costs and the Deft pay one-fourth
of the said costs ; And it is ordered that the amount of the costs of
the Pit be set ofi against the costs of the Deft, having regard to the
variation in the said taxing master's certificate, and the taxing master
IS to certify to whom the balance is to be paid.— Directions for pay-
ment.—Masow V. Brentini, V.-C. M., 5 June, 1880, B. 1354 ; affirmed
on appeal, 1880, B. 1642, 15 Ch. D. 287, C. A.
4. Objections to Taxing Master's Certificate — Subseqmnt Order as to
Costs.
Order that the said objections dated &c., so far as they relate to
the items in Part 2 thereof, be allowed ; And it is ordered that it be
referred back to the taxing master to vary his certificate accordingly.
— Tax the costs of the applicants of obtaining the said order, and of
the taxation thereby directed, and deduct the same from the amount
which shall appear to be due from the applicants to the solrs. — The
balance to be certified, and to be paid by the applicants to the solrs
within twenty-one days from the dateof the taxing master's certificate.
—Re Oartwright, M. B,., 13 Nov. 1875, A. 2305.
NOTES.
Form of
order.
Person not
By 0. LXV, 27 (39 — 42), any party dissatisfied with, the allowance or
disallowance by the taxing officer of the whole or any part of any item
or items, may at any time before the certificate or allocatur is signed,
deliver to the other party interested therein, and carry in before the taxing
officer, an objection in writing to such allowance or disallowance, specifying
therein the items or parts objected to, and the grounds and reasons for such
objection, and apply to the taxing officer to review the taxation in respect of
the same. Upon such application the taxing officer shall reconsider and
review his taxation upon such objections, and may, if he think fit, receive
further evidence, and if so required by either party he shall state, either in
his certificate of taxation or allocatur, or by reference to such objection, the
grounds and reasons of his decision, and any special facts or circumstances
relating thereto. Any party dissatisfied with the certificate or allocatur as
to any item, &c. objected to may apply to a Judge at Chambers for an order
to review the taxation as to the same item, &c., and the Judge may there-
upon make such order as he may deem just, but the certificate or allocatur
shall be final and conclusive as to all matters not objected to in manner
aforesaid. Such application shall be heard and determined by the Judge
upon the evidence brought in before the taxing officer, and no further
evidence shall be received upon the hearing unless the Judge shall otherwise
direct.
The taxing master must tax in accordance with the form of the order as
passed and entered,and if no distinction is made in the order as to particular
costs, he cannot make any : Kelly's Directories, Ld. v. Oavin and Lloyds,
[1901] 2 Ch. 763.
Where a person not a party to an order for taxation desires to have the
SECT. IX.] Review of Taxation. 287
taxation reviewed, he should not apply to review, but should move to set party to
aside the order : Charltm v. C, 31 W. R. 237. order.
The application to review is by summons, and not on motion : Webster v. Procedure.
Manby, 4 Ch. 372 ; and cannot be entertained unless an objection in
writing, under r. 27 (39), as to each item objected to, has been first carried
in : Strousberg v. Saunders, 38 W. R. 117.
If the objection is to the general principle on which the taxation has
proceeded, and not to specific items, the certificate may be discharged on
summons, without carrying in objections under r. 27 (39) : Be Castle,
36 Ch. D. 194.
Where a taxing master, on the day on which the objections were carried in,
gave notice that they would be proceeded with the next day, it was held
under the circumstances sufficient : Re Hill, 33 Ch. D. 266, C. A.
As a general rule, the certificate is reviewed on questions of principle only. Question of
and not of mere quantum, which is left to the discretion of the taxing master : principle or
Re Mortimer, It. Rep. 4 Bq. 96 ; Alsop v. Lord Oxford, 1 M. & K. 564 ; discretion.
Re Oatlin, 18 Beav. 508 ; Oliver v. Robins, 1894, W. N. 199 ; 64 L. J. Ch.
203 ; 71 L. T. 636 ; 46 W. R. 137 ; and the same principle applies in the
Probate Division : In the Estate of Ogilvie, [1910] P. (C. A.) 243.
And the discretion of the taxing master applies not only to the quantum,
but to the quoties,e.g., in the case of interviews, to the number of interviews
as well as to the sum to be allowed for each : Re Broivn, 4 Eq. 464.
The taxation of counsel's fees, solr's charges, separate appearances,
and other items not involving any question of principle, is not, as a general
rule, open to review : Parkinson v. Hanbury, 13 W. R. 1056 ; 11 Jur. N. S.
474 ; 12 L. T. 624 ; Cousens v. C, 7 Ch. 48 ; A. 0. v. Drapers' Co., 9 Bq. 69 ;
Webb's Estate, 21 W. R. 745 ; 28 L. T. 726 ; Beattie v. Lord Ebury, 22 W. R.
68 ; 4 L. J. Ch. 80; 29 L. T. 419 ; Merchants' Bank Co. v. Maud, 20 Eq.
453.
But, in a proper case, the certificate may be reviewed even upon questions
of quantum : Smith v. BuUer (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 473 ; especially as to
counsel's fees on the hearing of an appeal ; a question which the Court below
is best able to decide : Oilbert v. Quignon, 21 W. R. 745 ; but see Brown
V. Sewell (1880), 1 Ch. D. at p. 520; and see Mason v. Brentini, 15 Ch. D.
287, C. A.
The following cases, upon the discretion of the taxing master, may also be
consulted : Re Harrison, 33 Ch. D. 52 ; Re Page, 32 Beav. 485, 487 ;
Hallows V. Fernie, 16 W. R. 175 ; 17 L. T. 347 ; Potter v. Rankin, L. R.
4 C. P. 76 ; 5 ib. 518 ; Yglesias v. Rotjal Exchange, dkc. Corp., L. R. 5 C. P.
1 41 ; Rtjan v. Dolan, I. R. 7 Bq. 92 ; Wakefield v. Brown, L. R. 9 C. P. 410 ;
The Soto, [1893] P. 73; Ginn v. Robey, 1911, W. N. 28.
On the other hand, the allowance of the higher instead of the lower scale Costs on
was a question of principle on which the taxation would be reviewed : higher scale.
Paddon v. Winxh, 20 Bq. 449. And see " Morgan and Wurtzburg, Costs,"
576. The Court or a Judge has now discretion, on special grounds arising
out of the nature and importance, or the difficulty or urgency of the case, to
order the higher scale to be applied in any particular case : O. lxv, 9 ; Paine
V. Chisholm, [1891] 1 Q. B. 531 ; and to delegate such discretion to the
master is regulated by the rule : Corticenc, Sc. Co. v. Tull dfc Co., 27
W. R. 373. On the question whether special grounds in fact existed, an
appeal will lie : Paine v. Chisholm, sup.
As to the ability of the taxing master to make a separate certificate as Separate
to part of the reference, see O. ui, 26, sup. p. 271, negativing Silkstone certificate.
and Haigh Moor Coal Co. v. Edey, [1901] 2 Ch. 652.
ALLOWANCES.
The costs of proceedings in the Supreme Court of Judicature are regulated Instructions,
by O. LXV ; but in special matters of. pleading, discretion is given to the
taxing officer, in lieu of the allowances for instructions, and preparing or
288
Costs.
[chap. xvn.
Ageuoy cor-
respondence.
Extra-
ordinary skill
and labour.
Discretion.
Delay and
improper
proceedings.
Duty of
registrar to
certify.
Professional
charges and
disburse-
ments.
Instances of
allowance or
disallowance.
drawing, to make such allowiince for work, labour, and expenses of prepara-
tion, as he may think proper : see Turnbull v. Janson, 3 0. P. D. 264. He
may also make special allowance in respect of agency correspondence in
country agency causes and matters, when it is shown to have been special
and extensive : O. lxv, 27 (10).
In matters at Chambers, which from the length of the attendance, or
difficulty of the case, or from the extraordinary skill and labour required
and received from the solr, shall appear to deserve higher remuneration
than the ordinary fees, the Judge or master may allow the solr, by a memo-
randum made for the purpose and signed by the Judge, a fee not exceeding
ten guineas, instead of the fees of two guineas, three guineas, and five
guineas : lb. 12.
By r. 27 (38), all fees or allowances which are discretionary, are, unless
otherwise provided, to be allowed at the discretion of the taxing officer, who
is to take into consideration the other fees and allowances to the solr and
counsel, if any, in respect of the work to which any such allowance applies,
the nature and importance of the cause or matter, the amount involved, the
interest of the parties, the fund or persons to bear the costs, the general
conduct and costs of the proceedings, and all other circumstances.
By r. 27 (38a), where costs directed to be taxed, with a view to payment
out of a fund or estate (real or personal), or out of the assets of a co. in
liquidation, shall have been increased by unnecessary delay, or by improper,
vexatious, or unnecessary proceedings, or by other misconduct or negligence,
or if from any other cause the amount of the costs, in the opinion of the
taxing master, is excessive, having regard to the value of the fund, estate,
or assets to which they relate, or other circumstances, the taxing master
is to allow only such an amount of costs as would, in his opinion, have been
incurred if the litigation had been properly conducted, and to assess the
same at a gross sum, and (if necessary) apportion the amount among the
parties. The power under this rule to assess a lump sum is to be exercised
only when special circumstances justify it, and then only on evidence, and
the certificate should state the reasons for doing so : Be Johnston, [1904]
1 Ch. 132.
By O. LXii, 15, " the registrar shall, at the time of any attendance before
him.for the purpose of settling the terms of, and passing any judgment or
order, if requested to do so by any party, on the ground that it is of a special
nature, or of unusual length or difficulty, certify, for the information of the
taxing officer, whether, in his opinion, any special allowance ought to be
made in taxation of costs in respect thereof."
Tor the rule under the former practice as to solr's remuneration for
particular services, and their right to charge for services warranted by
practice, though not absolutely necessary, see Lucas v. Peacock, 8 Beav. 1 ;
Davenport v. Stafford, lb. 503, 516; Stephens v. L. Newborough, 11 Beav.
403.
As to payments to be entered in the bill oi costs, and allowed as pro-
fessional charges and disbursements, see certificate of taxing masters in
Be Bemnant, 11 Beav. 603, 611 ; Be Lamb, 23 Q. B. D. 5.
As to disallowance of costs of uncertificated solr, v. inf. p. 307.
The following are instances of allowance or disallowance on review of
particular items (except where otherwise indicated) as between party and
party :^
Abstracts of Title : —
Are not included in the words " deeds, wills, and other documents," cited
in Schedule II. to Gen. Ord., August, 1882 (Solicitors' Remuneration Act,
1881), and the old scale of 6s. 8d. for perusal of every brief sheet of eight
folios each remains unaltered : Be B. A. Parker, 29 Ch. D. 199.
For disallowance of costs of abstract of title to accompany case for
counsel, see Davis v. Larl Dysart, 8 D. M. & G. 33 ; 21 Beav. 124 ; Be
Pender, 10 Beav. 390 ; Bumsey v. B., 21 Beav. 40.
SECT. IX.] Allowances. 289
Accountants' Charges : —
See Meymott v. M., 33 Beav. 590 — on the scale allowed by the Gen. Ord.
in Bankruptcy : and see O. lxv, 27 (36).
Adjourned Summons : —
As to the costs to be allowed on taxation of a misfeasance summons
adjourned into Court and heard on oral evidence, see Re Anglo- Aiistrian
Priiitiiij and Publishing Union, [189-t] 2 Ch. 622.
Affidavits : —
' See Camille v. Donato, 13 W. R. 358 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 26 ; 11 L. T. 584 ;
Catholic Publishing Co. v. Wyman, 11 W. R. 49 ; Davies v. Marshall, 1 Dr. &
S. 354 (costs of settling by counsel allowed); Bagleyv. Searle, 1887, W. N. 71
(costs of affidavit verifying statement of claim not allowed) ; and see 0. LXV,
27 (1), (4), (5), (15), (45). Costs of affidavits prepared during a stay of
proceedin£;s are not necessarily to be disallowed : Whiteley Exerciser, Ld. v.
Carnage, [1898] 2 Ch. 405.
Agency : —
As to what the usual agency terms are, see Ward v. Lawson, 43 Ch. D.
353, C. A. As to mode of taxation where London agents and country firm
have a common partner, and the consequent disallowance of " close copies "
in such a case, see Re Borough Commercial, &c. Soc, [1894] 1 Ch. 289, C. A.,
and Cordery, 252.
If shown to the satisfaction of the taxing officer that agency correspondence
has been special and extensive, he is at liberty to make such special allow-
ance in respect thereof as in his discretion he may think proper : 0. lxv,
27 (10).
Amendments : —
See 0. LXV, 27 (31, 32), and sup., Chap. VII.
Attendances : —
At Chambers : special allowances in cases of difficulty, &c. : 0. lxv,
27 (12).
Upon Registrars : special allowances upon certificate of Registrar under
O. Lxn, 15; O. lxv, 27 (11).
As to attendances on taxing master, see 0. lxv, 27 (21), ante, p. 271, and
as to allowance for attendances at counsel's chambers, see Re Mahon, [1893]
1 Ch. 507 ; Solrs' Remuneration Act, 1881, G. O. Sched. II.
As to the discretion of the taxing master to allow costs of attendance at
trial of country solr, see The Soto, [1893] P. 73 ; Re Dixon, Tousey v.
Sheffield, [1898] 2 Ch. 443, C. A. (although evidence is by affidavit).
A. O.'s Fees : —
A.G.v. Drapers' Co., 4 Beav. 305 — brief for A. G., in addition to two other
counsel, allowed : Nichols v. Haslam, 15 Sim. 49 ; Re Dulwich College,
15 Eq. 294. And as to allowance of costs to A. G., see Dan. 60 et seq.
Auctioneers' Charges : —
See Re Page (3), 32 Beav. 487 (whole amount, exceeding what would be
allowed under the bankruptcy scale, allowed in taxation between solr and
client).
Briefs (0. lxv, 27 (3)) :—
• — ^prepared, but not used : see Friend v. Solly, Re Pender, 10 Beav. 829,
390 ; Davenport v. Stafford, 9 Beav. 106 ; Haslam v. O'Connor, I. R.
6 Eq. 615 ; Exp. Hutchinson, I. R. 7 Eq. 57 ; Hughes v. Meyrick,
L. R. 5 C. P. 407 ; Cordner v. Ouedella, 30 L. R. Ir. 81.
Clerk's Fees : —
Now regulated by O. lxv, 27 (51).
Conferences : —
Pees for, not to be allowed, unless it shall appear to the taxing master, for
VOL. I. U
290 - Costs. [chap. XVII.
some special reason, that a conference was necessary or proper : 0. lxv,
27 (45).
Consultations : —
See Be Harrison, 33 Ch, D. 52 ; Smith v. Earl Effingham, 10 Beav. 378 ;
Davies v. Earl Dysart, 21 Beav. 124 ; 8 D. M. & G. 33 ; Sturge v. Dimsdale,
9 Beav. 170 ; Lucas v. Peacock, 8 Beav. I ; Ernest v. Partridge, 11 W. R.
715 ; Hill V. Peel, L. R. 6 C. P. 172 ; Tillett v. Stracetj, ib. 185 ; Bell v.
Aitkin, L. R. 3 C. P. 321 ; Commrsfor Bailways v. O'Bourke, [1896] A. C.
594, P. 0. ; In re Anglo-Austrian Printing Union, [1894] 2 Ch. 622.
Conveyancing Business : —
Costs of, are regulated by Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, and the
General Order under it : v. post, p. 301, Section X. As to fees to con-
veyancing counsel, see 0. lxv, 27 (36).
Copies of Proceedings and Documents : —
See 0. LXV, 27 (18), as to allowance of 4:d. per folio for copies of documents
in possession of other party : 0. Lxvi, 7 (c), as to printfed copies furnished by
party printing.
It is the duty of the taxing master to consider in each case whether copies
of pleadings, &c. are, upon an interlocutory application, " necessary or
proper for the attainment of justice, &c.," under O. LXv, 27 (29) : Warner v.
Mosses, 19 Ch. D. 72 ; and see Simmons v. Storer, 14 Ch. D. 154 ; and to
ascertain what part of the correspondence used at a trial was, having regard
to all the circumstances, necessary or proper for the proper argument and
decision of the case : Budgett v. B., [1895] 1 Ch. 202.
In Kennedy v. George, 6 W. R. 218 ; Sharp v. Wright, 1 Eq. 634 ; Under-
wood V. Secretary of State for India, 16 W. R. 752 ; 18 L. T. 351 ; a charge
for written copies of printed documents was disallowed : see O. lxvi, 7 (e).
The allowance of 4(i. a folio for manuscript copies does not extend to
carbon copies produced by a typewriter : Exp. Latimer, 60 L. J. Q. B. 626.
On questions of construction copies of documents supplied for the use
of the Judge ought always to be allowed : Be Houston's Settlement, [1903]
W. N. 187.
And as to costs of correspondence for the use of the Court, see Hayne v.
Cavell, 1875, W. N. 141 (so much as copies of the documents by a
law stationer would cost, allowed); Turnoch v. Sartoris, 1890, W. N.
210 (intimating that such costs will be allowed if applied for).
— of documents briefed and entered in the decree as read : Murphy v.
Nolan, I. R. 7 Eq. 498.
— of documents for use of C. A. ; Be Bandell, Hood v. B., 56 L. T. 8.
— English and French copies of French originals : Ehrard v. Gassier,
55 L. T. 741.
— reconveyance or transfer of mortgage ; only one fair copy of deed to be
allowed for mortgagee or transferee : Be Wade and Thomas, 17
Ch. D. 348.
Costs of documents used in a prior proceeding will not be allowed as costs
of a subsequent proceeding : Masson, Templier <fc Co. v. De Fries, [1910]
1 K. B. 535, C. A.
Charges for copies ought not to be disallowed merely because copies in a
similar action by another Pit against the same Deft might have been used :
Be Met. Coal Consumer's Assoc, Grieb's case, 45 Ch. D. 606.
Counsel's Fees (0. lxv, 27 (47)) :—
As a general rule, the costs of one counsel only will be allowed in matters
unopposed : Friend v. Solly, 10 Beav. 329 ; or involving only a short simple
point of practice : Yearsley v. F., 19 Beav. 1 ; see, however, Stephens v.
Lord Newborough, 11 Beav. 403 ; Sturge v. Dimsdale, 9 Beav. 170, for the
allowance, under special circumstances, of the costs of two counsel upon
an unopposed motion or petition : Be Webb's Estate, 1873, W. N. 127 ; 28
L. T. 726 ; 21 W. R. 745, for the allowance of two counsel for parties served
SECT. IX.] Allowances. 291
with an admon decree on summons to vary certificate ; Oinn v. Rohey,
1911, W. N. 28, for the allowance of two counsel in an action brought
under 0. XIV and entered in the short cause Ust ; and Cooke v. Turner,
12 Sim. 650 ; Llanover v. Homfray, 1884, W. N. 134, for observations as
to the policy of encouraging junior counsel by allowing their fees.
Where the County Court scale is applicable under 0. lxv, 12, costs of
only one counsel are to be allowed on taxation, except for special reasons
shown: O. lxv, 27 (46).
The rule in the Appeal Court is to hear two counsel only on each side.
On appeals from inferior Courts, one counsel only will be heard on each
side : Hawes v. Peake, 24 W. R. 407 ; 33 L. T. 818.
In general, before the Railway Commrs, costs of more than two counsel will
not be allowed: Glamorgan County Council v. 0. If. iJy. Co., [1895] IQ. B. 21.
In ordinary actions in the Chancery Division, one counsel only will be
heard on questions of fact where they are separated from the questions q£
law, though two on questions of law : Conington v. Qilliatt, 1 Ch. D. 694 ;
Kay V. Cammell, 1888, W. N. 250.
Costs of two junior counsel to settle an answer were disallowed in Davis v.
Earl Dysart, 21 Beav. 124 ; as also the costs of two counsel before the
examiner : Hallows v. Fernie, 16 W. R. 175 ; 17 L. T. 347.
Costs of two counsel maybe allowed though both juniors: O.lxv, 27(47).
Costs of a King's Counsel, to advise in consultation as to frame of suit
allowed as between solr and client: Forster v. Davies, 11 W. R. 813.
Though usual to allow one counsel only on each side in taxing costs of a
reference, the rule is not inflexible : Sinclair v. 0. E. By. Co., L. R. 5 C. P.
135 ; Orient Steam Co. v. Ocean Insurance Co., 35 W. R. 771.
As a general rule, the costs of two counsel only are allowed on taxation
between party and party, but the costs of a third counsel have been allowed
where the case was of exceptional magnitude or complication : Pearce v.
Lindsay, Joh. 702 ; 1 D. P. & J. 573 ; Belts v. Clifford, 1 J. & H. 74 ;
Wentworth v. Lloyd, 2 Eq. 607 ; N. E. By. Co. v. Jackson, 22 W. R. 629 ;
Re Laffitte's Claim, 20 Eq. 650 ; BoU v. Connor, I. R. 9 Eq. 373 ; Kirkwood
V. Webster, 9 Ch. D. 239 (commented on in Glamorgan County Council v.
O. W. By. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 21) ; The Mammoth, 9 P. D. 126 ; Be Caihcart,
1893, W. N. 107 ; Gt. Western By. Co. v. Carpalla United China Clay Co.,
Ld. (No. 2), [1909] 2 Ch. 471 ; but disallowed in Flockton v. Peake, 12
W. R. 1023 ; 4 N. R. 456 ; Betts v. Cleaver, 7 Ch. 513 ; Merchant Bank Co. v.
Maud, 20 Eq. 453 ; Be Anglo-Austrian Printing Union, [1894] 2 Ch. 622 ; and
see Smith v. Effingham, 10 Beav. 378. 0. lxv, 27 (29), has not altered the
practice with reference to a review of taxation on the allowance or dis-
allowance of the fees of a third counsel : Peel v. London dk North Western
.By. Co. (No. 2), [1907] 1 Ch. 607. Very special circumstances are
required to justify allowance, on party and party taxation, of a " special "
fee to leading counsel, and Jovce, J., doubted whether it could ever be
allowed : Re Parson, P. v. P., [1901] 2 Ch. 176.
It is the duty of the trustee's counsel to assist the Court and he ought not
to argue on behalf of a beneficiary : Re Burton, 1901, W. N. 202.
Fees of two counsel only are now allowed in the House of Lords in
Crown cases as well as in other cases on taxation between party and
party : Note H. L. 1910, W. N. 120.
A trustee unsuccessfully attacked on further consideration and severing
from his co-trustee, was allowed the costs of two counsel : Be Maddock,
Butt V. Wright, [1899] 2 Ch. 588. And where such costs had been allowed
by the taxing officer, the Court refused to interfere : Stanton v. Baring,
1875, W. N. 188.
And see Merchant Bank Co. Y.Maud, 20 Eq. 453, that an arrangement by
which B.'s leading counsel was transferred to his co-Deft A., for the hearing
of the appeal, on which B. appeared by one counsel only, was no ground
for disturbing the taxing officer's disallowance of the costs of A.'s third
counsel (originally retained by B.).
292 Costs. [chap. XVII.
In Solr and client taxation, costs of a tiiird counsel will not be allowed
unless the solr has expressly told his client that such costs might not be
allowed on party taxation : ReBlythand Fanshawe, 10 Q. B. D. 207, C. A. ;
Re Broad, 15 Q. B. D. 420, C. A. ; Lynch to Chame, 30 L. R. Ir. 278.
Although there was no rule that two additional counsel might always be
allowed, where the counsel who drew and advised upon the pleadings was
called within the bar before the hearing [Belts v. Cleaver, sup. ; Green v.
Brigqs, 7 Ha. 279), yet such allowance, on the ground that a leader had been
already retained and actually employed, has been made in Cousens v. C, 7
Ch. 48 ; Horsley v. Cox, 7 Eq. 464 ; LaffiUe's Claim, 20 Eq. 650.
But the rule has been since laid down by the L. C, in concurrence with
the L. JJ., and after communication with the taxing masters, that the
mere fact that a junior counsel in a cause has been called vwthin the bar
is not a sufficient reason for allowing, on taxation, the costs of briefs to three
counsel : 10 Ch. 540. And see Parish v. Poole, 34 W. R. 365.
The quantum of counsel's fees (except perhaps on the hearing of an
appeal) is generally in the taxing master's discretion, which will not be
interfered with, unless exercised in a manifestly erroneous, or unreasonable
manner, or except in extreme cases : Brown v. Sewell, 16 Ch. D. 517, C. A. ;
Hargreaves v. Scott, 4 C. P. D. 21 ; Tillett v. Stracey, L. R. 5 C. P. 185 ;
and this discretion extends (though to be very jealously exercised) to the
allowance of an addition to fees as originally marked : Easton v. London
Joint Stock Bank, 38 Ch. D. 25.
Special fees may be allowed against a solr's own clients where clients have
authorized them, but where special fees are paid to a leader, fees to juniors
are not, in absence of such authority, necessarily to be according to the
same scale : Re Harrison, 33 Ch. D. 52, C. A.
Fees to counsel ought not to be reduced merely because he is employed in
two separate though similar actions by two Pits against the same Deft :
Re Met. Coal Consumers' Assn., OrieVs case, 45 Ch. D. 606.
Absence at the hearing is not per se a ground for disallowing counsel's
brief fees : Charman v. Brandon (1900), 82 L. T. 369 ; but it is for
refreshers : Macleod v. Thrupp.
A separate fee is not allowed for attending to hear judgment when
judgment is given in the same sittings in which the case was heard : Re
Biss, [1903] 2 Ch. 40.
As a general practice counsel's fee for drawing notice of appeal should be
allowed : Re Bailey, 1909, W. N. 110.
There is no difference in principle between the costs of counsel's view
before trial and the costs of counsel's view after trial for the purposes of an
appeal : Leeds Forge Co., Ld. v. Deighton's Patent Flue ds Tube Co., Ld.,
[1903] 1 Ch. 475; but rather is ordinarily allowed between party and party.
The fact that the hearing on a motion is treated as the trial does not
make the hearing a separate proceeding, and counsel are not entitled to
fresh briefs, though the original fees may be increased : Cookson v. Cation,
[1910] 1 Ch. 410.
No fee to counsel is to be allowed unless vouched by his signature :
O. Lxv, 27 (52).
Retaining fee to counsel is not to be allowed on taxation as between party
and party : 0. lxv, 27 (44).
Special retainer of a leader practising in another Court will not be allowed :
Smith V. Effingham, 10 Beav. 378 ; even where all the others are retained
aheady : Be Parson, [1901] 2 Ch. 176.
According to 0. lxv,27 (16), no costs of counsel's attendance in Chambers
are in any case to be allowed unless the Judge certifies it to be a proper case
for counsel to attend. This applies to taxation as between solr and
client : Re Chapman, 10 Q. B. D. 54, C, A. ; as well as between party and
party.
The costs of settling drafts by counsel for the parties, after a direction for
settling them by the conveyancing counsel of the Court, will not be allowed
SECT.
IX.] Alloioances. 293
unless the Judge otherwise directs : Jmes' Estate, 4 Jur. N. S. 887 ; and see
O. Lxv, 22.
And see, as to counsel's fees generally, Smith v. Bulkr, 19 Eq. 473 ; Bobh
V. Connor, I. R. 9 Eq. 373 ; Cordery, 141 et seq.
Diagrams : — ■
On briefs in a patent case were disallowed as " luxuries " : Smith v.
Buller, 19 Eq. 473.
But in a similar suit the allowance by the taxing master of a sum tor
preparing a model was not disturbed : Batley v. Kynock, 20 Eq. 632.
Evidence : —
Such just and reasonable charges and expenses as appear to have been
properly incurred in procuring evidence and the attendance of witnesses are
to be allowed : O. lxv. 27 (9) ; and see BrigMs Trustee v. Sellar, [1904]
1 Ch. 369.
Costs of procuring evidence may be allowed Deft, though action is dis-
continued or witnesses not actually called : Windham v. Bainton, 21 Q. B.
D. 199 ; Wicksteed v. Biggs, 52 L. T. 428 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 967.
Exhibits : —
Without special direction from the Judge, the costs of perusing exhibits to
affidavits will not be allowed : Rymer v. De Rosaz, 24 Ch. D. 684 (where,
following Concha v. Murietta, V.-C. B., 1st May, 1880, the order was made
for the taxing master to be at liberty to allow a special charge for perusal
and consideration, &c., the amount thereof, if any, to be in the discretion of
the taxing master).
Experts : — See 0. lxv, 27 (36), and inf. p. 298, referring to witnesses.
Extension of time : — See O. lxv, 27 (24).
Forma pauperis : —
Costs directed to be paid to a party thus suing or defending are to be
taxed as in other cases, unless the Court shall otherwise direct : O. xvi, 31.
As to the position of the pauper where the Rules are inapplicable, as in
H. L. and proceedings in Divorce, see Be Raphael, [1899] 1 Ch. 853 ; 1899,
W. N. 212, C. A. ; Richardson v. R., [1895] P. 276; White v. If .,[1898] P. 124.
Improper, vexatious, or unnecessary Matter, or Prolixity : — ■
May be disallowed by the Court or Judge, or the taxing master may be
directed to look into the same, and to disallow the costs thereof : see
O. LXV, 27 (20), ante, pp. 248, 249, and a gross sum only is to be allowed
where taxation is directed with a view to payment out of fund, or estate,
or assets of oo. : 0. lxv, 27 (38a), v. ante, p. 288.
For cases under the corresponding Cons. Ord. 40, rr. 9, 10, see Re Will's
Trusts, 12 W. R. 97 ; Scottish Union Co. v. Steele, 9 L. T. 677.
Without special direction, the taxing master could not under the above
rules look into the pleadings to discover what was of unnecessary or
improper length : Re Farington, 33 Beav. 347 ; Re Shidmore, 1 Jur. N. S. 696.
Inspection of Documents : — •
Under O. xxxi, 15 ; no allowance unless for good and sufficient reasons
shown : O. lxv, 27 (17).
Interpreter's Charges : —
See Earl Shrewsbury v. Trappes, 10 W. R. 663.
Journeys : —
Costs of, when taken by authority of the client, but not otherwise, for the
purpose of conferring with counsel, and otherwise conducting proceedings in
the action, will be allowed in taxation against the client : Re Storer, 26
Ch. D. 189 (dissenting from Re Foster, 8 Ch. D. 598) ; and see Re Snell, 5
Ch. D. 815, C. A. ; Alsop v. E. Oxford, 1 My. & K. 564 ; Re Pine, 9 Beav.
234 ; Be Pender, 10 Beav. 390 ; Re Sevan, 20 Beav. 146 ; Churton v. Frewen,
16 W. R. 559 ; 36 L. J. Ch. 660 ; 16 L. T, 171.
294 Costs. [chap. XVII.
Country solr, unless specially authorized, cannot charge for journeys to
London to attend counsel or Court or inspect deeds : Be Storer, 26 Ch. D.
189 ; Popjoy v. Rich, 27 L. J. Exch. 10 ; but there is no hard and fast rule
disallowing such attendances, and the taxing officer has a discretion to allow
them in exceptional cases : iSe Dixon, Tousey v. Sheffield, [1898] 2 Ch. 443,
C. A. ; and see Cordery, 84.
As to allowance for journeys in respect of conveyancing business (whether
transacted in an action or not : Stanford v. Roberts, 26 Ch. D. 155), see
Solicitors' Remuneration Act, General Order, Schedule II., and inf.
p. 301.
Letters : —
As against the client will not be allowed unless properly required for the
purpose of advancing client's business : Re Brady, 15 W. R. 632 ; Re
Harlc, 17 W. R. 21 ; 19 L. T. 305.
In country agency causes and matters the taxing officer may make a
special allowance for correspondence shown, to his satisfaction, to have been
special and extensive : 0. Lxv, 27 (10).
Misfeasance Summons : —
As to allowances on party and party taxation of costs of a misfeasance
summons adjourned into Court, and heard on oral evidence, see Re Anglo-
Auntrian Printing Union, [1894] 2 Ch. 632.
Negligence or Mistake : —
Costs rendered necessary by, unless going to loss of whole action, may be
disallowed : Re Massey and Carey, 26 Ch. D. 459, C. A. ; but see The Papa
de Rossie, 3 P. D. 160.
Parliamentary Business : —
Special jurisdiction is given by the House of Commons Costs Taxation
Act, 1847, and the House of Lords Costs Taxation Act, 1849, and where
the bill relates exclusively to business done by a parliamentary agent,
who is likewise a solr, the bill cannot be referred to taxation under the
Solicitors Act, 1843 ; se^us, where bills of solr contain items for matters
other than parliamentary proceedings as well as in respect of such pro-
ceedings : Re Baker, Lees & Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 189.
Costs of opposing Private Bill : —
See 28 & 29 V. c. 27 ; Williams v. Swansea Canal Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 158 ;
MaJlett V. Hanley, 18 Q. B. D. 787, C. A.
Corrupt Practices Act, 1863 (26 <b 27 F. c. 29), sect. 2 :—
Payments by solr as local sub-agent, not made through expense agent,
disallowed as illegal : Be Parker, 21 Ch. D. 408, C. A.
Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868 : —
By sect. 41, the costs of a petition under, are to be taxed by the master of
the Court of Common Pleas, according to the same principles as costs
between solr and client are taxed in a suit in Chancery : see Hill v. Peel,
L. R. 5 C. P. 172 ; Hughes v. Meyrick, ib. 407.
Perusals : —
See A. P. App. N., Nos. 122—136.
Perusing Affidavits and Documents : —
Charges for, in separate suits relating to the same subject-matter were
disallowed where, having taken an office copy in one suit, solr merely
examined at the Record Office the affidavits which he had been told were
identical in the other suits : see Belts v. Cleaver, 7 Ch. 513.
Only so much of the transcript of the evidence and judgment in another
action will be allowed as relate to the issue in the pending action : Bright's
Trustee v. SeMar, [1904] 1 Ch. 369.
SECT. IX.] Allowances. 295
Perusing Depositimis taken Abroad : —
A reasonable sum will be allowed for : see Wentworth v. Lloyd, 2 Eq. 607.
Perusing Petition : —
See App. N., No. 137a.
Pleadings : —
See O. Lxv, 27 (1), (2), (6).
Postage : —
Profit upon addressing and posting documents for client not allowed :
Exp. Ditton, Re Woods, 13 Ch. D. 318, C. A.
Printing Evidence : —
See O. xxxvm, 30 ; O. lxvi, 5—7 ; The Mammoth, 9 P. D. 126.
The costs of transcribing and printing (not of taking) the shorthand notes
of the evidence in the Court below for the Appeal Court were, under the
circumstances, allowed : Bigshy v. Dickinson, 4 Ch. D. 24.
And see 0. LVin, 11 (6), 12, enabling the Court below, or a Judge thereof,
or the Court of Appeal, &c., to order the whole or any part of the evidence
which has not been printed in the Court below to be printed for the purpose
of the appeal.
Under this order a copy of the Judge's notes was ordered to be printed to
be used on appeal : 1876, W. N. 23.
Proceedings : —
Costs of proceedings to strike solr off rolls allowed to an admor as being
incurred for benefit of estate : Be Davis, Muckalt v. Davis, 57 L. J. Ch. 3 ;
57 L. T. 755 ; as to costs of admors and exors, see inf. Chap. XLI.,
" Trustees."
Profit Costs : —
As to allowance of charges of solr who is trustee or mortgagee for business
not strictly professional, see Ames v. Cadogan, 25 Ch. D. 72 ; Be Donaldson,
27 Ch. D. 544 ; Field v. Hopkins, 44 Ch. D. 524, C. A. ; Re Wallis, Exp.
Lickorish, 25 Q. B. D. 176, C. A. ; Be Boberts, 43 Ch. D. 52 ; Stone v.
Lickorish, [1891] 2 Ch. 363 ; Be Doody, Fisher v. D., [1893] 1 Ch. 129, C. A. ;
and that the member of a firm of solrs who is not a mortgagee may be
allowed a share of costs proportionate to his interest in the partnership, see
-S. G. (Stirling, J.); followed in Wellby v. Still, 1893, W. N. 91 ; 66 L. T. 523 ;
Mortgagees' Legal Costs Act, 1896 (58 & 59 V. c. 25) ; Cordery, 207—212 ;
and inf. Chap. XL., " Solicitoes."
Befresher Fees : —
Are now regulated by 0. lxv, 27 (48). This rule applies to all taxations :
Be Harrison, 33 Ch. D. 52, C. A. ; it is not limited to viva voce evidence
trials, but includes hearings before the Court of Appeal : Svendsen v.
Wallace, 16 Q. B. D. 27, C. A. ; 34 W. R. 151 ; see also Easton v. London
Joint Stock Bank, 38 Ch. D. 25, C. A. ; that the additional fees in such cases
are not refreshers in the strict sense, and are to be allowed with caution.
The rule does not prevent a client from giving his solr (who has fully ex-
plained the matter to him) authority (express or implied) to give a particular
leader special fees exceeding the maximum fixed by the rule, and does not
limit the taxing master's discretion as to the quantum to be allowed, though
exceeding the ordinary scale, having regard to such special authority :
Be Harrison, 33 Ch. D. 52, C. A. ; Easton v. London Joint Stock Bank,
38 Ch. D. 25, C. A. ; and see Cavendish v. Strutt, [1904] 1 Ch. 524.
For earlier oases before the rule (introduced 1883), see Harrison v.
Wearing, 11 Ch. D. 206, C. A. ; Broum v. Sewell, 16 Ch. D. 517, C. A. ;
Smith V. Buller, 19 Eq. 473.
It is now provided that, in taxations between solr and client, larger fees
may be allowed under special circumstances, to be stated : 0. lxv, 27 (48).
The taxing master has discretion, in special circumstances, to disallow
296 Costs. [chap. XVII.
refreshers, though the trial has lasted more than the five hours specified :
Smith V. Wills, 34 W. R. 30 ; 53 L. T. 386 ; and see Re, Anglo- Austrian
Printing Co., [1894] 2 Ch. 622 ; or to reduce the original fee if, together with
the refresher, too large : Wicksleed v. Biggs, 52 L. T. 428 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 967.
The mid-day adjournment is not to be deducted in calculating refresher
fees : Collins v. Worley, 60 L. T. 748. Where a trial lasted four days and
three hours, and on the fifth day the Judge required a further hearing on
one point, which occupied the whole of a subsequent day, refreshers for that
day were allowed : Boswell v. Coaks, 36 Ch. D. 444, C. A. ; O'Hara v.
Elliott, [1893] I Q. B. 362.
The right to a refresher fee arises so soon as the trial has occupied a
" clear day " of five hours : The Courier, [I89I] P. 355 ; O'Hara v. EllioU,
[1893] I Q. B. 362 ; not following Walker v. Crystal Palace Gas Co., [I89I]
2 Q. B. 300.
Relators : —
See p. 243, sup., and inf. Vol. II., pp. 1268 et scg^.
Retaining Fee to Counsel : — See p. 292, sup.
Scientific Persons : —
Allowance to : see O. lxv, 27 (36) ; and inf. p. 298, " Witnesses."
Separate Appearances : —
By O. LV, 40, in proceedings before the Judge in Chambers, he may
require parties, whose interests he thinks can be classified, to be represented
by the same solr, and nominate him if the parties cannot agree ; and any
parties insisting on appearing by distinct solrs, pay their own and other
parties' consequent costs.
For cases upon this rule, see Morgan, 144 ; Bull v. West London Sch. Bd.,
34 L. T. 674, where two partners who had been made Defts for the purpose
of discovery only were not allowed separate costs when they had severed in
their defence (though before the hearing they had dissolved partnership).
By O. LXV, 27 (8), " where the same solr is employed for two or more
Defts, and separate pleadings are delivered or other proceedings had by or
for two or more such Defts separately, the taxing officer shall consider in the
taxation of such solr's bill of costs, either between party and party or
between solr and client, whether such separate pleadings or other proceed-
ings were necessary or proper, and if he is of opinion that any part of the
costs occasioned thereby has been unnecessarily or improperly incurred, the
same shall be disallowed."
A Deft appearing by leave of the Court in distinct capacities by different
solrs was allowed costs : Woolley v. Colman, 1886, W. N. 6, 36 ; as to costs of
trustees severing in defence, v. inf. Chap. XLI., " Trustees " ; and Dan.
433 ; as to severance of defence by joint tort-feasors, Shumm v. Dixon,
37 W. R. 92 ; for case where certificate of taxing master was varied by
allowing costs of separate counsel of Defts having sepaiate defences, Ager
V. Blacklock, 56 L. T. 890 ; and that successful Pits appearing by the same
solr in separate actions against the same Deft for same object are entitled
to have the actions treated as distinct on taxation, see Metropolitan Coal
Consumers' Assoc, Orieh's case, 45 Ch. D. 606. Where the taxing master
was directed by the House of Lords to consider whether Defts had sufficient
reason for severing, there was no appeal from his discretion : Boswell v.
Coaks, 36 Ch. D. 444, C. A. ; and for other cases where one set of costs
only is allowed, see Dan. 433, 434.
As to the costs of peisons appearing separately to oppose a winding-up
petition, see Be Number Ironworks Co., 2 Eq. 15 ; Ee Anglo-Egyptian
Navigation Co., 8 Eq. 660 ; and see Buckley, Cos. Acts, 344.
By O. LV, 41, the Judge may require parties employing the same to
appear by distinct solrs.
Separate Defences : — See O. lxv, 27 (8), sup. ; Dan. 433.
SECT. ix.J Allowances. 297
Settling Minutes /—In Re Beece, 2 Eq. 609, solrs were allowed to make
this charge in respect of an order which was not given out in the form of
minutes by the registrar ; and see 0. lxii, 16 ; lxv, 27 (11).
Shorthand Notes : —
Without a special direction from the Judge when judgment is given, or
before it is drawn up, the costs of shorthand notes of the evidence will not
as a rule be allowed on taxation ; but the taxing master has a discretion
under special circumstances : Earl de la Warr v. Miles, 19 Ch. D. 80, 0. A. ;
Kirkwood v. Webster, 9 Ch. D. 239 ; Ashworth v. Outram, lb. 483 ; Pilling v.
Joint Stock Institute, Ld., 73 L. T. 570 ; The Turret Court, 1901, W. N. 62 ;
Goldberg v. Liverpool Corp., 82 L. T. 362 ; Re De Nicols, 1906, W. N. 192 ;
but the costs of shorthand notes of the judgment which have been used on
appeal will be allowed without any special order : Smith v. Gliadwick,
51 L. J. Ch. 597, 621; Exp. Cocks, 21 Ch. D. 397, 407; Humphrey .v.
Siimner, 55 L. T. 449 ; Be Midland, Eland v. Medland, 41 Ch. D. 476,
C. A. ; Be Morgan, 35 Ch. D. 492 ; Be De Falbe, [1901] 1 Ch. 523, C. A.
Costs of shorthand notes of evidence for the purpose of appeal were
allowed in a patent action of some difficulty : Castner Kellner Alkali Co. v.
Commercial Development Assoc, [1899] 1 Ch. 803, C. A.
As to allowing shorthand writer's note of judge's summing up, see Pilling
V. Joint Stock Institute, Ld., 73 L. T. 570 ; Andrews v. Mockford, [1896]
1 Q. B. 372, C. A.
Neither Judge nor taxing master has jurisdiction to order a shorthand
note to be taken ; but where it was done, and the parties did not object, the
same costs were allowed on taxation as if they had agreed on one shorthand
writer : Be Hilkary and Taylor, 36 Ch. D. 262, C. A.
Where the discretion of the taxing master in disallowing the costs of
shorthand notes was not interfered with, see Marcus v. O. S. N. Co., 1876,
W. N. 157 ; 35 L. T. 383. For cases in which shorthand notes of evidence
were allowed as essential to the hearing, see Watson v. G. W. By. Co., 6
Q. B. D. 163 ; Lee Conservancy Board v. Button, 12 Ch. D. 383.
As to the right of solrs with sanction of the Court in a patent action to
bind their clients by a mutual agreement to take a shorthand writer's note
of evidence, see Osmond y. Mutual Cycle, &c. Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 488, C. A.
Where nothing is said about the costs an agreement between the sobs
on each side to have a joint shorthand note taken does not necessarily
make the costs of the note and transcript costs in the action: Jones v.
Llanrwst U. D. C, [1911] 1 Ch. 393.
The costs of a MS. copy of shorthand notes, taken by order of a County
Court Judge, of the proceedings before him, were allowed as part of the costs
of an appeal : Exp. Sawyer, 1 Ch. D. 698 ; and in Bigsby v. Dickinson, 4
Ch. D. 24, C. A., the costs of transcribing and printing (not of taking) short-
hand notes of the evidence in the Court below for the appeal were allowed.
A copy for personal convenience of solr who has the transcript in his
possession will not be allowed : Exp. Latimer, 60 L. J. Q. B. 626.
A direction for allowance of shorthand notes of evidence could not be
given after the order of the Court of Appeal had been passed and entered :
Qlasier v. Bolls, 59 L. J. Ch. 63 ; 62 L. T. 305 ; 38 W. R. 113.
Solicitor defending in person : —
Allowed same costs as if he had employed a solr, except as to items which
the fact of his acting renders unnecessary : London Scottish Ben. Soc. v.
Chorley, 13 Q. B. D. 872, C. A. ; so where he acts by a firm of which he is
a partner : Bidder v. Bridges, 1887, W. N. 208 ; and see Tolpult & Co. v.
Mole, 1910, W. N. 252; and sect. 41 of the County Courts Act, 1888, does
not prevent a registrar who is a solr from defending himself in person in
an action brought against him in his own Court, or from recovering from
the Pit such costs as a solr Deft is entitled to on taxation, and by reason
of sect. 118 his biU of costs must of necessity be taxed by himself:
ToVputt (H.) & Co., Ld. V. Mole, [1911] 1 K. B. 836, C. A.
^^^ Costs. [chap. XVII.
Special Retainer : — See p. 292, sup.
Statute of Limitations : —
The taxing master ought to tax statute-barred items : Curwen v. Milium,
42 Ch. D. 424, C. A. ; as the statute does not bar the debt but only the
remedy. If a submission to pay is inserted in the order it should be a
submission to pay not what is due, but what is payable, having regard
(inter alia) to the defence of the Statute of Limitations, and questions
arising under that Act should be dealt with by the taxing master : Be
Brockman, [1909] 2 Ch. 170, C. A.
Where there is a direction to ascertain the costs, charges, and expenses
of trustees, statute-barred costs should be included, as the trustee's right of
indemnity extends to fair claims of every kind, and not merely to those
enforceable by action : Budgett v. B. (No. 2), [1895] I Ch. 202.
As to appropriation to or set off against statute-barred items, see Smith v.
Betty, [1903] 2 K. B. 317 ; Re Boswell, 1906, W. N. 22.
Surveyors' Charges : —
Commission on " Ryde's Scale," varying from 5 to | p. c, according to
the amount of purchase-money, was allowed : A. Q. v. Drapers' Co.,
9 Bq. 69.
Translations of foreign documents, made in the solr's office, allowed under
special circumstances : Re Bowes, E. Strathmore v. Vane, [1900] 2 Ch. 251.
Travelling Expenses, 0. lxv, 27 (4) : — ■
Allowed under special circumstances : Howell v. Tyler, 2 Y. & C. Ch. 284 ;
Clarke v. Malpas, 31 Beav. 354 ; Re Snell, 5 Ch. D. 815.
Trustee Solicitor : —
As to what is included under a power in a will to charge " all professional
and other charges for his time and trouble," see Re Chalinder and Hering-
ton, [1907] 1 Ch. 58.
Unnecessary Appearances : —
Costs disallowed unless otherwise directed : O. lxv, 27 (23).
Witnesses : —
A reasonable sum, in the discretion of the taxing master, will ordinarily
be allowed to a scientific or skilled witness for getting up the case to qualify
himself for giving evidence, but not, in the case of an accountant, the costs
of putting in order the books of the party for whom he is engaged to give
evidence: La.ffitte's Claim, 20 Eq. 650; Smith v. Buller, 19 Eq. 473;
Murphy v. Nolan, I. R. 7 Eq. 498 ; Batley v. Kynoch, 20 Eq. 642 ; L. C. &
D. Ry. Co. V. S. E. Ry. Co., 60 L. T. 753.
A proper qualifying fee for a scientific witness may be allowed although
he is not called ; Ot. Western Rly. Co. v. Carpalla United China Clay Co., Ld.
(No. 2), [1909] 2 Ch. 471.
Costs of witnesses should not be taxed upon a fixed general rule, but a
reasonable allowance should be made with reference to the case of each
separate witness : Commrs.for Railways v. CRourke, [1896] A. C. 594, P. C.
For loss of time in attending during the trial, one guinea a day (excluding
Sundays) will be allowed ; and, if summoned from the country, one guinea
a day for maintenance wliile in town, and first class return railway fare : see
Re. Working Men's Mutual Soc, 21 Ch. D. 831 ; Wiltshire v. Marshall, 1866*
W. N. 80 ; Clarke v. QUI, 1 K. & J. 19 ; Ryan v. Dolan, I. R. 7 Eq. 92.
Allowances for hotel expenses are in the discretion of the taxing master,
and are not regulated by the scale of 1853 : E. Stonehouse Local Board v.
Victoria Brewery Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 514.
Semble, the costs of a photographer called as a witness simply to prove
photographs should not be allowed unless notice to admit his proof has been
given, and the other side has refused to admit it : S. C.
The costs of more than three experts to prove a country custom will not be
allowed on taxation : Stanger-Leathes v. S., 1879, W. N. 86.
SECT.
IX.] Allowances: Interest. 299
The Court is unwilling to interfere with the discretion of the taxing
master as to the costs of a witness : Oliver v. Robins, 1894, W. N. 199 ; 64
L. J. Ch. 203 ; 43 W. R. 137 ; 71 L. T. 636.
Examination reasonably taken before trial maybe allowed for, although
the witness was able to be present at the trial : Bartleit v. Higgins, [1901]
2 K. B. 230, C. A.
Written Affidavits : —
The provisions of 0. LVin, 11, requiringproduction,onappeal, of printed
copies of the affidavits which have been printed, and office copies of those
not printed, have been dispensed with to save expense : Sickles v. Morris,
24 W. R. 102 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 148 ; and so with respect to office copies of
those not printed : Crawford v. Hornsea, &c. Co., 24 W. R. 422 ; 45 L. J.
Ch. 432 ; 34 L. T. 923.
SPECIAL ALLOWANCES — INTEREST ON COSTS.
Under the Judgments Act, 1838 (1 & 2 V. c. 110), ss. 17, 18, interest at Interest on
4 p. c. is recoverable on costs which one party is ordered to pay to another costs.
(but not on costs ordered to be paid out of a fund : A. G.y. Nether cote, 11
Sim. 529 ; WeM v. W., 17 L. R. Ir. 49) ; and by the SoUcitors Act, 1860
(23 & 24 V. c. 127), s. 27, supplementing the former Act, the Court may order
costs as taxed, including costs of taxation, to be paid with interest at 4 p. c.,
payable and recoverable out of the same fund, or in the same manner as
the amount of costs.
Interest on costs now runs; as at law, from date of judgment, and not, as
formerly (in Equity), from the date of the certificate : Pyman cfc Co. v.
Burt, 1884, W. N. 100 ; Boswell v. Coaks, 36 W. R. 65 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 101 ;
57 L. T. 742 ; Schrceder v. Clough, 35 L. T. 850 ; Ee London Wharfage, dc
Co., 53 L. T. 112 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1137 ; and a fi. fa. will issue to enforce
payment : see O. xm, 17.
Independently of 23 & 24 V. c. 127, s. 27, interest at 4 p. c. is payable
upon a sum of taxed costs ordered to be added to money secured by an
equitable charge : Lippard v. Bicketts, 14 Eq. 291 ; but only from the date
of the taxing master's certificate : Eardley v. Knight, 41 Ch. D. 537.
By 33 & 34 V. c. 28, s. 17, the taxing officer may allow interest at such On disburse-
rate and from such time as lie thinks just on moneys disbursed by tlie solr ments
for his client, and on moneys of the client in the hands of the solr and *"^ moneys
improperly retained by him. "" hand.
The discretion thereby given applies only to dealings between a solr and
his client, and not to cases of taxation where the costs are to be paid out of a
fund not belonging wholly to the client : Uartland v. Murrell, 16 Eq. 285 ;
and the Act is not retrospective so as to include interest on disbursements
prior to passing of Act : Ward v. Eyre, 15 Ch. D. 130, C. A. ; and does not
apply to accounts between country solr and town agent : Ihid. ; it the agent
agrees to suspend his right to payment, he is not entitled to interest unless
he expressly stipulates for it : Ward v. Lawson, 43 Ch. D. 353, C. A.
A solr who had made disbursements and received sums generally on
account, could not appropriate such sums to costs for which he had not
delivered a bill, so that he might claim interest on disbursements under
sect. 17 : Re Harrison, 33 Ch. D. 52, C. A.
Where the solr had accepted a cheque in accord and satisfaction, the client
could not afterwards, on discovering that he was so entitled, claim interest
on the costs : Bidder v. Bridges, 37 Ch. D. 406, C. A.
A solr could not, formerly, on taxation, be charged with interest on
balances in hand ; secus, if he had debited himself with interest in his cash
account : Re Savery, 15 Beav. 58.
Taking up bills for a client was treated as an ordinary cash advance
giving the solr no right to charge interest thereon : May v. Biggenden, 24
Beav. 207.
By the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, Gen. Ord. r. 7, a solr may
300 Cosls. [chap. XVII.
charge interest at 4 p. c. per ann. on his disbursements and costs, whether
by scale or otherwise, from the expiration of one month from demand from
the chent (see Blair v. Gardner, 19 Q. B. D. 516, C. A., that delivery of the
bill is sufficient demand). And in cases where the same are payable by an
infant, or out of a fund not presently available, such demand may be made
on the parent or guardian, or the trustee or other person liable.
This rule (see r. 2) applies to non-contentious business only (not being
conveyancing, but in any action : Stanford v. Roberts, 26 Ch. D. 155), and
does not, in the absence of special direction, enable a party to an admon
action, whose costs have been ordered to be taxed and paid out of a fund
prior to distribution of such fund, to recover interest : Be Marsden,
Withington v. Neumann, 40 Ch. D. 475, C. A.
Section X. — Solicitoks' Eemuneration Act, 1881
(44 & 45 V. c. 44).
1. Order to Deliver and Tax Bill — Inquiry whether Special Agree-
ment entered into as to Costs — Solicitors Act, 1843 {6 <& 7 V.
c. 73), ss. 37 and 41 — Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, s. 8.
Order that the said solr do on or before &c., deliver to the said
E. B. a bill of fees and disbursements in all suits, causes, actions,
and other matters of business in which he has been employed as the
solr for the applicant. And the taxing master is to inquire whether
any and what special agreements have been entered into between
the applicant and the said sob within the Solicitors' Remuneration
Act, 1881, and if so, whether any and which of such agreements are
or are not fair and reasonable ; And so far as may be necessary refer
it to the taxing master to tax, &c. [Insert paragraphs {i),(ii), and (iii).
Form 1, p. 254, ante] ; costs-of application reserved. — Adapted from
Re Baylis, Chitty, J., 18 March, 1896, A. 1187 ; [1896] 2 Ch. 107.
2. Order to Tax Bill delivered, and Certify whether Agreement fair
and reasonable — 6 & 1 V. c. 73, s. 41, and 44 & 45 F. c. 44,
s. 8 (2), (4).
Order that the said order be varied, and as varied be as follows : —
This Court doth order that, notwithstanding the agreement dated
&o., it be referred to the taxing master to tax and settle the bills of
fees and disbursements, ten in number and in the aggregate
amounting to £ — , delivered by the said solr to the said F. P. ; And
It is ordered that the said Master do certify whether the said
agreement is a fair and reasonable agreement. {Insert paragraphs
(i) and (ii). Form 1, p. 254, ante.] And the said Master is to
certify the amount due from the said F. P. to the said solr, or from
the said solr to the said F. P., as the case may be, having regard to
any sum or sums of money which have been so received or paid
as aforesaid. And this Court doth reserve the costs of this appeal,
and occasioned by the adjournment of the application into Court,
and of the said taxation, all such costs to be dealt with by the
Judge after such taxation and certificate, And It is ordered that no
SECT. X.] Solicitors' Remuneration Act. 301
proceedings be commenced against the said F. P. in respect of the
said bills pending this reference.— See Re Frape, C. A., 28 Marcli, 1893,
A. 534; [1893] 2 Ch. 284, C. A.
NOTES.
The Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881 (44 & 45 V. c. 44), s. 2, authorizes
the making of General Orders for prescribing and regulating the remunera-
tion of solrs " in respect of business connected with sales, purchases, leases,
mortgages, settlements, and other matters of conveyancing, and in respect of
other business not being business in any action, or transacted in any Court,
or in tlie Chambers of any Judge or Master, and not being otherwise con-
tentious business " ; and (by sect. 5) as to the taking by a solr from his
client of security for future remuneration in accordance with any such
order, and the allowance of interest ; and provides, by sect. 7, that " as
long as any General Order under this Act is in operation, the taxation of
bills of costs of solrs shall be regulated thereby," and a General Order taking
effect from the 31st December, 1882, has been made in pursuance of the Act.
An agreement between contractor and town commrs for execution of
sewage works has been held to be " conveyancing business " within sect. 2 :
Exp. Caruth, 25 L. R. Ir. 478.
The words " not being business in any action, &c." are to be read as only
qualifying the words " other business," which immediately precede ; and
the Act and Order accordingly apply to conveyancing business transacted
in an action, or under the direction of the Court : Stanford v. Roberts, 26
Ch. D. 155 ; In re Merchant Taylors' Co., 30 Ch. D. 28, C. A.
A mortgagor who agrees to pay a lump sum to his solr for procuring " Client,"
a mortgage, though such sum includes the costs of the mortgagee, is a meaning of.
" client," and has employed the solr witliin the meaning of the Act : Re
Palmer, 45 Ch. D. 291, C. A. ; and as to the meaning of the word " client,"
see sect. 1, and Re Allen, 34 Ch. D. 433, 442, C. A. ; Hester v. H., lb. 607 ;
Re Metcalfe, 36 W. R. 137 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 82 ; 57 L. T. 925.
By r. 2 of the General Order, in respect of (a) sales, purchases and mort- Scale of
gages completed, the remuneration of the solr having the conduct of the charges,
business is to be according to a scale of ad valorem charges on the purchase
or mortgage money contained in Schedule I. Part 1 ; and (b) in respect of
leases, agreements for leases of certain kinds, and conveyances reserving rent
or agreements for same, according to a scale of charges var3dng with the
amount of the rent contained in Schedule I. Part 2 ; and (c) in respect of
other business, including uncompleted business, settlements, mining leases,
or licences or agreements therefor, reconveyances, transfers of mortgage, or
further charges, the remuneration is to be according to the existing system
as altered by Schedule II., which relates to charges for instructions for
and drawing and perusing deeds, wills, and other documents, for attendances,
for abstracts of title, and for journeys.
Schedule I. does not apply to transactions respecting real property, title
to which is registered under 25 & 26 V. cc. 53, 67, and 38 & 39 V. c. 87 : seo
Gen. Ord. r. 1. The Land Transfer Rules, 1903, r. 336, now declare that
" the remuneration of solrs in or incidental to or consequential on the
registration of land and transactions in the Registry shall be regulated "
as thereinafter provided : see Briokdale and Sheldon (2nd ed.), at p. 475,
and Land Transfer Fee Order, 1908 : 1908, W. N. 328, and 1909, W. N. 5.
The General Order does not apply to a sale of land not situated in
England : Re Greville's Settlement, 40 Ch. D. 441 ; but, by virtue of sect. 7
of the Act, extends to bills f)i costs in respect of business commenced or
completed before the order came into operation, if taxed while it is in
force : Re Field, 29 Ch. D. 608, C. A. ; Re Stewart, 41 Ch. D. 494 ; Fleming
V. Hardcastle, 52 L. T. 851 ; 33 W. R. 776.
A grant of a new easement is not a " conveyance of property " within
Schedule I. Part 1, and consequently the scale fee is not apphcable : Re
302
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
Deducing
title.
Leases.
Partition
action.
Sander's Settlement, [1896] 1 Ch. 480, C. A. ; approving Be Stewart, sup.,
and Be Earnshaw-Wall, inf. ; but an advowson in gross, though an in-
corporeal hereditament, is freehold property within Schedule I. Part 1,
and on a purchase the scale charge applies: Be Earnshaw-WalL [18941
3 Ch. 156, C. A. ' L J
^^ The scale fee under Schedule I. Part 1, for " deducing title " and
" perusing and completing conveyance " is only chargeable where the whole
of such business is done ; where there is no deducing of title, but only
perusing and completing conveyance, the remuneration must be under r.
2 (o) : In re Lacey and Son, 25 Ch. D. 301, 0. A. ; and so where a solr to a
mortgagor of leaseholds simply produces and delivers an abstract of the
lease : Wellby v. Still, [1894] 3 Ch. 641 ; and see Be Harris, Powell, and
Qoodale, 56 L. T. 477 ; Ferguson & Go. to Buchley, 21 L. R. Ir. 392 ; Be
Webster and Jones' Contract, [1902] 2 Ch. 551. The fee includes costs
(other than money out of pocket) in respect of the registration of a memorial
of the conveyance of land in a register county : Grey v. Curtice, [1899]
1 Ch. 121, C. A. ; and charges for plans which are mere copies, and the
preparation of wliioh does not require skilled labour : Be Bead, [18941
3 Ch. 238.
But the schedule applies although the only investigation of title required
is the perusal of a single section of a private Act of Parliament : Exp. Lord
Mayor of London, 34 Ch. D. 452 ; or the purchase is effected under the
direction of the Court, so that the responsibility of the solr is diminished :
Be Merchant Taylors' Co., 30 Ch. D. 28, C. A.
The scale fee for " preparing, settling, and completing lease and counter-
part " (see Schedule I. Part 2) includes costs of negotiations for the lease :
Be Field, sup. ; i.e., negotiations which lead up to, and the preparation of
the agreement which precedes, the lease : Savery v. Enfield Local Board,
[1893] A. C. 218, H. L. (approving Be Emmanuel and Simmonds, 33 Ch. D.
40, C. A.) ; other negotiations falling witliin r. 2 (c) : Be Martin, 41 Ch. D.
381, C. A. ; Savery v. Enfield Local Board, [1893] A. C. 218 ; but not costs
of release of an outstanding incumbrance on property sold : Exp. Bonass,
27 L. R. Ir. 375. The costs of the lessor's solr " for preparing, settling, and
completing " an agreement for a tenancy for less than three years at a rack
rent are governed by the scale for " leases or agreements for leases at a rack
rent " : Be Negus, [1895] 1 Ch. 73.
As to what costs are included in a covenant for renewal " at the
costs of the lessee," see Fitzsimmons v. Mostyn, [1904] A. C. 46 ; and
under a similar covenant what is " business connected with " the lease to be
covered by the scale fee charge, see Be Baylis, [1907] 2 Ch. 54.
In estimating the costs properly payable by the lessee to the lessor's solr,
the cost of the counterpart or duplicate agreement must be deducted from
the scale fee when ascertained : Be Negus, [1895] 1 Ch. 73 ; nor does the
scale apply to leases following a general printed form and requiring in each
case only to be filled in with the names of the parties, the parcels, a, plan,
the rent, and so forth : Wellby v. Still, [1895] 1 Ch. 524.
In cases of leases at a rack rent to which the scale is applicable, the
lessor's solr is not entitled, where the annual rent exceeds £100, to charge
any percentage on fractional amounts of £100 in the rental : In re McGarel,
[1897] 1 Ch. 400, C. A. ; and the fee for " agreements for leases " refers to
agreements intended to be relied on as regulating the tenancy, not to agree-
ments which, though referring to the lease, are collateral to it : S. C.
The lessee is only liable for one set of costs where concurring parties are
represented by separate solicitors : Be Fletcher and Dyson, [1903] 2 Ch.
688.
A lessee exercising five options to purchase in five separate leases cannot
be charged a scale fee in respect of each house, if there has only been one
deducing of title : Be Simmons' Contract, [1908] 1 Ch. 452.
Where on sale in a partition action the Pit, owner of one-fourth, had the
conduct, and his solr was paid under r. 2 (a), the solrs of Defts were held
SECT. X.] Solicitors'' Remuneration Act. 303
entitled to costs of perusal of conveyance, and obtaining execution under
r. 2 (c) : Humphreys Y. Janes, 31 Ch. D. 30, C. A.
Where there is a sale and a resale and conveyance of a part to sub- Resale,
purchasers, the purchaser's solris entitled to two scale fees : Re Bead, [1894]
3 Ch. 238 ; but this does not apply where the subsale is a sale of the
whole of the property in the original sale : lie Romain, [1903] 1 Ch. 702.
Where several lots having separate and distinct titles are purchased and Mortgage,
comprised in one mortgage by the purchaser, his solr is entitled to the
minimum charge of £5 or £3 for each lot, and is not restricted to one charge
for the business as a whole : Re MargcUs, [1896] 2 Ch. 263.
A covering deed to secure debentures which are never issued is not a
completed mortgage entitling the solr to the scale fee. Whether it would
have been a " mortgage " within the rule if the debentures had been issued,
qu(Ere. Whether a mortgage for future advances is a completed mortgage
within the rule, qucere : Re Sircham, [1895] 2 Ch. 786, C. A.
The scale fee is cliargeable where the mortgage is to secure a past debt :
D'Arcy to White, 31 L. R. Ir. 142 ; but not in respect of possible future
advances : Re Barton and Irvine, [1899] 1 1. R. 515, C. A.
By r. 3, drafts and copies made in course of business are to be the property Ownership
of the chent. of drafts.
By r. 4, the remuneration prescribed by Schedule I. does not include Additional
stamps, counsel's fees, auctioneers' or valuers' charges, travelling or hotel remunera-
expenses, fees paid on searches to public officers, on registrations, or to t'°"-
stewards of manors, costs of extracts from any register, record, or roll or
other disbursement reasonably and properly paid, nor any extra work
occasioned by changes occurring in the course of business, such as death or
insolvency of a party, nor business of a contentious character, nor pro-
ceedings in any Court ; but includes law stationers' charges, allowances
for time of solr and his clerks, and for copying and parchment, and all other
similar disbursements.
By r. 5, proper additional remuneration may be allowed for special
exertion in exceptional oases.
Rule 6 provides that in all cases to which the scales apply a solr may. Exclusion of
" before undertaking any business," by writing communicated to the client, scale by
elect that his remuneration shall be according to the existing system, as election,
altered by Schedule II. ; but if no such election is made, remuneration is to
be according to the scale.
The notice of election must be given before any business in the particular
matter is " undertaken " : Hester v. H., 34 Ch. D. 607, C. A. ; as to the acts
which amount to undertaking the business ^\itliin the rule, see Re Allen, 34
Ch. D. 433, C. A. ; Re Stewart, 41 Ch. D. 494 ; Re Metcalfe, M. v. Bkncowe,
57 L. J. Cli. 82 ; 36 W. R. 137 ; 57 L. T. 925.
An election properly made as against the client, a first mortgagee, binds
the mortgagor and subsequent mortgagees : Hester v. H., sup. ; and see Re
Bridewell Hospital, 57 L. T. 155.
The rule applies where the client is a public authority : Re Stewart, sup. ;
Re Evans, [1905] 1 Ch. 290 ; also where the estate is under the control of
the Court : Re Metcalfe, sup.
On a sale by auction in lots a solr may elect in respect of any lot the
purchase money of which does not exceed a definite sum : Re Peel's Settled
Estate, [1910] 1 Ch. 389.
An official liquidator should not, without the leave of the Court, employ
a solr who gives notice of election undor the rule : Re United Kingdom Land
and Building Assoc, 37 W. R. 486 ; 40 Ch. 671.
Rule 7 provides that a solr may accept from his client, and a client Security,
may give to his solr, security for the amount to become due to the solr
for business to be transacted by him and for interest on such amount,
but so that interest is not to commence till the amount due is ascertained,
either by agreement or taxation. For the provision of the same rule as to
interest, v. sup. p. 299.
304
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
Minimum
remunera-
tion.
Sale by-
auction in
lots.
Ineffectual
sale.
Incum-
biances.
Transfer
and further
charge.
Cojamission.
By r. 8, " where the prescribed remuneration would, but for this pro-
vision, amount to less than £5, the prescribed remuneration shall be £5,
except on transactions under £100, in which cases the remuneration of the
solr for the vendor, purchaser, mortgagor or mortgagee, is to be £3."
On a sale by auction in lots of property held under one title, each sale of
one or more lots to a different purchaser forms a separate transaction ; so
that where the scale charge for deducing title on any of the lots sold to
different purchasers does not amount to £5, the solr is entitled to charge the
minimum fee prescribed by r. 8 in respect of each separate sale : In re
Thomas ; Evans v. Griffiths, [1900] 1 Ch. 454.
The charges to be made in case of attempted or ineffectual sales are
provided for by r. 2 of the series of rules applicable to Schedule I. This rule
does not apply where an attempted ineffectual sale and subsequent effectual
sale are not conducted by the same solr ; in such a case costs'must be taxed
under r. 2 (c) of Gen. Ord. : Be Dean, Ward v. Holmes, 32 Ch. D. 209 ; and
so must costs of an attempted ineffectual sale of property where there is no
probability of the sale being effected for some years to come, the money
required having been raised by mortgage : Se Smith, Pinsent & Co., 44
Ch. D. 303 ; and, semble, if in such case the same solr afterwards conducts
a successful sale, and claims to be paid on scale, he must bring into account
what he has already received.
By r. 9, where a property is sold subject to incumbrances, the amount of
the incumbrances is to be deemed a part of the purchase-money, except
where the mortgagee purchases. The rule applies where the property of a
bankrupt is sold subject to incumbrances : Ee Qallard, Exp. Harris, 21
Q. B. D. 38 ; and to the case of a sale by a second mortgagee under his
power of sale : Fortescue v. Mercantile Banh of London, [1897] 2 Q. B. 236,
C. A.
By r. 10, the scale as to mortgages is not to apply to transfers or further
charges where the title has been previously investigated by the same solr.
Where, under a private Act, trustees mortgaged the fee of a settled estate
in order to pay off a mortgage on the life estate and other incumbrances, the
mortgage was held a further charge within the rule : E. of Aylesford v. E.
Poulett, [1891] 1 Ch. 248, C. A.
By r. 11 of the same series, " the scale for conducting a sale by auction
shall apply only in cases where no commission is paid by the client to an
auctioneer. The scale for negotiating shall apply to cases where the solr of
a vendor or purchaser arranges the sale or purchase, and the price and terms
and conditions thereof, and no commission is paid by the client to an
auctioneer, or estate or other agent. As to a mortgagee's solr, it shall only
apply to cases where he arranges and obtains the loan from a person for
whom he acts. In case of sales under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act,
or any other private or pubhc Act under which the vendor's charges are
paid by the purchaser, the scale shall not apply."
Where commission (which includes a lump sum : Burd v. B., 40 Ch. D.
628) is paid by the client to an auctioneer, the solr is not entitled to the scale
charge, though the auctioneer merely offers the property for sale : Re Sylces,
S. V. S., 56 L. J. Ch. 238 ; 56 L. T. 425 ; 36 W. R. 624 ; Wood v. Calvert,
55 L. T. 53 ; 34 W. E. 732 ; Be Wilson, 29 Ch. D. 790, C. A. ; but the solr is
not in such case deprived of all remuneration, but is entitled to charge under
r. 2 (c) : Be Faulkner, 36 Ch. D. 566 ; ParJcer v. BlenJchorn, Newbould v.
Bailward, 14 App. Ca. 1 ; reversing Be Newbould, 20 Q. B. D. 204, C. A.
Auctioneer's fee for attending sale and receiving the bids is a commission
within the rule, even though payable by the purchaser under the conditions
of sale, and unless the solr himself pays such fee he cannot charge the scale
fee for conducting sale : Drielsma v. Manifold, [1894] 3 Ch. 100, C. A. ;
Cholditch V. Jones, [1896] 1 Ch. 42. Fees paid to valuers in order to obtain
the sanction of the Court to a conditional contract for sale are not com-
mission within the rule : Be Macgowan, M. v. Murray, [1891] 1 Ch. 105,
C. A. ; and on such a sale the work of the solr in negotiating is completed
SECT. X.] Solicitors' Remuneration Act. 305
when the terms are agreed between the parties ; and if the Court sanctions
the sale he will be entitled to the scale fee : lb.
The solr's commission for " conducting " a sale is chargeable upon the
total amount realized, though the sale is in lots, held under different
titles and sold to different purchasers : Re Onward Bldg. Soc, [1893]
1 Q. B. 16.
A sum paid to a local agent in respect not only of the particular sale, but
of work previously done, is " commission paid " within r. 11 : Be Withall,
39 W. R. 529 ; [1891] 3 Cli. 8, C. A.
The vendor's solr was not entitled to charge purchasers with a negotiating
fee, where a fee had been paid by them to a surveyor : Re Harris, Powell, and
Ooodale, 56 L. T. 477 ; and the mortgagor's solr is not entitled to a nego-
tiating fee for merely introducing a lender : Re Eley, 37 Ch. D. 40. A
solr-mortgagee is entitled to charge a negotiation fee : Re Norris, [1902]
1 Ch. 741.
The scale fee to " mortgagee's solr for negotiating loan " is not confined
to loans upon mortgage of freehold, copyhold, or leasehold property
exclusively, but is applicable to all cases of loans on mortgage : Re Furher,
[1898] 2 Ch. 538.
A re-investment in land under the Lands Clauses Act is not within the Lands Clauses
exception in the last clause of this rule, but may be charged for according to Act.
the scale : Re Merchant Taylors' Co., 30 Ch. D, 28, C. A. ; 8. C, 29 Ch. D.
209 ; and the exception extends only to vendor's, and not to the purchasers'
costs : Re Stewart, 41 Ch. D. 494.
The statutory exception in case of sales under the Lands Clauses and other
Acts extends to a voluntary purchase by a local authority under the Public
Health Act, 1875 (which incorporates the Lands Clauses Act) : Re Burdekin,
[1895] 2 Ch. 136, C. A.
By r. 5 of the rules applicable to Schedule I. Part 2, where a conveyance Consideration
or lease is partly in consideration of a money payment or premium, and partly rent,
partly of a rent, then, in addition to the remuneration thereby prescribed
in respect of the rent, there is to be paid " a further sum equal to the re-
muneration on a purchase at a price equal to such money payment or
premium."
Where a sale of leasehold property is carried out by an underlease to the
purchaser at an apportioned ground rent, the solr is not entitled to a scale
charge in respect of the rent as well as of the purchase-money, but qucere
whether such a case is not within Schedule I., and therefore regulated by
the old system as modified by Schedule II. : Re Webb, Still v. Webb, [1897]
1 Ch. 144.
Where a lease is granted at a rent on payment of a fine or premium, the
lessor's solr is entitled not only to the scale fee on the rent under Schedule I.
Part 2 (second scale), but to an additional fee in respect of the premium
under r. 5 in Part 2 and r. 8 in Part 1 of Schedule I. : Re Hellard and Bewes,
[1896] 2 Ch. 229 ; but the negotiation fee is included in the scale fee charge-
able in respect of the rent, and the solr is therefore not entitled to charge a
further fee for negotiating : Re Horn and Francis, [1896] 2 Ch. 797 ;
following Re Field, 29 Ch. D. 608 ; and Re Robson, 45 Ch. D. 71.
Payment for one and the same piece of business must be either according
to the scale, or wholly independent of it, and when a lease is granted in
consideration of premium and rent, the scale fee is apphcable, even though
no abstract of the lessor's title has been furnished to the lessee : Re Robson,
45 Ch. D. 71 ; and see Re Hickley and Steward, 54 L. J. Ch. 608 ; 33 W. R.
320 ; 62 L. T. 89 ; Re Hasties and Crawford, 1888, W. N. 95 ; 36 W. R.
572 ; Exp. Connolly, [1900] 1 I. R. 1, C. A.
Under Schedule XL, the fee of Is. per folio for perusing is not payable to Fee for
a solr making advances to his client upon security of real property and perusing,
perusing title deeds for that purpose : Re Robertson, 19 Q. B. D. 1 ; nor to
the perusing of abstracts of title, as to which the old fee of 6«. Sd. for three
sheets of eight folios remains : Re A. Parker, 29 Ch. D. 199.
VOL. I. X
306
Costs.
[chap. XVII.
Discretion The directions empowering the taxing master to increase or diminish the
of taxing charges in Schedule II. for special reasons apply to the items for " drawing,
master. &c." : Ee Beade's Trusts, Salthouse v. S., 1889, W. N. 26 ; and see Be Bees,
B. V. B., 58 L. T. 68. And as to the way in which the discretion ought to
be exercised, and the power of the taxing master to increase or diminish fees,
see Be Mahon, [1893] I Ch. 507, C. A. The words " other documents " in
the heading to the schedule are not confined to documents ejusdem generis
with deeds and wills but include a case for opinion of counsel : Be Mahon,
sup. ; but see Exp. Carufh, 25 L. R. Ir. 478.
In the absence of written agreement the taxing master must tax according
to the scale where applicable, although an item bill has been delivered on the
client's request. Delivery of an item bill in the first instance does not
preclude the soir when before taxing master from consenting to taxation
according to scale : Be Negus, [1895] 1 Ch. 73.
Section XI. — Enforcing Order for Payment of Costs.
For Forms of order, see^josi, pp. 428, 429, Ch. XXVII.
NOTES.
As to enforcing judgment or order for payment of costs by fieri facias,
writ of sequestration, or other process of execution under 0. XLn, see inf.
Chap. XXVII., " Execution."
Debtors Act An order of Court for payment of costs constitutes a debt within the
1869, s. 4. exceptions under sect. 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 V. c. 62), capable
of being enforced by committal to prison, on application by motion on
notice (Gen. Ord. 7 Jan. 1870, r. 10), for a term not exceeding six weeks,
under sect. 5, in default of payment of the debt (under £50, exclusive of
costs) or instalments : Hemtson v. Sherwin, 10 Eq. 53 ; Bogers v. B., infra.
Form 7, p. 428 ; and see Beg. v. Pratt, L. R. 5 Q. B. 178. The above rule has
not been expressly repealed, but the jurisdiction under sect. 5 has now been
transferred to the Judge and registrars in bankruptcy : Bankruptcy Act,
1883 (46 & 47 V. c, 52), s. 103, and rules thereunder ; Bankruptcy Rules,
1886, rr. 355—362.
Where a solr is ordered to repay to his client an amount overpaid, and
subsequently is ordered to pay the (reserved) costs of taxation, the amount
and the costs are alike due from him in his character of an officer of the
Court within the Debtors Act, s. 4, sub-s. (4), and he can be attached for his
default in payment thereof : In re A Solicitor, [1895] 2 Ch. 66.
An order on a solr for payment of costs for misconduct as a solr, or for
payment of a sum of money in his character of an officer of the Court, is also
within the exceptions under sect. 4, and may be enforced by sequestration
(v. inf. p. 442) or by attachment, which now, under 0. xt.tv, 2, is not to be
issued without the leave of the Court or a Judge, to be appUed for on notice
to the party against whom the attachment is to be issued.
The term of imprisonment is limited to one year : 32 & 33 V. c. 62, s. 4.
Cases in which an attachment has been ordered against a solr for default
in payment of a balance found due from him upon taxation, are : Be Bush,
9 Eq. 147 ; Be White, 19 W. R. 39 ; 23 L. T. 387 ; and see Be V., I. R. 8 Eq.
355.
The liability of a solr to attachment is for non-payment of money or
costs as an officer of the Court ; not as an unsuccessful litigant : Be Hope,
7 Ch. 523, overruling Be Barfield and Bush, 19 W. R. 466 ; 24 L. T. 240 ;
where a solr was attached for non-payment of a balance due from him qiia
client : but see Esdaile v. Visser, 13 Ch. D. 421, C. A.
SECT. xi.J Enforcing Order for Payment of Costs. 307
A solr struck off the Rolls after order for payment is still liable to
attachment : In Re Strong, 32 C. D. 342.
Payment of taxed costs may be enforced, notwithstanding the solr has
omitted to furnish cash accounts of money received in respect of separate
transactions of which the client was at the time aware : Se Lee, Exp.
Neville, 4 Ch. 43. The Court will enforce against a firm of solrs an under-
taking to pay a sum for costs : Re Woodfin and Wray, 30 W. R. 422 ; 51
L. J. Ch. 427.
An undertaking by a solr to repay costs if an appeal succeeds may be
enforced by the Court in a summary manner : Swyny v. Harland, [1894]
1 Q. B. 707, C. A.
A solr or other person who has been imprisoned under sect. 4 (4) will not
be discharged without an order obtained in Court from the Judge by whom
the attachment was granted : Re Thompson's Estate, 22 W. R. 857.
The order for payment must be personally served unless otherwise Service of
directed. order.
In a proper case, substituted service of an order upon a solr to pay a
balance may be directed : Re Mourilyan, 13 Beav. 84 ; Re Stevenson, 14
Beav. 27 ; Re Wisewold, 16 Beav. 357.
Under the Solicitors Acts, 1843 and 1860 (6 & 7 V. o. 73, s. 26, and 23 & Costs of
24 V. c. 127, s. 22), a solr's debt for costs was not extinguished by his being uncertificated
uncertificated, but only his remedy ; and the want of a certificate did not solr.
exempt the client from payment of costs : Re Hope, 7 Ch. 766. And items
would not be disallowed solely on the ground that at the particular time
the solr was uncertificated : Re Jones, 9 Eq. 63.
The Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874 (37 & 38 V. c. 68), s. 12, imposes
a penalty not exceeding £10 for wilfully and falsely pretending to be duly
quaUfied to act as an attorney or solr ; and provides that no costs, fee,
reward, or disbursement on account of, or in relation to, any act or proceed-
ing done or taken by any person who acts as an attorney or solr without
being duly quahfied shall be recoverable in any action, suit, or matter by
any person or persons whomsoever.
In taxing a solr's bill of costs items relating to business done while the
solr had not a certificate must be disallowed : Re Sweeting, [1898] 1 Ch.
268 (treating Re Jones as superseded since 37 & 38 V. c. 68, s. 12) ; and
fees paid after the solr has taken out his certificate in respect of work
done while he was uncertificated are " disbursements on account of an act
or proceeding done or taken " while the solr was not duly qualified and
ought to be struck out of the bill on taxation : Kent v. Ward, 70 L. T. 612,
C. A.
Under this section, not only an uncertificated solr, but also his client is
prevented from recovering costs from the party otherwise liable : Fowler v.
Monmouth, &c. Co., 4 Q. B. D. 334 ; Verlander v. Eddolls, 51 L. J. Q. B. 55 ;
45 L. T. 543 ; 30 W. R. 104 ; Irvin v. Sanger, 58 L. J. Q. B. 64 ; 59 L. T.
894 ; 5 Times L. R. 171, C. A.
( 308 ) [chap. XVIII,
CHAPTEE XVIII.
CHAMBERS, AND PROCEEDINGS UNDER JUDGMENT.
Section I. — Peoceedings in Chambers Generally.
I. Order on Summons in Chambers.
Mr. Justice K., at Chambers.
Upon the application of the Pit \or Deft] A. by summons dated &c.,
and upon hearing the solrs for the applicant, and for &c. [Name any
parties or persons appearing], and upon reading [an affidavit of &c.,
filed &c., of service of the summons on &c. : Name any parties or
persons served and not appearing, and enter any evidence], It is ordered
that (fee.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 479, 480 ; and as to orders on summons,
lb. 511,512.
2. Order on Summons adjourned into Court.
The application of (the Pit or Deft) A. by summons dated &c.,
which upon hearing the solrs for the applicant, and for &c., in
Chambers, was adjourned to be heard in Court, coming on (the — day
of — and) this day to be heard accordingly, and upon hearing counsel
for the Pit and for &c., and upon reading &c.. This Court doth &c.
For order on further consideration of action commenced by admon
summons adjourned into Court, see Chap. XX.
3. Application Partly Decided in Chambers and Partly
adjourned into Court,
The application of the Pit by originating summons dated
&c. for the determination of the questions set forth in the
said summons, which upon hearing the solrs for the applicant, and
for &c. in chambers, and upon reading &c. was (after the decision
of the first and second of such questions in manner hereinafter set
forth) adjourned to be heard in Court coming on this day to be
heard accordingly, and upon hearing counsel for the Pit and for, &c.,
and upon reading [enter further evidence (if any) applicable to the
questions adjourned]. This Court doth &c.
If the questions raised by the summons are not answered in the words
of such summons it may be convenient toset the questions out in the order.
SECT. I.] Proceedings in Chambers generally. 309
APPLICATIONS AND PBOCEEDINGS IN CIIAMBEES.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 39, any Judge of the High Court may, subject to General
any rules of Court, exercise in Court or in Chambers all or any part of the jurisdiction,
jurisdiction by the Act vested in the High Court, in all such proceedings
as before the passing of the Act might have been heard in Court or in
Chambers respectively by a single Judge, or as may be directed or authorized
to be so heard by any rules of Court.
By the Court of Chancery Act, 1855 (18 & 19 V. c. 134), s. 16, the juris-
diction of the Judge in Chambers comprised such of the matters, in respect
of which the Court was empowered by Act of Parliament to make orders in
a summary way on petition or motion, as the L. C, with the advice of the
Master of the Rolls and Vice-Chanoellors, or any two of them, might by
general order direct. But by Jud. Act, 1873, s. 17, all rules of Court must
now be made in the mode there prescribed.
By Jud. Act, 1884, s. 13, the provisions of sect. 16 of 18 & 19 V. c. 134, are
extended to all applications imder any Act passed or thereafter to be passed
under or by virtue of which the High Court of Justice or any Judge thereof
is empowered to make any orders in respect of trust funds, or any other
matters upon petition or motion in a summary way.
The section preserves the general jurisdiction of a single Judge to act
for the Court : Re Howell Thomas, [1893] 1 Q. B. 670 ; Clover v. Adams,
6 Q. B. D. 622, 624.
Applications and proceedings in Chambers are now regulated by 0. liv R. S. C.
and 0. Lv.
By 0. liiv, 1, every application at Chambers not made ex parte is to be
by summons ; and by r. 2, every application for payment or transfer out of
Court made ex parte, and every other application made ex parte in which the
Judge or proper officer shall think fit so to require, is to be made by sum- .
mons. Summonses are not to be altered after they are sealed except upon
application at Chambers : r. 3.
R. 5 provides as to proceeding ex parte when any of the parties fail to
attend ; and r. 6 for the re-consideration of ex parte proceedings, and as to
costs caused by the non-attendance of the party failing to attend ; and r. 7
for costs thrown away by such non-attendance when the Judge does not
think it expedient to proceed ex parte.
By r. 8, where matters in respect of which summonses have been issued
are not disposed of, the parties are to attend again from time to time without
further summons.
A party making an application in Chambers may include in it all matters
upon which he then requires an order or the directions of the Judge ; any
such appUcation may be adjourned by the Judge from Chambers into
Court, or from Court into Chambers : r. 9 ; and as to the power of one
official to dispose of business for another, see r. 9a, pp. 313, 314 inf.
PflOCEEDINaS IN CHAMBEES IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION — APPLICATIONS TO
BE MADE THERE.
By 0. LV, 1, the business in Chambers in the Chancery Division is to be
carried on by the Judges to whom Chambers are attached in conjunction
with their Court business, and, by r. la, in any proceeding in Chambers any
party may, if he so desires, be represented by counsel.
The business to be disposed of in Chambers by Judges of the Chancery 0. lv, 2.
Division, in addition to the matters which by any other rule or by statute
may be disposed of there, consists of the following matters, as set forth in
O. LV, 2 :—
" (1) Apphcations for payment or transfer to any person of any cash or
securities standing to the credit of any cause or matter where there has been
a judgment or order declaring the rights, or where the title depends only
upon proof of the identity, or the birth, marriage or death of any person."
310 Chambers, and Proceedings under Judgment [ch.xviii.
The generality of this clause is not qualified by those which follow :
Re Brandram, 25 Ch. D. 366 ; He Broadwood, 55 L. J. Ch. 646 ; 55 L. T.
312 ; so that an application under the Trustee Relief Act (now Trustee Act,
1893, s. 42) for payment of a fund exceeding £1,000 to a person whose title
depends merely upon proof of his birth must be made by summons : Be
Broadwood, sup.
It has been held that the rule does not apply to a case of construction
even by consent : Be Hicks, 63 L. J. Ch. 568 ; 70 L. T. 529 ; 1894, W. N.
55, per Kekewich, J. ; nor, semble, unless the fund is carried over to the
separate account of the person to be identified : Be Birkin, 1901, W. N. 33.
The rule applies to an application to carry over a fund to another action :
Be Lancashire and Yorkshire By. Co., 1895, W. N. 85 ; 64 L. J. C!h. 688 ;
72 L. T. 627.
As to what amounts to an " order declaring rights," see Be Brandram,
sup.
The mere fact that the fund exceeds £1,000 is not sufficient ground for
presenting a petition : Bates v. Moore, 38 Ch. D. 381 ; commenting on Be
Bhodes, 31 Ch. D. 499.
As to the safeguards afforded by the mode of procedure by petition, see
Re Rhodes, sup. ; Be Broadwood, sup. ; Slater v. S., [1896] 1 Ch. 222, n. ;
58 L. T. 149 ; 59 L. T. 315 ; Marsh v. Joseph, [1897] 1 Ch. 213, C. A.
" (2) Applications for payment or transfer to any person of any cash or
securities standing to the credit of any cause or matter, where the cash does
not exceed £1,000, or the securities do not exceed £1,000 nominal value."
This sub-section (like sub-sect. 1) is of general application : Exp. Maid-
stone and Ashford By. Co. ; Exp. Bala and Festiniog By. Co., 25 Ch. D. 168 ;
and extends to applications for payment out of Court under the Lands
Clauses Act, 1845 : 8. C. ; Be Cation's Will, 25 Ch. D. 240 ; Be Madgwick,
25 Ch. D. 371 ; and the summons, if under sect. 85, should be sealed by
the CO. as a petition formerly was : Exp. Maidstone and Ashford By. Co. ,
sup. ; Re Madgwick, sup. But where the fund exceeds £1,000, application
for payment out of a share less than £1,000 must be by petition : May v.
Dowse, 1884, W. N. 122 ; and see Re Evan Evans, 54 L. T. 527 ; Be
Haworth, 1885, W. N. 48.
As to the necessity of an affidavit of no incumbrances on payment out of
Court of money representing real estate, see Williams v. Ware, 57 L. J. Ch.
497 ; 58 L. T. 786. There is no such necessity in the case of personal
estate : Edwards v. Grove, 1906, W. N. 191.
" (3) Applications for payment to any person of the dividend or interest
on any securities standing to the credit of any cause or matter, whether to
a separate account or otherwise."
Clauses (4) and (5), relating to applications under the Legacy Duty Act,
1796, and the Trustee Relief Acts, have been repealed, and replaced by rules
under the Trustee Act (0. LIVB, 6, and 0. LV, 13a), as to which, v. inf.
Chap. XLL, "Tbtjstees," pp. 1150, 1156.
" (6) Applications under 9 & 10 V. c. 20 (the ParUamentary Deposits
Act, 1846), or any other Act relating to Parliamentary deposits, for invest-
ment, payment of dividends, and payment out of Court."
As to procedure under the Parliamentary Deposits Acts, v. inf. Chap. LV.
" (7) Applications for interim and permanent investment and for pay-
ment of dividends, under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and
any other Act whereby the purchase-money of any property sold is directed
to be paid into Court." An application for payment out of dividends on
sums lodged in Court by Life Assurance Companies under the Assurance
Companies Act, 1909, does not come within this rule, and must be made by
petition : Re Boyal Exchange Assurance Corporation, 1910, W. N. 211.
As to the practice under the Lands Clauses Acts, v. inf. Chap. LIV.
That this clause is not ultra vires, see Exp. Lord Mayor of London, 25
Ch. D. 384.
Clause (8), relating to applications under the Trustee Acts, 1850 and
SECT. I.J Proceedings in Chambers, generally. 311
1852, has been repealed, and replaced by rules under the Trustee Act, 1893
(O. LIVE, 6, and 0. lv, 13a), as to which v. inf. Chap. XLI., " Tettstees."
" (9) Applications on behalf of infants under 1 W. IV. c. 65, ss. 12, 16,
17, when the infant is a ward of Court, or the admon of the estate of the
infant, or the maintenance of the infant, is under the direction of the
Court."
As to applications in reference to infants, v. inf. Chap. XXXVIII.,
" Infants."
"(10) Applications under 18 & 19 V. c. 43 (Infants Settlement Act,
1855), for the settlement of any property of any infant on marriage."
As to the procedure under the Infants Settlement Act, v. inf. Chap.
XXXVIII., " Infants."
" (11) Applications under the Copyhold Acts respecting any securities
or money in Court. Notice of any such application is not to be given to
the Copyhold Commissioners unless the Judge shall so direct."
As to the Copyhold Acts, v. inf. Chap. LVII.
" (12) Applications as to the guardianship and maintenance or advance-
ment of infants." See Chap. XXXVIII., " Infants."
"(13) Applications connected with the management of property."
" (14) Applications for or relating to the sale by auction or private con-
tract of property, and as to the manner in which the sale is to be conducted,
and for payment into Court and investment of the purchase-money."
" (15) All applications under the Sohcitors Act, 1843 (6 & 7 V. c. 73) (not
being appUcations for orders of course), for the taxation and delivery of
bills of costs, and for the delivery by any solr of deeds, documents and
papers."
As to these applications, v. sup. Chap. XVII., " Costs," p. 234 et seq.
" (16) Applications for orders on the further consideration of any cause
or matter where the order to be made is for the distribution of an insolvent
estate, or for the distribution of the estate of an intestate, or for the distri-
bution of a fund among creditors or debenture holders."
As to further consideration, v. inf. Chap. XX.
" (17) Applications for time to plead, for leave to amend pleadings, for
discovery and production of documents, and, generally, all applications
relating to the conduct of any cause or matter."
" (18) Such other matters as the Judge may think fit to dispose of at
Chambers."
By r. 3, any of the following persons — (1) the exors or admors of a 0. lv, 3.
deceased person ; (2) trustees under any deed or instrument ; (3) persons
claiming as creditor, devisee, legatee, next of kin, or heir-at-law or custom-
ary heir, or as c. q. t., or by assignment or otherwise under any such creditor
or other person, may take out, as of course, an originating summons for the
determination, without an admon of the estate or trust, of any of the follow-
ing questions or matters : —
" (a) Any question affecting the rights or interests of the person claiming
to be creditor, devisee, legatee, next of kin, or heir-at-law or c. q. t.
" (6) The ascertainment of any class of creditors, legatees, devisees,
next of kin, or others ;
" (c) The furnishing of any particular accounts by the exors or admors
or trustees, and the vouching (when necessary) of such accounts ;
" (d) The pajrment into Court of any money in the hands of the exors
or admors or trustees ;
" (e) Directing the exors or admors or trustees to do or abstain from
doing any particular act in their character as such exors or admors
or trustees :
" (/) The approval of any sale, purchase, compromise, or other trans-
action ;
" (g) The determination of any question arising in the admon of the
estate or trust."
Questions should be stated in the summons categorically and not in
312 Chanihers, and Proceedings under Judgment. [cH. xviil.
general terms : Re Harman, Lloyd v. Tardy, [1894] 3 Ch. 607. For forms
of summons, see D. C. F. 516 et seq.
Upon a summons under r. 3 there is no jurisdiction to determine questions
whicli could not formerly have been determined in an action for the admon
of an estate or execution of a trust : Be Davies, D. v. D., 38 Ch. D. 210 ; Ee
Carlyon, C. v. C, 56 L. J. Ch. 219 ; 56 L. T. 151 ; 35 W. R. 159 ; Re Royle,
R. V. Hayes, 43 Ch. D. 18, C. A. ; Conway v. Fenton, 40 Ch. D. 512 ; ex. gr.
a question arising between legal devisees : Re Davies, sup. ; or between a
person claiming under the will and a person claiming adversely : Re Bridge,
Franks v. Worth, 56 L. J. Ch. 779 ; 56 L. T. 726 ; 35 W. R. 663 ; unless the
person so claiming submits to have the case heard on summons : Re Royle,
sup. ; or a proceeding seeking to render trustees liable for a breach of trust :
Dowse V. Gorton, [1891] A. C. 202, H. L. ; Re Weall, 37 W. R. 779, and see
Re Stuart, 74 L. T. 546 ; Re Newland, 1904, W. N. 181 ; Lewin on Trusts,
p. 420 ; Ingpen on Exors, p. 591 ; but a claim by heir-at-law, named
as devisee, to real estate as undisposed of by the will, could be tried
on originating summons : Re Hargreaves, Midgley v. Tatley, 43 Ch. D. 401,
C. A. A person claiming under a resulting trust arising on failure of the
trusts of an instrument by reason of their illegality is not a c. q. t. within
the meaning of O. lv, 3 : Re Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants,
Addison v. Pilcher, [1910] 2 Ch. 547.
This procedure is only intended for the decision of simple questions : Re
Oiles, Real and Personal Advance Co. v. Mitchell, 43 Ch. D. 391, C. A. ; and
the Court will not, on originating summons, try such questions as priority
between mortgagees : S. C. ; a dispute as to a debt turning on matters of
fact ; secus, where before the Court merely on a point of law : Re Powers,
Lindsell v. Phillips, 30 Ch. D. 291, C. A. ; a claim by cs. q. t. involving the
setting aside of a release : Re Ellis's Trusts, Kelson v. Ellis, 37 W. R. 91 ;
59 L. T. 924 ; Re Garnett, Gandy v. Macaulay, 31 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; whether
Deft was co-trustee with Pit : Elworthy v. Harvey, 60 L. T. 30 ; 37 W. R.
164 ; whether there has been a complete declaration of trust of additions to
an existing trust fund : Re Walter's Trusts, Nelson v. W., 1890, W. N. 132 ;
61 L. T. 872. And an application for relief against forfeiture of lease under
s. 14 of the Conveyancing Act cannot be made by a lessee by originating
summons, which is not an " action " within the meaning of sub-sect. 2 :
Loch v. Pearce, [1893] 2 Ch. 271.
An objection to the jurisdiction ought to be taken in Chambers : Re Davies,
D. V. D., 38 Ch. D. 210 ; Re Turcan, 58 L. J. Ch. 101 ; and see p. 314 inf.
As to the power of the Court to make a declaration on originating sum-
mons under O. liva, v. sup. p. 164, and Dan. 774 ; and Re Amalgamated
Society of Railway Servants, Addison v. Pilcher, [1910] 2 Ch. 547 ; and that
the Court under that Order can determine whether a right of way passed
by conveyance, Nicholls v. N., 81 L. T. 811 ; 1900, W. N. 4.
Upon a summons under r. 3, there is jurisdiction to give costs out of the
estate, provided the proper parties are before the Court : Re Medland,
Eland v. M., 41 Ch. D. 476, C. A.
0. LV, 4. gy J, 4^ " g_j)y jjf ^;jjg pgrsons named in the last preceding rule may in
like manner apply for and obtain an order for : —
" (a) The admon of the personal estate of the deceased ;
" (6) The admon of the real estate of the deceased ;
" (c) The admon of the trust."
Where the summons was for general admon, new trustees might (pre-
viously to r. 13a) be appointed : Re Allen, Simes v. S., 56 L. T. 611 ; 56
L. J. Ch. 779 ; distinguishing Smith v. Gill, 53 L. T. 623 ; 34 W. R. 134 ;
and a receiver may be appointed : Gee v. Bell, 35 Ch. D. 160 ; Barr v.
Harding, 36 W. R. 216 ; 58 L. T. 74 ; before final judgment : Re Francke,
Drake v. F., 58 L. T. 305 ; 57 L. J. Ch. 437.
0. Lv, 4a. By O. LV, 4a, " If for the purposes of the Land Transfer Act, 1897, it is
desirable to ascertain the heir-at-law, or any devisee or legatee of the
person who has died, having real estate vested in him, within the meaning
SECT. I.] Proceedings in Chambers generally. 313
of that Act, the same may be ascertained, and all necessary directions with
regard to carrying out the provisions of that Act may be given, on any
originating summons taken out under rr. 3 or 4 of this Order." R. 5
specifies the persons who are to be served with the summons under rr. 3
and 4.
By r. 5a, the procedure by originating summons is extended to the follow- 0. lv, 6a.
ing relief sought in respect of mortgages, viz., sale, foreclosure, delivery of
possession by the mortgagor, redemption, reconveyance, delivery of posses-
sion by the mortgagee ; and by r. 5b, the persons to be served in such cases
are those who, under the existing practice in the Chancery Division, would
be proper Defts to an action for the like relief. And see Dan. 805, 80li ;
D. C. P. 523 et seq.
The Court refused under this rule to decide a question of priority between
mortgagees ; and qucere whether it has jurisdiction to do so : Re Giles, Heal
and Personal Advance Co. v. Michell, 43 Ch. D. 391, C. A.
As to proceedings in Chambers in admons, foreclosures, and redemption,
see inf. Ch. XLIV., " Administeation," and Ch. XLVII., " Moktgages."
By r. 13, any application to a Judge in Chambers under the Charitable Charitable
Trusts Act, 1853, s. 28, is to be made by summons ; but no order under the Trusts Act.
Act by the Judge in Chambers, where the gross annual income of the charity
has not been declared by the Charity Commrs to exceed £100, is to be
subject to appeal except by leave of the Judge : r. 14.
Injunctions are not granted in Chambers in the Chancery Division (see Injunctions
English v. Vestry of Camberwell, 1875, W. N. 256), except by consent. in C. D.
Where Defts offered to submit to a perpetual injunction to be obtained
on summons, and the Pit set the action down on motion for judgment, costs
of summons only were allowed : London Steam Dyeing Co. v. I)igby, 57
L. J. Ch. 505 ; 58 L. T. 724 ; 36 W. R. 497 ; Allen v. Oakey, 62 L. T. 724 ;
1890, W. N. 121 ; and Defts having offered proper terms in Chambers, the
Pits had to pay costs of an adjournment into Court : Beal and Personal
Advance Co. v. McCarthy, 14 Ch. D. 188.
For the limits of the jurisdiction of the Masters in the King's Bench Masters'
Division, and of the registrars in the.Probate Division, see 0. liv, 12. jurisdiction
By 0. xrv, 2, applications for leave to enter final judgment are to be by m K. B. D.
summons in Chambers. ^°" "• ^'
By 0. XV, 2, an application for an account where the writ is indorsed
under 0. m, 8, is to be by summons in Chambers.
By O. XXXV, 6, 7, in actions " proceeding " in district registries, the District
registrar may exercise the jurisdiction of a Judge in Chambers, except registries,
such as the Masters are by O. Lrv, 12, precluded from exercising, and the
procedure is the same as in Chambers : v. sup. pp. 173 — 175.
By r. 6a, where a cause is proceeding in the Liverpool or Manchester
district registries, the district registrar is to act as chief clerk (Master), and
as registrar and taxing master according to directions to be given by the
Judge ; but no order for payment out of Court to an amount exceeding £50
is to be made except by the Judge in person, and no district registrar, who
is a practising solicitor, is to tax costs.
ADJOUEKING TO AND FROM OHAMBEKS.
The power to adjourn matters for consideration in Chambers given by
15 & 16 V. c. 80, s. 27 (now repealed), is still frequently exercised.
By 0. LIV, 9, in any cause or matter where any party thereto makes any
application at Chambers, either by way of summons or otherwise, he shall
be at liberty to include in one and the same application all matters upon
which he then desires the order or directions of the Court or Judge. Upon
the hearing the Court or Judge may make any order, and give any directions
relative to or consequential on the matter of such application as may be
just ; " any such application may, if the Judge thinks fit,be adjourned from
Chambers into Court, or from Court into Chambers " ; and by r. 9a, on the
314 Chambers, and Proceedings under Judgment, [ch. xviii.
application of any party, any Master, registrar, or taxing master, may, and,
if the circumstances require it, shall, hear and dispose of any application on
behalf of any other Master, registrar, or taxing master respectively by whom
the application would otherwise have been heard ; and any taxing master
may tax costs under O. xiv, or other short bills of costs, in all causes or
matters, whether assigned to him or to any other taxing officer of the same
Division.
As to obtaining the registrar's note on adjournment to Chambers, when
no order is drawn up, v. inf. p. 375, and O. lv, 29.
As to the adjournment of petitions for consideration in Chambers, see
Chap. XXV., " Petitions."
The course of adjourning the whole matter to Chambers is also sometimes
conveniently adopted in other eases.
An adjournment from Chambers into Court is not an appeal from the
decision of the Master, but a continuation of the hearing in Chambers, and
any party has a right to go before the Judge at the risk of costs, at any time
before the Master's order becomes operative : Scott v. Homer, 60 L. J. Ch.
238 ; 63 L. T. 618 ; and see Re Thomcis, BardeyY. Thomas, 1911, W. N. 143 ;
but if the Master makes an order which is drawn up, then a motion may
be made to discharge it : Leeds v. Lewis, 3 Jur. N. S. 1290, and see inf.
On the hearing of a summons adjourned into Court, where the Master has
fixed a time for filing evidence, affidavits subsequently filed cannot be used :
Re Ohifferid, 0. v. Watson, 58 L. J. Ch. 177 ; 58 L. T. 877 ; 36 W. R. 806.
Where accounts are being taken, particular items ought not to be ad-
journed before the Judge unless a question of principle is involved, and a
solr unreasonably insisting on an adjournment may be made to pay costs :
Upton V. Brown, 20 Ch. D. 731, C. A.
When the further consideration of an admon summons is adjourned into
Court, the course is to send a note to the registrar to the efiect that the
further consideration of the matter and cause is adjourned into Court, to be
set down in the cause book, after the causes already set down ; and if the
parties desire to have it heard as a short cause, the note directs it to be put
in the paper on a short cause day. See O. xxxvi, 21.
For form of summons for further consideration in Chambers, see O. lv, 72.
COSTS OF ADJOURNMENT.
Any objection to the jurisdiction on an originating summons should be
taken in Chambers, or the costs of the adjournment, even though the sum-
mons be dismissed with costs, will not be allowed : Re Davies, 38 Ch. D. 210 ;
and a solr will be ordered personally to pay the costs of an unnecessary
adjournment on wliioh he insists : Barnard v. Scales, 37 W. R. 668 ; Upton
V. Brown, sup. The costs of adjournment into Court are in the discretion
of the Judge, and if the adjournment is unnecessary the party causing it
may have to pay costs : Lloyd's Bank, Ld. v. Princess Royal Colliery Co.,
1900, W. N. 99 ; 82 L. T. 559 ; 48 W. R. 427 ; D. C. F. 502 ; and see Read v.
Personal Advance Co. v. McCarthy, 14 Ch. D. 188.
POWEKS AND DUTIES OE MASTERS IN CHANCERY DIVISION.
By 0. LV, 15, the Judges of the Chancery Division have power, subject to
the rules, to order what matters shall be heard by the Masters, and what
matters shall be heard by themselves, and particularly if the Judge shall so
direct, his Masters shall take such accounts and make such inquiries as
have usually been taken and made by the Masters, and the Judge shall give
such aid and directions as he thinks fit, subject to the suitor's right to bring
any point before him ; but " no order appointing a new trustee, or for
general admon, or for the execution of a trust, or for accounts or inquiries
concerning the property of a deceased person, or other property held upon
SECT. I.J Proceedings in Chambers generally. 315
any trust, or concerning the parties entitled thereto, and no vesting or other
order consequential on the appointment of now trustees, shall be made,
except by the Judge in person," and summonses under O. lv, 3, for the
opinion of the Court or a Judge upon the construction of a document or any
question of law, and any application for the appointment of a provisional
liquidator, and applications for substituted service, and for service out of
the jurisdiction, are to be brought before the Judge in person.
Summonses are generally disposed of in Chambers by the Master, but Adjournment
every suitor has the right, under this rule and r. 69, to be heard before to Judge,
the Judge personally : Re Agricultural, dbc. Co., 3 D. F. & J. 194 ; Hayward
V. H., Kay, 31 ; Re, London, d;c. Assurance Co., 5 W. R. 794 ; Re Mitchell,
12 W. R. 39 ; Re Watts, Smith v. W., 22 Ch. D. 5, C. A. ; Scott v. Homer, 60
L. J. Ch. 238 ; 63 L. T. 618. The Master or Judge has jurisdiction at any
time before the Master's order becomes finally binding on the parties by
being passed and entered to adjourn the summons to be heard by the
Judge : Re Thomas, Bartley v. Thomas, [1911] 2 Ch. 389. It is the duty of
the Master to adjourn to the Judge any matter wliich the suitor so desires,
and consequently a motion to vary or discharge an order made by the
Master is irregular : Harrington v. Ramage, 1907, W. N. 137.
The Master in difficult cases, may direct the opinion of counsel to be Directing
taken as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the sufficiency of the opinion of
evidence before liim, and counsel's fee will be allowed on taxation : Prao. counsel to be
Note, 1903, W. N. 72. **ken.
As to the powers of the Masters, see r. 16, and by r. 17, parties and wit- Attendance
nesses summoned to attend before a Master are bound to attend, and are of parties and
liable to process of contempt for disobedience. witnesses.
As a general rule. Masters should not personally take examinations, but Examina-
should send them to the examiners of the Court : McAlistcr v. Walters, tions.
1890, W. N. 204 ; et v. lb. 224, and swp. p. 112.
In prosecuting inquiries under an admon decree, any person able to give Inquiries,
information as to the assets may be summoned as a witness, and must
answer all questions properly put to him by the receiver having the conduct
of the decree, but not so as to make himself liable in a pending action
brought by the receiver : Venables v. Schweitzer, 16 Bq. 76.
A party summoned as >■■ witness cannot refuse to be sworn because he
cannot have the aid of counsel : Re Electric Telegraph Co., 24 Beav. 137.
A practice excluding further evidence by a party after cross-examining
on the evidence on the other side may, as a convenient general rule, be
properly adopted in Chambers : Issard v. Lambert, 44 Ch. D. 253, C. A.
If a witness, summoned by the Master, refuses to attend, an order for his
attendance, under O. xxxvii, 13, must be made before attachment can
issue : Powell v. Nevitt, 55 L. T. 728.
As to whether a Judge at Chambers can commit for a contempt com-
mitted before him there, see Re Johnson, 20 Q. B. D. 68, C. A.
ASSISTANCE or EXPERTS.
The Judge in Chambers may, in such way as he thinks fit, obtain the
assistance of accountants, merchants, engineers, actuaries, and other
scientific persons the better to enable any matter at once to be determined,
and he may act upon the certificate of any such persons : r. 19, in substitu-
tion for the Court of Chancery Act, 1852 (15 & 16 V. c. 80), s. 42. For
instances, see A. O. v. Chambers, 4 D. & J. 58 ; Case v. Metropolitan Ry.
Co., 27 Beav. 427.
The report of such an expert was merely to inform the Court, and evidence
in opposition could be received : Ford v. Tynte, 2 D. J. & S. 127 ; Morris v.
Llanelly Ry. Co., 1868, W, N. 46 ; and the chief clerk could not refer the
whole case to an accountant and adopt his report as part of the certificate :
Hill V. King, 3 D. J. & S. 418.
316 Chambers, and Proceedings under Judgment. [cH. xviii.
Though the provision in the repealed Act giving this power to the Court
as well as the Judge has not been repeated, the Court still directs experts to
inquire and report to it, and the report is filed and entered in the order :
Charlton Chalk, Land and Ballast Co., Ld. v. Fuller, M. R., 18 June, 1877 ;
but such an order can apparently be made only by consent. The expert
has often been treated as a special referee, and so described in the order
appointing him : Bond v. Tone, 8 Feb. 1884 (G. L. Reg. fo. 131). But
(notwithstanding the suggestion of Fry, L. J., in the case of Lady Wenloch
V. River Dee, 19 Q. B. D. 159, C. A.) semhle, this is not correct, as the pro-
cedure laid down in the rules applying to the report of a special referee is
not applicable when a report from an expert is required to assist the
Court in arriving at a decision based on other evidence besides the
report.
In Bendelow v. Worthy Union, 15 Nov. 1887, StirUng, J., considered that
it was not proper to describe an expert so nominated as a special referee, and
it was not necessary to draw up the order directing him to report. The
report was filed and entered in the order as " The report of S. F. M., the
person nominated by consent of the Pits and Defts to inquire and report
whether, by reason of the situation of the place called ' The Hirst,' and now
used as a small-pox hospital, or the management thereof or otherwise,
there is danger created to the Pits, or any of them, which report is filed at
the Central Office." See form of order, inf. p. 596.
And as to referring questions to official or special referees, see Arbitration
Act, 1889 (52 & 53 V. c. 49), and 0. xxxvi, 43—55, and inf. Chap. XXVI.,
" Aebiteatioks."
SUMMONSES IN CHAMBERS.
By 0. Liv, 3, " Summonses shall not be altered after they are sealed,
except upon application at Chambers."
As to the forms of originating summonses see R. 4b, D. C. F. 481 et seg.,
and for note as to the four different forms of originating summons now in
use. Ibid., p. 482.
The day and hour for the hearing of an ex parte summons shall, in the
Chanc. Div., be fixed at the Chambers of the Judge to whom the matter is
assigned on production of the originating summons.
Service. 4e, " Every summons, not being an originating summons to wliioh an
appearance is required to be entered, shall be served two clear days before
the return thereof, unless in any case it shall be otherwise ordered. Pro-
vided that in case of summonses for time only, the summons may be served
on the day previous to the return thereof."
Appearance. As to entering appearance, see r. 4o. The day and ho\ir for attendance
after appearance is fixed in accordance with r. 4d.
4f, " A respondent to an originating summons —
(1) Under the SoUcitors Act, 1843 ;
(2) For solicitor to deliver papers or a cash account, or securities, or to pay
money {July, 1901) ;
(3) Under the Arbitration Act, 1889 ;
(4) Under 0. Lvn, 1, for interpleader relief ;
(5) Under 0. lxi, 27, to enter memorandum of satisfaction ;
(6) Relating to parliamentary or municipal election petitions ;
(7) For inspection of register of joint stock company ;
(8) For relief under Bills of Sale Act, 1882, by grantor of bill of sale ;
(9) Under sect. 17 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 ;
shall not be required to enter an appearance."
Summons O. xxx, r. 1 (v. sup. p. 24), provides that a summons for directions shall
for directions, be returnable in not less than four days. Although no express mention is
made as to the time for service, it is the practice to require a summons for
directions to be served four days before the return day.
The third party procedure under 0. xvi, 48 — 55, is not applicable to
SECT. II.] Proceedings under Judgment or Order. 317
proceedings by originating summons : Re Wilson, A. 0. v. Woodall, 45
Ch. D. 266.
As to amendment of originating summons, see Dan. 787 ; D. C. F. 499,
600.
Section II. — Proceedings under Judgment or Order.
1. Leave to attend Proceedings under Judgment or Order —
0. XVI, 47.
The applicant A. by his solrs alleging that he has a claim against
[or is interested in] the estate of the above-named testator [or intes-
tate] B., and that the Pits on the — obtained a judgment [or order]
for the admon of the estate of the testator [or intestate], that the said
A. hath not been served with a copy of the said judgment [or order],
and is desirous of having liberty to attend the proceedings under the
same, and upon reading the said judgment [or order], It is ordered
that the said A. be at liberty to attend the proceedings under the
said judgment [or order].
This would as a rule only be allowed at the applicant's own expense, and
such an order generally contains some special provision as to costs.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 542.
2. Classification Order — 0. Lv, 40.
Oeder that, for the purposes of the proceedings in Chambers,
under the judgment [or order] dated &c., Mr. X. [solicitor'] be
nominated to represent the class of [describe the classl.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 543.
3. Another Form.
Order that for the purposes of the future proceedings in this
action before the Judge in Chambers under the judgment dated &c.,
Mr. P. [solicitorl be nominated, in pursuance of 0. LV, 40, to represent
the following persons who are residuary legatees under the will of
D., that is to say &c. — Re Bocwra, D. v. Faith, V.-C. B. at Chambers,
17 July, 1884, A. 1468.
This order was altered and framed as it now stands by the Court of
Appeal.
4. Conduct of Action given to Pit in a prior Action.
Order that all further proceedings in the first action be stayed,
and that the costs of such action be costs in the second action. And
it is ordered that the conduct of the second action be committed to
the Pit in the first action — Costs of application to be included in
costs of the second action.
As to the conduct of admon proceedings, see Chap. XLIV., " Adminis-
TRAirON."
318 Chambers, and Proceedings under Judgment. [cH. xviii.
5. Order to hring in Acoounts and Answers to Inquiries
within a Time limited.
Order that the said (Deft) B. do within — ■ days after service
of this order [or on or before &c., or subsequently, within — days
after service of this order], leave in the Chambers of Mr. Justice N.,
situate &c., the following accounts and statements, duly verified by
affidavit, that is to say &c. [set out accounts and enquiries with numbers
from the judgment or order].
NOTES.
SERVICE OP JUDGMENT OR ORDER.
By 0. XVI, 40, " wherever, in any action for the admon of the estate
of a deceased person, or the execution of the trusts of any deed or instru-
ment, or for the partition or sale of any hereditaments, a judgment or an
order has been pronounced or made —
(a) Under 0. XV ;
(b) Under O. xxxm ;
(c) Affecting the rights or interests of persons not parties to the action ;
the Court or a Judge may direct that any persons interested in the estate or
under the trust or in the hereditaments, shall be served with notice of the
judgment or order ; and after such notice such person shall be bound by the
proceedings, in the same manner as if they had originally been made parties,
and shall be at liberty to attend the proceedings under the judgment or
order. Any person so served may, within one month after such service,
apply to the Court or Judge to discharge, vary, or add to the judgment or
order."
By r. 41, " it shall not be necessary for any person served with notice of
any judgment or order to obtain an order for liberty to attend the proceed-
ings under such judgment or order, but such person shall be at Uberty to
attend the proceedings upon entering an appearance in the Central Office
in the same manner, and subject to the same provisions, as a Deft entering
an appearance."
And as to leave to attend admon proceedings, see inf. Chap. XLIV.,
" Admikistration."
Where notice was served by Pits on a person not affected by the judg-
ment, he was held right in appearing, and Pits paid all costs in Court below
and Court of Appeal : Be Symons, Belts v. B., 54 L. T. 501 ; Dan. 811.
CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS.
By 0. XVI, 39, the Judge may give the conduct of the action or pro-
ceeing to such person as he may think fit.
As to the conduct of proceedings in admon actions, v. inf. Chap. XLIV.,
" Administration ; " and in the case of concurrent actions, inf. Chap.
XXXIV., " Transfer and Consolidation."
Where the conduct is taken away from one party and given to another,
the former will not be allowed costs of proceedings taken subsequent to the
date of the order, but before it is drawn up : Re Minter, Slater v. Callaway,
1881, W. N. 31.
SUMMONS TO PROCEED.
By 0. LV, 32, every judgment or order directing accounts or inquiries to
be taken or made is to be brought into Chambers by the party entitled to
prosecute the same within ten days after the same shall have been passed
and entered, and in default thereof any other party to the cause or matter
shall be at liberty to bring in the same, and such party shall have the prose-
cution of such judgment or order unless the Judge shall otherwise direct.
SECT. II. J Proceedings under Judgment or Order. 3 1 9
Upon the judgment or order being left, a summons to proceed (r. 33) is
to be issued, and upon its return the Judge, if satisfied by proper evidence
that all necessary parties have been served, will give directions as to the
manner of prosecuting the accounts and inquiries, the evidence to be
adduced, the parties who are to attend, and the time witliin which each
proceeding is to be taken, and will from time to time give any further neces-
sary directions.
Where the judgment or order directs a deed to be settled, the party en-
titled to prepare the draft deed is, on the return of the summons to proceed,
directed to deliver a copy of the draft to the party entitled to object thereto,
who is to deliver his objections, if any, within eight days, for which period
the proceeding is adjourned : r. 34.
By r. 35, the Judge may dispense with service of notice of the judgment
or order, or may direct substituted service.
If all necessary parties are not parties to the action, advertisements for
creditors may be issued, but no proceeding is to be taken until all necessary
parties are bound : r. 36.
The Master may decide all questions necessary under the inquiry :
Wadham v. Bigg, 2 Dr. & S. 78.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 540 ; and as to dispensing with
summons in ex parte or trifling cases, see Dan. 906, note.
PROCEDURE ON SUMMONS IN CHAMBERS.
By O. xxxvin, 1, the evidence on any summons may be given by affidavit,
subject to the deponents being ordered to be cross-examined on the applica-
tion of either party ; and as to giving evidence, see O. xxxvrt, 28, and
O. xxxvm, 20, 21.
By O. xxxm, 7, any directions for accounts or inquiries are to be num-
bered as in R. S. C, App. L., Form 28. The object of this order is that the
answers in the Master's certificate may be numbered to correspond. And
so directions for sale of estates ought to be numbered, but other directions
ought not. By O. xxxm, 8, in taking any account directed, all just allow-
ances are to be made, without any direction for that purpose in the judgment
or order.
It is not usual to send to Chambers an inquiry merely involving a point of
law : Sladen v. WUtting, V.-C. W., 26 April, 1860, Reg. Min. : but see
Prichard v. Norris, 10 Ha. lii ; Duffield v. Lenny, 1 W. R. 74 ; and mixed
questions of law and fact are often so sent.
By 0. xxxm, 2, the Court or a Judge may, at any stage of the pro-
ceedings, direct any necessary inquiries or accounts to be made or taken :
Dan. 486.
By O. LV, 40, the Judge may direct classes of persons to be represented by
one solr whom he may nominate ; and by r. 41, may require any parties to
be represented by distinct solrs. By 0. xxxm, 9, in case of delay, the
Judge may give directions for the better prosecution of the proceedings by
the official solr.
By O. LV, 37, the ordinary course of proceeding is to be as in Court on
motions. Copies, abstracts, or extracts of or from accounts, deeds, or other
documents and pedigrees, &c., are to be suppliedfor the use of the Judge and
Master, and, where so directed, copies are to be handed to the other parties ;
but no copies are to be made where the originals can be brought in, without
special directions.
0. xxxvm, 20, 21, relate to notice of using affidavits, and 0. xxxvn, 28,
relates to compelUng witnesses to attend.
By 0. xxxm, 4, accounts are to be verified by affidavit, and the items on
each side of the account to be numbered, and the account referred to as an
exhibit.
By O. xxxm, 6, notice of surcharging is to be given.
320 Chambers, and Proceedings under Judgment. [cH. xviii
Motion to
discharge
order.
Appeal.
O. Lv, 44 — 59, provide for advertisements, and the mode of making and
disposing of claims.
Under 0. lv, 73, notes are to be kept of all proceedings in Chambers ;
and by O. xxxvin, 11, any scandalous matter contained in any affidavit
may be struck out by the Judge with costs as between solr and client.
By 0. LI, 7, the Judge at Chambers may receive and act on the opinion of
the conveyancing counsel of the Court ; but (r. 8) any party may object to
such opinion, and the Judge may decide thereon in Court or at Chambers.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 50, every order made by a Judge in Chambers
(except orders by consent, or as to costs only, which by law are left to the
discretion of the Court, see sect. 49) may be set aside or discharged upon
notice by any Divisional Court, or by the Judge in Court, according to the
course and practice of the particular division, and no appeal shall lie from
any such order, to set aside or discharge which no such motion has been
made, unless by special leave of the Judge by whom such order was made,
or of the C. A.
The time for moving to discharge an order made in Chambers is (subject
to the discretion of the Judge) fourteen days, by analogy to 0. Lvrn, 15 ;
see Be Hardwidge, 52 L. T. 40 ; Be Munns and Longden, 50 L. T. 356 ; 32
W. R. 675 ; Heathy v. Newton, 19 Ch. D. 326 ; Be Lewis, L. v. Williams,
31 Ch. D. 623, C. A. ; 54 L. T. 198. And the rule is the same whether the
order be final or interlocutory : Be Johnson, Manchester and Liverpool
Banking Co. v. Beales, 42 Ch. D. 505.
The Court will, as far as possible, discourage inotions to discharge orders
made in Chambers : Boake v. Stevenson, [1895] 1 Ch. 358.
As to appeals from orders made in Chambers, see Chap. XXXVI.,
" Appeals," pp. 820 et seq.
COSTS OF PROCEEDINGS IN CHAMBEES.
By O. Lxv, 27 (12), costs of proceedings in Chambers on the higher scale
may be allowed on account of the difficulty of the case, &c.
By r. 27 (13), parties may be made to pay costs caused by their own
neglect or non-attendance, and are not to be allowed to charge such costs.
By r. 27 (16), no costs of counsel attending in Chambers are to be allowed,
unless the Judge certifies it to be a proper case, and this rule has been held to
apply to solr and client taxations in Q. B. D. : Be Chapman, 9 Q. B. D. 254 ;
10 Q. B. D. 54, C. A. ; but as to Ch. D., see O. lv, r. la, sup. p. 309.
By r. 27 (23), a party appearing upon any application in Court or at
Chambers, in which he is not interested, or upon which, according to the
practice of the Court, he ought not to attend, is not to be allowed the costs
\vithout express direction. Persons attending proceedings in Chambers
under the common order without special leave may be ordered not only to
bear their own costs, but to pay the extra costs occasioned by their un-
necessary attendance : see Sharp v. Lush, 10 Ch. D. 468 ; Be Marshall,
Bowyer v. M., 1879, W. N. 12.
Mere liberty to attend proceedings in Chambers does not entitle the
persons having such liberty to their costs of attendance as a matter of
course ; and to entitle them to such costs the order giving liberty to attend
should make express provision to that effect : Day v. Batty, 21 Ch. D. 830.
By r. 27 (24), the costs of only one application for further time are to be
allowed without special order.
As to costs of creditors establishing their debts in Chambers under any
judgment or order, see O. lv, 58.
A claimant failing in Chambers to make out his claim may be ordered to
pay costs : Be Knight, 57 L. T. 238 ; Hatch v. Searles, 2 S. & G. 157, L. JJ.,
16 Nov. 1854, B. 106 ; though not applied for at the time : Yeomans v.
Haynes, 24 Beav. 127 ; Colyer v. C, 10 W. R. 748.
As to costs of proceedings in Chambers generally, see Dan. 811 et seq. ;
Lister v. Bell, 5 Jur. N. S. 115 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 162 ; Halliley v. Henderson,
SECT. III.] Review of Certificate. 321
4 Jur. N. S. 202. By 0. LXV, 20, 21, the Master is, on the taxing master's
request, to transmit to him any books, papers, or documents relating to
the proceedings.
Costs of action include the costs of properly working out the judgment :
Krehl V. Park, 10 Ch. 334, sup. pp. 243—245.
See as to practice of giving leave to creditors to attend at their own
expense, Be Schwabacher, [1907] 1 Ch. 719.
Section III. — Eeview of Certificate.
1. Order to review Certificate.
Order that the Master's said certificate, dated &c. [If as to part
only, as to that part which is contained in the — paragraph thereof,
or, so far as it is thereby certified that &c.] be reviewed.
2. Where Certificate varied without referring hach to Chambers
— 0. LV, 71.
This Court being of opinion that &c., doth order that the Master's
said certificate be varied so far as the same certifies that &c., and that
the said certificate, as varied, be as follows &c.
master's CEETmCATB.
For the form of Master's certificate, see R. S. C. App. L. Form No. 10 ; Form,
p. C. F. 704 et seq.
By 0. LV, 65, the result of the proceedings is to be stated in the shape of
a certificate, which is to be signed by the Master, and, unless an order to
discharge or vary is made, is to be deemed to be approved and adopted by
the Judge.
By r. 66, unless the circumstances require it, the judgment or order, or
any documents, or evidence, or reasons, are only to be referred to, and not
set out.
By r. 68, where an account is directed, the certificate is to state the
result, not set it out by schedule, but refer to the account verified by the
affidavit filed, and specify by number any items disallowed or varied, and
any additions by surcharge, and, if necessary, a fair transcript is to be
made ; the accounts and transcripts, if any, are to be filed with the certi-
ficate.
Special circumstances may be stated without a direction to that effect in
the judgment or order : Dan. 935.
If the Judge shall so direct, the certificate shall be prepared by the solr of
one of the parties, who shall obtain an appointment to settle the certificate
and give notice to the other parties : r. 66a.
By r. 69, any person may, before the proceedings before the Master are
concluded, take the opinion of the Judge.
By r. 70, the certificate is to be filed at the Central Office, and shall Filing,
thenceforth be binding on all parties to the proceedings, unless discharged
or varied upon application made before the expiration of eight clear days
after filing.
The certificate is not an order for payment of money within the 1 & 2 V.
c. 110, s. 18, so 3,s to make a sum certified to be due carry interests E.
Mansfield v. Ogk, 4 D. & J. 38.
VOL. I. Y
322
Chambers, and Proceedings under Judgment. [cH. xviii.
Extending
time.
As to prosecuting judgments or orders during any vacation, see 0.
LXTTT, 13, 14.
Summons By O. LV, 70, the time within which an application may be made by
to vary. summons to discharge or vary any certificate is eight clear days after the
filing of such certificate. But in the case of certificates to be acted on by
the Paymaster, without further order, or certificates on passing receivers'
accounts, the time limited is two clear days.
A party who has not taken out a summons to vary the certificate cannot
dispute it : Smith v. Armstrong, 6 D. M. & G. 150 ; Jaquet y.J.,7 W. R.
543 ; Mackintosh v. 6?. W. Ry., 4 Giff. 683 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 681 ; 29 L. J. Ch.
283 ; 1 L. T. 113 ; Lambe v. OrUm, 6 Jur. N. S. 61 ; 8 W. R. Ill ; even as
to matters appearing on the record : Leigh v. Turner, 14 W. R. 361 ; 14
L. T. 8.
A motion for payment into Court of money found due by the certificate
should not be made until the eight days have expired : Douthwaite v.
Hensley, 18 Beav. 74 ; and motion for leave to receiver to distrain for rent
fixed by the certificate was adjourned to come on with a summons to vary
the finding : Craven v. Ingham, 58 L. T. 486 ; 1888, W. N. 83.
Leave to apply after the time has expired will be granted only under
special circumstances : Howell v. Keightley, 3 D. M. & G. 325 ; Aspinall
V. Bourne, 29 Beav. 462 ; Smith v. Armstrong, 6 D. M. & G. 160 ; Re
Brier, 26 Ch. D. 238. Leave was refused where Pit allowed time to elapse
in reliance on another appointment to sign the certificate being made : Be
Ingham, 1896, W. N. 12 ; 74 L. T. 21.
Where by a slip the cause was set down on further consideration without
a summons to vary the certificate being taken out, notice of motion was
allowed to be given after the time : Ashton v. Wood, 8 D. M. & G. 698.
In the winding up of a co. the certificate found a large sum due to certain
policy-holders ; and a summons to vary the certificate, though not taken
out till six months afterwards, when a call was about to be made, was
allowed to be heard : In re Arthur Average Association, 10 Ch. 545, 562.
By r. 71, if the special circumstances require it, a certificate may, upon
an application by motion or summons, be discharged or varied at any time.
A summons to vary the certificate usually comes on for hearing with the
further consideration. Where the rights of the parties on any point require
to be immediately dealt with, a separate certificate is sometimes obtained
from the Master.
Where the application to vary a certificate is by summons, which is the
more usual way (see D. C. F. 711, note), it will be disposed of in Chambers
or adjourned into Court, according to circumstances. If the cause is
about to come on for further consideration, and the application to vary
the certificate involves any point requiring to be argued by counsel, the
summons is usually adjourned into Court to come on with the cause : see
Mackintosh v. G. W. By., 4 Gift. 683 ; Cooper v. Everett, 2 W. R. 388 ;
Hudson V. Carmichael, 18 Jur. 851 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 893 ; see 1 Kay, 613 ;
2 W. R. 503. It is set down in the cause book upon a note from the Master
for that purpose, and is placed in the paper for hearing with the cause.
Notice of the summons having been so set down must be given by the solr
of the applicant to the solrs of the other parties. If the cause is not about
to come on for further consideration, the application by summons to vary
the certificate will either be disposed of by the Judge in Chambers, or if
any of the parties desire to have it argued in Court, the summons will be
adjourned into Court without discussion, and placed in the paper for hearing
by the registrar on a note from the Master. An application to vary the
Master's certificate cannot be made on the hearing on further consideration
unless a summons has been taken out for that purpose : Be Dove, Bousfield
V. D., 27 Ch. D. 687.
Evidence. Upon a summons to vary, the Court will regard only the evidence entered
in the certificate as that upon which the finding is based ; but where the
finding was not warranted by the evidence, and further evidence was
Hearing on
further con-
sideration.
SECT. iii.J Review of Certificate. 323
adduced, the Court dealt with the matter on the whole evidence instead of
sending it back to Chambers : Re Miller, Chapman v. M., 58 L. J. Ch. 728 ;
60 L. T. 634.
Upon a summons to vary the certificate it is competent for the Judge in Reversing
Court to reconsider and reverse the decision of another Judge in Chambers : decision of
HewUngs v. Oraham, 70 L. J. Ch. 568. Judge in
An irregularity in the certificate may be waived by attending to settle it Chambers,
with knowledge of the irregularity : Buckeridge v. Whalley, 23 W. R. 224. Waiver of
Where a certificate has been discharged for irregularity, a summons to irregularity,
proceed must be taken out on the original judgment and not on the order Procedure
discharging the certificate : Cross v. Malfby, 8 W. R. 646. subsequently.
The physical act of varying the Master's certificate, by striking out and
altering portions of the original, will not be ordered : Fox v. Bearhloch (2),
30 W. R. 119, 342 ; 1881, W. N. 159 ; 1882, Ih. 9.
As to proceedings to vary Master's certificate, see D. C. F. 710, 711;
Dan. 937 et seq.
( 324 ) [chap. XIX.
CHAPTER XIX.
SALES BY THE COURT.
Section I. — Proceedings up to Certificate.
1. Order far Sale by the Court of Uninewmhered Estate — 0. Li, 3.
Order that a sufficient part of the real estate of the above-named
testator, or intestate, A., to make good the deficiency of his personal
estate, or, if necessary, the whole thereof, be sold with the approba-
tion of the Judge ; And it is ordered that the money to arise by such
sale be paid into Court to the credit of this action &c., " Proceeds
of sale of [testator's, or intestate's] real estate."
As to opening separate accounts of the sale proceeds, and for leave to
apply at Chambers for their distribution, see Chap. XLIV., " Adminis-
tration."
For orders for sale free from or subject to incumbrances, see ibid.
2. Leave to hid.
Order that the Pit \or Deft, or any of the parties not having the
conduct of the sale] be at liberty to bid for and become the purchaser
at the sale of the estates directed to be sold by the judgment [or
order] dated the — day of — , or of any part thereof.
For an order allowing a Deft to be the purchaser, notwithstanding he
had not obtained leave to bid, see Heath v. Barlow, V.-C. H. at Chambers,
10 Jan. 1878, A. 45. For form of summons, see D. C. F. 645.
.3. Sale out of Court — 0. li, 1a.
The Judge being satisfied by the evidence aforesaid that all
persons interested in the estate to be sold are before the Court, or
are bound by this order, doth order that the estate in the said
judgment [or order] mentioned be sold out of Court subject to a
reserve price and the auctioneer's remuneration being fixed by the
Judge. And it is ordered that the money to arise by such sale be
paid into Court &c. — [Form 1, swp.]
See forms of orders for sales " out of Court," made under 0. li, la, in
Chap. XLVI., " Paetition and Sale," sect. 1 ; and in Chap. XLVIL,
" MoniGAOBS," sect. 1, pp. 1843 et seq. For form of summons, see D. C. F.
635.
SECT. I. J Proceedings up to Certificate. 325
4. Sale out of Court ly consent of Incumbrancers— Purchase-
money to come into Court.
The said A. and B. [incumbrancers] by their solr consenting, And
the Judge being satisfied, by the evidence aforesaid, that all persons
interested in the estate hereinafter authorized to be sold are before
the Court, or are bound by this order, It is ordered that C, the
receiver, be at liberty to sell forthwith out of Court by public auction
in one lot, the leasehold property of the Deft Corporation known
as &c., subject to a reserve price, and the auctioneer's remuneration
being fixed by the Judge ; And it is ordered that the purchaser be
at liberty to pay his deposit to the said receiver ; And it is ordered
that the receiver do, within fourteen days after the receipt thereof,
lodge the same in Court, as directed in the schedule hereto ; And it
is ordered that the balance of the purchase-money be paid into
Court to the credit of this action, B. v. K., subject to further
order. And it is ordered that the following etc., 1. An account of
what is due to the incumbrancers in respect of their incumbrances.
Apply proceeds of sale in first place in payment of what shall
appear due to incumbrancers. — [Add Lodgment Schedule for receiver
to lodge deposit, No. 3, p. 201.] — Brodie v. Kilmorey, Kay, J., at
Chambers, 13 Nov. 1889, A. 2553.
5. Order to sell four-fifths of Leasehold, or, by consent of Party
interested, to join in selling the whole.
Order that the four undivided fifth parts of the leasehold estate
at P., in the second schedule to the Master's certificate stated to form
part of the testator's personal estate now outstanding, be sold,
together with the other undivided fifth part thereof belonging to
the Deft S., in case she shall consent to join in such sale in respect of
her said one-fifth, with the approbation of the Judge ; And in that
case, it is ordered that one-fifth part of the money to arise by the
said sale be received by the Deft S., and the other four-fifth parts
thereof be paid into Court &c., to the credit of this action &c. " Pro-
ceeds of testator's leasehold estate at P." ; But if the Deft S. shall
not consent to join in such sale as regards her said one-fifth, then it
is ordered that the testator's said four undivided fifth parts be sold,
with the approbation of the Judge ; And it is ordered that the money
to arise by such sale be paid into Court to the same credit. — Smith v.
S., M. R., 16 Mar. 1857, B. 973.
For order for sale of remaining nine months of a 200 years' term (granted
in March, 1662) on bill of a c. q. L, with leave for cs. q. t. to bid, and advertise-
ment for reversioner, see Edwardu v. L. Foley, M. R., 22 July, 1861, A.
1963 ; 7 Jut. N. S. 1268.
326
Sales by the Court.
[chap. XIX.
6. Order to sell a Diamond Ring.
Order that the diamond ring in the pleadings mentioned be sold
with the approbation of the Judge, by a proper person to be appointed
by the Judge, on his first giving security ; And it is ordered that the
person so to be appointed (and to be named in the Master's certificate),
do receive the money to arise by such sale, and, after deducting what
shall be allowed by the Judge for the expenses attending the same,
within fourteen days after such sale, lodge the residue of what he
shall so receive in Court, as directed in the schedule hereto ; Liberty
to apply.
[Insert in Lodgment Schedule.)
Residue of money to arise by
sale after deducting expenses
in this order mentioned.
Person to be named in Master's
certificate.
—See Kaye v. Harvey, V.-C. K., 5 Dec. 1861, A. 2204.
For order under O. l, 2, on " just and sufScient reason," for the sale of a
horse, without prejudice to the rights of the parties as to any question in
the action, see Bartholomew v. Freeman, 3 C. P. D. 316.
7. Order to carry into effect conditional Contract of Sale.
Order that the conditional contract, dated &c., entered into
between A. of the one part, and B. of the other part, for the sale to
the said B . , at the sum of £ — , of the hereditaments thereiu mentioned,
beiag (part of) the estates directed to be sold by the judgment [or
order] dated &c., be carried into efiect.
If there has been no order for sale, the above order should be prefaced
with a direction that the property be sold with the approbation of the
Judge.
Where there are several contracts they may be specified in a schedule.
Where the purchaser appears and accepts the title, directions to pay in
and complete may be added to the order confirming the contract : see
Leach v. Westall, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 18 Jan. 1870, B. 143 ; but where
the purchaser does not appear he may be given Uberty to lodge the purchase
money in Court.
For order to carry a contract into effect, notwithstanding the fact that
the purchaser was specially interested and a Deft, see Chaplin v. Rickards,
V.-C. M. at Chambers, 1 Aug. 1878, A. 2545.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 675.
8. The lihe — with Variation in Price.
The said A. [the purchaser] by his solrs consenting, It is ordered
that the conditional contract, dated &c., be varied by &c., and as
so varied, be carried into effect.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 676.
For order to carry into efiect a contract for sale at a reduced price of so
much of the hereditaments as had not, subsequently to the date of the
contract, been taken by a railway co., see Burgess v. B., 1 Feb. 1877, A. 559.
SECT. I.J Proceedings up to Certificate 327
9. Payment into Court of Part of Purchase-money of Land
charged with an Annuity — Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 5.
Order that the said A. and B. do lodge in Court, as directed in
the schedule hereto, £1,500 ; And it is ordered that the said A. C.
and F. C, as trustees of the will of the testator E., do out of the estate
of the testator pay to the said G. B. {the purchaser) his costs of this
application, to be taxed by the taxing master, and out of income pay
to A. B. all expenses incurred by her by reason of the annuity fund
being transferred into Court ; — Declare that upon the lodgment
in Court, and payment of the said costs and expenses, the parties
will be at liberty to apply that the hereditaments comprised in the
contract dated &c., made between A. C. and P. C, as vendors and
G. B. as purchaser, may be declared free from the capital sum of
£700 and the annuity of £30 payable to A. B. during her life. And
it is ordered that the funds to be lodged be dealt with as directed
in the said schedule.— [Add Lodgment and Payment Schedule
directing lodgment of £1,500, and investment and payment out of
interest of £30 per annum to A. B., and residue of interest to A. C.
and F. C.]—Ee Culler's Contract, Kay, J., at Chambers, 30 Nov. 1888,
A. 2872.
For form of application, see D. C. ¥. 1224.
As to dispensing with service on vendor or purchaser of notice under
s. 69 of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, see Conveyancing Act, 1911, s. 1.
10. Inquiry as to Abatement in Purchase-money.
Declare that the applicant is entitled to have compensation in
respect of its having been stated in the particulars of sale of the
chief rents and property comprised in such contract that the lands
out of which the chief rents were reserved were subject to over-
riding chief rents of £23 17s. and £47 14s. respectively, whereas such
lands were and are in fact also subject to an overriding rent of
£413 6s. 6d. And order that the following inquiry be made, that
is to say : — 1. An inquiry what allowance ought to be made to the
applicant by way of abatement from the purchase-money in respect
of its having been so stated as aforesaid ; And it is ordered that such
sum (if any) as shall be allowed to the applicant on the said inquiry
be deducted from the purchase-money agreed to be paid by him under
the said contract. — Re Buckley and Caton's Contract, Pearson, J.,
21 Feb. 1885, A. 226.
NOTES.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 34, all causes and matters involving the sale of real
estates are assigned to the Chancery Division of the High Court.
By the Court of Chancery Act, 1852 (15 & 16 V. c. 86), s. 55, the Court Jurisdiction
was empowered to order real estate to be sold at any time after the institu- to order sale
tion of a cause relating to real estate, where it appeared to be necessary or of real estate,
expedient that it should be sold for the purposes of the suit.
For the protection of property or other like cause, sales under the section
were made at any time with the same effect as on the hearing : see Tvlloch
328
Sales by the Court.
[chap. XIX,
Debenture
holders'
action.
roreolosrure
and redemp-
tion actions.
V. T., 3 Eq. 574 ; Heath v. Fisher, 17 W. R. 69 ; 19 L. T. 805 ; 38 L. J. Ch.
14 ; Bell V. Turner, 2 Ch. D. 411 ; on showing a case upon which such an
order would be made at the trial : Davis v. Ashwin, 47 L. J. Ch. 70 ; 26
W. R. 139 ; Mandeno v. M., Kay, ii.
By O. LI, 1 (which has been substituted for the repealed Act, 15 & 16 V. c.
86, s. 55), " if in any cause or matter relating to any real estate it shall appear
necessary or expedient that the real estate or any part thereof should be
sold, the Court or a Judge may order the same to be sold, and any party
bound by the order and in possession of the estate, or in receipt of the rents
and profits thereof, shall be compelled to deliver up such possession or
receipt to the purchaser, or such other person as may be thereby directed."
It has been held that the rule does not give the Court any power to direct
a sale where it had none previously ; and that, notwithstanding the omission
in the rule of the words " for the purposes of the suit," contained in the
repealed section, a sale of real estate can only be ordered when necessary or
expedient for the purposes of the particular action : Be Bobinson, Piclard
V. Wheater, 31 Ch. D. 247. The words were held to show that the section
applied only to admon suits : London and County Bank v. Dover, 1 1 Ch. D.
204 ; but in Davis v. Ashwin, 47 L. J. Ch. 70 ; 26 W. R. 139, an order for
sale was made on the application of debenture holders. See now 0. Li, lb,
inf. p. 328.
An action to administer personal estate and rents and profits of real estate
is not a " cause or matter relating to any real estate " within the rule : Be
Staines, S. v. S., 33 Ch. D. 172.
The order was made on the application of persons beneficially interested
under a trust for sale, pending an inquiry and before certificate : Martin v.
Hadlow, 1 W. R. 101 ; even where infants were interested : Mandeno v. if.,
sup. ; Hears v. Best, 10 Ha. li ; but not when the object was to obtain a
decision of the material question before the hearing : Prince v. Cooper,
16 Beav. 546 ; nor in an admon action against the will of a person bene-
ficially interested who submitted to pay his share of the costs for raising
which the sale was proposed : Lees v. L., 15 Eq. 150.
By O. LI, lb, " In debenture holders' actions, where the debenture holders
are entitled to a charge by virtue of the debentures, or of a trust deed, or
otherwise, and the Pit is suing on behalf of himself and other debenture
holders, and where the Judge in person is of opinion that there must even-
tually be a sale, he may in his discretion direct a sale before judgment, and
also after judgment, before all the persons interested are ascertained,
whether served or not." See Be Day and Night Advertising Co., 48 W. R.
362.
Where the property comprised in debentures is in jeopardy, an imme-
diate sale will be ordered on motion for judgment on admissions in the
pleadings, but unless all the debenture holders subsequent to the Pits are
parties to the action, the order will be for sale with the approbation of the
Judge, so that absent debenture holders may appear in Chambers on the
application to approve the conditional contract for sale : Be Crigglestone
Coal Co., [1906] 1 Ch. 523.
By 15 & 16' V. c. 86, a. 48, the Court was empowered to direct a sale
instead of a foreclosure of mortgaged property, and now by the Con-
veyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 V. c. 41), s. 25, (1) any person entitled to
redeem mortgaged property may have an order for sale, and (2) in any
action for foreclosure, redemption, sale or raising and payment of mortgage
money, on the request of the mortgagee, or of any person interested in the
mortgage money or right of redemption, and notwithstanding the dissent
of any other person, and that the mortgagee or any other person interested
does not appear, and without allowing any time for redemption or payment
of mortgage money, the Court may direct a sale on such terms as it thinks
fit, including deposit in Court of a reasonable sum fixed by the Court to
meet expenses of sale, and secure performance of the terms ; but (3) in an
action by a person interested in the right of redemption, the Court may, on
SECT. I.] Proceedings up to Certificate, 329
the application of any Deft, direct the Pit to give security for costs, and
give the conduct of the sale to any Deft, and give directions respecting the
Deft's costs ; and (4) a sale may be ordered without previously determining
priorities of incumbrancers ; 3.rA(Woolhy v. Colman, 21 Ch. D. 169) at any
stage of a redemption action. As to sales generally in actions for fore-
closure and redemption, and as to orders under the Judgment Law Amend-
ment Act, 1864, on the application of judgment creditors for the sale of
their debtor's interest in lands delivered to them in execution by virtue of
the judgment, see inf. Chap. XLVII., " Mortgages " ; and as to sales in
lieu of partition under the Partition Acts, Chap. XLVI., " Paktition."
As to the procedure by originating summons under 0. LV, 5a, b, v. sup.
Chap. XVIII., p. 613.
Power is also given by 0. l, 2, for the Court or a Judge, on the application Personal
of any party to any action, to make any order for the sale, by any person estate,
named in the order, in such manner, &c., as may seem desirable, of any
goods, wares, or merchandise of a perishable nature or likely to injure from
keeping, or which for any other just and sufficient reason it may be desirable
to have sold at once : see Bartholomew v. Freeman, 3 C. P. D. 316 ; and,
upon admission of the facts in the pleadings, an immediate sale of Florida
State bonds was directed under O. xxxn, 6 : see Coddington v. Jacksonville,
dkc. Sail. Co., 39 L. T. 12 ; C. A., 27 Mar. 1878, A. 1232 ; and a sale of a
foreign ship has been ordered : The Hercules, 1 1 P. D. 10 ; and shares in a
limited company are " goods, wares, or merchandise " within O. l, 2 :
Evans v. Davies, [1893] 2 Ch. 216.
By O. LI, 3, a sale of property under an order of the Court, unless other- Mode of sale,
wise ordered, is to be \vith the approbation of the Judge, to the best
purchaser that can be got, the same to be allowed by the Judge, and all
proper parties are to join in the sale and conveyance as the Judge shall
direct.
Although the usual practice in Chambers is to direct a sale in the ordinary
way by an auctioneer, the property may still be sold by auction before the
Master : see Pemberton v. Barnes, 13 Eq. 349 ; Waterhouse v. Wilkinson,
1 H. & M. 636 ; Sugd. V. & P. 98 ; Dart, V. & P. 1151.
PABTIOULAES AND CONDITIONS.
By O. lii, 7, " the Court or a Judge may refer to the conveyancing counsel Conveyancing
of the Court any matter relating to the investigation of the title to an estate counsel,
with a view to an investment of money in the purchase or on mortgage
thereof, or with a view to a sale thereof, or to the settlement of a draft of a
conveyance, mortgage, settlement, or other instrument, or any other matter
which the Court or Judge may think fit to refer, and may receive and act .
upon the opinion given."
By O. LI, 2, before a sale by the Court an abstract of the title is, unless Abstract
otherwise ordered, to be laid before a conveyancing counsel for his opinion, of title,
to enable the Court to give the necessary directions respecting the con-
ditions, and other matters connected with the sale ; and a time for delivery
of the abstract is to be specified in the conditions ; but the Court has dis-
cretion to dispense with his assistance : see Oibson v. Woollard, 5 D. M. & G.
835 ; Re Jones, 1 Jur. N. S. 817 ; Balph v. Horton, 19 W. R. 220.
When the Court or a Judge in Chambers has directed the abstract to be
laid before one of the conveyancing counsel, a short memorandum of the
direction is prepared by the registrar if given in Court, or by the Master if
given in Chambers, and the party prosecuting the direction, or his solr, takes
the memorandum to the I'egistrar's clerk, who names the conveyancing
counsel in rotation (ascertained by ballot) in a note at the foot, and that
memorandum when left with the counsel is a sufficient authority for him to
act : see O. li, 9 — 13.
The conveyancing counsel must, as between vendor and purchaser, be
treated as the agent of the vendor : Be Banister, Broad v. Munton, 12 Ch. D.
131, C, A.
330
Sales by the Court.
[chap. XIX.
Conditions
of sale.
Reserve
bidding.
Misleading
conditions.
As to allowing the costs of a private counsel, in addition to the convey-
ancing counsel of the Court, in advising upon the title, see Be Jones' Estate,
6 W. R. 762, 614 ; 31 L. T. O. S. 291 ; O. lxv, 22 ; and sup. Chap. XVII.,
" Costs."
The formal conditions are prepared by the solr of the party having the
conduct of the sale, and are, together with the abstract and memorandum of
reference, laid before the conveyancing counsel, by whom the special con-
ditions are prepared and settled.
For the ordinary conditions of sale as to an estate sold under an order of
the Ch. D., see R. S. C, App. L. Form 15.
It is the practice in sales by the Court to fix a reserved bidding for each
lot : see Dart, V. & P. 1 165 ; and see Re Peyton, 10 W. R. 515, that a power
of sale given to trustees authorizes them to fix a reserved bidding.
Affidavits for the purpose of enabling the Judge to fix reserved biddings
are to state the value of the property by reference to an exhibit, so that the
value may not be disclosed by the affidavit when filed : 0. ii, 4.
By the Sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867 (30 & 31 V. c. 48), s. 5, the
particulars or conditions of sale must state whether the land will be sold
without reserve or subject to a reserved price, or whether a right to bid is
reserved.
Where, therefore, the particulars merely state that the sale is subject to a
reserved bidding, the employment of a person to bid up to the reserved price
is illegal: Oilliat v. G., 9 Bq. 60; and see as to the former practice in
Equity, Mortimer v. Bell, 1 Ch. 10 ; et. v. inf. Chap. L., " Specific Pbr-
, FOKMANCE."
Where the fact that there is a reserve is known, the fact that the
auctioneer knocks down the article to a bidder who has bid a less price
than the reserve, gives the latter no right of action against the auctioneer :
McManus v. Fmtescue, [1907] 2 K. B. 1.
The Court will not knowingly pass ofi a bad title by the aid of special or
misleading conditions : Else v. E., 13 Eq. 196 ; Williams v. Wood, 16 W. R.
1005 ; Bennett v. Wheeler, 1 Ir. Ch. 18 ; Bume v. Bentley, 5 D. & S. 527 ; Be
National Prov. Bk. and Marsh, [1895] 1 Ch. 190 ; Be Scott and Alvarez, [1895]
2 Ch. 603, C. A. ; Dart, V. & P. 1164 ; and a purchaser cannot be required
to assume what is known to be untrue ; but where the conditions on the
face of them purport to give only a good holding title, the purchaser, on
being relieved from them, is not entitled to have more than a good holding
title : Re Banister, Broad v. Munton, 12 Ch. D. 131.
And generally as to the preparation of conditions and particulars of sale,
see Dart, V. & P. 118, 1163 ; Dav. Conv., vol. i. pp. 415 et seq. ; and for
forms, Ih. 518 et seq. ; Prid. 136 et seq.
As soon as the particulars and conditions of sale settled at Chambers
have been printed, two prints certified by the solr to be correct prints of the
particulars, &c., as settled at Chambers, are to be left there : O. li, 5.
For the practice preliminary to and at the auction, see Dan. 875 et seq. ;
Dart, V. & P. 1163 et seq. ; Sugd. V. & P. 94^99 ; Dav. Conv., vol. i. 499.
CONDUCT OP SALE.
The cond,uct of the sale has (except in oases of admon, where the property
ordered to be sold is vested in an exor, admor, or trustee) been usually given
to the Pit or other person having the carriage of the judgment : Knott v.
CotUe, 27 Beav. 33 ; though but for the action he might not have been
entitled to interfere in the sale : DaU v. Hamilton, 10 Ha. vii. ; unless he
has leave to bid : Domville v. Berrington, 2 Y. & C. 723 ; Sidney v. Ranger,
12 Sim. 118. , V, ^., u «^
But the Court will give the conduct to another where a probable benefit,
by saving expense, &o., will result to the parties : Dixon v. Pyner, 7 Ha.
331 ; Knott v. Cottee, 27 Beav. 33 ; e.g., under 15 & 16 V. c. 86, s. 48, to
first mortgagee in a suit by puisne mortgagee : Hewitt v. Nanson, 7 W. R.
SECT. I.] Proceedings up to Certificate. 331
5 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 49 ; 32 L. T. O. S. 100 ; and in an action to foreclose an
equitable mortgage, the conduct was, in tlie absence of contest, given to the
Defts, because it was most to their interest to obtain the best price : Davies
V. Wright, 32 Ch. D. 220 ; and as they would alone be liable for the costs of
sale, they were not required, as was done in Woolley v. Colman, 21 Oh. D.
169, to give security. As a rule conduct is given to mortgagee, unless mort-
gagor will provide costs of sale and agree to a reserve sufficient to cover
mortgagee's principal, interest and costs.
By 0. L, 10, " whenever in an action for the admon of the estate of a
deceased person, or execution of the trusts of a written instrument, a sale is
ordered of any property vested in any exor, admor, or trustee, the conduct
of such sale shall be given to such exor, admor, or trustee, unless the Court
or a Judge shall otherwise direct."
If the sale directed is, as in the case of shares, to be made out of Court,
the trustee or exor is the proper person to have the conduct : Oobden v.
Maynard, 1 N. R. 354.
If the conduct of the sale has been given to some independent person,
neither Pit nor Deft, with liberty to bid, will be allowed to interfere by
advertising the sale, without leave of the Court : Dean v. Wilson, 10
Ch. D. 136.
The solr of the party having the conduct is considered, as between vendor
and purchaser, to be the agent of all parties to the sale : Dalhy v. Pullen,
1 Russ. & M. 296 ; Dale v. HamiUon, sup.
Every party having the title deeds is bound to facilitate the sale : Knott
v. Cottee, sup. ; Livesey v. Harding, 1 Beav. 343.
LEAVE TO BID.
In general, a party to the action will not be allowed to bid at the sale, or
become the purchaser without previously obtaining leave : Elworthy v.
Billing, 10 Sim. 98 ; but the sale will not necessarily be set aside because a
party to the action has without leave bid and become the purchaser : Wilson
V. Greenwood, lb. 101, n. ; and see Sidney v. Banger, 12 Sim. 118.
By the Partition Act, 1868, s. 6, on any sale under the Act the Court may
allow any of the parties interested in the property to bid at the sale on such
terms as to the Court seem reasonable.
For orders under this section, see Chap. XLVI., " Partition.'*
Leave to bid is sometimes contained in the judgment or order for sale, but
an order for that purpose is usually obtained at Chambers on notice to the
other parties.
Leave to bid will not in general be given to the party having the conduct
of the sale : DomviUe v. Berrington, 2 Y. & C. 723 ; Sidney v. Banger, sup. ;
and see Verrall v. Cathcart, 27 W. R. 645, where (not following Pennington
V. Dalbiac, 18 W. R. 684) leave to the party having the conduct of the sale
in a partition action was refused ;
— nor to an exor in an admon action : Geldard v. Bandall, 9 Jur. 1085 ;
and quwre whether to the solr for the exor : Coaks v. Boswell, 11 App. Cas.
232, 242, 245 ;
■ — nor to a receiver : Alvinev. Bond, 1 Flan. & K. 196 ; Nugent v. Nugent,
[1907] 2 Ch. 292 ; affirmed [1908] 1 Ch. 546.
— ^nor to a guardian ad litem : Dodson v. Bishop, V.-C. W. at Chambers,
29 May, 1862 ;
— ^nor to a trustee, unless all the cs. q. t. who are sui juris consent, and no
other purchaser at an adequate price can be found : Tennant v. Trenchard,
4 Ch. 537, 547 ; Farmer v. Dean, 32 Beav. 327 ; and see Lewin, 574.
Generally the solr of a party who cannot buy, is equally unable to buy ;
but where the client is at liberty to buy, his solr will not be disqualified
from buying by the mere fact of his name appearing on the particulars :
Quest V. Smythe, 5 Ch. 551.
As to the effect of leave to bid in putting an end to disability to purchase,
see Coaks v. Boswell, 11 App. Ca. 322, sup.
332 Sales hy the Court. [chap. xix.
CONSENT OF INCUMBRANCERS.
Consent. When the estate is subject to a mortgage or other incumbrance it cannot
be sold free therefrom unless the incumbrancer consents, and if a party, he
must elect at once whether it shall be so sold : Langton v. L., 1 Jur. N. S.
1078 ; Wickenden v. Bayson, 6 D. M. & G. 210.
An incumbrancer electing that the sale should be free from his incum-
brance was ordered to produce and leave the title deeds necessary for the
sale ; but notice was to be given to him before their delivery to the pur-
chaser : Livesey v. Harding, 1 Beav. 343.
Unless the estate has been ascertained to be free from incumbrances, the
order for sale usually directs a preliminary inquiry what incumbrances affect
it, and what are their priorities : v. inf. Chap. XLIV., " Administration,"
p. 1373 ; and the estate is ordered to be sold free from the incumbrances, if
any, of such of the incumbrancers as shall consent to the sale, and subject
to the incumbrances of such of them as shall not consent, leaving the incum-
brancers to consent at Chambers to the sale, if they think fit.
Payment into By the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 5, (1) where land subject to any
Court in dis- incumbrance is sold by or out of the Court, the Court is empowered, on the
charge. application of any party to the sale, to " direct or allow " payment into
Court, in case of an annual sum charged on the land, or of a capital sum
charged on a determinable interest in the land, of such amount as, when
invested in Government securities, will be sufficient by the dividends to
provide for that charge, " and in any other case of capital money charged
on the land, of the amount sufficient to meet the incumbrance and any
interest due thereon ; but in either case there shall also be paid into Court
such additional amount as the Court considers will be sufficient to meet
the contingency of further costs, expenses, and interest, and any other
contingency, except depreciation of investments, not exceeding one-tenth
part of the original amount to be paid in, unless the Court for special
reason thinks fit to require a larger additional amount." (2) Thereupon
the Court may, either after or without notice to the incumbrancer, declare the
land to be freed from the incumbrance, and make any order for conveyance,
or vesting order, proper for giving effect to the sale, and give directions for
the retention and investment of the money in Court. (3) After notice
served on the persons interested, the Court may direct payment or transfer
of the money or fund in Court to the persons entitled, and give directions re-
specting the application and distribution of the capital or income thereof.
The Court may dispense with service of any notice required by s. 69 of
this Act to be served on any purchaser or vendor : The Conveyancing
Act, 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5, c. 37), s. 1.
Applications under the section should be made in Chambers : Patching
V. Barneti, 30 W. R. 244 ; and see O. Lv, 2 (14). For forms, see D. C. F.
670, 671.
On an application under the section the Court will decide a question of
construction involving the determination of interests in future, if so to do is
necessary in order to ascertain what sum ought to be set aside to answer
incumbrances : Be Freme's Contract, [1895] 2 Ch. 256 ; lb. 778, C. A.
On a sale of land charged with legacies, where releases could not be pro-
cured from all the legatees, and the purchase-money largely exceeded the
incumbrances, the Court made an order under the section : Archdak v.
Anderson, 21 L. R. Ir. 627.
The Court will not (even if it can) oblige a vendor to pay money into
Court for the purpose of discharging an incumbrance, where so to do would
inflict great hardship ; e.gr. , where the amount necessary to procure discharge
of a rent-charge far exceeded the amount of the purchase-money : Be
G. N. Bail. Co. & Sanderson, 25 Ch. D. 788 ; and (semhle) the words " direct
or allow " apply respectively to sales by and out of Court : Ibid.
DEPOSIT.
The ordinary conditions of sale provide that the purchaser is at the time
SECT. I.] Proceedings up to Certificate. 333
of sale to pay a deposit on the amount of his purchase-money to the person
appointed by the Judge to receive it.
The person appointed to receive the deposit is usually required to enter
into a recognizance with one or more sureties duly to account for and pay
what he may receive. From the expense of giving security it is not
often required on the sale of small properties, or where the parties being
all swi juris agree to waive it : see Dan. 880. For form of recognizance,
see D. C. F. 646 seq.
Where a deposit has been received at the sale the certificate appoints a
day for its payment into Court without further order ; and the recipient
making default in paying it in may be compelled, by an order to be obtained
at Chambers on summons, to pay it in within a limited time.
Auctioneers were held justified in handing over deposit, less their charges,
to the vendor's solr, he, and not they, being the proper person to pay it
into Court : Brown v. Farebrother, 58 L. J. Ch. 3 ; 59 L. T. 822.
SAtB OUT OF COURT.
By O. LI, la, " in all cases where a sale, mortgage, partition, or exchange
is ordered, the Court or a Judge shall have power, in addition to the powers
already existing, with a view to avoiding expense or delay, or for other good
reason, to authorize the same to be carried out, either as at present (a) by
laying proposals before the Judge in Chambers for. his sanction ; or (b) by
proceedings altogether out of Court, any moneys produced thereby being
paid into Court or to trustees, or otherwise dealt with as the Judge in
Chambers may order. Provided that the Judge shall not authorize the
said proceedings altogether out of Court, unless and until he is satisfied, by
such evidence as he shall deem sufficient, that all persons interested in the
estate to be sold, mortgaged, or exchanged, are before the Court, or are
bound by the order for sale, mortgage, partition, or exchange, and every
order authorizing the said proceedings altogether out of Court shall be pre-
faced by a declaration that the Judge is so satisfied as aforesaid, and a
statement of the evidence upon which such declaration is made." For
O. LI, 1 (b), V. sup. p. 328.
Kay, J., in directing a sale out of Court, required that the reserved bid
and the auctioneer's remuneration be fixed by the Master, and the purchase-
money paid directly into Court : Pitt v. White, 57 L. T. 659 ; Re Stedman,
58 L. T. 709.
Where at an auction a stranger, having no intention to buy, made
several biddings, and ran up the price, the vendors, having no knowledge
of these dishonest biddings, were able to enforce the contract : Union
Bank of London v. Munster, 37 Ch. D. 61 ; 36 W. R. 72.
Where infants were interested, the Court required the allegations in the
claim to be verified by affidavit : Willis v. W., 38 W. R. 7 ? 61 L. T.
610.
SALE BY PEIVATE CONTRACT.
Under a judgment for sale, the sale is as a rule by public auction ; but
proposals may be carried in for sale by private contract : O. li, la. An
advantageous offer will be at once accepted : Dowle v. Lucy, 4 Ha. 311 ;
and without inquiry in Cliambers, if the evidence is satisfactory : Pimm
V. Insall, 10 Ha. Ixxiv. ; Dart, V. & P. 1151.
Property, which the Pit was authorized to sell by auction, could not,
after an attempt, which failed, to sell in that way, be sold by tender in
Chambers, without an express order to that effect : Berry v. Qibbons, 25
Eq. 150 ; but where the sale by auction which failed was one of the terms
of a compromise which had been sanctioned by the Court, and was not
pursuant to any actual direction, a subsequent sale by- private contract was
not invalid : Bousfield v. Hodges, 33 Beav. 90. Purchaser in
As to the duty of a person in a fiduciary position purchasing property fiduciary
which is being sold under the direction of the Court to make fair disclosure position.
334
Sales hy the Court.
[chap, xis
Time for cer-
tifying.
Filing certifi-
cate.
Loss to pro-
perty before
certificate
filed.
Loss after cer
tificate filed.
Opening bid-
dings.
of information in his possession, and that it does not follow that because
information on some material point is offered or given on request by the
purchaser, it must therefore be given on all others, as to which it is neither
offered nor requested, and concerning which there is no implied repre-
sentation, positive or negative, direct or indirect, in what is actually
stated, see Cooks v. Boswell, 11 App. Ca. 232 ; rev. 8. C, 27 Ch. D. 424,
C. A.
CBKTIFYING RESULT.
The ordinary conditions of sale (see R. S. C, App. L. 15) fix a time at
which the Master will proceed to certify the result of the sale when the
purchaser or his solrs may attend. Por forms, see D. 0. P. 652 et seq.
By O. LI, 6a, the particulars of sale are to be signed by, and the result
of the sale certified under the hands of the auctioneer and the solr of the
party having the conduct of the sale, and it is not necessary to file any
afiidavit verifying the particulars or the result of the sale. See Dan. 883.
Such certificate, with the particulars and bidding paper, which are to be
referred to therein (see Porm 16, R. S. C. App. L., as substituted by r. 6a),
are to be left at Chambers at least a clear day before the day appointed for
settling the Master's certificate : O. li, 6.
As to preparing and signing the certificate, see 0. lv, 66a and 67, sup.
Chap. XVIII., " Chambers " ; and it need not be signed by the Judge ;
and unless an order to discharge or vary the certificate is made, is to be
deemed to be approved and adopted by the Judge : r. 65.
The certificate is transmitted by the Master to the Central Ofiice to be
there filed, and thenceforth becomes binding on all parties to the pro-
ceedings, unless discharged or varied on application by summons, within
eight clear days after the filing ; subject to the power of the Court, on
motion or summons, to open any such certificate at any time after the
same has become binding : 0. lv, 70, 71 ; and see Bridger v. Penfold, 1
K. & J. 28 ; Barlow v. Osborne, 6 H. L. C. 556.
Prior to the Sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867 (see inf.), until the certifi-
cate became binding, the highest bidder had not become the purchaser
with the rights or liabiUties of an owner ; and any loss to the property by
fire or otherwise fell on the vendor : Exp. Minor, 11 Ves. 559 ; Tivigg v.
Fifield, 13 Ves. 518 ; and see Palmer v. Ooren, 4 W. R. 688. Whether
since the Act the purchaser's position before certificate is so altered as to
give him all the rights and liabilities of equitable owner is not free from
doubt.
After the certificate becomes binding, any loss arising from accident,
without fault of the vendor, falls on the purchaser, who is regarded in
equity as the owner : Robertson v. Skelton, 12 Beav. 260 ; and the sale
may be enforced against his represve, though not, as has been said, without
suit for specific performance : see Sugd. V. & P. 109.
The purchaser of a mere life estate is in a different position, and must
complete, though the life drops in the interval before the certificate becomes
absolute : Anson v. Towgood, 1 J. & W. 637 ; Vesey v. Elwood, 3 Dr. & War.
74 ; and see Millican v. Vanderplanh, 11 Ha. 136, 140.
By the Sale of Land by Auction Act, 1867 (30 & 31 V. c. 48), s. 7, the
former practice of opening biddings on a higher offer being made before
the expiration of the eight days was discontinued (see Seton, 6th ed.,
p. 344).
To open biddings since this Act there must have been unfair or grossly
improper conduct, bordering on fraud, in the management of the sale, not
merely error of judgment : Delves v. D., 20 Bq. 77 ; Brovm v. Oahshott, 38
L. J. Ch. 717 ; Griffiths v. Jones, 15 Bq. 279 ; Be Bartlett, sup. ; Re Oriental
Bank Corporation, 56 L. T. 868.
The principle of the Act, preventing the opening of biddings, applies as
much to sales by private contract as by public auction : Re Bartlett, New-
man V. Hook, 16. Ch. D. 561.
SECT. II.] Completion of Sale. 335
Mortgagees selling under the direction of the Court are not prejudiced by Fictitious bid-
the acts of other parties in employing a person to make fictitious biddings : dings.
Union Bank of London v. Munster, 37 Ch. D. 51.
Section II. — Completion of Sale.
1 . Order to fay in Purchase-Money on Purchaser's Application —
Deposit — Timber — Interest — Title accepted.
The applicant by his sob declaring himself content with the title
to the premises, It is ordered that the applicant do, on or before the
— day of — , lodge in Court, as directed in the schedule hereto,
£ — , being the purchase-money for the premises [If deposit made,
being the balance of the purchase-money for the premises, after
deducting the sum of £ — , paid as a deposit ; If timber, and the
sum of £ — , the amount of the valuation of the timber on the premises ;
If interest, and the sum of £ — for interest on the said sum of £ — at
the rate of £ — p. c. per ann. from the — day of — to the said — day
of — after deducting income tax] ; And it is ordered that upon
such lodgment being made, the applicant be let into possession of the
premises, and into receipt of the rents and profits thereof, from
the — day of — , and it is ordered that all proper parties do join in
and execute a proper conveyance of the premises to the applicant,
or as he shall direct, such conveyance to be settled by the Judge,
in case the parties difier. — [Add Lodgment Schedule, Form No. 3,
p. 201, containing restraint in favour of purchaser.]
N.B. — ^This order is now rarely made, the money being lodged in Court
on a Master's schedule under O. Li, 3a : see D. C. F. 659, and infra, pp.
340, 341, notes.
For orders to pay in balance of purchase-money, after paying off incum-
brances, or where mortgage debts are to be kept on foot, see Chap. XLVII.,
" Mortgages."
For order to pay in purchase-money of a life policy, and thereupon the
purchaser " to be entitled to the benefits of the said policy from the — day
of — ," with directions to assign and assure the same to him, see Cobbold v.
Fisk, V.-C. W. at Chambers, 19 Jan. 1854, A. 337.
Where there are several purchasers, they may all be comprised in one
schedule. See D. C. F. 661, 662.
2. Paying in Purchase-Money by Instalments.
Oedee that the applicant do lodge in Court as directed in the
schedule hereto the sum of £ — , being the purchase-money for the
hereditaments comprised in &c., by the instalments, and within
the respective times mentioned in the said schedule, together with
interest as therein mentioned. — [Add Lodgment Schedule, Form
No. 3, p. 201.]
33G Sales hy the Court. [chap. xix.
3. Order to enforce Pay merit into Court, on Vendor's Application —
Title held to he accepted.
" And it appearing to the satisfaction of the Judge that the said
A., the purchaser of the said lots, has not taken any objection to the
title to the hereditaments comprised in the said lots respectively,
within the time limited by the conditions of sale, and that the only
requisitions upon or with respect to the same, or the abstract thereof
made by the said A. have been fully and satisfactorily complied
with, and the Judge being of opinion that the said A. is to be deemed
to have approved of and accepted the title to the said lots." —
Directions to lodge the purchase-money, with interest ; and there-
upon for possession and conveyance.— /owes v. Gloster, V.-C. K. at
Chambers, 28 Nov. 1861, A. 2239.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 671.
4. Order for Purchaser to leave Conveyance to be settled.
Order that A. {the purchaser) do, within four days after service
of this order, leave at the Chambers of the Judge, situate &c., the
draft of the conveyance of &c., to the intent that such draft may be
settled by the Judge pursuant to the order dated &c. — Leach v.
Westall, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 18 March, 1870, B. 732 ; Goodwin
V. Lanceman, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 23 Nov. 1876, A. 1981.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 664.
5. Compensation out of the Purchase-Money allowed to Purchaser
kept out of Possession for more than a Year from the Time
fixed for Completion.
Upon the application by summons &c. of J., the person by the certi-
ficate dated &c., certified to be the purchaser of the premises com-
prised in Lot 1, part of the estates sold under the judgment dated
&c., and upon reading &c., It is ordered that the funds in Court be
dealt with as directed in the schedule hereto, the several sums of
£ — , £ — , and £ — , making together £ — , thereby directed to be paid
to the applicant, being for compensation in respect of the several
matters mentioned in his afiidavit, filed &c. ; And it is ordered that
the costs of the applicant by the order dated &c. directed to be
taxed and to be paid by the Pit when so taxed &c., be, notwithstand-
ing such order, paid as directed in the said schedule ; And it is ordered
that the Pit do within (seven days) after service of this order
deliver to the applicant J. the conveyance of the said premises and
the title deeds relating to the same ; And it is ordered that the costs
of the applicant of this application and consequent thereon, be
taxed &c. Costs of the Pit and the Defts of this application, and
consequent thereon, to be costs in this action. — [Add Payment
SECT. II.] Completion of Sale. 337
Schedule.].— ^^e^ Thomas v. Buxton, M. E., 1 May, 1869, B. 1594 ;
S. C, 8 Eq. 120.
For form of summons, see D. 0. P. 663.
6. Order to fay off Mortgagee out of Purchase-Money in Court.
Order that upon the execution by M. (mortgagee) of the respec-
tive conveyances to H. and L. of the hereditaments comprised in
Lots 1 and 2 (whereof the said H. and L. have been allowed the
purchasers by the Master's certificate, dated &c., and which are)
now in mortgage to the said M., being certified by the Master, the
funds in Court be dealt with as directed in the schedule hereto.
Direction to tax mortgagee's costs ; Pit to pay purchaser's costs of
appearance and be allowed them, and Pit's and Deft's costs of
application to be costs in the action. — [Add Payment Schedule,
Form No. 65, p. 219.] — See Sutton v. Downham, M. E. at Chambers,
3 Aug. 1860, B. 1974.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 668, 669.
In the case of an equitable mortgage the order will be for delivery of the
deeds in the possession of the mortgagee, on payment of his principal,
interest and costs.
For waiver by first mortgagees, not parties, of their claim to the proceeds
of a sale by the Court of part of the mortgaged property, they being other-
wise secured, see JE. Macclesfield v. Owen, M. R. 12 July, 1859, B. 2121.
7. Mortgagee having purchased the Mortgaged Copyholds under an
Order for Sale, to hold free of the Equity of Redemption.
Usual directions for completion of purchase [Form 1, p. 335] :
And it appearing by &c. that the lands comprised in the said contract
are copyhold of inheritance of the manor of K., in the county of — ,
and that the legal estate of the said lands is already vested in the
Pit as mortgagee of the estate of the said E., the intestate, the Pit,
having been on the — day of — duly admitted tenant of the said
lands according to the custom of the said manor, as mortgagee
thereof, pursuant to a conditional surrender thereof, dated &c..
Declare that upon such lodgment being made the said lands comprised
in the said contract (are to) be held by the Pit as copyhold of
inheritance of the said manor according to the custom thereof, for
his own absolute use and benefit, freed from all equity of redemption
of the said E., or any persons claiming under him, and free from the
claims of all other the creditors of the said E. — Foxton v. Jackson,
V.-C. H., 24 June, 1878, A. 2512.
8. Mortgage, by Consent, kept on Foot, on Sale free from Incum-
brances— Difference between Purchase-Money and amount due
on mortgage to be paid into Court.
" And a., the mortgagee named in the said indenture of mortgage,
dated &c. (being a mortgage of the premises comprised in the said
VOL. I. Z
338 Sales by the Court. [chap. xix.
lot), by his solr, waiving all claims and demands against the estate
of the testator B. , or his real or pers. represves, under or in consequence
of the said indenture, in respect of the principal sum of £ — now due
to him on the security thereof, and all interest and other moneys due
or to become due under or by virtue thereof ; It is ordered that at
the said purchaser's request, the said Lot — do remain subject to
the said mortgage debt of £ — secured thereon by the said inden-
ture, dated &c., and now due to the said A. &c. — Directions for lodg-
ment in Court of balance of purchase-money after deducting mortgage
debt." — Thereupon directions for possession and conveyance to
purchaser, " subject, nevertheless, to the said sum of £ — due on the
security of the said hereditaments as aforesaid, and the interest
thereon." — [AM Lodgment Schedule, Form 3, p. 201, containing
restraint in favour of purchaser.'] — See Re Goldring, G. v. G., M. R.
at Chambers, 25 Jan. 1875, A. 107 ; and Robinson v. Barnes, M. R.
at Chambers, 24 June, 1861, B. 1322.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 668.
For an order where part of the mortgage debt was to be paid by the
purchaser to the mortgagee, and the balance to remain on the security, and
the residue of the purchase-money to be paid into Court, see Winnifrith y.
Card, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 22 Dec. 1876, B. 3615.
9. Order to deliver Title Deeds out of Court to Purchaser.
Oedek that the deeds and documents deposited by &c., in the
Central Office, pursuant to the order dated &c. (or such of them as
relate to &c. or are mentioned in the schedule hereto), be delivered
out to A. (the purchaser).
For form of application, see D. C. F. 666.
10. Order to deliver Title Deeds to several Purchasers.
Order that all deeds and documents relating to the hereditamenta
comprised in each of the said lots, in the custody, possession, or power
of any of the parties to this action be delivered to the respective
purchasers of such lots. — Whitford v. Steele, M. R. at Chambers, 1
Nov. 1861, B. 1937.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 666.
11. The like — Deeds relating jointly to other Estates.
Order that such deeds and writings as relate solely to the estate
comprised in the said Lot No. 6 (the larger lot), and also such as relate
to the same jointly with other estates of less value, be delivered to
B. (purchaser), or to whom he shall appoint, the said B. by his solrs
submitting to produce such last-mentioned deeds and writings on
necessary occasions, and to give an acknowledgment and under-
taking for safe custody of the same as provided by the 9th section
SECT. II.] Completion of Sale. 339
of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 ; But as to such
of the deeds and writings as relate to the said estate purchased by
the said B. jointly with other estates of greater value, the persons
entitled to such estates of greater value are to give to him a like
acknowledgment and undertaking for safe custody of such deeds
and writings ; And in case any dispute shall arise between the parties
touching the copies of any particular deeds or writings relating to
the said estates, the same is to be settled by (the Judge). — See
L. Kinnaird v. Christie, L. C, 22 March, 1809, B. 414.
12. Substituted Purchaser.
The said A. by his solrs declarmg himself content with the title
&c.. It is ordered that the said A. do lodge in Court as directed in the
schedule hereto £ — ; And thereupon it is ordered that the said A. be
substituted for the said B. as the purchaser of &c. — [AM Lodgment
Schedule, Form No. 3, p. 201 .J— See Moston v. Booth, Chitty, J., 28
Jan. 1887, B. 130.
For form of summons, see D. C. ]?. 673.
For order substituting a person in place of a purchaser who died after
payment in of his purchase-money, but before conveyance, on producing
probate of his will, showing he had not devised the premises, and by consent
of his heir, and directing conveyance to such person, see Matchett v. Palmer,
V.-C. K. B., 7 Mar. 1850, B. 668 ; Haire v. LovUt, M. R. 27 Apr. 1850,
A. 919.
NOTES.
DELIVERY OF ABSTRACT — ^INVESTIGATION OF TITLE.
The general conditions of sale provide (R. S. C. App. L. 15) that the
vendor within a specified time (usually eight days) after the certificate has
become binding shall deUver to each purchaser or his solr an abstract of
the title to the lot purchased, and also that each purchaser shall within four
days after actual deUvery of the abstract deliver his objections and requisi-
tions, and upon the expiration of such last-mentioned time (and in this
respect time is to be of the essence of the contract) the title shall be con-
sidered as approved of and accepted, subject only to such objections and
requisitions, if any.
Delivery of the abstract by the vendor may be compelled by order on
summons : see Dan. 885.
If objections and requisitions are not delivered, or, being delivered, are Objections
satisfactorily disposed of, a direction signed by the Master for the payment and requisi-
of the purchase-money into Court may be obtained at Chambers, and such tions.
direction is a sufficient authority for the Paymaster to receive the money :
0. LI, 3a ; or an order for payment in of the purchase-money may, on the
expiration of the time fixed for payment by the conditions, and without
referring the title, be obtained at Chambers, at the cost of the purchaser,
and such order may be enforced by sequestration : 0. xlii, 4.
If the purchaser's objections or requisitions cannot be satisfactorily dis-
posed of between him and the vendor, the proper course is to raise the
objections to the title either on summons obtained by the purchaser for an
inquiry into the title (the mode also provided by the V. & P. Act, 1874, s. 9,
as to which v. inf. Chap. L., " SPEcrFic Perfoemance "), or on summons
obtained by the vendor for payment into Court of the purchase-money :
see Dan. 886. If the vendor cannot in Chambers remove the objections,
the matter is adjourned for argument in Court : Pegg v. Wisden, 16 Jur.
340
Sales hy the Court.
[chap. XIX.
1105. A reference upon the title may also be directed to the conveyancing
counsel.
If after such inquiry the title is found good, the purchaser may be ordered
to pay his purchase-money into Court, and in default process of execution,
by sequestration or otherwise, under O. XLii, 4, 6 (and see Robinson v.
Qalland, 37 W. R. 396 ; 60 L. T. 697 ; Bell v. Dmver, B4 L. T. 729 ; 34
W. R. 638), may issue or a resale be ordered.
If the title is found bad, he may apply by summons to be discharged,
and for his costs : see inf. Sect. III. p. 346.
Jurisdiction In investigating the title, the purchaser should ascertain not only that
to direct sale, the title is good, but that the Court, from all proper persons being parties
to the action or bound by the judgment, had jurisdiction to direct a sale :
Lechmere v. Brasier, 2 J. & W. 287 ; Galvert v. Godfrey, 6 Beav. 97 ; Bennett
V. Hamill, 2 Sch. & Lef. 577 ; Pigott v. P., 2 N. R. 14 ; and that the sale
was in accordance with the judgment : Colclough v. Sterum, 3 Bli. 181 ;
Talbott V. Minett, 6 Ir. Ch. 83 ; and see Waters v. W., 15 W. R. 191 ; 36
L. J. Ch. 195 ; 15 L. T. 406 ; Beioley v. Carter, 4 Ch. 230. The purchaser
will be protected against parties to the action, and all persons coming in
under the judgment : Tommey v. White, 3 H. L. C. 63 ; Sugd. V. & P. Ill ;
but not against persons of whom the purchaser has actual notice that they
ought to have been, but are not, parties : Dart, V. & P. 1185, 1187 ; and
therefore he should see that he obtains a discharge from all judgment
creditors, or that they are bound by the judgment, whether he obtains the
legal or equitable estate ; and is entitled to require their concurrence :
Orey Coat Sc. v. Westminster Improvement Commrs, 1 D. & J. 531 ; Sugd.
V. & P. Ill ; Dart, V. & P. 1182 ; or a release of the estate from their
charge, with costs occasioned by their refusal : Moscrop v. Sandeman,
9 Jur. N. S. 1147 ; 9 L. T. 352. See further, p. 348, inf.
Root of title. By the V. & P. Act, 1874 (37 & 38 V. c. 78), s. 1, in the completion of any
contract of sale of land after 31 Dec. 1874, subject to any stipulation to the
contrary in the contract, forty years is substituted for sixty years as the
root of title, but earlier title than forty years may be required in oases
similar to those in which earlier title than sixty years might before the Act
be required.
Equitable -^ purchaser under a judgment will not be compelled to take an equitable
title. title provided the legal estate can be got in, unless outstanding in an
infant : Freeland v. Pearson, 7 Bq. 247 ; Sugd. V. & P. 397 ; nor will he
be compelled to take a doubtful title : 76. (s) ; and see Palmer v. Locke, 15
Ch. D. 294, C. A. ; and inf. Chap. L., " Spbotfic Pebfoemancb."
Costs of in The purchaser is entitled to his costs of the inquiry when the title proves
quiry. good on grounds not appearing on the abstract : Fielder v. Higginson, 3
V. & B. 142 ; and will not be ordered to pa3' the vendor's costs though the
title proves good according to the abstract : Flower v. Hartopp, 8 Beav.
200 ; Holland v. King, 1 W. R. 80 ; Dart, V. & P. 1173 ; but see Oshorn
V. O., 18 W. R. 421 ; unless the objections are frivolous and vexatious :
Thorpe v. Freer, 4 Madd. 466 ; Peers v. Sneyd, 17 Beav. 151.
If the title prove bad, and the purchaser is discharged, he is entitled to a
return of any deposit, and to his costs, charges, and expenses consequent
upon his having become a purchaser : see Sect. III., inf. p. 346.
Small lots. Where the lots are very small, it is not unusual for the conditions to
provide that no abstract shall be delivered or title shown unless specially
requested by the purchaser : see Huish v. Sweet, V.-C. W. at Chambers,
12 Nov. 1872, A. 2637.
PAYING IN PURCHASE-MONEY — INTEREST — PROPERTY TAX.
It is provided by the ordinary conditions of sale (R. S. C. App. L. 15),
that each purchaser is, under an order for that purpose, to be obtained by
him, or, in case of his neglect, by the vendors at his costs, upon application
at Chambers, to pay the amount of his purchase-money (after deducting
the amount paid as a deposit), together with the amount of any valuation
SECT. II.] Completion of Sale. 341
of timber, into Court to the credit of the cause, on or before a day to be
specified (which must be subsequent to the time fixed for deHvering the
abstract, see Dav. Conv. vol. i. p. 506) ; and if the same is not so paid, then
tlie purchaser is to pay interest on his purchase-money, including the
amount of the valuation, from the day specified to the day on which the
same is actually paid [if so, deducting property tax). Upon payment of
the purchase-money the purchaser is to be entitled to possession, or to the
rents and profits, as from (usually the last rent day), down to which time
all outgoings are to be paid by the vendor. The order to lodge purchase-
money is now rarely made, the money being generally lodged on a direction
under O. li, 3a.
Two or more separate purchasers may join in one application, but their
purchase-money must be paid in separately. Two or more purchasers of
one lot must pay in an entire sum : Darkin v. Marye, I Anst. 22.
The purchaser should not ordinarily apply for leave to pay in his pur-
chase-money until he has approved the title : Sugd. V. & P. 103.
Except under special circumstances, he will not be allowed to pay in Acceptance of
without accepting the title : De Visme v. De V., 1 Mac. & G. 336, 344 ; title before
Rutley V. Gill, 3 D. & S. 640 ; Denning v. Henderson, 1 D. & S. 689 ; nor payment in,
will he in any case be let into possession without accepting the title : Hutton °^ taking pos-
V. Mansell, 2 Beav. 260 ; RuUer v. Marriott, 10 Beav. 33 ; Dempsey v. D., ^^^™°> *"■
1 D. & S. 691.
On taking possession without authority from the Court he will be treated
as having accepted the title, and be compelled at once to pay in : Wilding
V. Andrews, 1 C. P. Coop. 380 ; but if he take possession after deUvery of
the abstract he will not be bound as to objections not disclosed thereby :
Boivn V. Stenson, 24 Beav. 631. See also Miller v. Pridden, 5 W. R. 171 ;
3 Jur. N. S. 78, that payment in, and acceptance of a conveyance, with
knowledge of an incumbrance, will have the effect of waiving any objection
thereon.
Tlie rate of interest as a general rule is 4 p. c. per ann. ; Dart, V. & P. Interest.
560 ; Dav., vol. i. p. 507.
As to the effect of the condition now in general use (see Dav. Conv.,
vol. i. p. 576; Prid. Conv., vol. i. p. 214), that the purchaser shall payinterest
on his purchase-money if " from any cause whatever " the purchase shall
not be completed by the day fixed for completion, see Williams v. Olenton,
1 Ch. 200 ; Sherwin v. Shakspear, 5 D. M. & G. 617 ; Sugd. V. & P. 633—
637 ; Dart, V. & P. 139, et seq., et sup. ; and see Jones v. Gardiner, [1902]
I Ch. 191, where the delay was occasioned by the default of the vendor,
and as to when damages can be recovered by a purchaser from his
vendor for delay.
Where a vendor went abroad two days before the day for completion, he
was held not entitled to interest on the purchase-money during the delay
caused by his absence : Be Young and Harston's Contract, 31 Ch. D. 168,
C. A. ; and see Jones v. Gardiner, sup.
A purchaser cannot relieve himself from liability to pay interest by
setting apart the unpaid purchase-money and giving notice thereof to the
vendor : Re Riley and Streatfield, 34 Ch. D. 386.
The condition as to interest now usually adopted enables the purchaser Property tax.
to deduct the property tax on the interest payable : see D. C. F. 640 ;
where it does not he must pay in in full without deduction : Dawson v. D.,
II Jur. 984 ; Humble v. H., 12 Beav. 43 ; Flight v. Comae, 2 W. R. 437 ;
Goslings and Sharpe v. Blake, 23 Q. B. D. 324, 330, C. A. ; but may apply
for its return when the money is dealt with by the Court : see Bebb v.
Bunny, 1 K. & J. 216, 219 ; Sugd. V. & P. 99.
Upon a purchase under the ordinary condition, the order for pajrment of Rent alter
purchase-money will not be made with a direction for deduction of rents date for
received after the date for completion : Re Smith, Day v. Bonaini, 54 completion.
L. T. 627 ; but a receiver being in possession, a direction was inserted that
he should pay such rents to the purchaser ; S. C, 55 L. T. 329.
342 Sales by the Court. [chap. xix.
INVESTMENT AND DEALING WITH PUECHASB-MONBY IN COTJKT.
By O. LI, 3a, no order for payment of purchase-money into Court
shall be necessary, but a direction for that purpose signed by the Master
shall be sufficient authority for the Paymaster-General to receive the
money.
An order for investment of the purchase-money when paid in should
always state at whose instance such investment is directed : see Form 1,
p. 335. If the investment is on the application of the purchaser, he must,
if the purchase be rescinded, take the stock, whether the funds have fallen
or risen since the investment ; secus, if made on the vendor's application :
Sugd. V. & P. 119, 640 ; Tompsett v. Wickens, 3 Sm. & G. 171 ; Humphries
V. Home, 3 Ha. 376 ; and see Dart, V. & P. 1 170. To give the full effect of
a stop order to the concluding direction that the purchase-money is not to
be dealt with without notice to the purchaser, the order should be lodged
at the Chancery Pay Office for the express purpose of being entered on
the books as a stop order, and giving the purchaser a lien upon the
purchase-money until completion.
By S. C. F. R. 1905, r. 5, it is provided that when an order has directed
the sale of any property and the lodgment of the proceeds thereof in Court,
the authority for such lodgment may be a lodgment schedule signed by the
Master ; and such lodgment schedule shall operate in the same manner as
a lodgment schedule annexed to an order.
Pit's solr was held personally responsible for loss caused by his omission
to request investment of purchase-money : Batten v. Wedgwood Coal and
Iron Co., 31 Ch. D. 346.
On delivery of the conveyance to the purchaser, the vendor's solr should
obtain from him a written acknowledgment thereof, and an authority to
concur in his name to such distribution of the purchase-money as the Court
may direct : see Dan. 897 ; otherwise the purchaser must be served with
notice of any application to deal with the money, whether the order be
entered at the Pay Office or not.
If he does not appear, an affidavit of such service is required, and of
delivery of his conveyance.
If he has not obtained his conveyance, he will be entitled to his costs of
appearing, though merely for the purpose of consenting to the application :
Bamford v. Watts, 2 Beav. 201 ; Noble v. Stow, 30 Beav. 272.
If he has obtained his conveyance, his costs of appearing will not be
allowed : Barton v. Latour, 18 Beav. 526 ; except, perhaps, under special
circumstances : Rowley v. Adams, 16 Beav. 312 ; and see sup. p. 320.
A purchaser, after he has paid his money into Court and obtained a con-
veyance, is not bound to see to the application or apportionment of the
fund : Todd v. Studholme, 3 K. & J. 324 ; Cavendish v. C, 10 Ch. 319 ;
and see Morris v. Debenham, 2 Ch. D. 540 ; Cooper and Allen's Contract,
4 Ch. D. 802, 807, 816.
SUCCESSION DUTY.
By the Succession Duty Act, 16 & 17 V. c. 51, s. 42, the duty is made a
first charge on the property ; but where powers of sale, exchange, or parti-
tion are exercised, the future duty will be shifted to the substituted property ,
or interim moneys or investments.
By s. 44, every person in whom the property chargeable shall be vested,
by alienation or other derivative title, at the time of the succession be-
coming an interest in possession, is made personally accountable for the
duty to the extent of the property.
By s. 52, every receipt and certificate, purporting to be in discharge of
the whole duty payable for the time being in respect of any succession, is
to exonerate therefrom a bond fide purchaser for value without notice,
notwithstanding any suppression or misstatement in the account rendered
343
SECT. II. J Completion of Sale.
for, or any insufficiency of the assessment ; and no such purchaser, under a
title not appearing to confer a succession, is to be subject to any duty
chargeable by reason of extrinsic circumstances of which he has no notice
at the time of his purchase. . , ,, j „„oi
As between himself and the purchaser of a fee simple, the vendor must
pay all duties (including succession duty) which have or will become
payable under any settlement or disposition of the property prior to the
sale of the fee simple, but the purchaser of a reversion expectant on an
intermediate life estate is liable to the duty on the reversion = Cooler v.
Trewby, 28 Beav. 194 ; Re Langham's Contract, 39 W. R. 156 ; 60 L. J.^tv.
110; Be Kidd and GMon's Contract, [18931 1 Ch. 695 ; secus, on a purchase
from trustees of an estate in settlement subject to a jointure, the duty in
such case being chargeable upon the proceeds of the sale : Vugdale y.
Meadows, 6 Ch. 501. The devisee from the purchaser in fee of an estate in
settlement having paid succession duty on the death of his testator is again
liable for duty on the death of the vendor tenant for life : Northumberland
{Duke of) V. A. 0., [1905] A. 0. 406 ; and see Birchan v. Lord Advocate,
[19091 A. 0. 406. . ^ n J ,
On purchase of a fee simple subject to leases where payment of duty on
the increased value at the determination of the leases has been postponed
under sect. 20, such duty must be paid by the vendor : Re K%dd and
GJ66oM's OoroerocJ, [1893] 1 Ch. 695. „ „, . . ,mA a9
As to increment duty, see Finance (1909—1910) Act, 1910, s. 62,
sub-ss. 1 — 12.
INOUMBEANCEBS.
A mortgagee concurring in the sale of the mortgaged estate does not in
general postpone his rights over the purchase-money, and is entit ed to be
paid his principal, interest, and costs thereout in priority to the Pit s costs
of suit : Hepworth v. Heslop, 3 Ha. 485 ; Wood v. Machnlay, 2 D. J. & b.
358
This priority extends to the costs of the sale, and where the proceeds were
sufficient to pay the first mortgagee in full, but not the second mortgagee
(the Pit), a third mortgagee who had joined in the conveyances to pur-
chasers under the decree was held not entitled to any costs m respect of
his concurrence : Wmham v. MacMn, 10 Eq. 447 ; et. v. mf. Chap. X1,1V.,
" Administration." . , .
Under the usual direction for sale in such a case an account is talien in
Chambers of what is due to the incumbrancers, and if incumbrances appear
by the certificate, or semhle, though not so appearing, if they are known to
exist the purchaser may on summons obtain an order to pay the amount
out of the purchase-money on the incumbrancers executing t^e convey-
ance to him, and to pay the balance into Court ; see D. C. P. 668 ; or
the application may be delayed until the purchase-money has been paid
see Form 6, sup. p. 337, or by consent the mortgage may be kept on foot as
against the estate and the purchaser only : see Form 8, mp. p. 6-il.
CONVEYANCE.
Where an order for payment in of purchase-money is made it ordinarily
provides for the execution of a conveyance by f F°P«'^ P^f^^' = ;"*
semUe, a direction that the vendor shall convey mcludes in effect all neces-
sity conveying parties : Minton v. Kirwood, 3 Ch. 614, et. v. ^nf. Chap. L.,
" S'ts^p^rrsr ^nker disability were necessary conveying pa^s Settling Con-
or interested in the property sold, the conveyance was formerly direoted
to be settled by the Judge, and the words " in case the parties differ were
"t' pTitirbotvt'^^^^^^ in orders for sale under the Settled Estates
Act, these words are now always used, and accordingly the conveyance,
344
Sales hy the Court. [chap. xix.
even where infants, &c. are interested as conveying parties, is not necessarily
settled by the Judge.
The words " in case the parties differ " should, it seems, be omitted
where judgment is in default of defence in a purchaser's action for specific
performance. The omission of the words does not necessitate a reference
to the conveyancmg counsel : Baxendale v. Lucas, 1895, W. N. 30, per
Kekewich, J.
In sales under the Settled Estates Act, the practice of requiring the
conveyance to be settled by the Judge, whether the parties differ or not,
has been adhered to : see Be Eyre, 4 K. & J. 268 ; and has not been changed
by the Settled Estates Act, 1877, or the Orders under that Act.
Under the usual qualification " in case the parties differ," a purchaser
will have to pay the costs of applying at Chambers respecting his convey-
ance, unless a special case is made : Hodgsofi v. Shaw, 11 Jur. 95 ; 16
L. J. Ch. 56.
The order of a Judge settling the form of a conveyance is subject to
ipeal : Pollock v. Babbits, 21 Ch. D. 466.
As to the procedure on settling a deed in case the parties differ, see
0. LV, 34.
Parties under As to vesting lands or contingent rights of infants, or parties under dis-
disabiUty. ability, on sales by the Court, see inf. Chap. XLI., " Trttstbes."
Concurrence AH persons having a legal title to or remedy against the property,
of necessary whether parties to the action or not, should concur in the conveyance, but
parties. persons having only equitable interests, who are parties to the action, are
bound by the order for sale, and the purchaser cannot, even at his own
expense, insist upon their concurrence : Be Williams, 5 D. & S. 515 ; Dart,
V. & P. 1181, 1182 ; Dav. Conv. vol. ii. p. 271 (a) ; nor is he entitled to
covenants for title from them : Cottrell v. C, 2 Eq. 330.
When the conveyance has been settled, the necessary parties may be
compelled to execute it by summons served upon them, and the order, upon
service and non-compliance, may be enforced by writ of attachment or by
committal : 0. XLn, 7 ; but the better course is to obtain an order on sum-
mons at Chambers under the Trustee Acts and O. lv, 13a (c), appointing a
person to convey to the purchaser, or vesting the estate at once in him, or
an order under sect. 14 of the Jud. Act, 1884, appointing a person to
execute.
Execution of the conveyance by a party may be ordered, although it has
not been settled in Chambers : Dougherty v. Teay, 21 L. R. Ir. 379.
Where delay in completion occurs owing to defect of conveyance, the
vendor is entitled to have a reasonable time within which to remove the
defect : Hatten v. Bussell, 38 Ch. D. 334.
POSSESSION.
Under O. li, 1, any party to the action (in which a sale has been directed)
in possession of the estate, or in receipt of the rents and profits of the estate
directed to be sold, may be ordered to deliver up such possession or receipt
to the purchaser or such other person as the Court shall direct.
To enforce possession the purchaser should apply by summons or motion
on notice for an order for delivery of possession within a limited time. If
possession be withheld after due service of the order the purchaser may
proceed to enforce delivery of possession by writ of possession : 0. xlii,
3, 5, XLVII ; which since the Jud. Acts, has, so far as relates to land, been
substituted for the writ of assistance, whether between the parties to the
action or as against strangers : see Hall v. H., 47 L. J. Ch. 680 ; but as to
the writ of assistance being still available in special cases, see Wyman v.
Knight, 39 Ch. D. 165.
The purchaser will be entitled, out of the purchase-money, to his costs of
obtaining possession, occupation rent during the time he has been kept out
of possession, compensation for deterioration, and arrears of charges (e.g..
SECT. II.] Completion of Sale. 345
tithe) which he may have been compelled to pay, the amount, if not agreed
upon, to be ascertained by inquiry : see Thomas v. Buxton, 8 Bq. 120.
COMPENSATION.
The ordinary conditions provide that any error or misstatement in the
particulars shall not annul the sale nor entitle the purchaser to be dis-
charged from his purchase, but that a compensation is to be made to or
by the purchaser, the amount of which is to be settled by the Judge at
Chambers.
Notwithstanding this condition, misrepresentation in the particulars
may be so material as to entitle the purchaser to be discharged : see
Dimmock v. Hallett, 2 Ch. 21 ; Else v. E., 13 Eq. 196 ; and for instances of
the right to compensation, or e cont. to a discharge from the purchase, v.
inf. Chap. L., " Specific Perfoemancb."
A purchaser has been allowed compensation under this condition for mis-
description or misstatement of rent in the particulars, discovered after con-
veyance : Cann v. C, 3 Sim. 447 ; Bos v. Helsham, L. B. 2 Ex. 72 ; Re
Turner and Skellon, 13 Ch. D. 130 ; Palmer v. Johnson, 13 Q. B. D. 351,
C. A., not following Manson v. Tliacker, 7 Ch. D. 620 ; Besley v. B., 9
Ch. D. 103 ; and Allen v. Richardson, 13 Ch. D. 524 ; and commenting on
Joliffe V. Baker, 11 Q. B. D. 255 ; and see Dart, V. & P. 812 ; Dav. Con.
vol. i. p. 467 ; but not in the absence of such a condition for a defect of
title which might have been discovered : Clayton v. Leech, 41 Ch. D. 103,
C. A. ; and see Soper v. Arnold, 14 App. Ca. 429 ; nor for innocent mis-
representation made by the auctioneer : Brett v. Clowser, 5 C. P. D. 376 ;
and as to the right to specific performance with compensation or abate-
ment, V. inf. Chap. L., " Specific Peefoemance."
TITLE-DEEDS.
The conditions of sale usually contain provisions for the delivery to the
purchaser of such of the title-deeds in the vendor's possession as relate
exclusively to the lots purchased, and for the giving of an acknowledgment
or undertaking as the case may require, under sect. 9 of the Conveyancing
Act, 1881, in reference to title-deeds which do not relate exclusively to the
lots purchased, and which are either not delivered to the purchaser, or
delivered to him subject to the right of other persons to production of
them.
When the vendor retains any part of an estate to which any documents
of title relate, he is entitled to retain such documents : see V. & P. Act,
1874, s. 2, sub-s. 8 ; Dart, V. & P. 158, 693.
In the absence of any stipulation, the purchaser of the lot largest in value
is entitled to the custody of the title-deeds, and must enter into a covenant
for their production to the other purchasers, who will be entitled to attested
copies at the expense of the vendor : see Peterson v. Elwes, 6 W. R. 611 ;
Griffiths V. Hatchard, 1 K. & J. 17 ; Sugd. V. & P. 34, 451 ; Dart, V. & P.
694, 1185 ; and see Conveyancing Act, s. 9.
A condition that the purchaser of " the largest lot " shall have the deeds
has been difierently construed. In Scott v. Jackman, 21 Beav. 110 (citing
and following L. Kinnaird v. Christie, Form 11, sup., p. 338), the purohaser
of the lot largest in price was held entitled to the deeds, as against the
purchaser of several lesser lots though of greater aggregate amount.
In Griffiths v. Hatchard, sup., the words " largest lot " were held to mean
largest in superficial extent ; but see on this case Sugd. V. & P. 34.
Where on a sale in lots the conditions provided that the largest purchaser
should have the deeds and covenant to produce them to the others, it was
held that each purchaser requiring a covenant must bear his own costs of it :
Strong v. S., 4 Jur. N. S. 942 ; 6 W. R. 455 ; and see the V. & P. Act, 1874,
s. 2 (4).
If the deeds are in Court they may be ordered to be delivered out to the
346
Sales by the Court. [chap. xix.
vendor for the purpose of completion : Lee v. Flood, V.-C. S., at Chambers,
7 Jan. 1853 ; or the purchaser may apply by summons at Chambers for
delivery to him of such as he is entitled to.
SUBSTITUTING PUECHASEE.
Either before or after the certificate has become binding, the Court will
discharge the purchaser and substitute another, upon the latter first bring-
ing in the purchase-money : Miller v. Smith, 6 Ha. 609.
The order to substitute is made on application by summons. The
original and sub-purchaser must either join as applicants, or appear and
consent.
The order to substitute has been made when the original purchaser, after
agreeing to sell the lots of which his purchase had been confirmed, died, his
heir being abroad : Pearce v. P., 7 Sim. 138.
Section III. — Discharge of Pubchasee— Eesale.
1. Purchaser discharged on his Application — Repayment of
Deposit — Costs.
Order that the applicant be discharged from being such purchaser ;
And the applicant and the respondent by their sobs agreeing that the
deposit paid by the applicant is now represented by £ — Consols,
part of the £ — Consols mentioned in the schedule hereto, and that
the dividend that accrued thereon in Oct. last is now represented by
£ — Consols, further part of the said £ — Consols, It is ordered that
it be referred to the taxing master to tax the costs, charges, and
expenses of the applicant, occasioned by his bidding for [or entering
into the conditional contract in the said order dated &c. mentioned],
and being allowed the purchaser of the said estates (hereditaments),
and of this application ; And it is ordered that the funds in Court be
dealt with as directed in the schedule hereto, the costs therebydirected
to be paid being paid without prejudice to the question by what
fund such costs are ultimately to be borne. — [Add Payment Schedule
directing transfer of part of stock to A. with interest at 4: p. c. on
deposit, and for payment of costs.] — Adapted from Powell v. P.,
V.-C. B., 20 Feb. 1875, B. 532, 19 Eq. 422 ; 10 Ch. 130.
For forms of application, see D. C. P. 672, 673.
2. Order on Purchaser to complete — In default Resale — Purchaser
to make good Deficiency, with Costs.
It appearing by &c. that B. {the purchaser) has a"ccepted the title
to the said estate, Direction to pay in purchase-money, with con-
sequent directions [Form 1, p. 335] ; But in default of the said B.
lodging the said sum of £ — and interest in Court by the time afore-
said, It is ordered that the said estate (hereditaments) be resold with
SECT. iii.J Discharge of Purchaser — Resale. 347
the approbation of the Judge ; And in case the same shall be sold
for less than the sum of £— , It is ordered that the said B. do, within
(seven days) after service of the Master's certificate of the result of
such resale, lodge in Court &c. the difierence between the said £ —
and the amount for which the said estate (hereditaments) shall be so
resold, such amount to be certified ; And it is ordered that the said
B. do pay to the Pit A. £ — for his ascertained costs of this applica-
tion, and also in the event of such default his costs and expenses
occasioned by such default as aforesaid, to be taxed &c. — [Add
Lodgment Schedule, Form No. 3, p. 201.]— See Collins v. Forman,
Kay, J., 31 March, 1885, A. 1006.
For form of application for resale, see D. C. F. 672.
For order to resell at not less than former bidding, and, if the estate shall
not be resold, for the original purchaser to pay in his purchase-money, see
Walond v. W., M. R., 14 Nov. 1844, B. 224.
For order for payment in of purchase-money, and in default a resale,
without prejudice to the liability of the purchaser to make good any de-
ficiency in the price and all costs and expenses occasioned by his default,
see Hanne v. Watts, V.-C. M. at Chambers, 22 Nov. 1877, A. 3426.
3. Order, on Vendor's Application, rescinding Contract and
forfeiting Deposit.
Order that the contract dated &c. entered into by A., B., and C,
the purchasers (on behalf of a company afterwards in liquidation) for
the sale of &c., be rescinded ; And it is ordered that the deposit paid
by the said purchasers be forfeited. — See Nowell v. N., V.-C. H., at
Chambers, 13 March, 1877, B. 1492.
4. Bankrupt Purchaser — Resale — Forfeiture of Deposit.
" The said E. as (the trustee) of C. (fke purchaser) by his sobs
declining to elect to complete the purchase of the estate and premises
comprised in Lots &c., of which the said C. has been allowed the
purchaser. It is ordered that the sum of £ — , being the amount
paid by the said C. as a deposit on his bidding, or the Consols now
representing the same, be forfeited, and that the said C. be disallowed
as the purchaser thereof ; And it is ordered that the premises comprised
in the said lots be resold with the approbation of the Judge." — Depree
V. Bedborough, V.-C. S., 4 Dec. 1863, A. 2370 ; 4 GifE. 479.
NOTES.
DISCHABGE OF PURCHASER.
A purchaser under a judgment, if upon inquiry the title is certified to be Bad title cer-
bad, may apply by summons, served upon the parties to the action, to tified.
be discharged from being such purchaser, and that his costs, charges, and
expenses occasioned by his bidding for, and being allowed the purchaser,
and of the application, may be taxed and paid : see D. C. F. 673 ; and
unless precluded by the conditions he will be entitled, on being discharged, Cost of in-
to his costs, charges, and expenses (including those of investigating the vestigating
title : see Barton v. Dowries, I Flan. & K. 633 ; Se Hargreaves and Thompson, *'*'®-
348
Sales by the Court. [chap. xix.
Return of de-
posit and in-
terest.
Other ciroum
stances en-
titling pur-
chaser to be
discharged.
Irregularity
in proceed-
ings.
32 Ch. D. 454, C. A. ; Re Msworth and Tidy, 42 Ch. D. 23, C. A. ; Se
Bryant and Barningham, 44 Ch. D. 218, C. A. ; Sugd. V. & P. 107), and
of the application to rescind and occasioned by his bidding and becoming
the purchaser : HolUwell v. Seacomhe, [1906] 1 Ch. 426 ; out of the fund
in Court, if any: Reynolds v. Blake, 2 S. & S. 117; Convert v. Godfrey,
6 Boav. 97 ; Perkins v. Ede, 16 Beav. 268 ; and if no fund in Court,
from the Pit, without prejudice as to how they are to be ultimately
borne : Smith v. Nelson, 2 S. & S. 557 ; Bury v. Johnson, 2 Y. & C. 564 ;
but not in the first instance from a Deft having the conduct of the sale :
Mullins V. Hussey, 1 Eq. 488.
He is also entitled to a return of any deposit, with interest at £4 p. c. :
Re Hargreaves and Thompson, sup. ; Re Ebsworth and Tidy, sup. ; Re
Bryant and Barningham, sup. ; and, if the deposit has been invested, to
receive the stock in which it has been invested and the dividends that have
accrued thereon, or the actual sum deposited, and all dividends that have
arisen from the investment : see Powell v. P., 19 Eq. 422 ; and as to
return of deposit in cases of specific performance, and under the V. & P.
Act, 1870, V. inf. Chap. L., " Specific Pbkfobmance."
Independently of the title being found bad on inquiry, a purchaser has
been discharged where the contract is inequitable, on submitting to forfeit
his deposit : Savile v. 8., 1 P. W. 745 ; Qregg v. Glover, 1 Ir. Ch. 211 ; and
also, in one instance, where by mistake he had given an unreasonable
price : Morshead v. Frederick, Sugd. V. & P. 120.
A purchaser has been also discharged and his deposit returned when the
vendors, knowing that the occupation was adverse, represented it as the
occupation of their own tenant : Lachlan v. Reynolds, Kay, 52 ; also where,
after acceptance of title and payment into Court, the purchaser discovered,
from a will having been incorrectly abstracted, or from an undisclosed
deed, that the title was bad : M'Culloch v. Gregory, 1 K. & J. 286 ; Ward
V. Trathen, 14 Sim. 82 ; also when the title has been rendered, bad by the
vendor's omission, after the day fixed for completion, to keep the property
(leasehold) insured : Palmer v. Ooren, 4 W. R. 688.
And see Sherwood v. Beveridge, 3 D. & S. 425 ; Whitfield v. Leguentre,
ib. 464, that the conduct of the purchaser, or the nature of the irregularity,
may be such as to entitle him not to be at once discharged, but to a refer-
ence as to title.
Inaccurate recitals, misleading conditions, or substantial misrepresenta-
tions as to the value or rental of the property will also entitle a purchaser
to be discharged : Dimmock v. Hallett, 2 Ch. 21 ; Else v. E., 13 Eq. 196 ;
and see Torrance v. Bolton, 8 Ch. 118 ; Bromage v. Davies, 4 Jur. N. S.
683 ; et. inf. Chap. L., " SpEorrac Peeeobmanoe."
A purchaser insane at the time of his bidding has also been discharged,
and a resale directed on the vendor's application : Blackbeardv. Lindigren,
1 Cox, 205.
The purchaser may also be discharged and the sale set aside when the
judgment has been obtained fraudulently, or the purchase fraudulently
effected : L. Bandon v. Becker, 9 Bli. N. S. 532 ; 3 CI. & E. 479 ; Thomhill v.
Glover, 3 D. & W. 195 ; Bowen v. Evans, 2 H. L. C. 257 ; IJo. & Lat. 178.
A purchaser under a judgment who participates in, or is cognizant of,
the fraud cannot avail himself of his purchase, which is a nullity ; nor,
semble, though innocent of the fraud, where it appears on the proceedings,
or might have been ascertained on inquiry : see Gore v. Stacpoole, 1 Dow,
18, 30 ; Coldough v. Bolger, 4 Dow, 54 ; and see Sugd. V. & P. 110 ; Sugd.
H. L. 679—721.
In the absence of fraud, and provided the Court had jurisdiction (from
all parties interested being before the Court), mere irregularity in the pro-
ceedings did not operate to set aside the sale, nor affect the purchaser's
title : see Lutwyche v. Winford, 2 Bro. C. C. 248 ; Bennett v. Hamill, 2
Sch. & Lef. 577 ; Coldough v. Sterum, 3 Bli. 181 ; Curtis v. Price, 12 Ves.
105 ; Lloyd v. Johnes, 9 Ves. 65 ; secus, where, as under the Partition Acts,
SECT. III.] Discharge of Purchaser — Resale. 349
the jurisdiction to sell is depended upon the result of the inquiries directed,
and the sale had been before certificate : Powell v. P., 19 Eq. 422 ; 10 Ch.
131 ; or where error in the judgment under which the purchase was directed
had been shown : Lechmere v. Brasier, 2 J. & W. 287.
Now by the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 70, " an order of the Court under
any statutory or other jurisdiction shall not, as against a purchaser, be
invalidated on the ground of want of jurisdiction, or of want of any con-
currence, consent, notice, or service, whether the purchaser has notice of
any such want or not." The section applies to leases, sales, &c., under
the Settled Estates Act, 1877 (as to which, v. inf. Chap. XLV., " Settle-
ment"), notwithstanding the exception in sect. 40, or under the former
Acts repealed by the Act of 1877, and to all orders made before or after the
commencement of the Act, except any previously set aside or determined
to be invalid, or as to which proceedings impeaching it were then pending.
This protection extends to any impropriety, even though apparent on the
face of the order : Be Hall Dare's Contract, 21 Ch. D. 41, C. A. ; and is good
against puisne incumbrancers whose equitable interests are bound by the
order for sale, but who are not parties to the proceedings : Mostyn v. M.,
[1893] 3 Ch. 376, C. A. (q. v., that conveyance in such case should be abso-
lute without any qualifying words, and there should be a declaration that
the puisne incumbrancers are bound by the order of the Court) ; and see
Be Whitham, 84 L. T. 585 ; 49 W. R. 597 ; also as against the heir-at-law
of the mortgagor in a foreclosure action, in which the admor of the mort-
gagor was alone Deft : In re Harrowby and Paine's Contract, 1902, W. N.
137 ; but will not give a good title to a purchaser where the Court, in making
the order, erroneously supposed that it was dealing with a particular
interest, ex. gr. that of a judgment debtor, whereas in truth the property
belonged to a person not a party and not bound : Jones v. Burnett, [1900]
1 Ch. 370, C. A. ; [1899] 1 Ch. 611.
KESALB.
It is provided by the general conditions (E. S. C. App. L. 15) that if the
purchaser does not pay in his purchase-money in due course, and otherwise
perform the conditions, an order may be made at Chambers for a resale,
and for payment by him of any deficiency in the price thereat, and of all
costs and expenses occasioned by such default.
Upon the purchaser making default in pa3dng his purchase-money, the
vendor may either obtain upon summons a simple order for payment into
Court, which may be enforced by writ of sequestration : 0. xm, 4 ; or he
may obtain an order for payment in, and in default a resale, and that the
purchaser make good the deficiency, and the costs and expenses occasioned
by such default.
In order, it seems, to preserve the remedy against a purchaser who does
not complete, of making him liable for any deficiency of price, the order for
resale does not direct the purchaser to be discharged : Harding v. H., 4
My. &' C. 514 ; and until the resale takes place he may complete his con-
tract upon payment of all costs occasioned by his default : Bobertson v.
iSkelton, 13 Beav. 91 ; but where the purchaser is bankrupt, and unable on
that ground to complete, an order may be obtained by the vendor re-
scinding the contract and forfeiting the deposit : see Nowell v. N., Depree
V. Bedborough, Forms 3, 4, sup. p. 347 ; and see Powell v. Marshall, [1899]
1 Q. B. 710, C. A.
A purchaser under a judgment being, from subsequent bankruptcy,
unable, and his assignees declining, to complete the purchase, the deposit
was forfeited on a resale, but without any order against the bankrupt's
estate to indemnify the vendors as to any deficiency: Depree v. Bedboroiigh,
4 Giff. 479.
( 350 ) [chap. XX.
CHAPTER XX.
FUBTHEfi CONSIDERATION.
1. Order on further Consideration {and Motion, or adjourned
Summons, to vary Certificate).
This action coming on [the — day of — and] this day for [if so,
subsequent] further consideration before this Court, in the presence
of counsel for the Pit and the Defts [if some Defts do not appear,
for the Pit and the Deft A., no one appearing for the Defts B. and
C, although they were duly served with notice of this action having
been set down to be heard for [subsequent] further consideration, as
by the affidavit of &c., filed &c., appears] ; if so, and for &c. parties
attending the proceedings {take names from Master's certificate) ;
and if so, and for &c. parties holding restraints ; and if so, and upon
motion of the Deft A., to vary the Master's certificate dated the
— day of — [or if on adjourned summons, and upon the application
of the Deft A. to vary &c., which upon hearing the solrs for the
applicant, and for &c., in Chambers, was adjourned to be heard in
Court], and upon reading the judgment [or order] dated the — day
of — , the Master's certificate dated the — day of — [enter any
evidence], and what was alleged by counsel for the Pit and the
Deft A., and if so, and for the said parties attending, This Court
doth &c.
For forms as to setting down, &c., see D. C. F. 713 et seq.
2. Order on Summons for further Consideration {and Summons to
vary Certificate) heard in Chambers.
Upon the application of the Pit, by summons dated &c., for the
further consideration of this action, adjourned by the order dated
&c. [if so, and upon the application of the Deft A. to vary the Master's
certificate dated the — day of — ], and upon hearing the solrs for the
applicant and for the Defts [and for &c., Form 1, sup.], and upon
reading the said order, the Master's certificate, dated the — day of —
[enter any evidence], It is ordered that &c.
3. Order on Summons for further Consideration {and Summons to
vary Certificate) adjourned into Court.
The application of the Pit, by summons dated &c., for the further
consideration of this action [If so, and the application of the Deft A.,
Further Consideration. 351
by summons dated &c., to vary the Master's certificate dated
tlie — day of — ], which upon hearing the solrs for the Pit and
for the Defts [// other -persons appear, and for &c., Form 1, sup.],
in Chambers, was [or were] adjourned to be heard in Court,
coming on (the — day of — and) this day to be heard accordingly ;
and upon hearing counsel for the Pit and the Defts [If so, and for the
said parties attending], and upon reading the said order, the Master's
certificate dated the — day of — [enter any evidence], this Court
doth &c.
And as to applications by motion or summons to vary the certificate and
adjourning the applications by summons to be heard in Court, see Chap.
XVIII., " Chambebs," pp. 321 et seq.
NOTES.
SETTING DOWN ACTION OR CAUSE FOK FUKTHEK OONSIDEEATION.
When any cause or matter in the Chancery Division has been adjourned
for further consideration, it may, after eight days and within fourteen days
from the filing of the certificate, be set down for further consideration, on the
written request of the solr for the Pit or party having the conduct of the
proceedings, and after the expiration of such fourteen days it may be set
down on the written request of the solr for the Pit, or for any other party,
and in either case on production of the judgment or order adjourning
further consideration, or an office copy thereof, and an office copy of the
Master's certificate, or a memorandum of the date when it was filed,
endorsed on the request above referred to by the proper officer. The cause,
when set down, is not to be put into the paper for ten days, and to be so
mafked. Notice of setting down is to be given to the other parties at least
six days before the day for which the cause is marked : O. xxxvi, 21.
And for the forms of the request and notice, see R. S. C. App. L. 26, 27 ;
D. C. P. 713, 714.
By O. XL, 10, upon a motion for judgment, or upon an application for a
new trial, the Court may, if of opinion that it has not sufficient material
before it, direct the motion to stand over for further consideration, and
direct issues or questions to be tried or determined, and accounts and
inquiries to be taken.
Where on further consideration further accounts and inquiries were
directed, but no question of law remained for decision, the Court refused to
adjourn further consideration in Court, but gave liberty to apply in
Chambers after certificate : Gilbert v. Russell, 1875, W. N. 225.
The action may be marked short as on the original hearing or trial, but
not, except by consent, so as to be in the paper until after ten days from the
date of setting down. And as to short causes, v. sup. p. 180.
On a question reserved by the Master for the Court's opinion, counsel
for the affirmative proposition have the right to begin : Lyle v. Ellwood, 23
W. R. 157.
By 0. xxxvE, 39 (Feb. 1892), the Judge shall, at or after the trial, direct
judgment to be entered as he shall think right, and no motion for judgment
shall be necessary in order to obtain such judgment. The original rule
contained a provision that the Judge might adjourn further consideration,
or leave any party to move for judgment.
SERVICE — APPEARANCE BY PERSONS NOT PARTIES.
All parties to the action, including any persons who may have entered
appearances pursuant to 0. xvi, 41, must be served with notice that the
action has been set down for further consideration.
352 Further Consideration. [chap. xx.
As to affidavit of service, see swp. pp. 19, 173.
If it is intended to deal with the proceeds of anyestates sold in the action,
the purchaser must he served, and if he does not appear, an affidavit not only
of service, but that his conveyance has been delivered to him, must be pro-
duced and entered as read. If the purchaser has obtained his conveyance,
he should not appear ; and doing so was refused his costs : Barton v.
Lalour, 18 Beav. 526. If it appears on the proceedings that he has obtained
his conveyance, he need not be served : Noble v. Stow (No. 2), 30 Beav. 272.
If any stop order affects the funds to be dealt with, the person who obtained
it must be served with notice, and if he does not appear, an affidavit of
service must be produced. If such purchaser or incumbrancer appear,
his appearance must be noticed in the order.
Persons against whom a personal order for payment of money is required
should be served, though they have not obtained an order to attend
proceedings : Re Bees, B. v. George, 15 Ch. D. 490.
If the persons served with the judgment or order do not appear, it is
not necessary in the absence of some special reason, to give them notice
of setting the case down on further consideration : Be Bolfe, 1894, W. N.
77; 70L.T. 624.
By O. Lxvn, 8, " where a person who is not a party appears in any
proceeding, either before the Court or in Chambers, service on the London
solr, by whom such person appears, whether acting as principal or agent,
is good service except in matters requiring personal service."
As to the right of a person not served with the judgment to obtain leave
to appear to contest a point on further consideration, see Samuel v. S., 12
Ch. D. 152, 161.
EVIDENCE.
An affidavit as to matters directly in issue, filed after the certificate,
could not formerly have been read, but the Court, on counsel's statement
of the facts, has sent an inquiry : Fleming v. Mast, Kay, lii ; and see Howard
V. Chaffers, 11 W. R. 585 ; but now, under 0. xxxvn, 1, further evidence
by affidavit may be received by leave of the Court : May v. Newton, 34
Ch. D. 347 ; and see Be Chifferiel, C. v. WaUon, 57 L. J. Ch. 137 ; 58 L. T.
877; 36 W. R. 806 ; Be Bouse, B. v. Trible, 1888, W. N. 231 ; 59 L. T.
887 ; Re Michael, Dessau v. Lewin, 52 L. T. 609 ; Beaney v. Elliott, 1880,
W. N. 99. Further evidence as to the conduct of the Deft between judg-
ment and further consideration was received on the question of costs, but
not as to his conduct before action : Be Bevill, Leigh v. Bumney, 55 L. T.
542.
Notice ought to be given of reading evidence entered in the certificate :
per M. R. (Sir G. Jessel), in Be Chennell, Jones v. C, 8 Ch. D. 504, C. A. In
Be Brier, B. v. Evison, 26 Ch. D. 242, C. A., the question was raised whether
the evidence could be read where there was no summons to vary, but was
not decided.
PKINCrPLE OF JUDGMENT NOT TO BE VAEIED.
The Court will not, on the further consideration of the action, entertain
questions raised on the pleadings, but with respect to which no direction or
reservation is contained in the original judgment : Legrand v. Whitehead,
1 Rus. 309 ; and see Morgan v. M., 13 Beav. 441 ; where after judgment
the Court refused leave to charge trustees with further breaches of trust,
see Be Wrightson, Wrightson v. Cooke, [1908] 1 Ch. 789 ; and as to where
further accounts and inquiries may be directed on the footing of wilful
default, Be Symons, 21 Ch. D. 757 ; Smith v. Armiiage, 24 Ch. D. 727 ;
and Ingpen on Exors., p. 567 ; and as to raising on further consideration
questions not raised in the pleading, see Hughes v. Jones, 3 D. F. & J. 307.
Interest. Interest may, on further consideration, be directed to be computed on
balances certified to be due, if grounds for it appear by the certificate,
although the decree declaring the liability contains no direction for payment
Further Consideration. 353
of interest, or the statement of claim does not aslc for it : Barlmid v. Earle,
[19051 A. C. 590 ; and see Ciiap. XLVII., " Moetoages," and Chap. XLI.,
" Trustees."
Wliere a decree was framed so as to give the Pits compensation for tlie
value of minerals wrongly taken, the Court declined, on further considera-
tion, to entertain a claim for interest thereon : Phillips v. Homfray, 44
Ch. D. 694, 701.
The principle on which costs have by the original judgment been directed Costa,
to be taxed will not be varied : Wilson v. Metcalfe, 1 Rus. 530 ; Quarrell v.
Beckford, 1 Mad. 286 ; but where by a decretal order directing an inquiry
what damage Pit had sustained, with liberty to apply, no further considera-
tion was adjourned, but costs of suit were ordered to be paid by Deft, the
Pit, though entitled to the costs of all matters properly within the inquiry,
notwithstanding he failed to prove any damage, was ordered to pay the
costs of questions improperly raised by him in prosecuting such inquiry :
Krehl v. Park, 10 Ch. 434.
Although an order on further consideration directing payment of costs in
a particular way did not reserve subsequent further consideration, nor the
question how the costs should ultimately be borne, the Court treated the
directions as to costs as being made for the purpose of convenience, and on
petition for payment out of the fund, readjusted the incidence of the costs :
In re Roper, Taylor v. Bland, 45 Ch. D. 126, C. A. ; and that it is right in
such a case to reserve the question how the costs are ultimately to be borne,
V. lb. p. 136.
Where a receiver has been appointed generally, it is unnecessary, on Continuing
further consideration, to insert a direction to continue him : Be Underwood, receiver.
U. V. U., 60 L. T. 384 ; 37 W. R. 428 ; and see Davies v. Vale of Evesham,
1895, W. N. 105 ; 43 W. R. 647 ; 73 L. T. 150.
As to adoption or variation of report of a referee on further consideration
of the action, see O. xxxvi, 54.
EURTHEE CONSIDERATION IN CHAMBERS.
By O. LV, 2 (16), applications for orders on the further consideration of
any cause or matter, where the order to be made is for the distribution of an
insolvent estate, or for the distribution of the estate of an intestate, or for
the distribution of a fund among creditors or debenture holders, may be
disposed of in Chambers.
Where questions of difficulty arose in the distribution of an insolvent
estate the Pit was allowed costs of further consideration in Court : Re
Barber, Burgess v. Vinnicome, 31 Ch. D. 665, 670.
As to the admon of insolvent estates, v. inf. Chap. XLIV., " Adminis-
tration."
In Gilbert v. Smith, 2 Ch. D. 686, C. A., on an order on admissions in
pleadings for the usual inquiries in a partition action, the Court reserved
further consideration, and gave liberty to any of the parties to apply that
the hearing on further consideration should be in Chambers.
It has been held that where an order is made on originating summons in
Chambers, adjourning further consideration, the action ought to be heard
on further consideration in Chambers : Re Olasson, 0. v. O., 1893, W. N.
85 ; but see D. C. P. 715, note ; Dan. 943, note.
As to bringing on for further consideration any matter originating in
Chambers, see O. lv, 72.
VOL. I. 2 A
( 354 ) [chap. XXI.
CHAPTER XXI.
SPECIAL CASE, AND QUESTIONS AND POINTS OF LAW.
1. Form of Order on Special Case which decides the whole Action.
This special case, stated for the opinion of this Court, and filed on
the &c., coming on this day to be heard before this Court in the
presence of counsel for the Pit and for the Deft, and upon reading the
said special case, and upon hearing what was alleged by counsel
for the Pit and Deft, This Court is of opinion that &c. And that the
costs of this special case and of this action ought to be paid by &c.
And counsel for the [Pit or Deft] moving for judgment in accordance
with the foregoing opinion, This Court doth order and adjudge
accordingly ; and it is ordered that it be referred to the taxing master
to tax the said costs [in case the parties differ]. — Liberty to apply.
This form was settled after the hearing of Harrison v. The Cornwall
Minerals Co., V.-C. H., 16 Ch. D. 66.
Where the decision on a special case will decide all questions in the action,
it is not necessary that the action should be separately set down on motion
for judgment : In re Cane, Buff v. Sivers, 60 L. J. Ch. 36 ; 63 L. T. 746,
where the Court made a declaration in terms of its answer to the case, and
(according to the reports) ordered further proceedings in the action to be
stayed. The reports, however, appear to be incorrect, as a reference to the
Eeg. Lib. 30 Oct. 1890, A. 1425, shows that the order was in the above form
with no stay of proceedings.
2. If the Special Case stands for Judgment.
This Court did order that this special case should stand for judg-
ment, and the same standing for judgment this day in the paper in
the presence of counsel for &c.. This Court, &c.
3. The like — Court declining to answer the Question.
This special case coming on &c. [Form 1, sup.], and this Court
being of opinion that the question submitted for the opinion of the
Court cannot properly be decided during the life of the Deft B., doth
decline to decide the same. — See Moore v. M., V.-C. W., 8 Dec. 1856,
B. 320 ; followed by V.-C. M., in Bright v. Tyndall, i Ch. D. 189, 199.
Special Case, and Questions and Points of Law. 355
4. Order of the Court of Appeal discharging Order on Special Case
without prejudice to Trial.
This Court doth order that the said order dated &c., be discharged
without prejudice to either party going to trial as if the special case
on which the said order was made had not been stated ; And it is
ordered that the Defts do repay to the Pit the costs by the said order
directed to be paid to the Defts. The costs of the said order in the
Court below and the costs occasioned by the said appeal to be costs
in the action. — Gillette Safety Razor Go. v. Gamage, C. A. 6 July,
1908, G. 1884.
5. Order to set down Special Case — 0. xxxiv, 4.
Upon reading an affidavit of &c., whereby it appears that the
Deft A. is a married woman [or an infant or a lunatic], It is ordered
that the Pit be at liberty to set down the said special case for hearing.
By O. XXXIV, 4, leave must be obtained to set down a special case to
which a married woman (not being a party thereto in respect of her separate
property, or of any separate right of action by or against her), infant, or
person of unsound mind not so found by inquisition is a party.
For order to amend special case by stating the question differently, and
thereon declaring rights, see Bell v. Cade, 2 J. & H. 125.
For order stating facts assumed from but not stated in the case, and
declaring the Court's opinion, see Lane v. Dehenham, 1 1 Ha. 195.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 1030.
6. Order directing Question of Law to he set down for Argument
without stating Special Case — 0. xxxiv, 2.
Order that the following question of law be set down to be argued
before the Court, viz., Whether &c.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 1028.
7. Order on Questions of Law set down under 0. xxxiv, 2.
The questions of law directed to be set down to be argued before
this Court by the order, dated &c., coming on this day to be argued
before this Court in the presence of counsel for the Pit and for the
Deft, and upon hearing what was alleged by counsel for the Pit
and Deft, This Court doth declare &c.
8. Order directing Point of Law raised by Pleadings to he set down
under 0. xxv, 2.
Order that the point of law raised by the defence be set down
to be argued before this Court.
356 Special Case, and Questions and Points of Law. [cH. Xxl.
9. Order on Point of Law.
The point of law raised by the defence, and by the order, dated
&c., directed to be set down to be argued before this Court, coming
on &c. — See Form 7.
NOTES.
Special case. '^^f procedure by special case is now regulated by 0. xxxiv, which
provides, by r. 1, that the parties to any cause or matter may concur in
stating the questions of law arising therein in the form of a special case for
the opinion of the Court, stating concisely such facts and documents as
may be necessary to enable the Court to decide the questions thereby
raised. Upon the argument of such case the Court and the parties may
refer to the whole contents of such documents, and the Court may, from
the facts and documents stated, draw any inference, whether of fact or
law, which might have been drawn from them if proved at a trial.
This order is byO. Lxvni, 2, made apphcable to all civil proceedings on
the Crown side of the King's Bench Division: see Crown Rules, 1906,
r. 129.
A special case which raises questions of fact only is a proceeding extra
cursum ounce, and from it no appeal wiU lie : Burgess v. Morton, [18961
A. C. 136, H. L.
The rules as to parties (as to which v. sup. Chap. IX.) apply to a special
case.
As to amendment of special case, see Dan. 1681.
Under Sir G. Turner's Act (13 & 14 V. c. 35), the special case might be
amended by adding parties after it was set down : Thistleioaite v. Gamier,
5 D. & S. 73 ; or at the hearing, the case being set down again : Barnahy v.
Tassell, 11 Eq. 363 ; Savage v. Snell, 11 Eq. 264 ; Attey v. Etough, 13 Eq.
462 ; but in Johnston v. Brown, 8 Eq. 584, where a female Deft had married
after the setting down, it was held that the case need not be set down again.
Where a material fact was omitted, but admitted by all parties at the
hearing, prefacing the order with a recital to that effect was sufficient :
Lane v. Debenham, 11 Ha. 188; 17 Jur. 1005. Although this Act is
repealed by 46 & 47 V. c. 49, yet 0. xxxiv, 8, provides that a special case
may be stated for the same purpose and in the same manner : see inf.
A special case cannot be amended under 0. xxvin, 6 ; but when a decision
has been given under a mistake of fact, the Court is not thereby bound, but,
unless the decision has been carried into effect by any subsequent order,
may direct the action to go on to trial, and then direct inquiries to ascertain
th3 real facts : Be Taylor's Estate ; Tomlin v. Underhay, 22 Ch. D. 495.
Upon special case under these rules, the Court has decided questions as to
title in an action for recovery of possession of land : General Finance, <S:c.
Co. V. Liberator Building Society, 10 Ch. D. 15 ; as to whether estates,
subject of an action for specific performance, were comprised in a devise
of trust estates : Lysaght v. Edwards, 2 Ch. D. 499 ; as to construction of a
power of appointment : Marshall v, Aizlewood, 1881, W. N. 3 ; and as to
validity in law of objections to letters patent : Rolls v. Isaacs, 19 Ch. D. 268.
As to special case stated by arbitrator or referee, v. inf. Chap. XXVII.,
" Arbiteatoes " ; and in interpleader proceedings. Chap. XXIX.,
" Intbbplbadbb."
„ . . By r. 2, if it appear to the Court or a Judge that there is in any cause or
of^law^ " matter a question of law which it would be convenient to have decided
before any evidence is given or any question or issue of fact is tried, or
reference made to a referee or an arbitrator, the Court or Judge may make
an order accordingly, and may direct such question to be raised by special
case or in such other manner as may be deemed expedient, and may stay
aU proceedings in the meantime.
Special Case, and Questions and Points of Law. 357
The rule is applicable only to such questions of law as must necessarily
arise in the action : Bepublic of Bolivia v. National Bolivian Navigation Co.,
24 W. R.'361 ; and as to the Court declining to entertain fictitious questions,
see Bright v. Tyndall, 4 Ch. D. 189, 197 ; Pryse v. P., 15 Eq. 86 ; Key v. K.,
4 D. M. & G. 73 ; or questions submitted in such a form that the real rights
of the parties cannot be determined : Bulkeley v. Hope, 4 W. R. 280 ; 8
D. M. & G. 36 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 240 ; or to make declaration of future rights :
Lady Langdale v. Briggs, 8 D. M. & G. 426 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 45 ; 4 W. R. 703 ;
Dawson v. D., 4 Eq. 508 ; Gosling v. 6., John. 265 ; Moore v. M., sup.
Form 3 ; and as to the Court declining to answer, see Ewart v. E., 11 Ha.
276 ; Pryse v. P., sup. ; and that the Court would not act on inferences
drawn by the parties, but required that necessary facts should be verified
by affidavit, Domville v. Lamb, 9 Ha. Iv.
As to the time when appUoation should be made under the rule, see Met.
Bd. of Works V. New Biver Co., 1 Q. B. D. 727 ; 2 Q. B. D. 67, C. A. ;
Tattersall v. National Steamship Co., 1884, W. N. 32 ; and for form of
motion or summons, D. 0. F. 1028.
By r. 3, every special case is to be printed and signed by the several Filing,
parties, or their counsel or solrs, and filed.
By r. 4, a special case in a cause or matter to which a married woman Parties under
(not being a party thereto in respect of her separate property, or of any disability,
separate right of action by or against her), infant, or person of unsound mind
not so found by inquisition is a party, is not to be set down for argument
without leave of the Court or a Judge, the application for which must be
supported by sufficient evidence that the statements contained in such
special case, so far as the same affect the interest of such married woman,
infant, or person of unsound mind, are true.
The application under this rule is now usually by summons in Chambers :
see O. LV, 2 (17), sup. p. 311, and Dan. 1681.
By r. 5, either party may enter a special case for argument by delivering
to the proper officer a memorandum of entry (see Form, R. S. C. App. G.,
No. 25), and also producing a copy of any ovder made under r. 4.
SETTING DOWN THE SPECIAL CASE.
A special case caimot now be set down before the C. A. in the first
instance ; it will not be placed in the paper for one month after being set
down unless by consent ; and it must not be marked short : see Anon.,
M. R., 1 W. R. 10.
By O. xxxiv, r. 6, the parties to a special case may enter into an agree-
ment (not liable to stamp duty) that upon the judgment of the Court a sum
of money shall be paid by one party to the other, and that execution shall
issue forthwith, unless otherwise agreed, and unless stayed on appeal.
SPECIAL CASE UNDER 13 & 14 V. C. 35.
By r. 8, a special case may be stated for the same purposes and in the
same manner as was provided by the 13 & 14 V. c. 35, and the same shall
be deemed to be a special case stated in a matter within the meaning of
O. XXXIV.
The effect of this rule is to keep alive the provisions of Sir G. Turner's
Act (repealed by 46 & 47 V. c. 49), under which, by sect. 1 , persons interested
in any question as to the construction of any Act of Parliament, will, deed,
&c., or as to the title, &c., to any real or personal estate contracted to be sold,
or as to any other matter falling within the jurisdiction of Equity, might
concur in stating a special case for the opinion of the Court ; and exors,
admors, and trustees might concur therein. By sect. 2, the committee of a
lunatic's estate might concur, with the sanction of the L. C, or of the Lords
Justices.
By sect. 14, the Court, upon the hearing, might determine the questions
raised, or any of them, and by decree declare its opinion, without proceeding
358 Special Case, and Questions and Points of Law. [ch. xxi.
to administer any relief consequent thereon, or might decline to decide. By
sect. 15, the declaration was to indemnify trustees, and this protection still
subsists : Ee Benzon, Forster v. Schlesinger, 54 L. T. 51 ; 1886, W. N. 19.
By sect. 17, the special case was to be a Us pendens, and might be registered
as such. On a special case under a will, the costs were payable out of the
general residue : Armitage v. Coates, 35 Beav. 1 ; Cowley v. Wellesley, lb.
635 ; or, if none, from the specific property : Coohson v. Bingham, 17 Beav.
262. The estate having been administered, except £100, the trustees took
their costs thereout in priority, and the residue went to the other parties
rateably : Hindle v. Taylor, 5 D. M. & G. 577. As to costs under the old
practice, see Morg. & Wurtz., 92 ; Dan. 5th ed., pp. 1710, 1711.
■ Thesp orders are subject to appeal : see sect. 33.
The Court could decide disputed rights, on a special case : sect. 14 ;
Schroeder v. 8., Kay, 578 ; affir. 24 L. J. Ch. 510 ; 3 Eq. Rep. 97 ; 18 Jur.
987 ; 3 W. R. 55 ; but see Bailey v. Collett, 23 L. J. Ch. 230 ; 2 W. R. 216.
All persons interested beneficially were required to be parties : Entwistle
T. Cannon, 4 W. R. 450 ; but where one of the parties was out of the juris-
diction, and there were others before the Court having identical interests,
his presence was dispensed with : Re Brown, 29 Beav. 401 ; and the trustees
were necessary parties to a case for construing the trust deed : Vorley v.
Richardson, 8 D. M. & G. 126.
It must, however, be borne in mind that the procedure under the Act
is in most cases superseded or rendered unnecessary by the procedure by
way of originating summons (v. sup. Chap. XVIII., " Chambbks "), which
should, it is conceived, be always resorted to where practicable.
SECT. I.J ( 359 )
CHAPTER XXII.
ISSUES.
Section I. — Directing Trial of Issues and Questions of Fact.
1. Order for Trial of Issues or Questions of Fact, or Fact and Law,
before the Court without a Jury, and with or ivithout Assessors
— 0. XXXVI, 8.
Order that the following issues [or questions of fact, or partly of
fact and partly of law] be tried before this Court, [or, if so, with
&c. as assessors], if day appointed for trial add on the — day of — ,
that is to say, whether &c. [State the issues or questions to be tried.
Add, if so : Adjourn, &c.] — Liberty to apply.
For order directing interpleader issue as to ownership of goods seized by
sheriff, see Chap. XXIX., Sect. 11., Form 1, " Intbrplbadee."
2. Order for Trial of Issues or Questions of Fact by a Jury before
another Division or at Assizes — 0. xxxvi, 44.
And this Court being of opinion that, by reason of &c. [State the
reason], it is expedient that the following issues [of fact or partly of
fact and partly of law] arising in this action shoidd be tried by a
common [or special] jury before a Judge [or Commi] at the sittings
in London [or Middlesex] of the K. B. Division [or at the next assizes
to be holden for the county of &c.], that is to say, whether &c. [State
the issues or questions], doth order that such issues [or questions] be
accordingly so tried [Add, if so : Adjourn, &c.]. — Liberty to apply.
3. Further Issue added by Consent.
Order that the following additional issue agreed upon by parties
be tried with and at the same time as those ordered to be tried
under the order dated &c., that is to say &c. — Williams v. Allen,
Stirling, J., 3 Nov. 1887, B. 1320.
4. Order postponing Trial.
Order that the trial of the issues arising in this action directed
to be tried by the order dated &c. be postponed until the next assizes
3G0
Issues.
[chap. XXII.
-Whitaker v. leather, M. E.
Trial by jury.
Different
modes of
tria,!.
Instances
where jury
refused.
to be holden at L — in the county of -
at Chambers, 20 July, 1876, B. 1714.
For form of notice of motion, see D. C. P. 368.
For form of certificate of associate after trial by jury, see A. P.
App. B. 17.
NOTES.
DIRECTING ISSUES— EIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY DISOEBTION OF COURT.
The right of suitors to a jury was in general unaffected by the Judicature
Acts ; but by the Rules of 1883 has been greatly modified, especially in the
Chancery Division.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 29, " any party to any cause or matter involving
the trial of a question or issue of fact, or partly of fact and partly of law,"
may, with the leave of the Judge or Judges of the Court or Division, have
the question or issue tried at the assizes or at the sittings in London or
Middlesex, as provided for by sect. 30.
By Jud. Act, 1875, s. 21, the methods of procedure previously existing in
the different Courts are preserved in similar cases when not inconsistent
with the Acts and Rules. And see 0. lxxii, 2.
By O. xxxvi, 3, " causes or matters assigned by the principal Act to the
Chancery Division shall be tried by a Judge without a jury, unless the
Court or a Judge shall otherwise order."
Rules 4, 5, 6, and 7 provide for orders directing trial with or without a jury.
By r. 8, " subject to the provisions of the preceding rules of this order, the
Court or a Judge may, in any cause or matter, at any time or from time to
time, order that different questions of fact arising therein be tried by
different modes of trial, or that one or more questions of fact be tried before
the others, and may appoint the places for such trials, and in all cases may
order that one or more issues of fact be tried before any other or others."
Before the Jud. Act, all questions of fact arising in suits properly in-
stituted in Chancery could, without any consent of parties, be tried without
a jury. If the Court thought fit, a jury could be had either by summoning
a jury in Chancery (21 & 22 V. c. 27, s. 2), or by directing issues at law ;
but neither party could claim a jury as a matter of right : BovUIy. Hitchcock,
3 Ch. 417 ; Patent Marine Inventions Co. v. Chadburn, 16 Eq. 447. But
at law questions of fact were tried with a jury as a matter of course, except
such questions as, under the C. L. P. Act, 1854, ss. 3, 6, could without
consent be referred to arbitration. The Jud. Act, 1873, s. 57, continued this
exception under the new practice, and somewhat extended the class of
cases which might be referred without consent ; and it is now provided by
the Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 V. c. 49), s. 13, that, " subject to rules
of Court, and to any right to have particular cases tried by a jury, the Court
or a Judge may refer any question arising in any cause or matter (other
than a criminal proceeding by the Crown) for inquiry and report to any
official or special referee."
The effect of the above rules is to make trial without jury the normal
mode of trial in the Chancery Division, except where trial with a jury is
ordered under rr. 3, 6, or 7 (a) : Timson v. Wilson, 38 Ch. D. 72, 76, C. A. ;
The Temple Bar, 11 P. D. 6, C. A. ; Jenkins v. Bushhy, [1891] 1 Ch. 484,
C. A. ; Baring Bros. v. N. W. of Uruguay By. Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 406, C. A.,
sup. ; and for the discretion formerly given to the Court by r. 26 of
O. xxxvi of 1875, to direct a trial without a jury, is now substituted the
converse discretion to direct trial with a jury.
Under the new rules the Court has declined to direct a trial with a jury in
an action for injunction and damages for infringement of copyright : Coote
V. Ingram, 35 Ch. D. 117 ; in an action for specific performance and in-
junction against infringement of ancient lights : Sheppard v. Oilmore,
34 W. R. 179 ; 53 L. T. 625 ; in an action claiming declaration that Deft
was trustee for Pit, an account and damages for detention of chattels :
s. I.J Directing Trial of Issues and Questions of Fact. 361
Gardner v. Jay, 29 Ch. D. 50, C. A. ; in an action claiming a declaration that
Pit's bonds were deposited with the Defta in fraud of the Pit, and that they
took them with notice : Thornton v. Union Discount Co. of London, 7
Times Rep. 322.
And in general an action will not be sent for trial with a jury, unless it
involves a simple issue of fact, determination of which will decide the case :
Cardinall v. 0., 25 Ch. D. 772 ; and see Gardner v. Jay, 29 Ch. D. 50, 56,
C. A. ; and one Deft cannot insist upon having one issue relating to a matter
not assigned to the Chancery Division tried with a jury : Sheppard v.
Gilmore, sup. ; nor a Pit in a redemption action, merely because Deft
counter-claims for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation : Lynch v.
Macdonald, 37 Ch. D. 227, C. A. ; and the mere fact that the action will be
more quickly tried at the assizes is not a ground for sending it there :
Cardinall v. C, sup. But where a view of the locus in quo is all-important,
a trial with a jury will be directed : Jenkins v. Bushby, [1891] 1 Ch. 484,
C. A. ; but see Mangan v. Met. Electric Supply Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 551, C. A.
The Court declined to direct a trial of selected issues, the determination
of which would not necessarily involve a determination of the main issue
in the action : Ehrmann v. E., 72 L, T. 352, 548.
The discretion of the Court under O. xxx (v. sup. p. 25) has been generally
exercised in accordance with the existing practice.
Under the previous rules, a trial with a jury has been refused where there
were mixed questions of law and fact : Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog,
11 Ch. D. 656 ; Garling v. Royds, 15 W. R. 125 ; and see Cardinall v. C,
sup. ; in an action for infringement of trade mark, where only one issue of
small importance was appropriate for a jury : Spratt's Patent v. Ward,
11 Ch. D. 241 ; in an action to restrain publication of a trade libel : Thomas
V. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 864 ; where the question was mainly one of title,
and depended on construction of documents : Wedderburn v. Pickering,
13 Ch. D. 769 ; and see A. G. v. Arkcoll, 1882, W. N. 182 ; Garling v.
Boyds, 25 W. R. 123 ; or, under the Lands Clauses Act, whether lands had
become superfluous : Smith v. N. Staffordshire By. Co., 44 L. T. 85 ; in
actions for specific performance: Usil v. Whelpton, 50 L. J. Ch. 511 ;
45 L. T. 39 ; 29 W. R. 799 ; Sykes v. FiHh, 46 L. J. Ch. 627 ; Pilley v.
Baylis, 5 Ch. D. 241 ; Swindell v. Birmingham Syndicate, 3 Ch. D. 127, C. A. ;
on the application of a Pit who had delayed giving notice of trial, or in
taking other steps : Lloyd v. Jones, 7 Ch. D. 390.
In cases which, before the new procedure, would not have been essentially
Chancery cases (see Swindell v. Birmingham Syndicate, 3 Ch. D. 127, C. A.),
the fact that the Deft desired a trial by jury at the assizes was held a
sufficient reason to be stated on the order : West v. White, 4 Ch. D. 631 ;
but see, contra. Wood, cfcc. v. Hamblet, 6 Ch. D. 113, that the mere desire of
the parties is not sufficient, and that the reasons should be stated on the
order ; and see Powell v. Williams, 12 Ch. D. 234, 239.
The refusal of one Deft did not prevent an action from being tried with a
jury, but it imposed on the Deft who desired it the duty of showing that it
was more convenient : Mirehouse v. Barnett, 47 L. J. Ch. 689 ; 26 W. R.
690 ; Moss v. Bradburn, 32 W. R. 368 ; and see Bach v. Hay, 5 Ch. D. 235.
Where the parties had by agreement taken the evidence by affidavit, the
Court refused to direct a trial with a jury, even in a case peculiarly adapted
for such trial : Brook v. Wigg, 8 Ch. D. 510, C. A.
And an application by the Pit has been the less readily entertained,
because by bringing his action in the Chancery Division he has selected his
forum : Back v. Hay, 5 Ch. D. 235 ; Pilley v. Davis, lb. 241 ; Sykes v.
Firth, sup. ; Buston v. Tobin, 10 Ch. D. 558, C. A. ; and see Spratfs Patent
V. Ward, 11 Ch. D. 241 ; Wedderburn v. Pickering, sup. ; Powell v. Williams,
12 Ch. D. 234.
Issues of fact at the instance of the Deft have been directed to be tried Instances
with a jury in cases of injunction to restrain nuisance : Clarke v. Skipper, 21 where jury
Ch. D. 134 ; Powell v. Williams, 12 Ch. D. 234 ; obstruction of lights : ordered.
362
Issues.
[chap. XXII.
Transfei; to
K. B. D.
Appeal.
Bordier v. Burrell, 5 Ch. D. 512 ; interference with watercourse : Petar v.
Lailey, 1881, W. N. 22 ; in creditors' actions for admon where the Pit's debt
was disputed : Clarke v. Coohson, 2 Ch. D. 746 ; Re Martin, Hunt v.
Chamhers, 20 Ch. D. 365, C. A. ; in an action for infringement of patent :
Sugg V. Silber, I Q. B. D. 362 ; and for dissolution of partnership on the
ground of breaches in the articles : Clements v. Norris, 6 Ch. D. 129.
A Deft did not lose his right to have his case tried before a jury by
entering into an arrangement for a motion for injunction to stand to the
trial : Clarhe v. Shipper, 21 Ch. D. 134.
In Re Moordaff, Burgoine v.M.,S P. D. 205, after two abortive trials with
a jury, a trial without jury was directed.
Where all the issues are appropriate for trial with a jury, and there is no
necessity that the matter should come back to the Chancery Division, the
most convenient course is to transfer the whole action to the King's Bench
Division : Be Martin, Hunt v. Chambers, sup. ; Fennessy v. Rabbits, 56
L. T. 138.
As the jurisdiction to direct a trial with or without a jury is discretionary,
the C. A. has been reluctant to interfere, unless the discretion has been
exercised in a manner clearly erroneous : Ruston v. Tobin, 10 Ch. D. 558,
565, C. A. ; Re Martin, Hunt v. Chambers, 20 Ch. D. 365, C. A. ; Ormerod v.
Todmorden Mill Co., 8 Q. B. D., 664, 679, 684, C. A. ; A. 0. v. Vyner,
38 W. R. 194; Mangan v. Metropolitan Electric Supply Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 551.
Before
hearing.
Jurisdiction
of Masters
in K. B. D.
and P. D.
INTEELOCUTOBY OEDBRS.
By O. XXXVI, 44, the Court or Judge may, " at any time, or from time to
time," order the determination of an issue, and, under the former practice,
an issue might be sent before the hearing : Kent v. Burgess, 11 Sim. 361 ;
Townley v. Deare, 3 Beav. 213.
As to the duty of the parties to put their legal right in a course of trial at
an early stage of their proceedings, and not wait till the hearing, see Bacon
V. Jones, 4 M. & C. 433 ; and as to the effect of delay in applying for a trial
by jury, see Thomas v. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 864, 871 ; Brooke v. Wigg, 8
Ch. D. 510.
After the disclosure of the Pit's evidence, the Court did not willingly
direct issues on the Deft's motion : Roskell v. Whitworth, 5 Ch. 459.
After the jury had found against the validity of a deed, the order being
submitted to, the parties claiming under the deed could not at the hearing
insist on the Statute of Limitations : Lewis v. Thomas, 3 Ha. 26.
In Powell V. Williams, 12 Ch. D. 234, it was held that notice by Deft of
desire to have issues tried by a jury should be given out of Court, and should
be in general terms, and not specify particular issues.
An advance from a fund in Court to enable parties to try an issue was
refused in Johnston v. Todd, 3 Beav. 218 ; and in Nye v. Maule, 4 M. & C.
342 ; but in Coombs v. Brooks, 3 D. & S. 452, was allowed.
Leave to bring an action was given, instead of sending inquiries : Watson
V. Parker, 2 Ph. 5 ; and see Lockhart v. Hardy, 5 Beav. 305.
Issues as to matters not suggested on the pleadings were not directed :
Morgan v. Fuller (1), 2 Bq. 296 ; but an issue as to fraud was not defective
because it threw on the Deft the onus of showing bona fides : Browne v.
McClintock, L. R. 6 H. L. 456.
By O. Liv, 12, the settlement of issues, except by consent, is excluded
from the jurisdiction of the Masters of the King's Bench Division, and from
that of the Registrar of the Probate, &c.. Division. There may be a
reference to Chambers to settle issues : Powell v. Williams, 12 Ch. D. 234.
TKIAL OF SOME ISSUES BBFOEE OTHERS.
An application to have one issue in action tried before others can only be
granted on very special grounds ; as, for instance, where there is reason to
believe that the trial of such issue will put an end to the action : per
s. I.] Directing Trial of Issues and Questions of Fact. 363
Jessel, M. R., Piercy v. Young, 15 Ch. D. 475, 480 ; Emma Silver Mining Co.
V. Grant, 11 Ch. D. 918, 926 ; and see Dent v. Sovereign Life Ass., 27 W. R.
378 ; Tasmanian Main Line Co. v. Clark, 27 W. R. 677.
Where liability and amount of damages are both disputed, and the
question of damages is such that it will probably be referred to some
tribunal other than a jury, the question of liability may be directed to be
tried first : Smith v. Hargrove, dkc. Co., 16 Q. B. D. 183.
PLACE AND MODE OF TRIAL BY JURY UNDER THE JUD. ACTS.
By Jud. Act, 1875, s. 21, and by the rules (see 0. lxxii, 2), the existing
procedure is preserved, except where otherwise provided by the Acts and
Rules.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 29, commissions of assize for the trial of " any
causes or matters, or any questions or issues of fact or of law, or partly
of fact and partly of law " may issue ; and any party to a cause or matter
may, with the leave of the Judge or Judges to whom or to whose Division
the cause or matter is assigned, require the question or issue to be tried
before a commr. And by consent a cause or matter not involving any
question or issue of fact may be tried in like manner.
Sect. 30 (as amended by 46 & 47 V. c. 39) provides that, " subject to
rules of Court, sittings for the trial by jury of causes and questions or issues
of fact, shall be held in Middlesex or London " continuously ; and, by
sect. 37, trials by jury, whether in London or Middlesex, or under com-
missions of assize, &c., shall, subject to the arrangements of the Judges, be
held by or before Judges of the Queen's Bench Division ; but there is a
proviso for including other persons in any such commissions.
In Redmayne v. Vaughan, 24 W. R. 983, an issue from the Chancery
Division was tried at Liverpool.
By O. XXXVI, 9, " every trial of any question or issue of fact by a jury
shall be by a single Judge, unless such trial be specially ordered to be by
two or more Judges." And see Jud. Act, 1873, s. 40, which is now modified
by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 V. c. 59), s.l7, by which all
actions and proceedings are to be before a single Judge, subject to rules of
Court.
Rule 13 provides for the form of notice of trial.
As to the jurisdiction of the Judge upon a summons for directions under Jurisdiction
O. XXX, 1, in an action to be tried at assizes, to order that the Deft shall under
take notice of trial at a period less than ten days before the commission O- xxx, 1.
day, and that the case shall not come on for trial at the assizes until a day
which will make the notice so given a ten days' notice of trial, see Baxter v.
HoUsworth, [1899] 1 Q. B. 266, C. A.
By 0. XXXVI, 39, " the Judge shall, at or after trial, direct judgment to Entering
be entered as he shall think right, and no motion for judgment shall be judgment,
necessary in order to obtain such judgment."
By the Jud. Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 44), s. 2, " every motion for judg-
ment in any cause or matter in which there has been a trial of any issue
therein with a jury," shall be heard and determined before the Judge before
whom such trial with a jury took place, and not by a Divisional Court,
unless it be impossible or inconvenient that such Judge should act, in which
case such motion shall be heard and determined by some other Judge to be
nominated by the President of the Division to which the cause or matter
belongs.
By O. XXXVI, 41, upon every trial at the assizes, or at the London and
Middlesex sittings of the K. B. Division, " where the ofBcer present
at the trial is not the officer by whom judgments ought to be entered, the
associate or master shall enter all such findings of fact as the Judge may
direct to be entered, and the directions, if any, of the Judge as to judgment,
and the certificates, if any, granted by the Judge, in a book to be kept for
tlie purpose."
304 Issues. [chap. xxii.
By r. 42, " if the Judge shall direct that any judgment be entered for any
party absolutely, the certificate of the associate or Master to that effect
shall be a sufBcient authority to the proper officer to enter judgment
accordingly." The certificate may be in the Form No. 17 in App. (B) to
R. S. C.
If such trials are those of actions in the Chancery Division, the registrar
will be the proper officer.
Jurors. As to irregularities in impanelling the jury, see Irwin v. Grey, L. R.
2 H. L. 20 ; Mulcahy v. The Queen, L. R. 3 H. L. 306.
As to qualifications, summoning, attendance, and remuneration of jurors,
see 33 & 34 V. u. 77.
POSTPONING TRIAL.
Notice of trial cannot now be countermanded except by consent or by
leave, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just : 0. xxxvi,
19 ; Clarke v. Cookson, 24 W. R. 535.
By r. 34, the Judge may postpone or adjourn the trial on such terms, if
any, as he shall think fit.
Under special circumstances leave was given to postpone : Bearhhck v.
Tyler, 1 J. & W. 226 ; Rebel v. Philpot, 9 Sim. 614 ; the application being
made to the Court which directed the issue : S. C. ; it was refused in
Hargrave v. H., 9 Beav. 153, and Wright v. Mcduffie, 4 C. B. N. S. 441 ;
and motion by Pit for stay of trial, till Deft had cleared his contempt in
non-payment of costs, was refused : Bickford v. Skewes, 10 Sim. 193 ;
8. C, 4 M. & C. 498 ; and see Reeve v. Hodson, 10 Ha. xxiv.
That the House of Lords might be influenced on an appeal case by the
result of a trial was no ground for postponing it : Boyse v. Coldottgh,
1 K. & J. 140.
DEFAULT AT TEIAL.
Where the Pit or party having the conduct of the issue fails to bring it
on, the other side may now do so : O. xxxvi, 12, v. sup. p. 145.
By O. XXXVI, 31, " it, when a trial is called on, the Pit appears, and the
Deft does not appear, then the Pit may prove his claim so far as the burden
of proof Hes upon him."
By r. 32, " if, when a trial is called on, the Deft appears, and the Pit does
not appear, the Deft, if he has no counter-claim, shall be entitled to judg-
ment dismissing the action, but if he has a counter-claim, then he may
prove such claim so far as the burden of proof lies upon him."
By r. 33, " any verdict or judgment obtained where one party does not
appear at the trial, may be set aside by the Court or a Judge upon such
terms as may seem fit, upon an application made within six days after the
trial : such application may be made either at the assizes or in Middlesex."
As to extending time for application, see Ashton v. Emanuel, 1902,
W. N. 231.
Where judgment goes by default, the jury need not be sworn : Lane v.
Eve, 1876, W. N. 86.
As to default of either side in appearing at the trial, v. sup. p. 148.
COSTS OP ISSUE.
By 0. Lxv, 1, costs are to be in the discretion of the Court, but the costs
of any action or issue tried by a jury are to follow the event, unless upon
application made at the trial for good cause shown the Judge before whom
such action or issue is tried or the Court shall otherwise order.
As to the operation of this rule generally, v. sup. p. 240.
Formerly, costs of an issue were discretionary, but generally followed the
event as at law : see Corp. Rochester v. Lee, 2 D. M. & G. 427 ; Duncan v.
Varty, 2 Ph. 696. But see Wright v. IF., 5 Sim. 449.
Success on the material issue carried all the costs at law, notwithstanding
failure on another issue : Blackburn v. Gregson, 1 B. C. C. 425.
SECT. II. J Special Directions as to Trial of Issues, &c. 365
The costs of an issue directed on an interlocutory application could be
disposed of after the issue was decided, without waiting for the hearing of
the cause : Duncan v. Varty, 2 Ph. 696 ; overruUng Malins v. Price, 2 Col.
190 ; but where, on appeal, an order directing an issue was reversed, and a
new issue directed, the costs of the appeal were reserved : Parker v. Morrell,
2 Ph. 453.
And as to costs of issue, and actions, and appeal, where an action was
allowed, on appeal from an order refusing a new trial of an issue found for
Deft, and from an order dismissing the bill, and Pit succeeded in the action,
and in a second action allowed at law, see Co)-p. iJoc/jes<er v. £ce, 2 D. M. & G.
427 ; and see Martin v. Pycroft, lb. 806.
Where Defts obtained an order for a new trial on their paying costs of the
former one, and they did not go to trial, they were not bound to pay the
costs : Lambert v. Fisher, 7 Sim. 525.
As to costs of an issue under the Inclosure Act, 1845 (8 & 9 V, c. 118),
s. 56, see Hardy v. Fetherstonhaugh, L. R. 4 Q. B. 725.
Section II. — Special Directions as to Trial of Issues and
Questions of Fact.
1. Order for View by Special Jury — 0. l, 5.
Order that the sheriff of M. do cause the premises known as &c. in
the county of M., to be shown to six or more of the first twelve special
jurors to be summoned and impanelled to try the question between
the said parties, or as many more of them as he shall think fit, to take
a view of the place in question, at a time to be fixed by the said sheriff.
But that no evidence be then and there given to the said jurors.
And it is ordered that the sherifi of M. do return the names of such
jurors as shall view the said place to the Associate of the (King's)
Bench Division [of the X. circuit], for the purpose of their being
called as special jurymen upon the trial of the said question. —
Newman v. Worley, V.-C. B. at Chambers, 12 Feb. 1883, B. 194.
The order to try by a special jury may be included in this Form. For
similar order in which the time to view is fixed, see March v. Bailey,
Pearson, J., at Chambers, 20 July, 1885, B. 938.
2. Order Beferring Matters, during Trial of Action, to an Expert to
report to the Court — Letter to be sent to Surveyor.
This action coming on for trial &c., and the Defts by their counsel
admitting for the purposes of this action that all the windows in the
houses, Nos. 40 and 42, fronting Queen Anne's Gate, are ancient
windows, This Court doth hereby appoint J. S., of &c., to inquire,
inspect, and report to the Court as follows, that is to say : —
1. Whether if the plans furnished by the Defts to the Pit as in
the statement of claim mentioned were carried out and buildings
erected in accordance therewith, the access of light which was enjoyed
366 Issues. [chap. xxii.
by the windows of the Pit's houses, Nos. 40 and 42, Queen Anne's
Gate, or any and which of them previously to the demolition of the
buildings, Nos. 38 and 36, Queen Anne's Gate, would be interfered
with, and if with so in what way and to what extent.
2. Whether the said proposed buildings, if erected, would by
their interference with the access of light enjoyed as aforesaid by
the Pit's said windows, or any and which of them, make the Pit's
said houses, Nos. 40 and 42, Queen Anne's Gate, or either of them
or any and what part or parts of the said houses or either of them,
in a sensible degree less comfortable or convenient, and if so, in what
way and to what extent.
3. Any facts or circumstances which may appear to him to be
material to the subject matter of the foregoing enquiries, though
not particularly hereinbefore mentioned.
And this Court doth order that the said J. S. be furnished with
a copy of this order and of the plans so furnished by the Defts to
the Pit as aforesaid, and with elevations of the buildings formerly
standing on the Defts' premises, and known as 36 and 38, Queen Anne's
Gate, and with the models prepared by the Pit and the Defts respec-
tively and with such other elevations, sections, and plans as he may
require, and be afiorded all facilities for inspecting the site of the
Defts' proposed buildings and the Pit's said houses. And the Pit
and the Defts respectively are to be entitled to appoint one expert
to attend the said J. S. if and when he shall desire them to do so,
and to be heard by him on behalf of the Pit and the Defts ; And it is
ordered that the Pit and the Defts do respectively give to the said
J. S. all such information and assistance, professional or otherwise,
whether verbal or in writing, as he may require ; And it is ordered
that the fees and expenses of and incidental to this Order, and the
report to be made thereon, be costs in the action.
And the further hearing of this action is adjourned to be heard by
Mr. Justice J., after the said J. S. shall have made his report, and in
the meantime all proceedings in this action are to be stayed, And the
Defts are not without the consent in writing of the said J. S., pending
such further hearing to carry their new building higher than the level
of the cornice of the buildings Nos. 36 and 38, Queen Anne's Gate, or
proceed with any work other than steel construction beyond the
western boundary of the house formerly No. 38, Queen Anne's Gate.
• — Liberty to apply.
Where such an order is made a letter in the following terms is sent by
the Registrar in attendance to the expert appointed : —
SiE, — In the above action an order has this day been made by the
Honble. Mr. Justice J. appointing you to enquire, inspect, and report
to his Lordship as mentioned in such order, a copy of which will be sent
to you together with all necessary documents.
His Lordship desires me to request you upon making your report to
state the fee to which you consider yourself entitled, it being clearly
understood, however, that if the amount be objected to by either party,
SECT. II.] Special Directions as to Trial of Issues, &g. 367
you submit to have all questions with respect to your remuneration
determined by liis Lordship, who will direct by whom the same is to be
paid, and you will be good enough also to understand that you will have
to look for payment to the person or persons whom his Lordship directs
to pay and to no one else.
I am, Sir, &c.,
C. B.,
To J, S. Chancery Registrar.
See Smith v. The Anglo-American Oil Co, Ld., Joyce, J., 4 Feb.
1910, B. 179.
For similar order made in Chambers, where the substance of the
above letter was embodied in the order, see Bushell v. The Welshpool
Standard Oranite Go., Ld., Kekewich, J., at Chambers, 23 April, 1907,
A. 1482.
NOTES.
VENUE.
For order fixing particular venue, see Chapman v. Smith, 2 Ves. 516 ; and
with directions as to special jury, Layburn v. Crisp, 1 Dec. 1837 ; S. C, in
Exch. 4 M. & W. 320.
By O. XXXVI, 1, " there shall be no local venue for the trial of any action. Place of, trial,
except where otherwise provided by statute. Every action in every
division shall, unless the Court or a Judge otherwise orders, be tried in
the county or place named on the statement of claim, or (where no statement
of claim has been delivered or required) by a notice in writing to be served
on the Deft, or his solr, within six days after appearance. Where no place
of trial is named, the place of trial shall, unless the Court or a Judge
shall otherwise order, be the county of Middlesex."
These provisions apply to every action, notwithstanding that it may have
been assigned to any Judge : r. la.
The words " except where otherwise provided by statute," do not revive
local venues abolished by the Jud. Act, 1875, but extend only to local
venues created by statutes passed since that Act : Buckley v. Hull Docks
Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 93.
The rules of this order do not confer any new jurisdiction so as to enable
the Court to entertain an action for trespass to foreign land : British South
Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambigue, [1893] A. C. 602, H. L.
O. XXXVI, 1, is precise, and a Pit is entitled under it to place the venue
of his action at county assizes, although it is assigned to the Chancery
Division by sect. 34 of the Jud. Act, 1873, and although it has been com-
menced in that Division : Philips v. Beall, 26 Ch. D. 621, C. A.
A Pit who wishes to name some place other than in Middlesex must do Change
so in the original statement of claim, if not the venue is in Middlesex, and venue,
once fixed must there remain unless there is an order to the contrary :
Locke V. White, 33 Ch. D. 308, C. A. ; and see Ridge v. B., 35 L. T. 428.
An application for change of venue made before notice of trial or issue
joined was held not premature, the pleadings having disclosed the issues to
be tried : Powell v. Cobb, 29 Ch. D. 486, C. A. ; but an order for change of
venue ought not to be made until the Judge can see what the issues are
Ibid. p. 494.
Change of venue from Cardigan was ordered, on application of Deft, in
action to set aside deeds for fraud : Powell v. Cobb, sup. ; and for other
cases in which the venue has been changed from country to London on the
ground of convenience, see Oreen v. Bennett, 54 L. J. Ch. 85 ; 32 W. R. 848 ;
50 L. T. 706 ; OU Mill Co. v. Dukinfleld Local Board, 54 L. J. Ch. 160 ;
51 L. T. 414 ; and that the Deft, applying for a change, must show serious
injury to his case if the venue is not changed, see Schroeder & Co. v. Myers,
34 W. R. 261.
368 Issues. [chap. xxil.
The influence which the reputation of a material witness may have upon
jurors' minds, in affecting the relative credit to be given to him and other
witnesses, is no ground for changing the venue : McGregor v. Topham, 3 Ha.
488 ; nor that a party whose conduct is impeached is lord lieutenant of the
county : Hopwood v. E. Derby, 1 K. & J. 255.
ISSUES OV FACT ■WITHOUT PLEADINGS.
By O. XXXIV, 9, when the parties to a cause or matter are agreed as to
the questions of fact to be decided between them, they may, after Turrit
issued and before judgment, by consent and order of the Court or a Judge,
proceed to the trial of any such questions of fact without formal pleadings ;
and such questions may be stated for trial in an issue which may be entered
for trial and tried in the same manner as any issue joined in an ordinary
action, and the proceedings are to be under the control and jurisdiction
of the Court or Judge, in the same way as the proceedings in an action.
And by r. 10, the Court is empowered by consent to direct that, upon the
finding of the issue, a sum of money, fixed or to be ascertained upon a
question in the issue, is to be paid by one party to the other either with or
without costs.
As to trial by jury, see Dan. 611.
Section III. — Judgments and Orders after Trial oe Issues
OR Questions of Fact.
1. Judgment after Trial of Issues or Questions of Fact, or Fact and
Law, without a Jury, where Judgment pronounced at the Trial.
The parties having on the — day of — (and this day) proceeded to
a trial of the issues [or questions of fact &c.] directed by the order
dated &c. to be tried before this Court without a jury, This Court
doth decide in favour of the Pit [or Deft], and doth find &c. [State
the findings], and doth &c.
2. Judgment on Motion for Judgment after Trial, by a Jury, of
Issues or Questions of Fact, directed hy Court — 0. xl, 7, 8.
The parties having on the • — day of — proceeded to a trial of the
issues [or questions of fact] directed to be tried by the order dated &c.
before &c. by a common [or special] jury, when the jury found &c.
[State the findings, and if so, add : Now upon motion for judgment
this day made unto this Court by counsel for the Pit [or Deft], and
upon hearing counsel for the Deft [or Pit] ], This Court doth &c.
For form of notice of motion, see D. C. F. 353.
3. After Issue, as to Right of Way.
This action coming on for trial the — and — before this Court in
the presence of counsel for the Pit and for the Deft, and upon hearing
&c., This Court did find that the Pit was and is entitled to such right
of way and other rights over W. court as claimed in this action by the
SECT. III. J Judgments and Orders after Trial, &g. 369
Pit, and that the same had been obstructed by the Deft and the build-
ing erected by him, and did direct that a verdict be entered for the
Pit accordingly ; And upon motion this day made unto this Court by
counsel for the Pit for judgment in accordance with such finding and
verdict, and upon hearing counsel for the Deft, This Court doth order
that the Deft B. do forthwith pull down and remove all buildings and
structures erected so or in such manner as to interfere with or ob-
struct the Pit's right of way and passage over and along W. court &c.,
as the same existed before the commencement of the Deft's building,
so as to hinder or prevent the Pit, his servants &c., coming or going
to or from the messuages and premises No. — , — Street, aforesaid ;
or exercising, using, or enjoying the free access to the rear of the Pit's
messuage, No. — , — Street, over and along the said W. court ; And
it is ordered that the Deft B., his servants, workmen, and agents, be
perpetually restrained from erecting any building or structure so or
in such manner as to interfere with or obstruct the Pit's right of way
and passage over and along the said W. court &c., as the same existed
before the commencement of the Deft's buUding, so as to hinder or
prevent the Pit, his servants &c., coming or going to or from the said
messuages and premises. No. — , — Street, or exercising, using, or
enjoying the free access to the rear of the Pit's said messuage. No. — ,
— Street, over and along the said W. court. — See Krehl v. Burrell,
M. R., 28 Jan. 1878, A. 226 ; altered to suit Jackson v. Normanby
Brick Co., Ld., [1899] 1 Ch. 438, C. A. See note to Form 5, p. 539.
NOTES.
PROCEEDINGS AETEB THE TEIAl OF ISSUES, ETC.
By O. XL, 7, " where issues have been ordered to be tried, or issues or Setting down
questions of fact to be determined in any manner, the Pit may set down a on motion
motion for judgment as soon as such issues or questions have been deter- for judgment,
mined. If he does not set down such a motion, and give notice thereof to
the other parties within ten days after his right so to do has arisen, any
Deft may set down a motion for judgment, and give notice thereof to the
other parties."
By r. 8, "where issues have been ordered to be tried, or issues or questions Leave to set
of fact to be determined in any manner, and some only of such issues or down on cer-
questions of fact have been tried or determined, any party who considers tain issues,
that the result of such trial or determination renders the trial or determina- postponing
tion of the others of them unnecessary, or renders it desirable that the trial otlisrs.
or determination thereof should be postponed, may apply to the Court or a
Judge for leave to set down u, motion for judgment, without waiting for
such trial or determination. And the Court or Judge may, if satisfied of
the expediency thereof, give such leave, upon such terms, if any, as shall
appear just, and may give any directions which may appear desirable as
to postponing the trial of the other issues of fact."
By the Jud. Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 44), s. 1, every motion for a new Motion for
trial, or to set aside a verdict, finding, or judgment, in any cause or matter new trial or to
in the High Court in which there has been a trial thereof, or of any issue set aside find-
therein with a jury, is to be heard and determined by the C. A. and not by i"g-
a Divisional Court of the High Court.
By sect. 2, every motion for judgment in any such cause or matter is to be
heard and determined by the Judge before whom such trial with a jury took
VOL. I. 2 B
ST'O Issues. [chap, xxii,
place, and not by a Divisional Court, unless it be impossible or inconvenient
that such Judge should act, in which case such motion shall be heard and
determined by some other Judge to be nominated by the President of the
Division to which the cause or matter belongs.
In Evans v. Merthyr Tydfil District Council, [1899] 1 Ch. 241, where
admissible evidence of reputation had been rejected on both sides at the trial
of an issue, the C. A. remitted the action to Romer, J., for a new trial.
Where a rider appended to the verdict of the jury explained but did not
affect the verdict on the main issue a new trial was refused : Farrelly v
Oorrigan, [1899] A. C. 563, P. C.
Under the former practice the cause could be set down immediately after
the trial of an action allowed : Rodgers v. Nowill, 6 Ha. 338. Where the
issues were tried without a jury, and the bill dismissed at once, the order
was not to be drawn up until the time for moving for a new trial had
expired : Macdougall v. Oen. Sewage, (be. Co., 23 W. R. 435.
At the hearing after the trial of issues, the Court was bound by the
findings, and to give effect to them, or order a new trial : Browne v.
McClintock, L. R. 6 H. L. 434 ; although they left the question undecided :
Exp. Freemen of Sunderland, 1 Drew. 184 ; or were against the weight of
evidence : Exp. Morgan, 2 Ch. D. 72, C. A. ; or founded on evidence which
ought not to have been admitted : Evans v. Prothero, 1 D. M. & G. 572 ; or
on questions wrongly put : Exp. Morgan, sup. ; and see Fulton v. Andrew,
L. R. 7 H. L. 448. As to whether this rule applied to issues directed on
interlocutory motion, see Kent v. Burgess, 11 Sim. 361, 372. It did apply
where the facts had by consent been found by the Judge himself acting as a
jury : Fernie v. Young, L. R. 1 H. L. 63 ; Simpson v. Holliday, L. R. 1 H. L.
315 ; but see Curtis v. Piatt, L. R. 1 H. L. 337 ; Exp. Gillebrand, 10 Ch. 52.
But if there was no evidence to go to the jury {S. C, Exp. Morgan, 2 Ch.
Div. 72) ; or on appeal the view taken of the law was such as to make the
findings immaterial {Simpson v. Holliday, L. R. 1 H. L. 315 ; Exp. Bolland,
7 Ch. 24 ; Morrison v. Barrow, 1 D. F. & J. 633) ; or they became so because
of facts happening since (Armstrong v. A., 3 My. & K. 45 ; 1 D. P. & J.
640, n. ; and see 2 Ch. D. 81, 82, C. A.) ; or the jury had evidently been
misled by the wording of one of the issues (Exp. Bolland, 7 Ch. 24), the
verdict might be disregarded or set aside without a new trial and an order
made in favour of the side against whom the verdict was given : Exp.
Morgan, 2 Ch. D. 72, 98, C. A.
The Court was not bound by the decision of another Court as a jury on
similar facts in another case : Dent v. Auction Mart Co., 2 Eq. 238, 254.
Before the trial of an issue. Pit might dismiss his bill, with costs, on
motion ; but Deft, after trial and verdict for him, was entitled to have the
cause set down for further consideration, in order that the dismissal might
be pleadable : Carrington v. Holly, 1 Dick. 280 ; cited 2 Dick. 612.
After the issues had been tried, and a new trial refused, an appeal might
be brought against the order directing the issues : Butlin v. Masters, 2 Ph.
290 ; Browne v. McClintock, L. R. 6 H. L. 463 ; Malone v. M., 8 CI. & F.
179. As to the costs in such a case, see Rochester v. Lee, 2 D. M. & G. 427.
ISSUES OF FACT WITHOTTT PLEADINGS.
By 0. XXXIV, 11, upon the finding on any such issue, as in r. 9 mentioned
(v. sup. p. 368), judgment may be entered for the sum agreed or ascertained,
with or without costs, as the case may be, and execution may issue upon
such judgment forthwith, unless otherwise agreed, or unless the Court or
a Judge shall otherwise order for the purpose of giving either party an
opportunity for moving to set aside the finding or for a new trial.
By r. 12, the proceedings upon such issue, as in r. 9 mentioned, may be
recorded at the instance of either party, and the judgment, whether actually
recorded or not, shall have the same effect as any other judgment in a
contested action.
C 371 )
CHAPTEK XXIII.
PETITION.
1. Order on Petition.
Upon the petition of &c., on the — day of — , preferred unto this
Court, and upon hearing counsel for the Petr [and for &c., Name the
respondents, ifany\ and upon reading the said petition [an af&davit of
A. filed &c., of service of the petition on &c., Name any persons served
and not af fearing, and enter any evidence]. This Court doth order &c.
2. Order on Petition as to part adjourned.
Upon the further hearing of the petition of &c., adjourned by the
order dated &c., and upon hearing counsel for the Petr and for &c.,
and upon reading the said petition, the said order dated &c., This
Court doth order &c.
3. Order on Petition adjourned to Chambers.
Upon the petition of &c., preferred &c. [Form 1], which upon
heariag counsel for the Petr and for &c., on the — day of — , was
adjourned for consideration in Chambers, and upon hearing the solrs
for the Petr and for &c., and upon reading &c., It is ordered &c.
For forms of orders for substituted service of petition, and for service out
of the jurisdiction, v. ante. Chap. II., " Sbevice of Weit and Pbo-
CBBDINGS," p. 4.
For formal parts of petitions, see D. C. F. 826 et seq.
NOTES.
PEOCEDtmE BY PETITION.
By 0. 1, 1, 2, all suits hitherto commenced by bill or information are to be
by action, and all other proceedings in and applications to the High Court
may, subject to the rules, be taken and made in the same manner and in the
same Court in which any proceeding or application of the like kind could
have been taken or made if the Jud. Acts had not been passed.
By O. V, 9 (a), where a matter is commenced by petition, such petition is Originating
to be brought to the oflBce of the registrars of the Chancery Division, and petitions,
marked by the officer charged by the registrars with that duty, with the
name of one of the Judges of that Division (to be ascertained in the manner
used in the distribution of business amongst the conveyancing counsel of
the Court : see O. li, 9 ; and sup. Chap. XIX., " Sales by the Couet,"
p. 329),
372
Petition.
[chap. XXIII.
Petitions in
causes.
}7orm of
petition.
Security
for costs.
Infant.
Filing.
Answering.
Every subsequent petition relating to or connected with the same matter
is to be marked with the name of the same Judge : O. v, 9 (e).
Petitions are transferred in the same manner as actions, as to which
V. inf. Chap. XXXIV.
Petitions are either special or of course, orders on the latter being drawn
up, passed and entered by the registrars of the Chancery Division (0. Lxn,
18) without any direct application to the Judge.
By 0. LXi, 19, petitions in causes are to be distinguished by year, letter,
and number ; and by 0. xix, 9, petitions are excepted from the rule as to
printing pleadings. The former practice has not been altered as to service
of petitions, whether in actions, or in matters, notwithstanding r. 10 ; and
by Jud. Act, 1873, s. 100, " pleading " includes " petition."
The C. A. has no jurisdiction to hear petitions, except on appeal : see
Re Dunraven Coal, &c. Co., 24 W. R. 37 ; 33 L. T. 371 ; Jud. Act, 1873,
s. 18 ; O. Lvm, 4, 17.
The petition should be addressed to the High Court of Justice, and should
contain, as concisely as possible, a statement of the material facts, but not
the evidence by which they are to be proved, and is to be divided into para-
graphs, numbered consecutively, and each paragraph containing as nearly
as may be a separate allegation. Dates, sums, and numbers are to be
expressed in figures, and not in words. Signature of counsel is not
necessary : see O. xix, 4.
The effect of documents ought to be stated without setting them out at
length (r. 21), except where the precise words are material, as, for instance,
in the caseof wills or settlements on applications, for payment out of Court.
In such cases the gift ought to be set out verbatim ; and as to the form of
alleging certain facts, see rr. 22 — 25.
As to the effect of these rules, see Hammer v. Flight, 24 W. R. 346 ; 35
L. T. 127 ; Herring v. Bischoffsheim, 1876, W. N. 77.
The petitioner, if not a party to the cause, must give his name, residence,
and description : Olazbrook v. Oillatt, 9 Beav. 492 ; and it abroad may be
required to give security for costs : Atkins v. Coohe, 3 Drew. 694 ; 5 W. R.
384 ; and so on petition under the statutory jurisdiction, and though
respondent had filed affidavits : Anon., 12 Sim. 262 ; Mxp. Seidler, 12 Sim.
106 ; Be Dolman, 11 Jur. 1095. As to giving security for costs generally,
V. sup. Chap. IV., pp. 26 et seq. The order for security to be given was
refused as to a petitioner residing abroad, who was a Deft in the suit in
which the petition was presented : Cochrane v. Fearon, 18 Jur. 568 ;
2 Eq. Rep. 813. Secus, where he came in under the decree : Partington v.
Reynolds, 4 Drew. 253 ; 6 W. R. 307 ; et v. sup. Chap. XVII., " Costs."
Infants must petition by a next friend ; and the Court will require a
guardian to be appointed to an infant respondent in amatter: Be Barrington,
27 Beav. 272 ; Be Ward, 6 Jur. N. S. 441. As to the mode of appointing a
guardian for an infant respondent to a petition, see O. xvi, 19. In Be
Mitchell, 23 Jan. 1866, V.-C. K. allowed an infant respondent to appear by
her testamentary guardian, but under the circumstances required an
affidavit that the guardian had no adverse interest ; and v. inf. Chap.
XXXVIII., " Infants."
It is the practice to file the petition after it has been heard, and by 0. LXi,
15, no order on petition is to be passed till the petition is filed in the Central
Office. By r. 17, proper indexes of the petitions are to be kept there. The
original petition having been lost, leave was given to file the copy left with
the Judge : Sanderson v. Walker, 1 M. & C. 359 ; Smith v. Harwood,
1 S. & G. 137. And where a petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's
solr would not produce it to be filed, the copy served on the respondent was
ordered to be filed instead : Be Devonshire, 32 Beav. 241 ; Be Anglo-
Oreek, &c. Co. (No. 2), 35 Beav. 419, where the petitioners were ordered
to pay the costs of the applications.
Petitions are answered in the name of the senior registrar : 0. LXii, 18,
and the list thei-eof prepared in the Cause Book Room. As to the practice
Petition. 373
in reference to answering winding-up petitions, see Re Building Societies
Trust, 44 Ch. D. 140, 142.
By O. Ln, 16, at the foot of every petition and copy thereof, a statement
is to be made of the persons, if any, intended to be served, or, if so, that no
person is to be served. The respondents ought to be named, and not
merely described as Pits or Defts : per M. R., in 1876, W. N. 219.
By r. 17, unless by special leave, there must be two clear days between
service and the hearing of the petition ; and as to the computation of a
limited time of less than six days, see 0. LXIV, 2, 3.
As to service of petition out of the jurisdiction, v. sup. Chap. 11., p. 19.
Substituted service of a petition in a suit was ordered on the ground that
the bill could have been so served : Shurmer v. Hodge, 1866, W. N. 304 ;
but see Anon., 1876, W. N. 105, per Denman, J.
As to service of the writ of summons on infants (and the service of
petitions in actions may probably follow the same rules), see O. ix, 4 ;
O. xm, 1 ; and generally O. IX ; and by O. Lll, 8, the plaintiff may, without
any special leave, serve any petition upon any Deft, who, having been duly
served with a writ of summons to appear in the action, has not appeared
within the time limited for that purpose.
By O. XIX, 10, every " pleading (which by Jud. Act, 1873, s. 100, includes
petitions) or other document required to be delivered to a party or between
parties," shall be delivered to a party for whom no appearance has been
entered by being filed.
This seems to apply to petitions in actions, but in many cases, having
regard to the subject-matter of such petitions, the Court would require
service : see Re Baltersby's Trusts, 10 Ch. D. 228.
If a respondent does not appear, the order may be made as against him,
on affidavit of service ; if the petitioner does not appear when the petition
is called on in regular order as an opposed petition, the respondent may have
the petition dismissed with costs on producing an affidavit of having been
served, or the copy of the petition served upon him.
As to affidavits of service, u. sup. pp. 19, 173.
AMENDMENT.
Leave to amend the petition is almost of course ; and an amendment is
often required by the Court before granting the order : and see Matson v.
Swift, 8 Beav. 378, 379 ; 9 Jur. 521 ; Re Humphreys, 1 Jur. N. S. 921.
In practice petitions are amended on the direction of the Court upon a
fiat signed by the registrar.
Petitions have been amended after the hearing and the passing and entry
of the order : Hislop v. Wykeham, 3 W. R. 286 ; Re Bunnett, 1 Jur. N. S.
921 ; Re Havelock, 14 W. R. 26, 174 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 906 ; Re Savage, 15
Ch. D. 557, sup. Chap. VI., " Amendment," p. 44 (but see Re Marrow,
C. & P. 142) ; and after service and advertisement under the Settled
Estates Acts : Re Wilkinson, 9 Eq. 71.
The petition will be amended in the Cause Book Room on a note from the
registrar.
Facts occurring after leave to attend has been given may be stated
in the amendments : Re Westhrooh, 11 Eq. 252.
An amended petition does not in general require re-answering (under
O. LXii, 18) : Re Medow, 12 W. R. 595 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 536 ; Robinson v.
Harrison, 1 Drew. 307.
Where the petitioner dies after an order has been made on the petition,
which has not been worked out, leave to amend cannot be given, but a
further order is obtained that the petition shall be continued and carried
on by the executors of the late petitioner : Re Atkins^ Estate, 1 Ch.
D. 82.
374 Petition. [chap, xxiii.
EVIDENCE.
By O. xxxvni, 1, the evidence upon any motion, petition, or summons
may be by affidavit, but the Court or a Judge may, on the application of
either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the person
making any such affidavit ; and the Court has power to direct the deposi-
tions of witnesses to be taken before an examiner : see 0. xxxvn, 5 ;
and as to evidence generally, v. sup. Chap. VIII., " Evidence."
The Court has a discretion to refuse to order a witness to attend for cross-
examination : La Trinidad v. Browne, 36 W. R. 138.
The petitioner intending to use affidavits previously filed in the action,
should give notice thereof to the respondents. When the title of a petition
is amended, aflBdavits need not be resworn, but may be made exhibits to a
short affidavit : Re Varteg Chapel, 10 Ha. xxxvii. The petition must be
entitled in the cause or matter to which the fund is standing, but a slight
variation between the title of the petition and that of the account to which
the fund was standing, was immaterial : Se Harris, 8 Jur. N. S. 166 ; and
see lie Varley, 14 W. R. 98 ; in which case, and in Re GomhauU, 1868, W. N.
243, the affidavits were sworn before the petition was presented ; and as to
an affidavit wrongly intituled in an action, see Fisher v. Coffey, 1 Jur. N. S.
OBDER ON PETITION.
In Sharshaw v. Oibbs, 18 Jur. 330 ; 1 Kay, 333 ; 2 Eq. R. 314 ; 23 L. J. Ch.
451, it was said that the Court makes no declaration on petition, but, if
necessary, prefaces its orders with the statement of its opinion ; but this rule
is not adiered to : see Re Walker, 16 Jur. 1154 ; and by O. xxv, 5, no action
or proceeding is to be open to objection on the ground that a merely
declaratory judgment or order is sought thereby, and the Court may make
binding declarations of right, whether any consequential relief is or could
be claimed, or not : Young v. Ashley Gardens Properties, Ld., [1903] 2
Ch. 112 ; Westv. Sackville (Lord), [1903] 2 Ch, 378 ; and see Re St. Nazaire
Co., sup. Chap. XII., " Trial and Judgment," p. 163.
A respondent who appears unnecessarily after service and tender of a
sufficient sum to enable him to get legal advice, will not have his costs : Re
Duggan, 6 Eq. 697 ; Boucher v. Wood, 6 Ch. 77, and cases there cited ;
Carey v. Whittingham, 1. & R. 405 ; Re Core Langton's Estate, 10 Ch. 328.
And by O. Lxv, 27 (19), where any petition in a cause or matter assigned
to the chancery Division is served, with notice to the party served that if
he appear his costs will be objected to, the tender of costs for perusing the
same is to be £1 10s., which is to be allowed to the party making the pay-
ment if the service was proper, but not otherwise. This is without prejudice
to the rights of either party to costs or to object to costs where no such
tender is made, or where the Court or Judge shall consider the party
entitled, notwithstanding such notice or tender, to appear in Court. In
any other case in which a solr of a party served necessarily or properly
peruses any such petition without appearing thereon, he is to be allowed a fee
not exceeding £1 10*. : see Re Sutton, 21 Ch. D. 855. But this rule does
not apply to a trustee of a subsisting settlement : Lowe v. Moore, 1906,
W. N. 142.
And by r. 27 (23), any party appearing on any application or proceeding
in which he is not interested, or which he ought not to attend, will not be
allowed costs unless expressly directed. Where no tender for costs was
made to respondents who had no interest, they were allowed £2 2*. (the
amount specified in the corresponding Rules of 1875) : Somes v. Martin,
1882, W. N. 113.
For costs of perusal of a petition in a pending cause or matter by the solr
of the party to whom the same is delivered, such sum, if any, is to be allowed
Petition. 375
as the taxing officer may in his discretion think reasonable : R. S. C. App.
N., 136a (Oct. 1899).
Where in consequence of an error in a petition, procedure by summons
being inapplicable, a supplemental petition became necessary, the costs of
both petitions were allowed against a co. : Be Sanders, 70 L. T. 755.
PETITIONS ADJOTJENED TO CHAMBEKS.
By O. LV, 29, when any matter is adjourned to Chambers, or any
directions are given to be acted upon at Chambers, without an order being
drawn up, a note signed by the registrar, stating the purpose of the
adjournment or directions, is to be left at Chambers.
Adjournment from Court to Chambers is often directed on petitions for
payment of funds out of Court, where the evidence is complicated, or the
persons representing a class or family are numerous, and much time would
be occupied in investigating their title in Court. By this course, the
expense of a certificate and of a further order and attendance in Court is
saved. If a petition is thus adjourned to Chambers, that the matter may be
looked into there, and is then to be brought on again to be disposed of in
Court, without a formal certificate being made, a minute of the result is
annexed to the Judge's copy of the petition and sent to the Judge in Court,
and a note of the evidence used will be made by the Master for the registrar,
on the fold of the original petition : see Dan. 907.
A petition for payment out of Court under the Trustee Relief Act (now
Trustee Act, 1893, s. 42) may be adjourned into Chambers : Re Moate's
Trusts, 21 Ch. D. 635.
Where matters adjourned to Chambers may be prosecuted without
drawing up the order, see Kelson v. K., Ha. Ixxxvi ; but semble, it is
discretionary.
( 376 )
[chap. XXIV.
CHAPTEE XXIV.
MOTION.
1. Order on Motion.
Upon motion this day made unto this Court by counsel for &c., and
upon hearing counsel for &c. [or if so, and upon reading an affidavit of
&c. filed &c., of service of notice of this motion on &o., Enter any
evidence^ This Court doth order &c.
For forms of notice of motion, &c., see D. C. P. 822 el seq.
2. Order on Abandoned Motion.
Whebeas the Pit did on the — day of &c., give notice that this
Court would be moved, on Thursday, the — day of &c., or so soon
after as counsel could be heard, by counsel for the Pit that
[Recite notice] ; Now upon motion this day made unto this Court by
counsel for the Deft who alleged that the Pit had not moved
this Court pursuant to the said notice. This Court doth order that the
Pit do pay to the Deft his costs occasioned by the said notice of
motion, such costs to be taxed by the taxing master.
NOTES.
Applications By O. Lll, I, applications in an action to a Divisional Court or to a Judge
by motion. in Court, shall be made by motion. By 0. Lvm, 1 and 18, all applications
to the Appeal Court shall be by motion, and by O. Lrv, 28, in the Q. B. D.
appeals to the Court from any decision at Chambers shall be by motion.
A motion in any cause or matter must be made before the Judge to whose
Court the cause or matter is attached : Jud. Act, 1873, a. 42 ; and the
notice should state the Judge before whom it is intended to be made. As
to form of notice of motion, see R. S. C. App. B., Form 18 ; D. C. F.
26, 27.
By 0. 1, 1, 2, motions (subject to the rules of Court) are to be made in the
same manner as if the Judicature Acts had been not passed. Motions not in
actions must follow the old practice : Be Phillips and Gill, 24 W. R. 158 ;
1 Q. B. D. 78.
Sufficiency A notice of motion stating that the Court will be moved at the Royal
of notice. Courts of Justice is sufficient : Petty v. Daniel, 34 Ch. D. 172. A notice for
a day not in the sittings is good : Re GouUon, Hamling v. Elliott, 34 Ch. D.
22, C. A., overruling Dauhney v. Shuttleworlh, 1 Ex. D. 53 ; and in Williams
V. De Boinville, 17 Q. B. D. 180, amendment of such a notice was allowed.
Technical A technical defect in the notice may be amended in Court, and the notice
defect in re-served then and there : Heywood v. Wait, 18 W. R. 205 ; and see
notice. Williams v. De Boinville, \7 Q. B. D. 180 ; and an irregularity in service,
Motion. S77
by which the party had not been injured, was disregarded, and the motion
heard on the merits : Dawson v. Beeson, 22 Ch. D. 504, C. A.
A Deft may, at any time after he has appeared, move for an injunction Deft's notice,
and receiver on notice to the Pit : 0. l, 6 ; if the relief so sought is incident
to or arises out of the relief sought by the Pit, but not otherwise, unless he
has counter-claimed : Carter v. Fey, [1894] 2 Ch. 541, C. A. ; Collison v.
Warren, [1901] 1 Ch. 812. He may do so although Pit has served notice of
motion for the like purpose. One order will be made on the two motions,
and the Pit will in general have the carriage of the order : Sargant v.
Bead, 1 Ch. D. 600.
By O. ui, 2, no rule or order nisi to show cause is to be granted in any
action, or to set aside, remit, or enforce an award, or for attachment, or to
answer the matters in any affidavit, or to strike off the rolls, or against the
sheriff to pay money.
The corresponding rule of 1875 only applied to actions : see Phillips and
Gill, 1 Q. B. D. 78.
By O. Lll, 3, no motion is to be made without notice, except where by the Ex parte
previous practice any order or rule has theretofore been made ex parte orders,
absolute in the first instance, and except where, notwithstanding r. 2, an
application may be made for an order to show cause only. But the Court
or Judge, if satisfied that the delay caused by proceeding in the ordinary
way would or might entail irreparable or serious mischief, may make any
order ex parte, upon such terms as to costs or otherwise, and subject to such
undertaking, if any, as the Court may think just ; and any party affected
by such order may move to set it aside.
A notice of motion may be served on a party who has failed to appear by
being filed with the proper officer : O. xix, 10 ; Dymond v. Croft, 3 Ch. D.
513.
An application to discharge an ex parte order must be made to the Judge
with whose name the order is marked, or in vacation to a vacation Judge,
and not to the Court of Appeal, the application not involving a rehearing :
Boyle V. Sacher, 39 Ch. D. 249, C. A.
Under Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), mandamus, injunction, or receiver may
be granted ex parte, but orders for preservation or sale of property under
O. L, 2, 3, must be made on notice : r. 6.
The indorsement of the writ was amended on ex parte application :
Colebourne v. C, 1 Ch. D. 690 ; 24 W. R. 235.
As to motions for receivers and injunctions, see Chap. XXXII., " Re-
CEivBES," and Chap. XXXI., " Injunctions."
Orders for attachment must now be obtained on notice : O. xliv, 2.
By O. Ln, 6, the Court or a Judge, if of opinion on the hearing of a
motion or other application that any other person ought to have notice,
may either dismiss it or adjourn it in order that such notice may be given,
upon such terms as may be thought fit ; and by r. 7 may adjourn the hearing
generally.
An agreement for stay of proceedings or dismissal of the bill may be Stay of pro-
enforced by motion in the suit, even if involving equities distinct from ceedings.
those on the record : Eden v. Naish, 7 Ch. D. 781 ; Scully v. Ld. Dundonald,
8 Ch. D. 658 ; Be Gaudet Co., 12 Ch. D. 882 ; and see per James, L. J., in
Pryer v. Grihble, 10 Ch. 534. As a general rule applications for stay of
proceedings should be made by summons, where O. xxx, 6, may not be
applicable.
An agreement for compromise cannot be set aside on motion or summons Setting aside
in the original action : Emeris v. Woodward, 43 Ch. D. 185. compromise.
As to moving for orders on admissions of fact in the pleadings under
0. xxxn, 6, V. sup. Chap. XIII., " Motion for Judgment."
No new evidence could be filed on a motion ordered to stand over on Evidence,
certain terms until the hearing ; the Court thereby simply reserves to itself
the power of dealing with the costs of it : Singer v. Audsley, 13 Eq. 401.
An affidavit used on a motion, but not filed until afterwards, may be
378
Motion.
[chap. XXIV.
entered in the order as read, even though the fact of its not having been
filed has not been brought to the notice of the Court, provided it does not
interfere with the date of the order, as when the filing is on the same day :
Be King <b Oo.'s Trade Mark, [1892] 2 Ch. 462.
As to what is sufficient notice of intention to use affidavits on appeal, see
Bloxam v. Metropolitan By. Co., 16 W. R. 492, n.
As to using affidavits sworn before the issue of the writ, see ante, p. 110.
As to saving motions, see Banwen Iron Co., 17 Jur. 127 ; Wedderburne v.
Llewellyn, 13 W. R. 939 ; Yapp v. Williams, 1901, W. N. 91.
Time of
notice.
Short notice.
Assignment
of guardians.
Notice by
pauper.
Deft not
appearing.
For leave to
issue writ of
attachment.
Before
appearance.
With writ
out of
jurisdiction.
By O. m, 5, unless the Court or Judge give special leave to the contrary,
there must be at least two clear days between the service of a notice of
motion and the day named in the notice for hearing the motion ; but on
applications to answer matters in an affidavit, or to strike off the rolls, there
must be ten days' notice. As to days not to be reckoned, see O. lxiv, 2.
If special leave be given to move on short notice, or on a day not
appointed for motions, the notice must so state : Hill v. Bimill, 8 Sim. 632 ;
Harris v. Lewis, 8 Jur. 1063 ; Chambers v. Toynbee, 12 W. R. 1100 ; Dawson
V. Beeson, 22 Ch. D. 504, C. A. ; and leave to move before appearance does
not authorize short notice : Newton v. Charlton, 10 Ha. -xxxi ; Hart v.
Tulk, 6 Ha. 611. Counsel on appljring should state that he asks to serve
on short notice : Dawson v. Beeson, sup. ; but in case of omission it is not
merely of course to give costs : see Newton v. Charlton, sup. Where notice
was given for the wrong Court, such Court gave costs, but only two guineas :
Yearsley v. Y., 19 Beav. 1.
Leave to serve short notice of motion cannot be given by the Master even
during the long vacation : Conacher v. C, 29 W. R. 230.
Motions for assignment of guardians under O. xm, 1, must be on at least
six days' notice.
Notice by a pauper must be signed by his solr, except for discharge of his
solr : O. XVI, 29 ; but if no solr has been assigned to him, he is entitled to
move the Court without the notice of motion being signed by a solr : Jacobs
V. Crusha, [1894] 2 Q. B. 37, C. A.
By O. Ln, 8, a Pit may, without leave, serve notice of motion upon a Deft
who, having been duly served with a writ of summons, has not appeared in
due time.
By Cons. Ord. 3, r. 8, which was similar, service might be effected per-
sonally, or at the dwelling-house or office of any Deft who, having been
served with the bill, had not appeared within the time limited. Substituted
service was ordered in fit cases under the old practice : Maclaren v. Stainton,
16 Beav. 279 ; or service abroad : Green v. Pledger, 3 Ha. 165. And by
O. IX, 2, substituted or other service may be ordered of the writ of summons
whenever "the Pit is from any cause unable to effect prompt personal
service," the grounds of the application being set forth in an affidavit: 0.x.
Service of notice of motion for leave to issue writ of attachment against a
party who has not appeared, in a case where personal service is not required,
may be made by filing same pursuant to O. Lxvn, 4 : Be Morris, M. v.
Fowler, 44 Ch. D. 151 ; but see Be Bassett, [1894] 3 Ch. 179, post, p. 434 ;
but an application for the appointment of a receiver must in such a case
be served personally, or leave obtained for substituted service : Tilling,
Ld. V. Blythe, [1899] 1 Q. B. 557, C. A.
By O. Lii, 9, the Pit may, by leave to be obtained ex parte, serve notice of
motion with the writ of summons, or after service of it and before the time
for appearance.
As to granting leave to serve notice of motion with the writ out of the
jurisdiction, see Manitoba <fc N. W. Land Corp. v. Allan, [1893] 3 Ch. 432
(not allowed) ; Overton v. Burn, 74 L. T. 776 (allowed without prejudice) ;
Hersey v. Young, 1894, W. N. 18.
Motion. 379
As to service on the solrs of the parties, see 0. iv, 1, and O. xii, 10.
And on parties suing or defending in person, 0. iv, 2, and 0. xii, 11. Party suing
By O. Lxvn, 8, where a person who is not a party appears on any pro- '° person.
Deeding before the Court or in Chambers, service on his solr or agent in Person not a
London is good ; except in matters requiring personal service. party.
As to affidavits of service, see sup. pp. 19, 173.
By O. Ln, 4, " every notice of motion to remit or enforce an award, or Enforcing
for attachment, or to strike off the roll, shall state in general terms the award;
grounds of the application ; and where any such motion is founded on attachment ;
evidence by affidavit, a copy of any affidavit intended to be used shall be J*'''^™^ °^
served with the notice of motion." Under this rule the affidavits must be ''"^ ^°'^
served with the notice, and cannot be served on the country solr when the
notice is served in London : Petty v. Daniel, 34 Oh. D. 172 ; Bosenbaum
v. Belson, 1901, W. N. 124 ; as to service of copies of any exhibits, see
Carter v. Roberts, [1903] 2 Ch. 312.
The Court may give costs of a special motion, though not asked by the
notice: Glark v. Jaques, 11 Beav. 623; but not unless the respondent
appears : Pratt v. Walker, 19 Beav. 261.
Where a motion was adjourned to the trial, and by mistake no provision
as to the costs was made in the subsequent judgment, the Court ordered
payment on motion after the judgment was entered : Fritz v. Hobson, 14
Ch. D. 542 ; following Viney v. Chaplin, 3 D. & J. 282.
For rules as to costs of motions as costs in the cause, where the order is
silent respecting costs, see sup. p. 244.
As to whether costs of correspondence before motion are to be regarded
as costs of motion or of action, see Norton v. Fenwich, 54 L. J. Ch. 632 ;
52 L. T. 341.
If a motion for an interim injunction stands over till the trial, it is not
only unnecessary but improper to reserve the costs : Bournemouth Commrs.
V. Holden, 1888, W. N. 205.
An order made on notice continuing an injunction with costs carries the
costs of an interim injunction obtained ex parte : Blahey v. Hall, 56 L. J.
Ch. 568 ; 56 L. T. 400 ; 35 W. R. 592.
As to party not interested not being entitled to appear merely to ask for
costs, see Campbell v. Holyland, 7 Ch. D. 166 ; O. lxv, 27 (23).
Where a party is ordered to pay the costs up to a certain day, the usual
rules do not apply, and the costs of motions made during that time may be
included in costs of action : Webster v. Manby, 4 Ch. 372.
The costs of a motion for an injunction ordered to stand over until the
hearing, although not mentioned in the decree, were allowed to the Pit as
being the costs of a substantially successful motion : Mounsey v. E. of
Lonsdale, 6 Ch. 141 ; and so, where the bill was eventually dismissed, the
Deft had the costs of a motion which stood over to the hearing : Corcoran
V. Witt, 13 Eq. 53 ; and where a motion stood to the trial, and no mention
was made as to the costs then or at the trial, judgment dismissing the
action with costs carried the costs of the motion : Oosnell v. Bishop, 38
Ch. D. 385.
As to costs when interlocutory appUoations have been ordered to stand
to the trial, v. sup. p. 244.
If nothing is said to the contrary, the successful party gets his costs in
any event : per Jessel, M. R., in Jackson v. Wood, 12 Mar. 1880.
If the motion is to obtain an indulgence, the party applying must pay
the costs : A. O. v. Corp. of Halifax, 18 W. R. 37 ; and see Dan. 1315 ; and
as to costs of motions for injunctions, see Kerr on Injunctions, 572, and
see inf. Chap. XXXI., " Injunotions."
The costs of a motion were disallowed where a summons in Chambers
would have sufficed : Allen v. Oakey. 62 L. T. 724 ; 1901, W. N. 121.
380
Motion.
[chap. XXIV.
Where a motion by Pit stands over, and proceedings are stayed until
security for costs is given by him, the costs of the affidavits prepared by
the Deft during the stay ought not to be disallowed : WhiteUy Exerciser,
Ld. V. Oarrmge, [1898] 2 Ch. 405.
Saving Counsel has the right to save a motion once without mentioning it unless
motion. leave has been obtained to serve the notice of motion for the day named.
Abandoned The costs of an abandoned motion may be applied for at the rising of the
motion. Court on the day for which the notice is given, but the usual course is not
to apply for them until next motion day, and a later application will not in
general be entertained : Woodstock v. Oxford Rail. Co., 17 Jur. 33 ; Yapp v.
Williams, 1901, W. N. 91. It is usual to give notice of the application to
the other side. The notice of motion must be produced to the registrar
before he draws up the order : Withey v. Haigh, 3 Mad. 437 ; and see
Berry v. The Exchange Trading Co., 1 Q. B. D. 77. Where the notice of
motion was invalid, it was held that the Defts need not have appeared,
and were not entitled to their costs of doing so, the Pits not appearing :
Daubney v. Shuttleworth, 1 Ex. D. 53. For form of order, v. sup. Form 2.
In taxing the costs of an abandoned motion the costs of all work down to
the time of any notice which stops the work are allowed if reasonable, and
the same rule applies to discontinuance of action and dismissal : Harrison
V. Leutner, 16 Ch. D. 559.
Copy for use A copy of notice of motion must be supplied for the use of the Judge :
of judge. Bartleit v. West Met. Tram. Co., 1893, W. N. 189.
As to the practice generally, see Dan. 1300 et seq. As to appeals from
orders made on motion, v. inf. Chap. XXXVI., " Appeals."
( 381 )
CHAPTEE XXV.
PETITION OF EIGHT.
1. Order on Petition of Right — Costs to he paid by the Crown.
The petition of right of J. and M. &c., coming on this day to be
argued before this Court upon (Her) Majesty's command that right be
done, in the presence of counsel for the suppliants and for (Her)
Majesty's A. G., and upon reading [enter evidence] and upon hearing
what was alleged by counsel for the suppliant and for (Her) Majesty's
A. Gr., This Court doth declare that &c. Tax the costs of the sup-
pliants of the said petition, And it is ordered that the same, when
taxed, be paid to the suppliants J. and M., in the manner directed by
the Act of Parliament of the 23 & 24 V. c. 34. — See James v. The
Queen, V.-C. M., 14 June, 1876, A. 1188 ; and see S. C, V.-C. M.,
11 Feb. 1874, A. 338 ; 17 Eq. 502, where the demurrer of the A. G.
was overruled with costs.
Where relief was refused and costs given to the Crown, see Se Brain,
V.-C. M., 1 July, 1874, A. 1770 ; 18 Eq. 389.
2. Two Demurrers to Petition of Right, one allowed, one overruled.
The demurrer put in by (Her) Majesty's A. Gr. on behalf of (Her)
Majesty, and the demurrer put in by the Secretary of State for India
in Council (served with the petition), to the petition of right of K. of
&c., on behalf of himself and all other the persons who under the
Royal grant of the 10 June, 1864, are entitled to share in the booty of
Banda and Kirwee, coming on this day to be argued before this Court
in the presence of the said K. in person, and of counsel for (Her)
Majesty, and the Secretary of State for India in Council, Upon open-
ing and debate of the matter, and upon hearing what was alleged by
the said K. and by counsel for (Her) Majesty and for the Secretary of
State for India in Council. This Court held the demurrer of (Her)
Majesty's A. Gr. on behalf of (Her) Majesty to be good and sufficient,
and that the suppliant is not entitled to any portion of the relief
sought by his petition ; And, therefore, It is ordered that the said
demurrer do stand and be allowed ; And it is ordered that the said
K. do pay to (Her) Majesty's A. G. his costs of his said demurrer, to
be taxed by the taxing master, And this Court held the demurrer of
the Secreta'fy of State for India in Council to be insufficient as being
382
Petition of Right.
[chap. XXV.
Joining
respondents.
When peti-
tion will lie.
out of time ; And, therefore, It is ordered that the same be over-
ruled ; And it is ordered that the Secretary of State for India in
Council do pay to the said K. his costs of the said demurrer to be
taxed by the taxing master, costs to be set ofi. — Kinloch v. The
Queen, Kay, J., 27 Nov. 1882, A. 2257.
For order allowing demurrer, and for suppliant to pay costs of demurrer
and petition, see Be Tufnell, 16 June, 1876, B. 1093.
For forms of petition of right and consequential thereon, see D. C. P. 817
et seg.
NOTES.
As to petitions of right, before and independently of the Petition of
Right Act, 1860, see Dan. 1296 ; 3 Steph. Com. 11th ed. 680 ; Clode on
Petition of Right ; Clayton v. A. 6., 1 C. P. D. 97 ; Taylor v. A. 0., 8 Sim.
413 ; Monckton v. A. G., 2 Mac. & G. 402 ; Re Von Frantzius, 2 D. & J.
126 ; Be Bolt, 4 D. & J. 44 ; and see the practice explained by Wickens,
V.-C, in Kirh v. The Queen, 14 Eq. 563.
That Act (23 & 24 V. c. 34) provides that a petition of right may be
instituted in any of the Superior Courts of Law or Equity, and by the
following sections the fiat of his Majesty that right be done being obtained
through the Home Secretary (see sect. 2), the proceedings are assimilated to
those in an ordinary suit or action between subjects (see Gen. Ord. 1 Feb.
1862 ; Dan. 1297 ; Clode, 192) ; and are to be prosecuted in the Court in
which the petition is entitled, or such other Court as the L. C. may direct.
By sect. 18, suppliants may still proceed as if the Act had not passed.
The Crown may, notwithstanding the Act, plead and demur without
leave : Tohin v. The Queen, 14 C. B. N. S. 505 ; 11 W. R. 701 ; and see
8. C, lb. 915 ; West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. Bex, [1905] 2 K. B.
391.
It seems doubtful whether any person can be joined with the Crown as
respondent to the petition. If not, another suit may be commenced
against the Sovereign and others after the fiat has been given : Kirh v.
The Queen, 14 Eq. 558 ; and as to joining a Secretary of State, see 8. C.
A petition of right will lie :• — For unliquidated damages for breach of
contract : Thomas v. The Queen, L. R. 10 Q. B. 31 ; Windsor and Annapolis
Bail. Co. V. Beg., 11 App. Ca. 607, P. C. ; or otherwise in respect of matters
of contract : Macbeath v. Haldimand, 1 T. R. 176 ; Oldham v. The Lords of
the Treasury, cited 6 Sim. 220 ; or to enforce an agreement for a lease :
James v. The Queen, 17 Eq. 502 ; Davis v. AdarM, 1876, W. N. 202 ;
and, semble, the Crown's advisers cannot capriciously refuse to allow
investigation : Ryves v. D. o* Wellington, 9 Beav. 579 ; Clode, 164. But
not for unliquidated damages for a trespass : Tobin v. Reg., 16 C. B. N. S.
310 ; 12 W. R. 838 ; Canterbury v. A. G., 1 Ph. 306. Nor for compensa-
tion for a wrongful act done by a servant of the Crown in the supposed
performance of his duty : Tobin v. Beg., sup. Nor as to lands in a colony :
Holmes v. The Queen, 2 Johns. & H. 527 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 76 ; 10 W. R. 39.
Nor in the absence of express stipulation, to discharge financial liabilities
of the conquered State incurred before the outbreak of war : West Band
Central Gold Mining Co. v. Rex, [1903] 2 K. B. 391. Nor an engagement
made by the Crown with any of its military or naval officers in respect of
services either present, past or future : Mitchell v. 'The Queen, [1896] 1
Q. B. 121, n., C. A. And a suppliant, or intending supphant, is not en-
titled to discovery, nor to production of documents as against the Crown :
Thomas v. The Queen, L. R. 10 Q. B. 44 ; Beiner v. M. of Salisbury, 2
Ch. D. 378, 386. And communications as to State matters between officers
of State, as such, are absolutely privileged : Chatterton v. Secretary of State
for India in Council, [1895] 2 Q. B. 189, C. A. ; though the Crown, by
the combined effect of 23 & 24 V. c. 34, and O. xxxi, 12, is entitled to
Petition of Right. 383
discovery from the suppliant : Tomline v. TJie Queen, 4 Ex. D. 225, C. A. ;
and as to tlie right of the Crown to discovery generally, v. sup. pp. 66, 72.
The Crown cannot be made to account for money paid by a foreign
government as compensation to English subjects : Bustomjee v. The Queen,
2 Q. B. D. 69, C. A.
An action for trespass against the Lords of the Admiralty in their official
capacity will not lie : Raleigh v. Ooschen, [1898] 1 Ch. 73.
Relief against a forfeiture of a Crown lease or gale for nonpayment of
rent was refused after six months in Re Brain, 18 Eq. 389.
Demurrer was allowed to a petition of right by an army doctor, who,
having been forced to retire, claimed that the office was tenable for life :
Re Tufnell, 3 Ch. D. 164 ; also to a petition of right for an increase of a
superannuation allowance, such an allowance being, under 4 & 5 W. IV.
c. 24, s. 30, and the Superannuation Act, 1859, ss. 2, 18, a mere bounty :
Cooper V. The Queen, V.-C. M., 28 W. B. 611 ; 14 Ch. D. 311 ; and as to
contracts by the Crown being conditional on the funds being voted by
Parliament, see Re Tufnell, sup., and Churchward v. The Queen, L. R. 1
Q. B. 173.
An action for breach of contract will lie by contractors against H. M.
Commrs for Works and Public Buildings : Oraham v. Wmks, due. Commrs,
70 L. J. K. B. 860 ; [1901] 2 K. B. 781.
The Court has jurisdiction to maintain an action against the A. G. as
representing the Crown, although the immediate and sole object of the
action is to affect the rights of the Cro\vn in favour of the plaintiff, and a
declaratory judgment can under 0. xxv. r 5 (see sup. p. 164), be made
against the A. G. as Deft representing the Crown, and the Pit is not
bound in such a case to proceed by petition of right: Dyson v. A. 6.,
[1911] 1 K. B. 410; and see Burghes v. A. 0., [1911] 2 Ch. 139.
The Statutes of Limitation have no application as between the Crown Statutes of
and a subject, and should not be pleaded by the Crown, but the fiat may be Limitation,
refused : Bustomjee v. The Queen, 1 Q. B. D. 491, 492.
And the Crown not being named in the Prescription Act, 1832 (2 & 3
W. IV. c. 71), s. 3, is not bound by that section : Perry v. Eames, [1891]
1 Ch. 658 ; nor are the lessees of the Crown, as there can be no easement
by prescription for a limited time : Wheaton v. Maple, [1893] 3 Ch. 48,
C. A.
No mention of petitions of right is made in the Judicature Acts or Rules,
but the Gen. Ord. of 1st Feb. 1862, is not annulled, and the prerogative of
the Crown to intervene in actions affecting its rights is not affected by
Jud. Act, 1873, s. 24 (5) : A. O. v. Constable, 4 Ex. D. 172 ; and as to the
right of the Crown to have an action of trespass in a County Court, affecting
the rights of the Crown over land, transferred to the revenue side of the
K. B. D., see Ld. Stanley of Alderley v. Wild, [1900] 1 Q. B. 256, C. A. ;
A. G. V. Wilsmi; 1900, W. N. 263 ; 1901, W. N. 5 ; and notwithstanding
those Acts and O. xxv, 1, a demurrer may be put in by the A. G. : Northam
Bridge Co. v. The Queen, 23 Nov. 1886, B. 1373 ; Clode, 178.
By ss. 11, 12 of the Act of 1860, costs may be given to {Re Brain, 18 Eq. Costs.
389) and against (James v. The Queen, sup. Form 1, and S. C. on demurrer,
17 Eq. 502) the Crown and other parties. In cases in the Privy Counci
and House of Lords, the Crown neither pays nor receives costs unless the
case is governed by some local statute, or there are exceptional circum-
stances justifying a departure from the ordinary rule : Johnson v. Rex,
[1904] A. 0. 817.
And for forms, and as to the practice generally, see Clode, passim.
( 384 ) [chap. XXVI.
CHAPTER XXVI.
ARBITRATIONS AND REFERENCES,
1. Stay of Proceedings — Arbitration Ad, 1889, s. 4.
This Court doth, pursuant to sect. 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1889,
order that all further proceedings in this action be stayed until further
order ; And it is ordered that the costs of this application be costs in
the action and that the costs of this action be in the discretion of and
be dealt with by the arbitrators to be appointed imder the said
partnership deed. — Vawdrey v. Simpson, Chitty, J., 28 Nov. 1895, B.
4411 ; [1896] 1 Ch. 166, followed by Kekewich, J., Machin v. Bennett,
22 June, 1900 ; 1900, W. N. p. 146.
For form of application, see D. C. P. 1131.
2. Usual Reference on Svhmission to Arbitration.
By consent, ■ — Order that all matters in difference in this action
between the parties be referred to the arbitrament, final end, and
determination of A. of &c. [or to B. of &c., a person for this purpose
nominated by the Pit, and of C. of &c., a person for this purpose
nominated by the Deft].
3. To enlarge Time to make Award after Time Expired —
Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 9.
Whereas by an order dated &c. [Recite order of reference concisely,
hut particularly as to time when arbitrator is to make his award], Now
upon motion &c., by counsel for — , and upon hearing counsel for — ,
and upon reading &c., This Court doth order that the time for the said
arbitrators to make their award be enlarged until the — day of — .
This order may also be obtained at Chambers. For form of application,
see D. C. P. 1135.
The arbitrator can enlarge the time under Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 2 (c),
but not after the time or enlarged time has expired.
4. To appoint new Arbitrator and Umpire in place of one who
refuses to act or is incapable of acting, or Jias died — s. 5.
Whereas by an order dated &c. [Recite order of reference, and death
of arbitrator and umpire]. It is, by consent, ordered that P. be ap-
pointed in the place of B., deceased, to act as arbitrator with L„ the
Arbitrations and References. 385
surviving arbitrator under the said order, together with such third
person as the said P. and L. shall nominate in writing previously to
their entering upon the said reference, with such powers and directions
as are contained in and given by the said order dated &c. : And it is
ordered, that the award of the said arbitrators be made on or before
the — day of — , or such further time as they may appoint. — See
Gouthwaite v. G., V.-C, 23 Mar. 1842, A. 683.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 1132.
5. To enforce Award — s. 12.
Oedee that the applicants be at liberty to enforce the said award in
the same manner as a judgment or order to the same efiect ; The
costs of the applicants of this application to be included in their costs
of the award. — Re Amalgamated Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co., Keke-
wich, J., 1 Feb. 1900, A. 510.
The summons should be intituled, " In the matter of an arbitration
between &c., And in the matter of the Arbitration Act, 1889," and should
ask for " leave to enforce the award dated — , in the above arbitration in
the same manner as a judgment or order to the same effect."
6. Reference to Official or Special Referee for Inquiry and Report —
Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 13.
Oedee that pursuant to sect. 13 of the Arbitration Act the
following questions arising in this action, namely [State the
questions] be referred to the Official Eeferee [or to Mr. — , one of the
Official Referees of the Supreme Court &c., or to Mr. — , as Special
Referee] for inquiry and report [If the reference is made at the hearing
or trial, add. Adjourn further consideration &c.] — Liberty to apply.
For reference to a special referee, under sect. 56 of the Jud. Act, 1873, to
inquire and report the amount of the debt due to the Pit from the testator's
estate, distinguishing principal from interest, if any, and adjourning further
consideration, see Re Perrin, Court v. Perrin, M. R., 8 Nov. 1875, B. 1688.
And for further order after the report, see S. C, M. R., 31 Jan. 1876,
B. 127, and see Form 7, inf.
For order appointing an architect special referee to report as to whether
the Pit's premises were likely to be affected by noise and drainage from
Deft's stables, with special directions, see Broder v. Saillard, 2 Ch. D. 694,
and inf. Chap. XXXI., " Injtjnotions."
In CartwrigJit v. La,st, V.-C. M., 3 Feb. 1876, inf. p. 356, a case of inter-
ception of ancient lights was referred to a surveyor as special referee to
inspect and report: and see Craven y. Kaye, Field, J., for V.-C. H., 29
Aug. 1876, A. 1647 (cited Seton, 6th Edition, p. 577).
In Ormond v. Tovmsend, M. R., 16 Dec. 1875, B. 2099, an order was
made referring all the accounts in a partnership suit. And for order of
the official referee for Deft to bring in his account, see S. C, Form 15, inf.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 377, 378.
7. Further Order after Report of Referee — Arbitration Act, 1889,
s. 13 — 0. XXXVI, 54, 55.
This action coming on &c. for further consideration &c. [or if
further consideration has not been adjourned, Upon motion this day
VOL. I. 3 C
386 Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
made unto this Court by &c.], and upon hearing &o., and upon reading
the order dated &c., and the report of Mr. — , the Official [or Special]
Referee, dated &c., This Court doth &c.
For form of application, see D. 0. F. 382.
8. Order for Trial before Official or Special Referee — Arbitration
Act, 1889, s. 14—0. XXXVI, 50.
Order that pursuant to sect. 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, the
whole of this action [or, the following question or issue of fact arising
in this action {State the question)] be tried before the Official Referee
[or Mr. — , one of &o., or before Mr. — , Special Referee]. — Liberty to
apply.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 378, 379.
9. Official Referee's Direction for Judgment after Trial of
Action~0. XXXVI, 50 ; 0. xl, 2 ; 0. xli, 7.
Pursuant to the order made herein, dated the — day of — ,
1911, referring this action for trial to an Official Referee, I — , one
of the Official Referees, have tried this action on the — and —
days of — , and I find on the issues raised between the parties that
the Pit is on his claim entitled to recover from the Deft the sum of
£ — ■ [or as the case may 6e], and that on the counter-claim the Deft
is entitled to recover from the Pit the sum of £ — as damages for
the breaches of contract therein alleged. And the Deft having paid
into Court a sum of £ — with defence denying liability, I direct that
judgment be entered for the Pit that he do recover from the Deft
the sum of £ — [balance]. And I order that the sum of £— paid
into Court by the Deft be paid out to the Pit or on his written
authority to his solr. And I direct that the costs of the Pit of the
action and of the Deft of the counter-claim be taxed, and that the
taxing master do set ofE the two sets of costs when taxed against
each other, and certify to which party the balance after such set
ofE is due. And I direct that judgment be entered that the party
to whom such balance is certified to be due do recover the amount
thereof from the other party.
Dated the — day of — .
A. B.,
Official Referee.
This direction for judgment with the proper stamps according to the
Order for Fees affixed to it is filed by the Official Referee's clerk at the
Central Office. The direction for judgment is not a report or award :
see Munday v. Norton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 403.,
Arbitrations and References. 387
10. Judgment hy Direction of Official Referee after Trial of
Action hy Mm— Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 14—0. xxxvi, 50 ;
0. XL, 2.
This action having, by order dated the — , been referred to one
of the Official Eeferees [or to Mr. — , one of the Official Referees],
and the Official Referee having found that — and directed that
judgment be entered for the Pit, that he do recover from the Deft
the sum of £ — and costs of action [as the case may le], It is
adjudged that the Pit recover against the Deft, &c.
11. Reference under 33 & 34 F. c. 61 (9 Edw. VII. c. 49, s. 18) to
reduce Contracts.
Order that it be referred to Mr. — , of &c., as Special Referee, to
inquire and report to the Court upon what terms and subject to what
conditions the contracts of the co. should be reduced in place of
making a winding-up order, and to settle a scheme for reducing such
contracts for the approval of the Court, and for such purposes to
cause an actuarial valuation of the co.'s risks to be made, and to make
and take all necessary inquiries and accounts, and in so doing to
employ actuaries, or an actuary ; and the said Referee is to be at
liberty without further order to exercise and do any power or thing
given or authorized by 0. xxxvi, 52 ; Refer it to Chambers to deter-
mine who shall be served with this order, and who shall have liberty
to attend before such Special Referee for the purpose of representing
classes of persons having the same interest. — Re the Great Britain
Mutual Life Ass. Soc, V.-C. H., 27 January, 1881, A. 229 ; and see
In re Nelson & Co., [1905] 1 Ch. 551 (the scheme must proceed upon
a principle of equality of reduction of all the contracts).
For form of scheme enabling a life assurance oo. to carry on other
business besides life assurance so as to comply with sect. 4 of the Act of
1870, repealed and re-enacted by sect. 3 of the Act of 1909, see Re British
Widow's Assurance Co., [1905] 2 Ch. 40.
12. Order to set aside Judgment after Trial of Action before Referee
—0. XL, 6.
Upon motion &c. to set aside the judgment of the Official Referee
dated &c., and to enter judgment for &c., and upon hearing counsel
for the Deft [or Pit], This Court doth order that the said judgment
dated &c., be set aside, and that judgment be entered for &c.
For form of notice of motion, see D. C. F. 354.
13. Order by Official Referee for bringing in Accounts.
Order that the Pit do, on or before the — day of — , or subse-
quently within — days after service of the order, leave at the court
388
Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
room of Mr. H., the Official Referee to whom the talcing of the
accounts mentioned in the order dated &c., stands referred, situate
No. — , Eoyal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, the following
accounts, duly verified by affidavit, that is to say &c. — See Ormond
V. Townsend, 9 Aug. 1876, B. 1545.
14. Report remitted for Rehearing — Arbitration Act, 1889, ss. 13,
14—0. XXXVI, 52, 52a, 54, 55, 55a, 55b, 55c.
This action having &c. [Forms 8 and 10, sup.], now upon motion
&c., This Court doth order that the said report be remitted to the said
Referee in order that this action [or the following questions, that is to
say &c.] be reheard.
15. Injunction against Proceeding with Arbitration.
[For form of undertaking as to damages, see p. 507, post.] Order that
the Defts W. M. & Co. be restrained until judgment in this action or
until further order from proceeding or attempting to proceed with
any arbitration having reference to any disputes between the Pit
and the Defts in respect of the cargo of hay or the partnership in the
writ mentioned. Costs of the motion to be costs in the action. —
See Kitts v. Moore & Co., Vac. Judge for North, J., 17 Oct. 1894, A.
09, affirmed by C. A., 4 Dec. 1894, A. 0389, [1895] 1 Q. B. 253.
NOTES.
All arbitrations, whether by consent out of Court or by reference under
order of Court, are now governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act,
] 889 (52 & 53 V. c. 49), which repeals the Acts 9 W. III. c. 15 ; 3 & 4
W. IV. c. 42, ss. 39—41 ; the C. L. P. Act, 1854, ss. 3—17 ; the Jud. Act,
1873, s. 56 (except the portion relating to assessors), and ss. 57 — 59 ; and
the Jud. Act, 1884, ss. 9—11.
Sects. 1—12 of the new Act relate more particularly to references by
consent out of Court ; sects. 13 — 17 also extend to references under order
of Court ; and the remaining sections are of general application.
Arbitration,
what
amounts to.
SUBMISSION TO ARBITRATION.
In order to constitute an " arbitration " there must be some dispute
which requires a judicial determination : Re Dawiy, 15 Q. B. D. 426, 430,
C. A. ; L. <fc N. W. and G. W. By. Cos. v. BilUngton, [1899] A.C. 79, H. L. ;
and a mere agreement for a sale at a price to be fixed by a valuer is not an
arbitration, but a valuation : Collins v. C, 26 Beav. 306 ; and see Bos v.
Helsham, L. R. 2 Ex. 72 ; Be Dawdy, sup. ; and so where a purchaser
agrees to take timber at a valuation, such valuation is not in the nature of
an award : Be Carus-Wilson and Greene, 18 Q. B. D. 7, C. A. ; the appoint-
ment of a valuer to determine compensation to be paid is not a submission :
Be Caiman and Watson, 1907, W. N. 223 ; and the assessment under
contract of compensation to tenant giving up land to a purchaser is a
valuation : Be Hammond and Waterton, 62 L. T. 808 ; but if it is necessary
to hold a judicial inquiry, and to decide a point of law or right arising out
of the facts ( Vickers v. F., 4 Eq. 536 ; Be Hopper, 8 B. & S. 100), or settle
a dispute {In re Evans, Davies and Caddick, 18 W. R. 723), there is an
arbitration,
Arbitrations and References. 389
As to when the architect, &c. is made an arbitrator by a building con-
tract, see Kimberley v. Dick, 13 Eq. 1 ; Wadsworth v. Smith, L. R. 6 Q. B.
332 ; Jones v. St. John's Coll., L. R. 6 Q. B. 115 ; Sharpe v. San Paulo By.,
8 Oh. 597 ; Walker v. L. & N. W. Ry., 1 C. P. D. 518.
By the interpretation clause, sect. 27, " ' submission ' means a written Submission,
agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration, whether what
an arbitrator is named therein or not." As to the ambiguous use of the amounts to.
expression " submission " previously to the Act, see Re Smith and Service
and Nelson, 25 Q. B. D. 545, C. A.
Indorsements signed by counsel on their briefs at the trial of an action
agreeing with each other, and stating that claims were to be referred, were
held to constitute a " submission " within the section : Aitken v. Bachelor,
62 L. J. Q. B. 193.
A policy, containing an arbitration clause, though not signed by the Pit,
may amount to a submission within sects. 4 and 27 : Baker v. Yorkshire
Ass. Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 44 ; explaining Caerleon Tin Plate Co. v. Hughes,
60 L. J. Q. B. 640 ; 65 L. T. 118.
Where it is intended that the parties should be deprived of any legal
right, the submission should so state : see Be Oreen and Balfour, 63 L. T.
97 ; 1890, W. N. 139, 156.
As to the meaning of the expression " differences," see Bandegger v.
Holmes, 1 C. P. 679 ; Be Carlisle, Clegg v. C, 44 Ch. D. 200 ; L. dk N. W.
and O. W. By. Cos. v. Billington, [18991 A. C. 79, H. L. (where in the absence
of a " difference " within a local Act before action brought, it was held that
the arbitrator had not and the Court had jurisdiction).
As to submissions to foreign tribunals, see Austrian Lloyd Steamship Co. Submission
V. Gresham Life Ass. Soc, [1903] 1 K. B. 249, C. A. ; Kirchner & Co. v. to foreign
Gruhan, [1909] 1 Ch. 413. tribunal.
Byseot. 1, "a submission, unless a contrary intention is expressed therein. Effect of
shall be irrevocable, except by leave of the Court or a Judge and shall have submission,
the same effect in all respects as it it had been made an order of the Court."
Formerly, unless the submission was made or agreed to be made a rule
of Court, the appointment of the arbitrator was revocable until an award
had actually been made : Bandell v. Thompson, 1 Q. B. D. 748, C. A. ;
Thomson v. Anderson, 9 Eq. 523 ;. Be Bouse and Meier, L. R. 6 C. P. 212 ;
Mills V. Bayley, 2 H. & C. 36 ; Fraser v. Ehrensperger, 12 Q. B. D. 310,
C. A. ; Deutsche, d:c. Oesellschaft v. Brisac, 20 Q. B. D. 177 ; but the
general agreement to refer could not be revoked, and an action lay for
breach of it : Be Smith and Service and Nelson, 25 Q. B. D. 545, 550, 553,
C. A. ; Piercy v. Young, 14 Ch. D. 200, C. A. ; Christie v. Noble, 14 Ch. D.
203, n.
A stipulation in a contract, that the provisions of the C. L. P. Act, 1854,
with regard to arbitration should apply, was held to be equivalent to an
agreement that the submission should be made a rule of Court, and thus to
render it irrevocable under the provision to that effect in 3 & 4 W. IV.
0. 42, s. 39 : Be Mitchell and Izard, 21 Q. B. D. 408, C. A.
Leave to revoke a submission on the ground that an arbitrator is making
a mistake of law in a matter within his jurisdiction will only be granted
under exceptional circumstances : James v. J., 23 Q. B. D. 12, C. A. ;
S. C, 22 Q. B. D. 673 ; D. C. F. 1130 ; ex. gr., where the arbitrator was
receiving evidence which was objected to as tending to vary the contract :
E. and W. India Docks Co. v. Kirk and Bandall, 12 App. Ca. 738.
It is competent for parties to agree that the question of fraud on the part
of the arbitrator shall not be raised by either of them : Tullis v. Jacson,
[1892] 3 Ch. 441.
The meaning of the last clause of sect. 1 is that the submission,
whether it be a general agreement to refer or not, is to have the same effect
as would have been given to it before the statute by an act of the parties
making it a rule of Court : Be Smith and Service and Nelson, 25 Q. B. I).
645, 554, C. A. The clause in effect supersedes the provisions of 9 & 10
390
Arbitrations and References, [chap, xxvi.
Implied
provisions.
Single
arbitrator.
Umpire.
Time for
making
award.
Duty of
umpire.
Time for
making his
award.
Evidence.
Award.
Costs.
Official
referee.
W. III. 0. 15, s. 1, whereby any agreement for reference might be made a
rule of Court, and could then be enforced accordingly, and of 3 & 4 W. IV.
c. 42, s. 39, whereby any submission made a rule of Court was irrevocable.
As to enforcing awards, v. inf. Chap. L., " Specific Peefoemance,"
Russ. Arb. 355 ; and as to pleading an award as a defence to a suit, Ih.
327, 328.
By sect. 2, " a submission, unless the contrary is expressed therein, shall
be deemed to include the provisions set forth in the first schedule to the
Act, so far as they are applicable to the reference under the submission."
The provisions which are thus to be implied are as follows : —
a. If no other mode of reference is provided, the reference shall be to a
single arbitrator.
h. If the reference is to two arbitrators, the two arbitrators may appoint
an umpire at any time within the period during which they have power to
make an award.
c. The arbitrators shall make their award in writing within three months
after entering on the reference, or after having been called on to act by
notice in writing from any party to the submission, or on or before any
later day to which the arbitrators, by any writing signed by them, may
from time to time enlarge the time for making the award.
When notice to appoint an umpire is served upon arbitrators by one
of the parties, they are " called on to act " within this clause : Baring
Gould V. Sharpington Syndicate, [1899] 2 Ch. 80, C. A. ; [1898] 2 Ch. 833.
d. If the arbitrators have allowed their time or extended time to expire
without making an award, or have delivered to any party to the sub-
mission, or to the umpire, a notice in writing, stating that they cannot
agree, the umpire may forthwith enter on the reference in Ueu of the
arbitrators.
e. The umpire shall make his award within one month after the original
or extended time appointed for making the award of the arbitrators has
expired, or on or before any later day to which the umpire by any writing
signed by him may from time to time enlarge the time for making his
award.
/. The parties to the reference, and all persons claiming through them
respectively, shall, subject to any legal objection, submit to be examined
by the arbitrators or umpire, on oath or affirmation, in relation to the
matters in dispute, and shall, subject as aforesaid, produce before the
arbitrators or umpire all books, deeds, papers, accounts, writings, and
documents within their possession or power respectively which may be
required or called for, and do all other things wliich during the proceedings
on the reference the arbitrators or umpire may require.
As to power of arbitrator to order pleadings and permit amendments
thereof, see Be Crighton, Sc. Insurance Co., Ld., [1910] 2 K. B. 738.
g. The witnesses on the reference shall, if the arbitrators or umpire
think fit, be examined on oath or affirmation.
h. The award to be made by the arbitrators or umpire shall be final and
binding on the parties and the persons claiming under them respectively.
i. The costs of the reference and award shall be in the discretion of the
arbitrators or umpire, who may direct to and by whom and in what manner
those costs or any part thereof shall be paid, and may tax or settle the
amount of costs to be so paid or any part thereof, and may award costs
to be paid as between solr and client.
Sect. 2 (i) applies to the costs of a reference and award as between lessor
and lessee, the lessee's ordinary liability being limited to conveyancing
costs only : Mostyn (Lord) v. Fitzsimmons, [1902] 1 K. B. 512.
By sect. 3, when a submission provides that a reference shall be to an
official referee, any official referee to whom application is made shall,
subject to any order of the Court or a Judge as to transfer or otherwise,
hear and determine the matters agreed to be referred.
The Act applies to an arbitration commenced after, on a submission
Arbitrations and References. 391
made before, the commencement of the Act : Re Williams and Stepney,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 257, reversing S. G., [18911 1 Q. B. 700.
STAYING PROOBEDINOS WHERE THERE IS A SUBMISSION.
By sect. 4, " if any party to a submission, or any person claiming through Stay of
or under him, commences any legal proceedings in any Court against any proceedings,
other party to the submission, or any person claiming through or under
him, in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such
legal proceedings may at any time after appearance, and before delivering
any pleadings or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to that
Court to stay the proceedings, and that Court or a Judge thereof, if satisfied
that there is no suflficient reason why the matter should not be referred in
accordance with the submission " [as to the meaning of these words, see
Denton v. Legge, 1895, W. N. 46 ; 72 L. T. 626], " and that the appUcant
was, at the time when the proceedings were commenced, and still remains,
ready and wilUng to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the
arbitration, may make an order staying the proceecQngs."
Under sect. 11 of the C. L. P. Act, 1854, for which this section has been
substituted, two methods of compelling the prosecution of the agreed
reference were commonly adopted : — ^first, where a time had been fixed for
making the award, by staying proceedings until further order, with liberty
to apply if no award should be made witliin the time fixed : Kitchen v.
Turnhull, 20 W. R. 253 ; or enlarging time to name an arbitrator where
that had not been done : Form 3, sup. p. 384 ; secondly, by staying pro-
ceedings and appointing arbitrators, and giving the necessary directions.
Where the Pit in answer to a summons under this section to stay pro-
ceedings challenged the conduct of the arbitrator the Court in the exercise
of its discretion refused a stay : O. Freeman <fc Sons v. Chester R. D. C,
[1911] 1 K. B. 783.
A " step in the proceedings " means some application to the Court by "Step in the
summons or motion, and does not include an appUcation by letter or proceedings."
notice from one party to another, or by correspondence between their
respective solra : Ives & Barker v. Willans, [1894] 1 Ch. 68 ; [1894] 2,Ch.
478, C. A. ; such as the giving of notice by a Deft that he requires the
delivery of a statement of claim : Ives & Barker v. Willans ; or the ob-
taining time by consent, without order of the Court, under O. lxiv, 8 :
Brighton Marine, t&c. Co. v. Woodhouse, [1893] 2 Ch. 486 ; Chappell v.
North, [1891] 2 Q. B. 252 ; or the mere filing of affidavits in answer to a
motion for a receiver in an action for dissolution of partnership : Zalinoff
V. Hammond, [1898] 2 Ch. 92 ; but obtaining time to plead : Smith <fc
Co. V. British Mar. Mutual Insurance Association, 1883, W. N. 176 ; or
an order for extension of time for delivery of defence : Bartlett v. Ford's
Hotel Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 850, C. A., in H. L. nom. Ford's Hotel Co. v. Bartlett,
[1896] A. C. 1 ; or an application for leave to administer interrogatories, or
for security for costs, is "a step in the proceedings," and (semile) the
delivery of a counter-claim is " the commencement of a legal proceeding "
within sect. 4 : Chappell v. North, [1891] 2 Q. B. 252 ; Adams v. Cattley,
40 W. R. 670 ; 66 L. T. 687 ; and now attending the general summons for
directions without objection, and without asking for an adjournment in
order to make an application to stay the action is " a step in the pro-
ceedings " : County Theatres ti: Hotels, Id., Richardson v. Le Maitre,
[1903] 2 Ch. 222 ; Ochs v. Ochs, [1909] 2 Ch. 121.
Where there is a bona fide suggestion of fraud, the Court has declined to Suggestion
interfere to stay proceedings, where it could not be supposed that the of fraud.
parties contemplated a reference of a case of fraud : Wallis v. Hirsch, 1
C. B. N. S. 316 ; Cook v. Catchpole, 34 L. J. Ch. 60 ; 13 W. R. 42 ; 43
L. T. 425 ; Workman v. Belfast Harbour Commrs, [1899] 2 I. R. 234 ;
Barnes v. Youngs, [1898] 1 Ch. 414 ; Hoch v. Boor, 49 L. J. C. P. 665 ; 10
Jur. N. S. 1068 ; 11 L. T. 264 ; but see Horton v. Sayer, 4 H. & N. 643 ;
392
Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
but where the objection to arbitration is by the party charging the fraud,
the Court will not necessarily accede to it, and will never do so unless a
prim.d facie case of fraud is proved : Russell v. R., 14 Ch. D. 471 ; approved
in WalmsleyY. White, 40 W. R. 675 ; and Bse Russell v. Harris, 65 L. T. 572.
The fraud alleged must be such as to affect the questions referred :
Hirsch v. Im Thurm, 6 W. R. 605 ; Birmingham, <i>c. Qas Co. v. Ratcliffe,
L. R. 6 Ex. 224 ; not merely one item in an account : Imhof v. Sutton,
L. R. 2 C. P. 406.
Three Sect. 4 applies though the reference is to three arbitrators : Manchester
arbitrators. Ship Canal Co. v. Pearson, [1900] 2 Q. B. 606, distinguishing Re ■
Smith and Service, inf. p. 394.
Instances '^^^ following matters have been held to be within agreements to refer : —
of matters '^^^ construction of the partnership deed and all other matters : Willesford
referred. v- Watson, 8 Ch. 473 ; the validity of a notice of dissolution : Plews v.
BaJcer, 16 Eq. 564 (but see Witt v. Ccyrcoran, 21 W. R. 47, 48 ; 8 Ch. 476, n. ) ;
the partnership accounts : Gillett v. Thornton, 19 Eq. 599 ; questions of
law, as well as of fact, arising on construction of contract : Forwood <fc Co.
V. Walney, 49 L. J. Q. B. 447 ; an action for wrongful dismissal, under a
general clause in a contract for service referring disputes touching the
rights and liabilities under the contract : Renshaw v. Queen Anne Resi-
dential Mansions and Hotel Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 662, C. A. ; Parry v. Liver-
pool Malt Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 339, C. A. ; secus, semble, a question whether
a custom ought to bei mported into a contract : Hutcheson v. Eaton, 11
Q. B. D. 861, C. A.
Construction The question whether the matters in dispute are included in the refer-
of reference, enco is one for the decision of the Court : Piercyv. Young, li Ch. D. 200,
208, C. A., explaining Willesford v. Watson, sup., on this point ; and see
Barnes v. Youngs, [1898] 1 Ch. 414.
The question whether a reference to arbitration and an award there-
under is a condition precedent to the right to sue depends on the terms of
the particular contract between the parties, as to which, see Collins v.
Locke, 4 App. Ca. 674 ; Viney v. Bignold, 20 Q. B. D. 172 ; Trainor v.
Phmttix Fire Ass. Co., 65 L. T. 825 ; Scott v. Mercantile, &c. Ins. Co., 65
L. T. 811 ; Dan. 1875.
Discretion Prima facie it is the duty of the Court to act upon an agreement to
of Court. refer : Willesford v. Watson, 8 Ch. at p. 480 ; but the Court has a dis-
cretion as well under the new as under the old section : see Re Carlisle,
Clegg v. C, 44 Ch. D. 200 ; and its jurisdiction is not ousted by the agree-
ment so as to make the action demurrable : Sharpe v. San Paulo Ry., 8
Ch. 597, 612 ; Pickering v. Cape Town Ry., 1 Eq. 89 ; Cooke v. C, 4 Eq.
77 ; Lyon v. Johnson, 40 Ch. D. 579 ; secus, under an agreement con-
firmed by statute binding two railways to settle all differences by arbitra-
tion : Caledonian Ry. v. Greenock, <i:C. Ry., L. R. 2 H. L., Sc. 347 ; but see
L. C. & D. Ry. Co. v. L. & S. W. Ry. Co., 40 Ch. D. 100, C. A. ; or under
the Ry. Co.'s Arb. Act, 1859 ; Watford, ihc. Ry. v. L. cfc N. W. Ry., 8 Eq.
231 ; and as to that Act, v. inf. Chap. LIV. ; or where the provision of
sect. 33 of the Tramways Act, 1870 (33 & 34 V. c. 78), applies : Norwich
Corporation v. Norwich Electric Tramways Co., Ld., [1906] 2 K. B. 119.
Under the Pubhc Health Act, 1875, s. 308, a party claiming compensa-
tion has a right to go to arbitration, although there is a dispute as to the
liability to pay : Brierley Hill Local Board v. Pearsall, 9 App. Ca. 595.
In the exercise of its discretion the Court declined to stay proceedings
where one of the parties had acted contrary to the agreement to refer :
Davis V. Starr, 41 Ch. D. 247, C. A. ; or where there was a question of
construction which was specially appropriate for the decision of a Court :
Lyon V. Johnson, 40 Ch. D. 579 ; or a question of law which, if sent to the
arbitrator, ought to be referred back by him to the Court : Re Carlisle,
Clegg v. C, 44 Ch. D. 200 (where the application for a stay was ordered to
stand over until after delivery of defences) ; and see Workman v. Belfast
Harbour Commrs, [1899] 2 I. R. 234 ; but if the main object of the action
Arbitrations and References. 393
is within the arbitration clause, the fact that a small portion of the relief
claimed is not within it is not a sufficient reason for refusing a stay : Ives ds
Darker v. Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478, C. A.
If the submission to arbitration is not substantially oo-extensive with
the object of the action the action will not be stayed : Wheatley v. West-
minster, die. Co., 2 Dr. & Sm. 347 ; Turnoch v. 8artoris, 43 Ch. D. 150,
C. A. {distinguishing Wade-Gery v. Morison, 37 L. T. 270) ; Ives v. Willans,
[1894] 2 Ch. 478, C. A. ; and see Workman v. Belfast Harbour Commrs,
[1899] 2 I. R. 134 ; nor if something different from what a referee can do
is required, such as the appointment of a receiver : Cook v. Catchpole, 13
W. R. 42 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 60 ; but the fact that an injunction is asked for
and may be required is not enough : Willesford v. Watson, 8 Ch. 473.
And where a case is made out for the appointment of a receiver, the
Court may nevertheless refer the action to arbitration, and still protect
the property pending the award : Compagnie du Senegal v. Smith, 32
W. R. Ill ; 53 L. J. Ch. 166 ; 46 L. T. 527 ; Pini v. Boncoroni, [1892]
1 Ch. 633 ; and see Hahey v. Windham, 1882, W. N. 108.
The Court has declined to stay proceedings on the application of Defts,
a building society, who had neglected to appoint a standing body of arbi-
trators as contemplated by their rules : Christie v. Northern Counties B.
Soc, 43 Ch. D. 62 j Norton v. Counties Conservative B. B. Soc, [1895] 1
Q. B. 246, C. A. ; inf. p. 401.
As to refusing a stay where the arbitrators appointed are strong
partisans, see Bonnin v. Neame, [1910] 1 Ch. 732.
As to the onus prohandi whether there exists " sufficient reason " why the
dispute should not be referred, see Hodgson v. Railway Passengers'' Ass.
Co., 9 Q. B. D. 188, C. A. ; Fox v. RaUways Passengers'' Ass. Co., 52 L. T.
072 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 505.
Where the partnership was being carried on after the term fixed by the Partnership
articles containing the submission had expired, an arbitration clause in the matters,
articles was held applicable : Oillett v. Thornton, 19 Eq. 599 ; and see
Cope V. C, 52 L. T. 607.
Where partnership articles contain the usual arbitration clause, the arbi-
trator has power to award a dissolution, or a return of premium as inci-
dental to a dissolution, and a stay of proceedings in a partnership action
may be granted accordingly : Vawdrey v. Simpson, [1896] 1 Ch. 166,
following Walmsley v. White, 40 W. R. 675 ; Belfield v. Bourne, [1894] 1
Ch. 521 ; but the Court has a discretion to refuse a stay and leave the
dispute to be tried out in the action : Vawdrey v. Simpson, sup. ; and see
Joplin V. Postlethwaite, 61 L. T. 629, where the motion for a stay was
ordered to stand to the trial ; Turnell v. Sanderson, 1891, W. N. 71 ; 64
L. T. 654 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 703 ; and where the preliminary question arose
whether a notice of expulsion was valid, and there was a suggestion of
fraud or unfairness in springing the notice upon the partner, the Court
refused to order a stay : Barnes v. Youngs, [1898] 1 Ch. 414 ; and in
Dennehy v. Jolly, 22 W. R. 449 (Ir. M. R.), the fact that the applicants
had carried on the business after dissolution of partnership was held a
ground for not staying proceedings. As to who are bound by an arbitration
clause in a partnership agreement, see Bonnin y. Neame, [1910] 1 Ch. 732.
Where proceedings had been stayed and an award had been made, it was Costs of
held at law that the costs of the action could be dealt with by a subsequent action,
order : Bustros v. Lenders, L. R. 6 C. P. 259.
As to the meaning of the requirement that the applicant should " be Applicant
ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the should " be
reference," and that he must be ready to refer the whole matter, see Davis ready and
V. Starr, 41 Ch. D. 247, C. A. willmg.
As to the difference between a covenant not to do an act, followed by an
agreement to refer the amount of damages, and a covenant to pay such a
sum as shall be settled by arbitration, see Dawson v. Fitzgerald, 1 Ex. D.
261.
394
Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
Appointment
of arbitrator
or umpire.
Attendance
of witnesses.
PROCEEDINGS UNDEK A BEPEEBNCE TO ARBITEATION.
By sect. 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, " In any of the following cases : —
" (a) Where a submission provides that the reference shall be to a single
arbitrator, and all the parties do not, after differences have arisen,
concur in the appointment of an arbitrator :
" (6) If an appointed arbitrator refuses to act, or is incapable of acting,
or dies, and the submission does not show that it was intended that
the vacancy should not be supplied, and the parties do not supply
the vacancy :
" (c) Where the parties or two arbitrators are at liberty to appoint an
umpire or third arbitrator and do not appoint him :
" (d) Where an appointed umpire or third arbitrator refuses to act, or is
incapable of acting, or dies, and the submission does not show that
it was intended that the vacancy should not be supplied, and the
parties or arbitrators do not supply the vacancy :
any party may serve the other parties or the arbitrators, as the case may
be, with a written notice to appoint an arbitrator, umpire, or third
arbitrator.
" If the appointment is not made within seven clear days after the
service of the notice, the Court or a Judge may, on application by the
party who gave the notice, appoint an arbitrator, umpire, or third arbi-
trator, who shall have the like powers to act in the reference and make
an award as if he had been appointed by consent of all parties."
A notice " to concur in the appointment " of a sole arbitrator is sufficient.
In general, where the section applies, the Court has no discretion to refuse
to appoint : Be Eyre and Corp. of Leicester, [1892] 1 Q. B. 136, C. A.
By sect. 6, " Where a submission provides that the reference shall be to
two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party, then, unless the sub-
mission expresses a contrary intention —
" (a) If either of the appointed arbitrators refuses to act, or is incapable
of acting, or dies, the party who appointed him may appoint a
new arbitrator in his place :
" (6) If, on such a reference, one party fails to appoint an arbitrator,
either originally or by way of substitution as aforesaid, for seven
clear days after the other party, having appointed his arbitrator,
has served the party making default with notice to make the
appointment, the party who has appointed an arbitrator may
appoint that arbitrator to act as sole arbitrator in the reference,
and his award shall be binding on both parties as if he had been
appointed by consent."
These sections correspond with sects. 12 and 13 of the C. L. P. Act, 1854,
and do not apply where the submission provides for a reference to three
arbitrators, one to be appointed by each party, and the third by the first
two : Qumm v. Hallett, 14 Eq. 555 ; Re Smith and Service and Nelson, 25
Q. B. D. 545, 552, C. A.
By sect. 7, the arbitrators or umpire acting under a submission shall,
unless the submission expresses a contrary intention, have {inter alia)
power to administer oaths or to take affirmations of the parties and witnesses
appearing.
By sect. 8, " Any party to a submission may sue out a writ of subpoena
ad testificandum, or a writ of subpcena duces tecum, but no person shall be
compelled under any such writ to produce any document which he could
not be compelled to produce on the trial of an action."
For the practice as to suing out subpcena and subpcena duces tecum, see
O. XXXVII, 20, 26—34.
An order for attendance of witnesses before an arbitrator was an order
of course : Se Rickeits, 3 N. R. 56 ; and might be made on summons in the
Chancery Division : Olarbrough v. Toothill, 17 Ch. D. 787. Forms of order
are given in R. S. C. App. K., 25, 26, but are now disused, attendance
being enforced by subpcena : see D. C. F.
Arbitrations and References. 395
As to enforcing attendance of witnesses, see Russ. on Arb. 139. As to
the power of the Court to compel attendance of witnesses out of the juris-
diction, and that there is no such power where the action and all matters
in difference have been referred, see Hall v. Brand, 12 Q. B. D. 39,
C. A.
By sect. 22, " any person who wilfully and corruptly gives false evidence Perjury,
before any referee, arbitrator, or umpire, shall be guilty of perjury, as if
the evidence had been given in open Court, and may be dealt with, prose-
cuted, and punished accordingly."
By sect. 19, " any referee, arbitrator, or umpire may, at any stage of the Question
proceedings, under a reference, and shall, if so directed by the Court or a of law.
Judge, state in the form of a special case for the opinion of the Court any
question of law arising in the course of the reference " : Jackson v. Barry
By. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238, 246, C. A.
Where a substantial and serious question of law arises on the construc-
tion of the contract, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, will direct
the arbitrators to state a special case : Be Nuttall and LynUm and Barn-
staple By. Co., 82 L. T. 17, C. A.
The section apphes to arbitrations under the Building Societies Act,
1874 : Tabernacle Building Soc. v. Knight, [1892] A. C. 298.
It is no bar to the right to a special case that the arbitrator has expressed
no opinion adverse to the party making the application : Be Spillers tb
Baker and Leetham & Sons, [1896] 1 Q. B. 312, C. A.
It is a breach of duty for an arbitrator to refuse or obstruct the state-
ment of a special case on material questions by delay, or by summarily
making his award, unless the application is frivolous or made merely for
delay ; and such a breach of duty is prima facie misconduct within sect. 1 1 :
Be Palmer and Hoshen, [1898] 1 Q. B. 131, C. A.
If necessary a completed award may be remitted with a direction to
reconsider it, and in a certain event to state a special case : Be Palmer and
Hosken, sup.
An appeal will not lie direct to the Court of Appeal against an order of a Appeal from
Judge at Chambers directing an arbitrator to state a case, the matter not Judge at
being within the Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Act, 1894, s. 1, Chambers,
subs. 4 : Be Frere and Staveley Taylor & Co. and North Shore Mill Co.,
[1905] 1 K. B. 366. Sect. 1, subs. 5, of the Act of 1894 applies only to
appeals from inferior Courts, and not to an appeal from a judgment or
order of the High Court : Wynne-Finch v. Clayton, [1903] 2 Ch. 475.
By sect. 11, where an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself, Disqualifica-
the Court may remove him or set his award aside. tion of
As to the jurisdiction of the Court to restrain an arbitrator from making arbitrator,
an award, see Beddow v. B., 9 Ch. 1). 89 ; Pickering v. Cape Town By. Co.,
1 Eq. 84 ; Malmesbury By. v. Budd, 2 Ch. D. 113 ; Jackson v. Barry By.
Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238, 246, 249, C. A. ; and as to the reluctance of the Court
to treat a named arbitrator as disqualified on suspicion of bias, see Bright
V. Biver Plate Construction Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 835.
Though the Court can in a proper case {e.g., where injury to the applicant
would otherwise result) restrain a party from proceeding to arbitration, it
will not exercise the jurisdiction where the result of the arbitration would
be futile : Farrar v. Cooper, 44 Ch. D. 323 ; L. cfc Blackuall By. Co. v.
Cross, 31 Ch. D. 354, 368, C. A. ; N. L. By. Co. v. G. N. By. Co., 11 Q. B. D.
30 ; Wood V. Lillies, 61 L. J. Ch. 158 ; and v. inf. Chap. XXXI., " In-
junctions."
An injunction has been granted restraining a person, appointed by
arbitrators drawing lots, from acting as umpire : Pescod v. P., 58 L. T. 76 ;
1888, W. N. 2 ; but see contra Smith v. Liverpool, London and Globe Ins.
Co., 14 Court of Sess. Cas. 931.
And further as to grounds to disqualify an arbitrator, see inf. p. 398
As to the jurisdiction of the Court to restrain the Deft from proceeding to
arbitration where an action has been brought impeaching the instrument
396 Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
containing the agreement for reference, see Kilts v. Moore, [1895] 1 Q. B.
253, C. A., post, pp. 512, 513.
AWARD.
Time. By sect. 9, " the time for making an award may from time to time be
enlarged by order of the Court or a Judge, whether the time for making
the award has expired or not."
By O. LXiv, 14a, " where the time for making an award is enlarged, the
enlargement shall be deemed to be for one month unless a different time is
specified in the order."
For the provisions implied in a submission as to time for award of arbi-
trators or umpire and extension of time, v. sup. p. 390.
Under the similar provision in the C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 11, the Court
could enlarge the time beyond that to which the arbitrator had power to
enlarge, and had enlarged it : Denton v. Strong, L. R. 9 Q. B. 117 ; and
might enlarge it after the award had been made : Lord v. Lee, 3 Q. B.
404 ; May v. Harcoicrt, 13 Q. B. D. 688.
Irregularity of an enlargement of time might be waived by subsequent
attendance before the arbitrator, but the party so attending did not thereby
lose the right to complain of a further enlargement : Dvdson v. Norton,
1866, W. N. 58.
Under sect. 9 the Court has jurisdiction to extend the time for making
an award under the Public Health Act, 1875, although the time for making
the award has expired : Knowles v. Bolton, [1900] 2 Q. B. 253, C. A., over-
ruling Re Mackenzie, 17 Q. B. D. 114 ; and see Re Dare Valley Ry. Co., 4
Ch. 554 ; Re Yeadon Local Board, 41 Ch. D. 52, C. A.
And sect. 24 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, excludes the operation of that
Act so far as it is inconsistent with other Acts regulating arbitrations. As
to the effect of this section, see Re Knight and Tabernacle Building Soc,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 63.
Where the time had expired except as to an isolated dispute arising in
the course of other differences, the Court refused to direct a reference :
Young v. Buckeit, 51 L. J. Ch. 504 ; 46 L. T. 226 ; 30 W. R. 110.
Enlargement of time was refused where there had been great delay : Re
Dare Valley Ry. Co., 4 Ch. 554.
Where by mistake the award had been signed after the time fixed by
the agreement, the Court enlarged the time and remitted it : Re Warner
and Powell's Arb., 3 Eq. 261.
„ By sect. 7, the arbitrators or umpire (unless the submission expresses
a contrary intention) are empowered to state an award as to the whole
or part thereof in the form of a special case for the opinion of the
Court ; and to correct in an award any clerical mistake or error arising
from any accidental slip or omission.
The provision as to the statement of a special case supersedes and simpli-
fies sect. 5 of the C. L. P. Act, 1854, under which it was held that an umpire
appointed to ascertain compensation under the Lands Clauses Act, 1845,
hadpo wer to state a special case : Rhodes v. Airedale Commrs. , 1 C. P. D. 402.
The provision as to correction of the award overrules Mordue v. Palmer,
6 Ch. 22, where it was held that even a clerical error could not be corrected
by the arbitrator, but application must be made to the Court. The word-
ing is similar to 0. xxvin, 11, in reference to mistakes in judgments or
orders, as to which v. sup. p. 187.
Enforcement ■'^y ^®''*" ^^' "^" award on a submission may, by leave of the
Court or a Judge, be enforced in the same way as a judgment or order
to the same effect." An application under this section is a " civil pro-
ceeding in the High Court " within sect. 1 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890 :
Exp. Caucasian Trading Corp., [1896] 1 Q. B. 368, C. A. Eor form of
application, see D. C. E. 1137.
Leave to enforce the award may be given under the section in the case
Arbitrations and References. 397
of a reference to arbitration between landlord and tenant comprising
matters partly within and partly not within the Agricultural Holdings
(England) Act, 1883 : In re Lloyd and Tooth, [18991 1 Q. B. 559', C. A. The
section does not apply to an award for amount enforceable by summary
proceedings under sect. 150 of the Pubho Health Act, 1875 : Be Wilksden
Local Board and Wright, [1896] 2 Q. B. 412, C. A.
As to process for enforcement of judgments and orders, v. inf. Chap.
XXVII., " Execution." As to suing for enforcement of award, see inf.
Chap. L., " Specific Peefoemance," and Russ. Arb. 355 ; and as to
pleading an award as a defence, lb. 314, 315.
Where an arbitrator awarded compensation under an Act, but said
nothing as to costs to which a right was given by the Act, an action could
be maintained for the costs, though not taxed or ascertained : Met. Dist.
By. Co. V. Sharpe, 5 App. Ca. 425.
By sect. 10 (1), "in all cases of reference to arbitration the Court or a Setting aside
Judge may from time to time remit the matters referred, or any of them, *nd remit-
to the reconsideration of the arbitrators or umpire. (2) Where an award t'ug.
is remitted, the arbitrators or umpire shall, unless the order otherwise
directs, make their award within three months after the date of the
order." By sect. 11, "where an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted
himself, or an arbitration or award has been improperly procured, the
Court may set the award aside."
By O. LXiv, 14, an application to set aside an award may be made at
any time before the last day of the sittings next after such award has been
made and published to the parties.
The application should be by motion : see 0. Ui, 1 ; D. C. P. 1135 ; and
is to be considered as made when the notice of motion is given : Be Gallop,
25 Q. B. D. 230 ; and see Be Corp. of Hudderefield and Jacomb, 10 Ch. 92 ;
Smith V. Parhside Mining Co., 6 Q. B. D. 67.
The notice of motion should specify the grounds of objection to the
award ; a notice stating objections " on good grounds " is insufficient :
Mercier v. Pepperell, 19 Ch. D. 68.
Under 0. LXiv, 7, the Court has jurisdiction, on good cause shown, to
extend the time for moving to set aside an award, although the time
limited by r. 14 has expired : Be Oliver and Scott's Arbitration, 43 Ch. D.
310 ; and see Be Wiggeston Hospital, 54 L. J. Q. B. 248.
As to referring the award back to the arbitrator and his duties thereon,
see Russ. Arb. 291 et seq. ; and that the Court can remit although the
arbitrator he functus officio, see Be Stringer and Biley, [1900] 1 Q. B. 105.
As to the jurisdiction of the Court to remit back to the arbitrator an
award under the Public Health Act, 1875, see Warburton v. Haslingden
Local Ed., 48 L. J. C. P. 451.
Under the C. L. P. Act, 1854, the Court would not set aside the award or
remit it to the arbitrators, except for reasons which before the Act would
have induced the Court to set it aside, or treat it as a nuIUty : Mills v.
Bowyer's Co., 3 K. & J. 66. But would refer it back when there had been
a clear mistake by the arbitrators : 8. C. ; Flynn v. Bobertson, L. R. 4
C. P. 324 ; though the mistake only afiected part of the award : Be AitJcen,
6 W. R. 145 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 1296 ; and as to awards being bad in part
only, see Lewis v. Bossiter, 23 W. R. 832 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 136 ; 33 L. T.
260.
But the parties to an arbitration having selected their own Judge on a
question of law, are bound by his decision : Adams v. Ot. North of Scotland
By. Co., [1891] A. C. 31, 40 ; Stimpson v. Emmerson, 9 L. T. 199 ; Knox v.
Symmonds, 1 Ves. 369 ; and it is competent for them to agree that the
question of fraud on his part shall not be raised : Tullis v. Jacson, [1892]
3 Ch. 441 ; and a mistake as to the legal principle on which the award was
founded, or as to the mode of treating evidence, had to be admitted by the
arbitrator : The Imperial, dhc. v. Funder, 21 W. R. 67, 116 ; Dinn v. Blake,
L. R. 10 C. P. 388 ; Russ. Arb. 211 ; and see Be KeigUey, Maxsted & Co.,
398 Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
[1893] 1 Q. B. 405, C. A. ; Falkingham v. Victorian Bys. Comm., [1900]
A. C. 452, P. C.
In order to disqualify an arbitrator on the ground of bias, circumstances
must be shown to exist which estabUsh at least a probability that he will
favour one of the parties in giving his decision : Eckersley v. Mersey Docks,
[1894] 2 Q. B. 667, C. A. ; and see Bright v. Biver Plate Construction Co.,
[1900] 2 Ch. 835 ; and, in the absence of suspicion, he will not be dis-
qualified because he is the engineer or servant of one of them : Ives and
Barker v. Willans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478, C. A. ; even though he may have to
decide disputes involving questions as to his skill and competence in
advising his employers in respect to the contract : Eckersley v. Mersey
Docks, sup. (commenting on Nuttall v. Mayor of Manchester, 8 Times
L. R. 513) ; or because, being arbitrator under the Lands Clauses Act, he
has given evidence on behalf of one of the parties in another arbitration
as to the value of other land taken under the same parliamentary powers :
In re Haigh and L. N. W. & 0. W. By. Cos., [1896] 1 Q. B. 649.
Awards were set aside or remitted where the arbitrator had decided on
certain bills of costs without giving the other side an opportunity of ex-
amining them, and had without authority appointed an accountant : Be
Tidswell, 33 Beav. 213 ; or obtained and acted on an accountant's report
without conferring with the parties thereon : Be E. C. By., 3 D. J. & S.
610 ; and see Haigh v. H., 8 Jur. N. S. 983 ; 3 D. F. & J. 157 ; or im-
properly excluded some of the parties from the proceedings : 8. C. ; or
obtained information from one party in the absence of the other : Be
Qregson and Armstrong, 70 L. T. 106 ; or refused to hear evidence : Russ.
Arb. 143 ; Be Maunder, 49 L. T. 535 ; or improperly delegated his
authority : Russ. Arb. 368, 370 ; or did not make his award within the
appointed time : Be Yeadon Waterworks Co., and Yeadon L. B., 37 W. R.
360 ; or in effect made a new contract for the parties ; e.g., where under a
contract stipulating for " customary allowances " for deficient weight the
arbitrator had increased the allowance beyond the customary sum :
Hooper v. Balfour, 62 L. T. 646 ; or where evidence material for the con-
sideration of the arbitrator (not necessarily such as would be good in a
Court of law) was discovered after the award was made : Be Keighley,
Maxsted & Co., sup. ; or where the question referred being whether gocds
were up to guaranty, the arbitrators awarded that the buyer should accept
them with allowance by way of compensation : Be Oreen and Balfour, 1890,
W. N. 139, 156 ; 63 L. T. 97, 325 ; or where costs were to follow event,
and the arbitrator failed to find specific issues : Ellis v. Desilva, 6 Q. B. D.
521 ; or the arbitrator in construing the contract erroneously imported
into it a custom relieving a party from liability : Hutcheson v. Eaton, 11
Q. B. D. 861, C. A. ; Be North Western Buhher Co., Ld., and Hitten-
bach ofe Co., [1908] 2 K. B. 907 ; or granted compensation under an Act
which had no apphcation : L. di; N. W. By. Co. v. Walker, [1903] A. C.
289 ; or where the award left some of the questions undecided, or am-
biguously decided : Wakefield v. Llanelly By. &c. Co., 13 W. R. 823 ; Be
Palmer and Hosken, [1898] 1 Q. B. 131, C. A. ; secus, where the ambiguity
was explained : Lord Blantyre v. Bdbtie, 13 App. Cas. 631 ; or where
evidence was taken on matters not referred but not shown to be irrelevant :
Falkingham v. Victorian Bys. Comm., [1900] A. C. 452 ; and where the
umpire heard the two arbitrators, but not the parties or witnesses, his
award was upheld : Bottomley v. Ambler, 26 W. R. 566 ; 38 L. T. 545.
And " no award, when there is anything like fraud, can stand for a
moment " : per Giffard, V.-C, in Be Dare Valley By., 6 Eq. 435 ; Greenhill
V. Church, 3 Oh. Rep. 49 [89] : see Story, Eq. Jur. s. 1451.
And generally, as to the duties and powers of an arbitrator in the conduct
of the reference, see Russ. Arb. 132 et seq- ; and see In re Enoch and Zardzky,
[1910] 1 K. B. 327.
Appeal. Prior to the Act of 1889 the Court of Chancery could not review the
award of a Master of a common law Court to whom an action had been
Arbitrations and References. 399
referred : Orafham v. Turnhull, 23 W. R. 645 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 538 ; nor,
s&mhle, an inolosure award : Bateman v. Boynton, 1 Ch. 369. As to present
practice on appeal, see pp. 403, 404.
An arbitrator's evidence in explanation of his award will be admitted on Evidence,
a motion to set it aside, or refer it back for mistake : JfJe Dare Valley By.
Go., 6 Eq. 429 ; Brown v. B., 1 Vern. 157 ; or in an action on the award :
D. ofBuGcleuch v. Met. Bd. of Works, L. R. 5 Ex. 221 ; 5 H. L. 418 ; Rhodes
V. Airedale Drainage Oommrs., 1 C. P. D. 380 ; but a mere admission of
evidence of an admission out of Court by an arbitrator after award that
he made his award improperly, as, for example, by collusion or in conse-
quence of a bribe, is not admissible in support of an application to set
aside the award : In re WhiteUy and Roberts, [1891] 1 Ch. 558.
A Pit who had accepted the money awarded " under protest," was pre- Delay,
eluded by a delay of nine months from disputing the award : Parrott v.
Shellard, 16 W. R. 928.
When an award is set aside it will be sent back to the same arbitrators, Remitting to
unless they have shown themselves untrustworthy : Re Dare Valley Ry. same
Co., 6 Eq. 429 ; Anning v. Hartley, 27 L. J. Ex. 145. arbitrators or
When an umpire has once been summoned the jurisdiction of the arbi- ii™pire.
trators is gone, and the Court in referring back the award will send it to
the umpire: The Westminster, &c. Co. v. Clayton, 13 W. R. 134; 11
L. T. 366.
As to waiver of irregularities, see Russ. Arb. 150 et seq. ; Moseley v. Waiver o£
Simpson, 16 Eq. 226. irregularities.
On a reference in an action of tort, a direction that the arbitrator should Death of
pubUsh his award ready to be delivered to the parties or their represves, party before
" if either should die before the making of the award," did not make the award,
cause of action continue on the death of a party before award made :
Bowher v. Emns, 15 Q. B. D. 565, C. A. ; and see Phillips v. Homfrav, 24
Ch. D. 439. •'
Actions for negligence cannot be brought against referees who have Liability of
acted bona fide and to the best of their judgment : Pappa v. Rose, L. R. arbitrator.
7 C. P. 32, 525 ; Tharsis, <kc. Co. v. Loftus, L. R. 8 C. P. 1 ; Stevenson v.
Watson, 4 C. P. D. 148 ; Chambers v. Ooldthorpe, [1901] 1 K. B. 624, C. A.
(extending the principle to the case of an architect as against the building
owner).
COSTS OF ABBITRATIONS GBNBBALLY.
By sect. 20, " any order made under this Act may be made on such
terms as to costs, or otherwise, as the authority making the order thinks
just."
And it is an implied term of every submission, unless a contrary inten-
tion is expressed, that the costs of the reference and award are to be in the
discretion of the arbitrators or umpire, who may give directions as to
payment, may tax and settle the amount to be paid, and award costs as
between solr and cUent : v. sup. p. 390.
The power to give costs extends to an arbitration commenced after the
Act under a submission made before the Act, and silent as to costs : Re
Williams & Stepney, [1891] 2 Q. B. 257, C. A. ; reversing S. C, [18911 1
Q. B. 700. 'L J
An arbitrator appointed by the Court, and empowered to deal with the
costs of the action, has jurisdiction to give costs as between solr and client :
Mordue v. Palmer, 6 Ch. 22 ; and see Andrews v. Barnes, 39 Ch. D. 133.
Where the whole action is referred by the Court to an official referee,
without any direction as to costs, his decision as to costs cannot be ap-
pealed against except by leave: Munster & Co. v. Avvlehi 119021 1
K. B. 643. i-J^ J> L J
Where an arbitrator having power over costs has not awarded any, the
Court may deal with them, but ought to remit the case to him : Harland
V. Mayor of Newcastle, L. R. 5 Q. B. 47 ; and see Fearon v. Flinn L R
400
Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
Costs of
reference
distinct from
costs of cause.
Jurisdiction
of Court as
to costs.
Remunera-
tion of
arbitrator.
5 C. P. 34. As to allowing fees of two counsel, see Sinclair v. O. E. By.,
lb. 135.
After reference of partnership questions and award, the general rule as
to costs in partnership cases was followed : Newton v. Taylor, 19 Eq. 14.
Where the order of reference made no provision as to the costs of the
action, it was varied after award made : Bustros v. Lenders, L. R. 6 C. P.
259.
The arbitrator had formerly no power over the costs of the reference and
award unless specially given to him : Boodle v. Davies, 3 A. & E. 200.
But where a cause was referred he had an implied power over the costs of
the cause, though not of the reference or award : Buss. Arb. 236, 295.
Power to arbitrator over " cost of reference " includes power to give
costs of award : Be Walker and Brown, 9 Q. B. D. 434.
Costs of negotiating and settling terms of submission upon reference by
consent may be allowed on taxation as " costs of reference " : Be Auto-
threptic Steam Boiler Co., 21 Q. B. D. 182.
The costs of a reference (semhle, whether by consent or compulsory) are
distinct from the costs of the cause, and therefore 0. LXV, 12 (v. sup.
p. 247, as to scale of taxation where not more than £50 is recovered), does
not apply to costs awarded by the arbitrator in the exercise of his dis-
cretion : Street v. S., [1900] 2 Q. B. 57, C. A. (disapproving Moore v. Watson,
L. R. 2 C. P. 314) ; and see Hyde v. Beardsley, 18 Q. B. D. 244 ; Emmett
v. Heyes, 36 W. R. 237 ; 1887, W. N. 243.
Where costs are to follow the event, the word " event " must be read
distributively : Ellis v. Desilva, 6 Q. B. D. 521, C. A. ; Hawlce v. Brear, 14
Q. B. D. 841.
And Defts having judgment for balance on claim and counter-claim were
entitled to costs of action, reference, and award, and Pit to costs of issues
found in his favour : iMnd v. Campbell, 14 Q. B. D. 821, C. A. ; explaining
Baines v. Bromley, 6 Q. B. D. 691 ; and vice versa ; Waring v. Pearman, 50
L. T. 633 ; 32 W. R. 429 ; Pearson v. Ripley, 50 L. T. 629 ; 32 W. R. 463 ;
and see Ahrbecher v. Frost, 17 Q. B. D. 606.
As to costs of reference under Public Health Act, 1875, see Pedke v.
Finchley Local Board, SI L. T. 882 ; and under Lands Clauses Consolidation
Act, 1845, see Fisher v. O. W. By. Co., [1911] 1 K. B. 551, C .A.
Where a question submitted is referred to the Court by special case, the
Court has jurisdiction as to the costs of the award, although the question
of costs was not submitted : Portisliead, iSsC. Co. v. Bristol, cSsc. Co., 1887,
W. N. 75 ; and as to costs of references before official or special referees, v.
inf. p. 407.
By sect. 15 (3), the remuneration to be paid to any special referee or arbi-
trator to whom any matter is referred under order of the Court or a Judge
shall be determined by the Court or a Judge. A fee for the award calcu-
lated on an ad valorem scale varying vriiih the amount awarded will not be
allowed : Be Frank James tfe Sons, 1903, W. N. 99.
Semble, where a mercantile dispute is referred to arbitration, there is an
implied contract by the parties jointly to pay to the arbitrators and umpire
reasonable remuneration : Crampton v. Bidley, 20 Q. B. D. 48.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
In the case of these societies the settlement of disputes is now regulated
by the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (59 & 60 V. c. 25), and the Friendly
Societies Act, 1908.
The Act of 1896 provides (sect. 68)—
" (1) Every dispute between —
(a) a member or person claiming through a member or under the rules of
a registered society or branch, and the society or branch or an
officer thereof ; or
(b) any person aggrieved who has not for not more than six months
ceased to be a member of a registered society or branch, or any
Arbitrations and References. 401
person claiming through such person aggrieved, and the society
or branch, or an officer thereof ; or
(o) any registered branch of any society or branch and the society or
branch of which it is a branch ; or
(d) an officer of any such registered branch and the society or branch of
wliich tliat registered branch is a branch ; or
(e) any two or more registered branches of any society or branch, or any
officers thereof respectively,
shall be decided in manner directed by the rules of the society or branch,
and the decision so given shall be binding and conclusive on all parties
without appeal, and shall not be removable into any Court of law or re-
strainable by injunction ; and application for the enforcement thereof may.
be made to the County Court."
The Act of 1908 {s. 6) repeals the words " for not more than six months "
in 1 (b) above, and directs that there shall be inserted at the end of sect.
68 above, the following new subsection : —
"In this section the expression ' dispute ' includes any dispute arising on " Dispute,"
the question whether a member or person aggrieved is entitled to be or to meaning of.
continue to be a member or to be reinstated as a. member, but save as
aforesaid, in the case of a person who has ceased to be a member, does not
include any dispute other than a dispute on a question between him and
the society or branch or officer thereof which arose whilst he was a member,
or arises out of his previous relation as a member to that society or branch."
Under the repealed enactments the Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39
V. c. 60), s. 22, and the Friendly Societies Act, 1895 (58 & 59 V. c. 26), s. 10,
Bub-s. 1, only disputes between the co. and a member as such were provided
for, and if the co. denied the membership the rules did not apply : Prentice
V. London, L. R. 10 C. P. 679 ; Willis v. Wells, [1892] 2 Q. B. 225 ; Palliser
V. Dale, [1897] 2 Q. B. 257, C. A. ; and see further, Russ. on Arb., p. 39.
The provisions of sect. 68 of the Act of 1 896 do not forbid the enforcement
of the decisions of domestic tribunals by other means than legal process,
but merely prevent applications for enforcement from being made to any
Court of law other than a County Court: Oatt v. Wood, [1908] 2 K. B. 458,
affirmed [1910] A. C. 404.
BUILDING SOCIETIES.
For order staying proceedings by a member of a building society, the
rules of which provided that disputes between the society and its members
should be referred to arbitration pursuant to the Building Societies Act,
1874, s. 16 (9), see Wright v. Monarch, <Ssc. Soc, M. R., 23 March, 1877, B.
693, 5 Ch. D. 726 ; followed in Hack v. London Provident Bldg. Soc, 23
Ch. D. 103, C. A. ; and see Municipal Permanent, <i;c. Soc. v. Kent, H. L.
9 App. Ca. 260, where the principle of the decision was affirmed.
As to the efiect of arbitration clauses in the rules of building societies as Mortgagors,
respects disputes between the societies and their members in the capacity
of mortgagors of the society, see Building Societies Act, 1884 (47 & 48
V. c. 41) ; Western Suburban Bldg. Soc. v. Martin, 17 Q. B. D. 609 ; and
inf. Chap. XL VII., " Moktgages " ; as respects an impeached sale by the
society to a member of property mortgaged to it by other members :
French v. Municipal Permanent Bldg. Soc, 53 L. J. Ch. 743 ; 50 L. T. 566 ;
and as to the applicability of such a clause to a retiring member : Walker
V. Gen. Mutual Bldg. Soc, 36 Ch. D. 777, C. A. ; Bavies v. Chatham Bldg.
Soc, 61 L. T. 680.
The Court has power to order arbitrators under the Building Societies Special case.
Act, 1874, to state a special case ; sect. 36 of that Act not being " incon-
sistent " (within sect. 24 of the Arbitration Act, 1889) with the exercise of
such a power : Be Knight and Tabernacle Bldg. Soc, [1891] 2 Q. B. 63,
C. A. ; [1892] A. C. 298.
By the Building Societies Act, 1894 (57 & 58 V. c. 47), s. 20 : " notwith-
standing anything contained in the Arbitration Act, 1889, or in any other
VOL. I. 2d
402 Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
Act, the arbitrators, registrar, or Court to whom a dispute is referred in
pursuance of the Building Societies Act, 1874, shall not be compelled to
state a special case on any question of law arising in the case, but may do
so on the request of either party as provided in sect. 36 of the Building
Societies Act, 1874 " : 8. C, Tabernacle Bldg. Soc. v. Knight, [1892] A. C.
298, H. L.
Where the arbitrator has stated his final award in the form of a special
case, and has not merely asked the opinion of the Court by way of inter-
locutory proceeding, there is an appeal from the K. B. D. to the C. A. ;
He Kirhleatham Local Bd., [1893] 1 Q. B. 375, 380 ; [1893] A. C. 444, H. L.
Neglect to Where the rules of a building society provided for the appointment of a
appoint specified number of arbitrators, and the prescribed number had not been
arbitrators, appointed, the Court nevertheless stayed proceedings in an action brought
by a member. If in such a case the society neglects to appoint arbitrators
the proper course of proceeding is by mandamus : Norton v. Counties Con-
servative Permanent B. B. Soc, [1895] 1 Q. B. 246, C. A., not approving
Christie v. Northern Counties B. B. Soc, 43 Ch. D. 62.
And see Euss. on Arb. 39-41.
EEFBEENCE TO OFMCIAL OK SPECIAL EEEEEEE,
The Jud. Act, 1873, s. 83, provides for the appointment of officers to be
called official referees, for the trial of such questions as shall under the Act
be directed to be tried by such referees. Official referees have accordingly
been appointed.
Under R.S.C. By O. xxxvi, 7, actions may (amongst other modes) be tried before an
official or special referee, with or without assessors.
Under By the Arbitration Act, 1889 (52 & 53 V. c. 49), s. 3, where a submission
Arbitration provides that the reference shall be to an official referee, any official referee
Act, 1889. to whom application is made shall, subject to any order of the Court or
Judge as to transfer or otherwise, hear and determine the matters agreed
to be referred.
By sect. 13, " (1) subject to rules of Court and to any right to have
particular cases tried by a jury, the Court or a Judge may refer any question
arising in any cause or matter (other than a criminal proceeding by the
Crown) for inquiry or report to any official or special referee.
" (2) The report of an official or special referee may be adopted wholly
or partially by the Court or a Judge, and if so adopted may be enforced as
a judgment or order to the same effect."
A question " arising " in the cause was held to be one which must neces-
sarily arise : Weed v. Ward, 40 Ch. D. 555, C. A. ; and see Asser v. Ooetze,
1880, W. N. 204.
As to the meaning of the word " inquiry," see Baroness Wenlock v. River
Dee Co., 19 Q. B. D. 155, 158, 159, C. A. ; Weed v. Ward, sup.
As to the report being of no effect until adopted by the Court, see Serle
Y. Fardell, 44 Ch. D. 299, 301 ; Dyke v. Oannell, 11 Q. B. D. 180.
By sect. 14, " In any cause or matter (other than a criminal proceeding
by the Crown), —
" (a) If all the parties interested who are not under disability consent ;
or,
" (6) If the cause or matter requires any prolonged examination of
documents or any scientific or local investigation which cannot in
the opinion of the Court or a Judge conveniently be made before
a jury or conducted by the Court through its other ordinary officers ;
or,
"(c) If the question in dispute consists wholly or in part of matters of
account ;
the Court or a Judge may at any time order the whole cause or matter, or
any question or issue of fact arising therein, to be tried before a special
referee or arbitrator respectively agreed on by the parties, or before an
official referee or officer of the Court."
Arbitrations and References. 403
Sub-sect, (c) applies when any part of the dispute relates to a matter of
account, although in certain events it might become unnecessary to deter-
mine such matter of account : Hwlbatt v. Barneit <is Co., [1893] 1 Q. B.
77, C. A.
An order of the Court for reference to a special referee may be in one of
the Forms 32 and 33a in R. S. C, Appendix K. : see White v. Peto, 1886,
W. N. 165 ; Barmess Wenlock v. River Dee Co., 19 Q. B. D. 155, 159,
C. A.
Where the whole action in the Chancery Division has been referred for Appeal,
trial and judgment entered, an appeal does not lie to the Court of Appeal,
but an application to set aside the judgment must be made to the Judge
of the Chancery Division to whom the action is assigned : Wynne-Finch
V. Chaytor, [1903] 2 Ch. 475. So also where an action is referred to a
Master under O. xiv, 27, an appeal lies from his decision to a Divisional
Court : Fraser v. Fraser, [1905] 1 K. B. 368.
The reference under the section is not a compulsory reference within
sect. 8 of the Jud. Act, 1884, and therefore an appeal lies without leave
from the decision of a Divisional Court on an application for a new trial
before an official referee : Munday v. Norton, [18921 1 Q. B. 403, C. A.
This section in substance follows sect. 57 of the Jud. Act, 1873, under Charges of
which the Court declined to refer cases involving charges of fraud and fraud,
matters affecting personal character, which the Deft was entitled to have
tried in open Court : Leigh v. Brooks, 5 Ch. D. 692, C. A. ; Russell v. Harris,
65 L. T. 752 ; and see Glow v. Harper, 26 W. R. 364 ; 3 Ex. D. 198.
A large construction was to be given to the word " account " : Re Leigh, Questions of
Rowcliffe V. L., 3 Ch. D. 292, where a claim in an admon suit for a large account,
sum for pictures sold to the testator was referred, though consisting only
of twenty-four items and no cross claims.
Any question of account which might be referred compulsorily to a
Master under sect. 3 of the C. L. P. Act, 1854, might also be referred to an
official referee under sect. 57 : Knight v. Codies, 19 Q. B. D. at p. 302, C. A. ;
Ward V. Pilley, 5 Q. B. D. 427, C. A.
A very difficult account was directed to be taken by an official referee
instead of in Chambers, on account of the great saving of time which
would thus be effected : Rochefoucauld v. Boustead, [1897] 1 Ch. 196,
C. A. ; and see S. C. (No. 2), [1898] 1 Ch. 550, C. A.
The prolonged examination of documents intended in this section is Questions of
such as is necessary in order to enable the Judge to determine questions law and
of fact, not legal rights : Ormerod v. Todmwden Mill Co., 8 Q. B. D. 664, ia™es of fact
667, C. A., per Brett, M. R.
In Pember v. Fames, 1890, W. N. 143, questions of law and issues of fact
were referred with direction to state a special case under sect. 19 of the
Arbitration Act, 1889 ; and issues of fact in a patent case requiring
scientific investigation were referred : Saxhy v. Gloucester Wagon Co., 1880,
W. N. 28 ; Dan. 617.
Where the issue was whether or not a particular twist in a ship was
caused by perils of the sea, and the evidence taken on commission filled
300 printed pages, and six scientific witnesses were to be examined, it was
held that the case ought not to be withheld from a jury : Hamilton v.
Merchants' Mar. Ins. Co., 58 L. J. Q. B. 544 ; and see Swyny v. N. E, Ry.
Co., 74 L. T. 88.
After a reference under sect. 14, the Court or Judge can still make an Order for
order for inspection of property the subject of the action ; but, semble, it inspeotiou.
is more convenient that application should be made to the referee or
arbitrator : Macalpine v. Calder, [1893] 1 Q. B. 545, C. A.
O. XXXVI, 45, provides for the distribution of the business to be referred Distribution
to the official referees in rotation, or in such other manner as the L. C. of business,
may from time to time direct ; and see r. 47 (b) as to the transfer from any
one or more of the official referees to any other or others.
As to appeals from orders of reference, and that the discretion of the Appeal from
404
Arbitrations and References. [chap. Xxvi.
order of Judge will not as a rule be interfered with, see Ormerod v. Todmorden
reference. Co., 8 Q. B. D. 664, C. A. ; Hoch v. Boor, 49 L. J. Q. B. 667 ; 43 L,
245 ; KnigJit v. Coaks, 19 Q. B. D. 296.
Place and
mode of trial.
Witnesses.
Voluminous
correspon-
dence.
Discovery.
PROCEEDINGS UNDER SUCH EErEBENCE.
By the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 15 (1), " in all cases of reference to an
official or special referee or arbitrator under an order of the Court or a
Judge in any cause or matter the official or special referee or arbitrator
shall be deemed to be an officer of the Court, and shall have such authority
and shall conduct the reference in such manner as may be prescribed by
rules of Court, and subject thereto as the Court or a Judge may direct."
The provision that the referee is to be deemed an officer of the Court
applies to references under sect. 14 as well as to those under sect. 13 : Ee
Palmer, P. v. Hardwich, 63 L. T. 302.
By 0. XXXVI, 48, " where any cause or matter, or any question in any
cause or matter, is referred to a referee, he may, subject to the order of the
Court or a Judge, hold the trial at or adjourn it to any place which he may
deem most convenient, and have any inspection or view, either by himself
or with his assessors (if any), which he may deem expedient for the better
disposal of the controversy before him. He shall, unless otherwise directed
by the Court or a Judge, proceed with the trial de die in diem, in a similar
manner as in actions tried with a jury."
The provision as to sitting de die in diem is merely directory, and non-
compliance with it is not per se a ground for setting aside an award :
Robinson v. R., 24 W. R. 675 ; 35 L. T. 337. By r. 55 (c), the provision is
not applicable where the arbitrator is appointed otherwise than by an
order of Court.
As to the power of a referee to make a peremptory appointment for the
hearing, see Baroness Wenloch v. River Dee Co., 53 L. J. Q. B. 208 ; 32
W. R. 220 ; 49 L. T. 617.
Sect. 18 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, provides that, " (1) the Court or a
Judge may order that a writ of subpoena ad testificandum or of subpcmia
duces tecum shall issue to compel the attendance, before an official or
special referee, or before any arbitrator or umpire, of a vidtness wherever
he may be witliin the United Kingdom.
" (2) The Court or a Judge may also order that a writ of habeas corpus
ad testificandum shall issue to bring up a prisoner for examination before
an official or special referee, or before any arbitrator or umpire."
For the practice as to suing out subposna ad testificandum or duces tecum,
see O. XXXVII, 26 — 34.
The evidence before a referee is to be taken, the attendance of witnesses
enforced, and the trial to be conducted, as nearly as circumstances will
admit, as trials are conducted before a Judge : O. xxxvi, 49.
Where an action or matter is referred to an official referee for trial
" he has power to do everything which a Judge of the High Court could
have done in the action " : Wynne-Finch v. Chaytor, [1903] 2 Ch. 482.
Under this rule, an official referee to whom an action has been referred
for trial has power to grant a commission to examine witnesses abroad,
and his decision is subject to review by the Judge at Chambers : Hayward
V. Mutual Reserve Assoc, [1891] 2 Q. B. 236 ; 39 W. R. 624.
By the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 22, any person who wilfully and corruptly
gives false evidence before any referee shall be guilty of perjury as if the
evidence had been given in open Court, and may be dealt vnth, prosecuted,
and punished accordingly.
Where voluminous correspondence is produced before a referee and
counsel propose to cross-examine seriatim upon it, the proper course is to
adjourn for selection of what is material : Re Maplin Sands, 1894, W. N.
41, 184, C. A. ; 71 L. T. 56, 594.
By r. 50, subject to any order to be made by the Court or Judge, the
Arbitrations and References. 405
referee shall have the same authority with respect to discovery and pro-
duction of documents, and in the conduct of any reference or trial, and
the same power to direct that judgment be entered for any or either party
as a Judge of the High Court.
An official referee has power to make an order for addition of parties Adding
under O. xvi, 11 : Byrne v. Brown, 22 Q. B. D. 657, C. A. As to appeal to parties.
Judge at Chambers from official referee declining to postpone hearing, see
Richard v. Talbot, 38 W. R. 478.
By O. XXXVI, 51, " nothing in these rules contained shall authorize any Attachment,
referee to commit any person to prison or to enforce any order by attach-
ment or otherwise."
By r. 52, " the referee may, before the conclusion of any trial before Submitting
him, or by his report under the reference made to him, submit any question question for
arising therein for the decision of the Court, or state any facts specially, decision of
with power to the Court to draw inferences therefrom, and in any such case Court,
the order to be made on such submission or statement shall be entered as
the Court may direct ; and the Court shall have power to require any
explanation or reasons from the referee, and to remit the cause or matter,
or any part thereof, for re-trial or further consideration to the same or any
other referee j or the Court may decide the question referred to any referee
on the evidence taken before him, either with or without additional evidence
as the Court may direct."
A motion under this rule to remit issues to a referee need not be made
within the time limited for moving against the verdict of a jury : Dyke v.
Cannell, 11 Q. B. D. 180, explaining Sullivan v. Rivington, 28 W. R. 372.
The Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 19, provides that, " any referee, arbitrator. Special case,
or umpire may at any stage of the proceedings under a reference, and shall,
if so directed by the Court or a Judge, state in the form of a special case for
the opinion of the Court any question of law arising in the course of the
reference."
By O. xxxvi, 55 (c), the provisions of the above rules, and of rr. 53 to 55
(v. inf.), are to apply, where any cause or matter or any question or issue of
fact therein is referred to an officer of the Court or to a special referee or
arbitrator.
BEPOET OF EEFBEEE.
By sect. 16, sub-sect. 2, of the Arbitration Act, 1889, the report or award Effect of
of an official or special referee or arbitrator on any reference under an report or
order of the Court or a Judge is, unless set aside by the Court or a Judge, award,
to be equivalent to the verdict of a jury.
The section does not afiect the finality of the award of an arbitrator
under a reference by consent of the parties, including matters other than
the action, and owing its validity to such consent : Darlington Wagon Co.
V. Harding, [1891] 1 Q. B. 245, C. A.
A referee acting under sect. 57 of the Jud. Act, 1873 (corresponding with Form of
sect. 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1889), was not bound to set out in his report,
report the reasons or grounds for his findings of fact : Miller v. Pilling,
9 Q. B. D. 736, C. A. ; and so where a preUminary account was referred :
Walker v. Bunkell, 22 Ch. D. 722, C. A. (per Kay, J.) ; but the report should
state what items of an account have been allowed and what disallo^^■ed :
Burrard v. Calisher, 19 Ch. D. 644.
And a referee is not bound to take accounts and inquiries in the strict Method of
way usual before the Master, though he may adopt that course if he thinks taking
it expedient : In re Taylor, Turpin v. Pain, 44 Ch. D. 128 ; q. v. as to the accounts,
practice and method of taking accounts before an official referee.
O. xxxvi, 53, provides for notice of the report being given to the parties, Notice of
and r. 54 makes provision where further consideration of the report has been report,
adjourned.
By r. 55, " where, under sect. 13 of the Arbitration Act, 1889, the report Motion to
406
Arbitrations and References, [chap. xxvi.
adopt or of the referee has been made in a cause or matter the further consideration
remit. of which has not been adjourned, it shall be lawful for any party by an eight
days' notice of motion to apply to the Court to adopt and carry into effect
the report of the referee or to vary the report, or to remit the cause or matter
or any part thereof for re-hearing or further consideration to the same or
any other referee."
No summons to confirm the report is required before the case is restored
to the paper : Deacon v. Dolby, 51 L. J. Ch. 248 ; 30 W. R. 317. As to the
object of the rule, see Larlcin v. Lloyd, 1891, W. N. 71. In order to vary the
report on the ground of rejection of evidence, substantial wrong must be
shown : Re MapUn Sands, 1894, W. N. 41, 184, C. A. ; 71 L. T. 56, 594.
In the absence of notice of motion to vary or remit the report, the Court
will not on further consideration review the referee's finding on the eviden ce:
Re Fitton, 63 L. J. Ch. 164 ; 70 L. T. 397 ; 42 W. R. 281.
For the practice on motion to vary the report, see Burrard v. Calisher, 19
Ch. D. 644 ; Re Taylor, Turpin v. Pain, 44 Ch. D. 128.
The Court may differ from the referee as to any finding which is an
inference from the facts reported : Longman v. East, 3 C. P. D. 142, 155,
C. A. ; and see further, Russ. on Arb. 230 et seq.
Motion for Where the reference is as to nuisance, and the referee reports that no
judgment. nuisance exists, the Deft may move, under 0. XL, 7 (v. sup. p. 369), for
judgment dismissing the action with costs : Larkin v. Lloyd, 1891, W. N. 71 ;
64 L. T. 507.
Where the report of a referee does not direct any act to be done, two
days' notice of motion for judgment dismissing the action is sufficient
under O. xl, 7 : Larkin v. Lloyd, 64 L. T. 507.
Where an order is made referring to a special referee to ascertain
damages, interest on the damages is not payable from the date of the
order for reference, inasmuch as a further order is necessary after the
report : Ashover Fluor Spar Mines, Lid. v. Jackson, [1911] 2 Ch. 355.
JUDGMEKT ON TRIAL BEFOEB KBEBBBB.
Entering • By O. XL, 2, every referee to whom a cause or matter shall be referred
judgment. shall direct how judgment shall be entered, and such judgment shall be
entered accordingly by a master or registrar, as the case may be ; and by
r. 6, where at a trial by a referee he has directed that any judgment be
entered, any party may move to set aside such judgment, and to enter any
other judgment, on the ground that upon the finding as entered the judgment
is wrong, " provided that in the Q. B. D. such motion shall be made to a
Divisional Court."
Judgment when entered takes effect from the date when the requisite
documents are left with the proper officer for the purpose of such entry, not
(as in the case of a judgment by a Judge in Court) from the time when it is
pronounced : see 0. xli, 3, 4.
Motion to Where judgment has been actually entered pursuant to the direction of
set aside. an official referee, the motion to set aside or vary the judgment must, if
the action is in the Ch. D., be made to the Judge to whom the action is
assigned, and if the action is in the K. B. D. to a Divisional Court :
Wynne-Finch v. Chaytor, [1903] 2 Ch. 475.
On appeal the Court has power not only to set aside the judgment wliich
the referee has ordered to be entered for the Pit, but to enter judgment for
the Deft : Clark v. Sonnenschein, 25 Q. B. D. 464, C. A. ; affirming S. C, ib.
226.
In the Ch. D. judgments which any official or special referee has directed
to be entered will be entered by the registrars ; and the direction for
judgment is filed in the Central Office by the official referee.
New trial. Where there has been a trial before an official referee, a motion for a new
trial must be made in the High Court, the Jud. Act, 1890, s. 1, not being
applicable to such a case : Oower v. Tobitt, 39 W. R. 193 ; Russ. on Arb.
233
Arhitrations and References. 407
COSTS OF REFERENCE BEFORE OFFICIAL OE SPECIAL REFEREE.
By 0. XXXVI, 55b, where the whole of any cause or matter is referred to Costa of
an official referee under an order of Court, he may, subject to any directions action,
in the order, exercise the same discretion as to costs as the Court or a Judge
could have exercised, and there is no appeal from his decision as to costs
except by his leave : MunsUr <Ss Co. v. Appleby, [1902] 1 K. B. 643.
Under sect. 15, sub-sect. 2 {v. sup. ^p. 415), if the award and order of
reference are both silent as to costs, the costs follow the event : Carr Bros. v.
Dougherty, 67 L. J. Q. B. 371.
By the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 15 (3), the remuneration to be paid to any Romunera-
special referee or arbitrator to whom any matter is referred under order of tion.
the Court or a Judge shall be determined by the Court or Judge. An appli-
cation by a special referee or arbitrator to have his remuneration deter-
mined is made by him by summons at Chambers which must be served on
the parties to the reference : see Willis v. Wakeley Bros., [1891] 7 T. L. R.
604 ; S. Mason, Ld. v. Lovatt, 23 T. L. R. 486 ; and see the latter case
and Oalloway v. Keyworfh, 15 C. B. 228, as to what remuneration and
expenses the Court will allow.
In Wallis v. Lichfield, 1876, W. N. 130 ; and in Re Perrin, Court v. P.,
M. R., 31 Jan. 1876, B. 127, where the referees were Queen's counsel, the
remuneration allowed was five guineas a sitting. In the latter case a fee of
two guineas for a conference was allowed.
And for principle on which taxation of the fees of an arbitrator under this
rule should be carried out, see Mason v. Lovatt, 23 T. L. R. 486.
As to the power of the Judge to order that extra costs occasioned by trial
before official, instead of special, referee be reserved, see London and Lann.
Fire Ins. Co. v. British American Assoc., 54 L. J. Q. B. 302 ; 52 L. T. 385.
( 408 )
[chap. XXVII.
CHAPTEE XXVII.
EXECUTION AND CONTEMPT.
Order
enforced as
judgment.
By or against
person not
a party.
Limit of
time.
Process
against indi-
viduals not
privileged.
Section I. — Execution Generally.
(1.) ENPOKOING DECREES, JUDGMENTS, AND OBDEES.
PEOCESS AGAINST PEESONS NOT PKIVILBGED.
Br the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 100, the word judgment includes decree.
By O. XLH, 24, " every order of the Court or a Judge, in any cause or
matter, may be enforced (vi'hioh includes enforcement by action : see Prit-
chett V. English Syndicate, [1899] 2 Q. B. 428, C. A. ; Godfrey v. George,
[1896] 1 Q. B. 48, C. A. ; Norton v. Gregory, 73 L. T. 10, and that an order
for payment of the costs of a motion for attachment of a solicitor for
contempt in not delivering a bill of costs may be enforced by action : see
Seldon v. Wilde, [1911] 1 K. B. 701) against all persons bound thereby in
the same manner as a judgment to the same effect." But the word judg-
ment in other Acts of Parliament does not of necessity include order : Exp.
CUnery, 12 Q. B. D. 342, C. A.
By r. 26, any person not being a party to a cause or matter who obtains
any order, or in whose favour any order is made, shall be entitled to enforce
obedience to such order by the same process as if he were a party ; and any
person, not being a party to a cause or matter, against whom obedience to
any judgment or order may be enforced, is liable to the same process for
enforcing obedience to such judgment or order as if he were a party.
A judgment or order requiring a person to do an act is to state a time, or
time after service, within which the act is to be done : O. xli, 5 ; or a limit
of time may be supplied by an order on motion : see Gilbert v. Endean,
9 Ch. D. 259, 266 ; and the copy judgment or order which is to be served is
to bear an indorsement warning the person served that if he neglects to
obey he will be liable to process of execution : O. xli, 5.
Where the person liable (by O. lxxi, 1, person includes a body corporate)
is not a body corporate, and is not privileged :• —
1. A judgment for recovery by or payment to a person of money
may be enforced by any of the modes by which a judgment
or decree for the payment of money of any Court,
whose jurisdiction was transferred by the Jud. Act,
1873, might have been enforced at the commencement
of the Act : O. XLII, 3 ; that is to say : —
(a) A judgment for recovery of money may be en-
forced immediately, or on the expiration of any
time allowed for payment,
(1) By lorit of fi. fa, or elegit ;
and on return of these writs, by the other writs
in aid : O. XLni, 2, 3, 5 ;
■ — and, in the case of lands actually delivered
in execution, by proceedings for sale after
process of execution has been registered : v.
inf Chap. XLVII., "Mobtgaqes."
(2) By proceedings for attachment of debts ;
O. XLv ; V. inf. Chap. XXVIII., " Chakging
Oedees."
SECT. I.J Execution Generally. 409
(3) Upon proof of means, and neglect or refusal to
pay, by an order on notice for . committal for six weeks ;
32 & 33 V. 0. 62, s. 5. As to this section, see
Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 V. c. 52), s. 103 ;
and Bankruptcy Rules, 1883, r. 265. The juris-
diction to commit for six weeks is transferred to
bankruptcy.
(4) Where there is any impediment in the way of
execution at law, by the appointment of a
receiver by way of equitable execution : v. inf.
Chap. XXXII., " Ebcbivbbs."
(6) A judgment for payment to a person of money
may be enforced
(1) Whether a time be limited or not — without
service (see Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Fermoy,
5 Ch. 323), by any of the modes by which a
judgment for the recovery of money is enforced.
(2) Where by the judgment or any subsequent
order a time is limited.
Upon proof of due service of the judgment (or
order) limiting time and of non-compliance : — ■
(a) In the case of a trustee or person in a fiduciary
capacity, or a solr in his character as an officer of
the Court : Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 V. c. 62),
s. 4 ; by leave of the Court or a Judge on notice,
by writ of attachment ;
0. XLiv, 2 ; inf. Sect. III., p. 425.
[A return by the sheriff is enforced by order
for .... committal or attachment of the sheriff ;
see inf. p. 437 ; O. Ln, 11.]
On return by the sheriff non est inventus on motion
ex parte by the serjeant-at-arms ;
{&) After attachment, by leave of the Court on
motion ex parte, or
(7) Where no attachment has issued, without leave
by writ of sequestration ;
V. inf. Sect. VI., p. 440.
2. A judgment for payment of money into Court
may be enforced : O. xm, 4 ; upon proof of due service of
the judgment (or order) limiting time, and of non-
payment—
{a) Without further order : O. xliii, 6 ; see Sprunl v.
Pugh,7 Gh.D. 567 -fhy writ of sequestration ;
(6) In the case of a trustee or person in a fiduciary
capacity, or a solr in his character as an officer of
the Court : 32 & 33 V. c. 62, s. 4 ; by order of the
Court or a Judge on notice, by . . . writ of attachment ;
(c) By equitable execution, as in No. 1 : Re Coney, C.
V. Bennett, 29 Ch. D. 993 : Re Pemherton (1907),
W. N. 118.
3, A judgment for the recovery or for delivery of possession of
land may be enforced : 0. xlii, 5 ;
(a) If to the effect that a party do recover possession,
without service : O. XLVn, 1 ; and
(6) If to the effect that any person do deliver possession
upon proof of due service of the judgment (or order)
limiting time, and of non-compliance : r. 2 ; by
vjrit of possession ;
inf. p. 423. An order to deliver up possession
410 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvil.
underthis rule is an order to do an act within 0. xu,
5, and must be served as prescribed by O. xli,
5. Otherwise a writ of possession cannot issue :
Savage r. Bentley, 1901, W. N. 89.
(c) In the latter case the judgment may also bo en-
forced as a judgment to do any act : inf. Ko. 6.
4. A judgment for the delivery of any property
(other than land or money) may be enforced : O. xlii, 6 ;
(a) Without service by writ of delivery ;
O. XLViii, V. inf. p. 424.
Or in special circumstances by order of Court, by
v}rit of assistance ;
V. inf. pp. 417, 423.
(6) Upon proof of due service, &c. : — •
As a judgment to do any act : inf. No. 5.
5. A judgment to do any act
(other than payment of money) may be enforced upon proof
of due service, &c. ; 0. XLn, 7 ;
(a) Where a time is limited by the judgment, without
further order by ivrit of sequestration ;
O. XLm, 6.
(h) By order of the Court or a Judge on notice by
writ of attachment ;
And subsequent process as in No. 1 ; O. XLiv.
(c) By order on notice for committal;
inf. Sect. III., p. 425, and Sect. VII., p. 454.
6. A judgment to abstain from doing any act
may be enforced : O. XLn, 7.
(a) By order of the Court or a Judge on notice by
virit of attachment ;
O. XLIV.
(6) By order on notice for committal.
7. An order to answer interrogatories or to give discovery or
inspection Of documents
upon proof of service on the person liable or his solr :
O. XXXI, 21, 22 ; and of non-compliance, may be enforced
by order of the Court or a Judge on notice, by . uirit of attachment ;
And as to other remedies in default, v. sup., Chap. VII.,
" DiscovEKY," pp. 97, 98.
8. A judgment or order for payment of costs : —
If ascertained, so soon as the costs are payable, or after any
time limited : O. xm, 17 ; and.
If not ascertained, on filing the taxing master's certificate,
and.
If not ascertained, where a time is limited after taxation,
on filing the taxing master's certificate and on proof of
service of the order and certificate, may be enforced —
(a) Without service, or on proof of due service where a
time is limited to run from service, or service of
the order and certificate is requisite as above men-
tioned, by writof ji. fa. or elegit ;
(5) Upon proof of due service of the order limiting
time, and (if the costs are not ascertained) of the
certificate.
(i) In the case of a solr ordered to pay costs for
misconduct as such, by order of the Court,
or a Judge on notice, by . . . im-it of attachment ;
O. XLiv; and subsequent process as in No. 1;
SECT. I.J Execution Generally. 411
Or, at the option of the person entitled, by
leave of the Court or a Judge (without any
previous four-day order : Be Lumley, Exp.
Oathcart, [1894] 2 Ch. 271, C. A. ; Be
Deakin, Exp. Caihcart, [1900] 2 Q. B. 478,
C. A.) : O. XLiii, 7 ; by . writ of sequesiralion ;
see Snow v. Bolton, 17 Ch. D. 433.
(ii) In the case of any other person, by writ of
attachment, committal, or attachment of
debts, as in the case of an order for pay-
ment of money, or (by leave of the Court)
sequestration : O. xliii, 7 ; v. sup. No. 1.
PEOCESS AGAINST PAETICULAB PERSONS OR PAETIES-
By O. xiiVlHA (June, 1891), r. 8, " where a judgment is against a firm. Against
execution may issue : — partners.
(a) Against any property of the partnership witliin the jurisdiction :
(6) Against any person who has appeared in his own name under r. 5 or
6 " (substituted for 0. xii, 15), " or who has admitted on the plead-
ings that he is, or who has been adjudged to be, a partner :
(c) Against any person who has been individually served, as a partner,
with the writ of summons, and has failed to appear.
If the party who has obtained judgment or an order claims to be entitled
to issue execution against any other person as being a member of the firm,
he may apply to the Court or a Judge for leave so to do ; and the Court or
Judge may give such leave if the liability be not disputed, or, if such
liability be disputed, may order that the liability of such person be tried and
determined in any manner in which any issue or question in an action may
be tried and determined. But except as against any property of the part-
nership, a judgment against a firm shall not render liable, release, or other-
wise affect any member thereof, who was out of the jurisdiction when the
writ was issued, and who has not appeared to the writ, unless he has been
made a party to the action under O. xi, or has been served within the
jurisdiction after the writ in the action was issued."
And see O. XLvniA, 4, 5, 6, obviating difficulties which formerly arose
in cases of default in appearance, as indicated in Davies <{■ Co. v. Andre &
Co., 24 Q. B. D. 598, C. A.
By O. XLViiiA, 10, the above rules are to apply " to actions between a
firm and one or more of its members, and to actions between firms having
one or more members in common, provided such firm or firms carry on
business within the jurisdiction ; but no execution shall be issued in such
actions without leave of the Court or a Judge, and on an application for
leave to issue such execution all such accounts and inquiries may be directed
to be taken and made, and directions given, as may be just."
By the Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 39), s. 23, after the com- Separate
mencement of that Act (1st January, 1891), a writ of execution is not to judgment
issue against any partnership property, except on a judgment against the creditor,
firm. The Court or a Judge " may, on the application by summons of any
judgment creditor of a partner, make an order charging that partner's
interest in the partnership property and profits with payment of the amount
of the judgment debt and interest thereon, and may by the same or a sub-
sequent order appoint a receiver of that partner's share of profits (whether
already declared or accruing) and of any other money which may be coming
to him in respect of the partnership, and direct all accounts and inquiries,
and give all other orders and directions which might have been directed or
given if the charge had been made in favour of the judgment creditor by the
partner, or which the circumstances of the case may require." The other
partner or partners are to be at liberty at any time to redeem the interest
charged, or, in case of a sale being directed, to purchase the same.
412
Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
Infant
partner.
Foreign or
colonial firm.
Person
holding out
as partner.
After
dissolution.
Limited
partnership.
Against
bodies
corporate
or politic.
By 0. xi.vi, la, " every summons by a separate judgment creditor of a
partner for an order charging his interest in the partnership property and
profits under sect. 23 of the Partnership Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 39), and for
such other orders as are thereby authorized to be made, shall be served in
the case of a partnership other than a cost book co. on the judgment debtor
and on his partners, or such of them as are within the jurisdiction, or, in
the case of a cost book co., on the judgment debtor and the purser of the
CO. ; and such service shall be good service on all the partners or on the cost
book CO. as the case may be, and all orders made on such summons shall be
similarly served."
lb : " Every application which shall be made by any partner of the judg-
ment debtor under the same section shall be made by summons, and such
summons shall be served in the case of a partnership other than a cost book
CO. on the judgment creditor and on the judgment debtor, and on such of the
other partners as shall not concur in the application and as shall be within
the jurisdiction, or, in the case of a cost book co., on the judgment creditor
and on the judgment debtor and on the purser of the co., and such service
shall be good service on all the partners or on the cost book co., as the case
may be, and all orders made on such summons shall be similarly served."
The remedies of a separate judgment creditor of a partner under the sec-
tion are in general such only as he would have had if the charge had been
made by the partner ; and therefore, in the absence of special circumstances,
he cannot obtain an order directing the other partners to render partnership
accounts : Brown, Janson & Co. v. Hutchinson & Co. (No. 2), [1895] 2 Q. B.
126, C. A.
The section applies to a foreign firm having a branch house of business in
England : Brown, Janson & Co. v. Hutchinson & Co. (No. 1), [1895] 1 Q. B.
737, C. A.
A charging order under the section, being a proceeding in invitum, is not
a " transaction " protected by sect. 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 : Wild
V. Southwood, [1897] 1 Q. B. 317.
As to the procedure generally where one partner is an infant, see Lovell v.
Beauchamp, [1894] A. C. 607, H. L., varying decision of C. A., [1894] 1 Q. B.
801.
0. XLvniA, 1, applies to a firm which carries on business within the
jurisdiction, although it be a foreign or colonial fiim, the members of which
are resident out of the jurisdiction : Worcester City and County Banking Co.
V. Firbanh, Pauling tfc Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 784, C. A.
Where judgment is recovered against co-partners in the firm name, if one
of the members has left the firm to the knowledge of the Pit before the com-
mencement of the action, and has not appeared to the writ in his own name,
or been admitted or adjudged to be a partner, the Pit — in order to be en-
titled to obtain leave to issue execution under r. 8 of O. xlvhia, sup. — ^must
have served him with the writ in accordance with the proviso to r. 3 : Wigram
V. Cox, Sons, BucMey & Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 792. Where judgment against
a firm was entered on appearance by one person in firm's name, the Pit was
held entitled under O. xlviha, 8, to an order for an issue whether another
person " was or had held himself out as a partner in the Deft's firm " : Davis
V. Hyman & Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 854, C. A.
Under O. xlvxeia, an action can be brought against a firm after its
dissolution, if the cause of action accrued previously thereto : Re Wenham ;
Exp. Battams, [1900] 2 Q. B. 698, C. A.
As to the liaisility of members of limited partnerships, see the Limited
Partnerships Act, 1907 (7 Edw. VII. c. 24), s. 4.
By O. XLU, 31, any judgment or order against a corp. wilfully disobeyed
may, by leave of the Court or a Judge, be enforced by sequestration against
the corporate property, or by attachment against the directors or other
officers thereof, or by writ of sequestration against their property.
The writ of distringas, formerly necessary before making an order for the
writ of sequestration to issue against a corporate body, and in case of a
SECT. I.] Execution Generally. 413
raturn nulla bona, the subsequent writs of alias and pluries distringas are
not now necessary, since tlie word " person," by 0. lxxi, includes a body
corporate or politic ; and for the purpose of enforcing a judgment or order
for payment of money into Court, or doing any act, sequestration may be
issued as against an ordinary Deft.
By O. XLii, 23, a party alleging himself to be entitled to execution against
shareholders of a joint stock oo. upon a judgment recorded against such co.,
or against a public officer or other person representing such co., may apply
for leave to issue execution, and the Court, if satisfied that he is entitled,
may either make an order to that effect, or order the trial of any issue or
question necessary to determine the rights of the parties ; and in either case
may impose terms as to costs or otherwise.
The writs oi fieri facias and elegit, and the writs in aid, may also be issued
against such parties : v. inf. p. 418.
Land held by a local authority in trust for a contributory place under the
Public Health Act, 1875, can only be taken in execution for judgment debts
exclusively chargeable against that contributory place : Earl of Jersey v.
Uxbridge Sural Sanitary Authority, [1891] 3 Ch. 183.
0. XLm, 6, 7, as interpreted by O. lxxi, applies to " any person," and Against
therefore it seems that sequestration may be issued against such persons as privileged
peers, members of parliament, and other privileged persons without further persons,
order, and that the former practice of obtaining orders nisi, and absolute,
for that purpose against such persons is superseded. It may be observed
that the privilege of such persons (as to wliich, see further, inf. Sect. VII.,
p. 459) is a privilege from arrest, and not from any other process.
The writs of fieri facias and elegit, and writs in aid, may therefore also
be issued for non-payment of money or costs in such cases ; as to which,
V. inf. p. 408. For process against beneficed clergymen, v. inf. p. 445.
ISSUE OP WEITS.
By 0. XLH, 9, " where a judgment or order is to the effect that any party Condition or
is entitled to any relief subject to or upon the fulfilment of any condition or contingency,
contingency, such party may, upon the fulfilment of the condition or con-
tingency and demand made upon the party against whom he is entitled to
relief, apply to the Court or a Judge for leave to issue execution (which, by
r. 8, includes all the processes for enforcing orders) against such party.
And the Court or Judge may, if satisfied that the right to relief has arisen
according to the terms of the judgment or order, order that execution issue
accordingly, or may direct that any issue or question necessary for deter-
mination of the rights of the parties be tried in any of the ways in which
questions arising in an action may be tried."
By r. 11, no writ of execution is to issue without production of the judg-
ment or order, or an office copy thereof ; and the officer is to be satisfied that
the proper time has elapsed.
Rules 12, 13, 14, and 16, relate to the praecipe and the indorsements and
date of the writ ; r. 18, to issue of two separate writs of execution for
money and costs respectively, the second not less than eight days after the
first. Since r. 18, entitling the judgment creditor to proceed separately for
his costs, a bankruptcy notice under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4, sub-s.
1 (g), requiring payment of the amount of the judgment debt exclusive of
costs is good ; Be O. J., [1905] 2 K. B. 678, C. A.
Every writ of execution is in force for a year, but it may be renewed by Renewal
the leave of the Court or Judge, and on resealing the writ, or on notice of of writ,
renewal signed by the party or his attorney and sealed : rr. 20, 21.
" As between original parties to a judgment or order, execution may issue
at any time within six years from the recovery of the judgment or the date
of the order " : r. 22.
O. LXiv, 13 {v. sup. p. 170), does not apply to proceedings after judgment :
Taylor v. Boe, 1891, W. N. 26 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 391 ; 68 L. T. 253.
414
Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvil.
Leave to
issue execu-
tion.
Registration
of writs of
execution.
Time of
issuing writ.
Stay of
execution.
By r. 23, where six years have elapsed, or any change has taken place by
death, or otherwise, in the parties entitled, or liable to execution, or where a
husband is entitled or liable to execution upon a judgment or order for
or against a wife ; or a party is entitled to execution upon a judgment of
assets infuturo ; or to execution against shareholders, &o. {v. sup. p. 413),
the party alleging himself to be entitled to it may apply to the Court or
Judge for leave to issue it. And the Court or Judge may, if satisfied that
the party applying is entitled thereto, make an order to that effect, or direct
any question or issue to be tried, and in either case may impose terms as to
costs or otherwise. Whether the rule applies to attachment of debts,
qucere : Fellows v. Thornton, 14 Q. B. D. 335.
The appointment of a receiver of the property or interest of a judgment
debtor is not execution within O. xlh, rr. 8, 23, and therefore the exors of a
deceased judgment creditor cannot obtain an order for the appointment of a
receiver of the judgment debtor's property: Norburn v. N., [1894] 1 Q. B. 448.
Leave given under r. 23 of O. xlii to issue execution against the executor
of a deceased judgment debtor does not operate as a judgment against the
executor ; it dispenses with the necessity of recovering judgment against
him, and consequently does not satisfy the requirements of sects. 14 and 15
of 1 & 2 V. e. 110 : Stewart v. Rhodes, [1900] 1 Ch. 386, C. A. (commenting
on Haly v. Barry, L. R. 3 Ch. 432, and Finney v. Hinde, 4 Q. B. D. 102).
A trustee in bankruptcy of a judgment creditor can apply under the
rule without being formally joined as a party under O. xvii, 4 : Re Bagley,
[1911] 1 K. B. 137, following dictum of Cotton, L. J., in Re Wood, 13 Q. B. D.
479, overruUng that of Wright, J., in Re Clements, [1901] 1 K. B. 260.
Judgment having been given with costs for a Pit who died before payment
of the amount, his exors obtained leave to issue execution on an ex parte
application, but without costs : Mercer v. Lawrence, 26 W. R. 506.
Leave of the Court to issue execution is also necessary in cases coming
within O. XLn, 9, 22, 23 ; 0. xlvhea, 8 ; and in all cases of attachment :
O. XLiv, 2, inf. p. 430.
By r. 28, " nothing in this order shall take away or curtail any right
heretofore existing to enforce or give effect to any judgment or order in any
manner, or against any property whatsoever." As to the effect of this rule,
see Re Coney, O. v. Bennett, 29 Ch. D. 793.
By the Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V.
0. 51), s. 6, writs affecting land are void as against a purchaser for value of
the land unless registered as required by sect. 5, except in the case of 'nTits
previously registered under 27 & 28 V. c. 112, or where the proceeding in
which the writ is issued is registered as a Us pendens in the name of the
person whose land is affected. By sect. 2 of the Land Charges Act, 1900 (63
& 64 V. c. 26), a judgment shall not operate as a charge on land, or on
any interest in land, or on the unpaid purchase-money for any land, unless
and until a writ or order for the purpose of enforcing it is registered under
sect. 5 of the Act of 1888. As to these Acts, ^vith regard to the necessity
for registration, see Ingpen on Executors, pp. 322, 325.
The issue of a writ not being a judicial act, the Court can inquire at what
period of the day it was issued : Clarke v. Bradlaugh, 18 Q. B. D. 63, C. A.
An application for stay of execution under a judgment, unless made
immediately after the judgment has been pronounced, must be supported by
affidavit showing special circumstances : I'uck v. Southern Counties Deposit
Bank, 42 Ch. D. 471, C. A.
DISCOVERY IN AID OF EXECUTION.
By 0. XLn, 32, the party entitled to enforce a judgment or order for the
recovery or payment of money may apply to the Judgfe for an order that the
debtor liable, or in the case of a corporation that any officer thereof, be
orally examined, as to whether any and what debts are owing to the debtor,
and whether he has any and what other property or means of satisfying the
SECT. I.] Execution Generally. 415
judgment or order, before a Judge or an officer of the Court as the Judge
shall appoint ; and the Judge maj make an order for the attendance and
examination of such debtor, or of " any other person," and for the produc-
tion of any books or documents.
By r. 33, in case of any judgment or order other than for the recovery or
payment of money, if any difficulty arises in or about the execution or
enforcement thereof, any party interested may apply to the Judge, who may
make such order thereon for the attendance and examination of any party or
otherwise as may be just.
By r. 34, the costs of any application under the last two preceding rules,
or either of them, and of any proceedings arising from or incidental thereto,
are to be in the discretion of the Judge, or of such officer as in r. 32 men-
tioned, if the Judge shall so direct.
The examination under r. 32 is intended to be of the severest kind, and the
debtor must answer all questions and give all particulars necessary to enable
the interrogating party to recover under garnishee proceedings : Bepublic of
Costa Rica r. Strousberg, 16 Ch. D. 8, C. A.
A garnishee against whom an order absolute has been made is liable to be
examined under the rule : Cowan v. Carlill, 33 W. R. 582 ; 52 L. T. 431.
The words " any other person," in r. 32, refer to the case of a corporation,
and do not authorize the examination of the manager of the debtor's busi-
ness in place of the debtor himself : Irwell v. Eden, 18 Q. B. D. 588, C. A.
An order under r. 32 to attend to be examined may be made upon a person
who has been a director of the Deft co., but has ceased to be so at the time
of making the order : Societe Omdrale d& Commerce, tbc. v. Farina, [1904]
1 K. B. 794.
The debtor is only entitled to a reasonable sum for conduct money, and
not to payment for expenses and loss of time upon attendance at the exami-
nation, under O. xxxvn, 9 : Bendell v. Grundy, [1895] 1 Q. B. 16, C. A.
On taxation of costs, the costs of the examination ought not to be treated
as " luxuries " : Adlington v. Conyngham, [1898] 2 Q. B. 492, C. A. And as
to discovery in aid of execution, see further Dan. 756, 757 ; D. C. F. 465,
466 ; Edw. Exton., 64 et seq.
(II.) SUBSTITUTED SERVICE.
1. Substituted Service of Judgment or Order.
Whereas by the judgment [or order] dated &c., it was ordered
[Recite directions required to be performed] ; Now upon motion &c., by
counsel &c., who alleged [state from affidavit to the effect] that the Pit
hath been unable to serve the Deft with the said judgment [or order],
although due diligence hath been used for that purpose, as by the
affidavit of &c. filed &c. appears ; and upon reading the said judgment
[or order], and affidavit, [or if by summons Upon the application &c.
and upon reading the judgment (or order) whereby it appears {recite
directions as above) and an affidavit of &c. filed &c. where it appears
(recite contents of affidavit as above)]. This Court doth order [or It is
ordered] that service of the said judgment [or order], dated &o.,
together with a copy of this order, upon — at — , be deemed good
service on the Deft of the said judgment [or order].
For order for service of the judgment with a copy of the order for service
on the Deft's solr, and also by sending copies thereof through the post in a
registered letter addressed to the Deft's place of business, see Nichols v.
Pedder, M. R., 14 March, 1879, B. 482.
416 Execution and Contenyyt. [chap, xxvii.
NOTES.
An order (other than an order for discovery : O. xxxi, 22 ; and see Joy v.
Hadley, 22 Ch. D. 572, and inf. p. 433) requiring any act to be done, the
non-performance of which will be a contempt of Court, must be personally
served on the party required to perform the act, by delivering and producing
a true copy duly endorsed, and producing the original judgment or order
duly passed and entered, unless substituted service is expressly authorized.
Where the order is for payment of money, or delivery or transfer of any
property, actual demand on effecting service has been rendered unnecessary
by 0. XLii, 1.
The rule does not make service on the judgment debtor necessary before
suing out fi. fa. or elegit under r. 17 : Land Credit Co. of Ireland v. Fermoy,
5 Ch. 323.
Where an order for payment of costs was served on the solr acting in the
taxation, the applicant was allowed to sue out afi.fa., against the client at
his own risk : Be A Solicitor, 33 W. R. 131.
Service of an order for discovery or inspection made against any party on
his solr shall be sufficient service to found an application for attachment for
disobedience to the order : O. xxxi, 22.
Service of a judgment or order requiring personal service cannot be
efiected by filing it with the proper officer under O. xix, 10 : Cunliffe v.
Ashworth, V.-C. H., at Chambers, 1 Aug. 1878 ; and see 0. lxvh, 5, and inf.
p. 433.
The order for substituted service may be obtained at Chambers. For
form of summons, see B. C. F. 432, and for the practice, see Dan. 809 et seg. ;
Shegg v. Simpson, 2 D. & S. 454 ; Burlton v. Carpenter, 11 Beav. 33 ; Re
Mourilyan, 13 Beav. 84 ; Griffiths v. Cowper, 2 D. F. & J. 208 ; 2 Gif. 230 ;
Rider v. Kidder, 12 Ves. 202 ; De Mandeville v. Be M., lb. 203 ; Deanes v.
Kitchen, 13 Eq. 461 ; Lechmere v. Clamp, 9 W. R. 355 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 651 ;
Bland v. B., L. R. 3 P. & M. 233 ; Exp. Chatteris, 10 Ch. 227.
The affidavit in support should show how service is proposed to be sub-
stituted, and that every effort has been made to efieot personal service.
Section II. — Recovery of Money, Land, or other
Property.
1. Order with a view to an Order under Sect. 14 o/ Judicature
Act, 1884 (47 & 48 Vict. c. 61), to execute Deed.
It appearing by an affidavit of &c., filed &c., that the Deft has
refused or neglected to execute a settlement in pursuance of the order
dated &c.. It is ordered that a proper settlement in accordance with
the said order, be settled by the Judge, And it is ordered that the
Deft do, within four days after service of this order and tender to him
of sucli proper settlement for execution, execute the same. — See
Mitchell V. M., Pearson, J., at Chambers, 4 May, 1885, B. 619.
2. Master nominated under Sect. 14 of Judicature Act, 1884,
to execute Deed.
Read an order dated &c., whereby it was ordered that the Deft
should ISet out terms of order] an affidavit of &c., filed &c., whereby
SECT. 11.] Recovery of Money, Land, ^-c. 417
it appears that the Deft has not executed &c., This Court doth
nominate W., one of the Masters of the Supreme Court, attached to
Mr. Justice A., to execute on behalf of the Deft the said &c., Deft to
pay Pit's costs of motion. — See Gudin v. G., Pearson, J., 24 July,
1885, A. 1091 ; and see Be Edwards, Owen v. Edwards, 33 W. R. 578.
For form ot application, see D. C. F. 477.
3. Begistrar nominated to execute Deed.
Wheeeas by the order dated &c., the Deft was directed within
— days after service thereof and tender of a conveyance of the
therein-mentioned mortgaged premises and hereditaments to convey
to the Pits, or as they might direct, the said mortgaged premises and
hereditaments ; And whereas it appears by an affidavit of — filed &c.,
that on the — day of ■ — , Messrs. H., and H., the Pit's soirs, sent to
Mr. S., the Deft's solr, a draft of the conveyance to be executed by
the Deft pursuant to the said order for perusal, which the said Mr. S.
has not returned, and that on the — day of — a true copy of the said
order was served upon the Deft's said solr, and at the same time an
engrossment of the said draft conveyance was handed to him for
execution by the Deft, and that the Deft has neglected to execute the
said conveyance in compliance with the said order. Now upon motion
&c. by counsel for the Pits, And upon reading &c.. This Court Doth,
in pursuance of the 14th section of the Supreme Court of Judicature
Act, 1884, appoint C. C, the Registrar of the Supreme Court in
attendance on this Court, to execute such conveyance instead of the
Deft. And it is ordered that such conveyance be executed by the
said C. C. accordingly. — Hoare and Go. v. Gray, Stirling, J., 9 Sep.
1887, A. 1456 ; 31 Sol. J. 744.
4. Writ of Assistance — Chattels.
It appearing by an affida\it of &c., that the Defts have not de-
livered to A. B., the receiver, the securities and other documents of
title &c., pursuant to the order dated &c., and that the same are
locked up in a safe at the office of &c., situate &c., and that it is
impossible for the said receiver to get possession of the said securities
and documents without the assistance of this Court, This Court doth
order that a writ of assistance do issue, directed to the sheriff of &c.,
to put the said receiver in possession of the said securities and docu-
ments in question pursuant to the said order dated &c., and this
order.— Tf«/maw v. Knight, Chitty, J., 6 July, 1888, B. 797 ; 39 Ch. D.
165 ; and see The English and American Machinery Co., Ld. v.
Bailey, Vac. J., 1 Sep. 1896, A. 3828.
For form of writ, see D. C. F. 472.
A writ of assistance can still issue notwithstanding 0. XLVir, 2 ; see
Ann. Prao. note.
VOL. I. 2 E
418
Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
NOTES.
KECOVBRY OP MONEY OB COSTS BY WKITS OF FIEEI FACIAS AND ELEGIT.
By O. XLin, 1, 5, these writs, and also writs of venditioni exponas, fi. fa.
de bonis ecclesiasticis, and all other writs in aid of a writ otfi.fa. or of elegit,
shall have the same force and effect, and are to be executed in the same
manner as heretofore.
Elegit. By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 146, " the sheriff shall not, under a writ
of elegit, deliver the goods of a debtor, nor shall a writ of elegit extend to
goods ; " and by s. 169, 13 Edw. 1, c. 18, is repealed with the usual saving.
Fi. fa. By O. XLn, 17, every person to whom any sum of money, or any costs,
shall be payable under a judgment or order, shall, as soon as the money or
costs shall be payable, be entitled to sue out one or more writ or writs of ^.
fa. or of elegit to enforce payment thereof. If, however, the judgment or
order is for payment within a period therein mentioned, the writ shall not
be issued until after the expiration of such period ; and the Court or a Judge
may stay execution until any time after the expiration of the prescribed
period.
Venditioni The writ of venditioni exponas may, where it appears upon the return of
exponas, ^^jjg ^^j-jj ^f yj_ j-g^_ that the sheriff has seized but not sold any goods of the
person against whom execution is issued, for want of buyers, be obtained
after the writ with such return shall have been filed as of record : O. XLin,
2 ; for form of writ, see R. S. C. App. H., Form 4.
If after the issue of this writ the sheriff goes out of office, he may be com-
pelled to proceed to sale by the writ distringas nuper vice-comitem : see Chit.
Archb. 867.
De honia The writ oi fieri facia.s de bonis ecclesiasticis, or sequestrari facias de bonis
ecclesiasticis. ecclesiasticis, may be obtained upon the return (after it has been filed as of
record) of any writ of fi. fa. or of elegit, that the person against whom such
writ is issued is a beneficed clerk, and has no goods or chattels, nor any lay
fee within the jurisdiction of the sheriff : O. XLm, 3.
To obtain this writ there must have been an actual return of nulla bona
under the former writ ; it will not be issued upon a mere recital that the
property returned under the former writ {e.g., a life estate in real estate of
small value) was insufficient to pay the balance : see Babbitts v. Woodward,
20 L. T. 693, 778 ; Norton v. Pritchard, 2 Sm. & G. 455, n.
For the form of these writs, see R. S. C. App. H., Forms 4r— 6 ; D. C. F.
407—427 ; Chit. Forms, 583 et seq.
Expenses. By O. XLil, 15, in every case of execution the party entitled to execution
may levy the poundage fees and expenses beyond the sum recovered. But
where there are several seizures for different creditors the sheriff can recover
possession money from only one of such creditors : Olasbrook v. David,
[1905] 1 K. B. 615.
The sheriff is entitled to poundage where the judgment debt has been
recovered by compulsion of the writ oifi.fa. (i.e., actual levy and seizure),
although no actual sale has taken place : Mortimore v. Cragg, 3 C. P. D. 216
(overruling Roe v. Hammond, 2 C. P. D. 300) ; Bissichs v. Bath, Coll. Co., 2
Ex. D. 459 ; Smith v. Darlow, 26 Ch. D. 605, C. A. ; Be Ludmore, 13 Q. B. D.
415 ; secus, if before actual seizure the debt, &c. has been paid under protest
on mere production of the warrant : Nash v. Dickenson, L. R. 2 C. P. 252.
Bankruptcy Where bankruptcy supervened after seizure, but before sale, the sheriff
of debtor. was not entitled to poundage as " costs of execution " under the Bankruptcy
Act, 1883, s. 46, sub-s. 1 (see now Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 11, sub-s. I): Be
Ludmore, 13 Q. B. D. 415 ; and see Be Woodham, Exp. Conder, 20 Q. B. D.
40 ; Be English and Ayling, [1903] 1 K. B. 680.
If the right of the execution creditor to recover the judgment debt under
the fi. fa. has ceased after seizure, the sheriff is not entitled to proceed to a
sale of the goods seized in order to obtain his fees and possession money :
Sneary v. Ahdy, 1 Ex. D. 299 ; but," after seizure, the bankruptcy of the
debtor and injunction against further proceedings under th.Gfi.fa. will not
SECT. 11.] Recovery of Money, Land, ^c. 419
affect the right of the sheriff to payment by the trustee in liquidation of the
necessary expenses of possession and preparing to sell : Re Craycraft, Exp.
Browning, 8 Ch. D. 596, or his right to retain possession until the debt and
costs, including possession money, are satisfied : Exp. Lithgow, 10 Ch. D.
169 ; and see further, as to the sheriff's poundage. Chit. Archb. p. 824 ;
Edwards on Execution, 155 et seq.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 11 (1), where any goods of a debtor are
taken in execution, and before the sale thereof, or the completion of execu-
tion by the receipt or recovery of the full amount of the levy, notice is served
on the sheriff that a receiving order has been made against the debtor, the
sheriff is, on request, to deliver the goods and any money seized or received
in part satisfaction of the execution to the official receiver, but the costs
of the execution are to be a first charge on the goods or money so delivered.
Where a receiving order is made against the judgment debtor, and the
goods previously seized under afi.fa. are delivered to the official receiver or
trustee in bankruptcy under sect. 11, sub-sect. 1, of the Act of 1890 {In re
Thomas, Exp. Sheriff of Middlesex, [1899] 1 Q. B. 460, C. A.), the sheriff's
officer is not entitled to poundage.
The sheriff's costs of interpleader are not "costs of execution" within
this section, and consequently are not payable out of the debtor's estate :
Be Bogers, [1911] 1 K. B. 641.
By the Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 & 51 V. c. 55), s. 20, a sheriff may demand Sheriffs Act.
such fees and poundage as may from time to time be fixed by the L. C, with
consent of Judges and concurrence of the Treasury. By order of August 31,
1888, the fees were fixed and provision made for taxation of the amount
payable by a master or district registrar, and from such taxation there is no
appeal : Tovmendv. Sheriff of Yorkshire, 24 Q. B. D. 621, and see Montague
V. Davies Benachi & Co., [1911] 2 K. B. 595. As to the non-application
of the table of fees to a subject-matter such as a ship sold under afi.fa., see
Cohen v. De Las Bivas, 39 W. R. 539 ; 64 L. T. 661.
As to the words, "the person at whose instance the sale is stopped;"
in sub-s. 2 of this section, see Montague v. Davies Benachi & Co., sup.
A solr who delivers a writ to the sheriff for execution does not thereby
contract to pay the fees ; secus, if he requests that a particular bailiff may be
employed : Boyle v. Bushy, 6 Q. B. D. 171 ; Maybery v. Mansfield, 9 Q. B.
754. The sheriff should, in executing the writ, have reasonable regard to
the interests and instructions of the execution creditor : Be Crook, Exp.
Sheriff of Southampton, 63 L. J. Q. B. 756 ; 71 L. T. 236 ; 42 W. R. 650 ;
but it is not within the implied authority of a solr to tell the sheriff how to
perform his duty ; e.g., by seizing particular goods : Smith v. Veal, 9
Q. B. D. 340, C. A.
The writ must be indorsed with a direction to the sheriff to levy the money
really due and payable and sought to be recovered, and also to levy interest,
if sought for, at £4 p. c. per ann. from judgment, unless there be an agree-
ment to pay more : r. 16. For Form of Writ, see App. H., Form 1.
As to the liability of the sheriff or his officer for penalties under sect. 29,
see Lee v. Dangar, [1892] 1 Q. B. 231 ; [1892] 2 Q. B. 337, C. A. ; Bagge v.
Whitehead, lb. 355 ; Shoppee v. Nathan, [1892] 1 Q. B. 245 ; Woolford's
Trustee v. Levy, [1892] 1 Q. B. 772, C. A.
Service of the judgment or order directing payment of money or costs is Service of
not necessary as a preliminary to issuing these writs : Land Credit Co. o/ judgment.
Ireland v. Fermoy, 5 Ch. 323 ; Streeten v. Whitmore, 5 Beav. 228 ; unless
the judgment or order expressly limits a time after service within which
payment is to be made.
The order must direct payment to some person, and it is not enough to Form of
direct payment to his account at a banker's : Be Leeds Banking Co., 1 Ch. 150. judgment.
It is a question of fact whether a seizure of particular goods was directed Liabilitv of
by the execution creditor, so as to make him liable if the seizure is wrongful : execution
Smith V. Veal, sup. ; but he will be held liable for a misleading indorsement creditor,
on the writ made by his sok : Morris v, SaJberg, 22 Q. B. D. 614, C. A.
420
Execution and Contempt, [chap. SXVil.
Railway and As to the protection of the rolhrig stock and plant of a railway company
dock 009. from execution, see the Railway Companies Act, 1867 (30 & 31 V, c. 127),
s. 3, and the Railway Rolling Stock Protection Act, 1872 (35 & 36 V. c. 50),
s. 3 ; the protection extends to a dock co. having power to make a railway :
G. N. Ry. Co. V. Tahourdin, 13 Q. B. D. 320, C. A. ; In re East and West
India Dock Co., 38 Ch. D. 576, C. A. ; and continues though the railway is
closed for traffic : Midland Waggon Co. v. Potteries Ry. Co., 6 Q. B. D. 36.
As to the meaning of the expression " work " in the Act of 1872, see Easton
Estate and Mining Co. v. Western Waggon and Property Co., 54 L. T. 735 ;
and that the substituted right to the appointment of a receiver, which the
Act of 1867 confers on a judgment creditor, is independent of the fact
whether the oo. has rolling stock, see Re Manchester and Milford Ry. Co.,
Exp. Cambrian Ry. Co., 14 Ch. D. 645, C. A. ; and as to the appointment of
a receiver under the Acts, v. inf. Chap. XXXII., " Receivers."
Equitable For the mode of enforcing a judgment against equitable interests in land,
interests. v. inf. Chap. XXXII., " Receivers," pp. 757 et seq.
Neither the C. L. P. Act, 1860, s. 13, nor O. lvii, 12 (which is substituted
for it), empowering the Court to order the sale of goods seized, and applica-
tion of the proceeds, enables the sheriff to seize the equitable interests of the
debtor in goods assigned by way of security : Scarlett v. Hanson, 12 Q. B. D.
213, C. A. ; nor could the sheriff sell a partner's interest in goodwill or book
debts, or an5rthing else which he cannot seize : Helmore v. Smith, 35 Ch. D.
436, C. A. ; but a pawnbroker's interest in redeemable pledges may be taken
in execution : Re Rollason, R. v. R., 34 Ch. D. 495.
And where an exor carries on the testator's business in his own name, a
trade creditor of the exor cannot take in execution assets of the testator
employed in the business ; though lapse of time and enjoyment of the assets
in a manner inconsistent with the will, coupled with consent of beneficiaries,
might raise an inference that the assets had been given to the exor : Re
Morgan, Pillgrem v. P., 18 Ch. D. 93, C. A. ; and as to the right of trustee
in bankruptcy to succeed to the right of indemnity of the exor or trustee in
such case against the assets, see Jennings v. Mather, [19021 1 K. B. 1, C. A. ;
and see Ingpen on Executors, p. 198.
As to writs oiji.fa. and elegit, see further, Edw. Exton. 108 et seq.
Attachment.
EFFECT OF BANKRUPTCY — SALE BY SHERIFF, ETC.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 9, on the making of a receiving order, an
official receiver is constituted receiver of the debtor's property, " and there-
after, except as directed by this Act, no creditor to whom the debtor is
indebted in respect of any debt provable in bankruptcy shall have any
remedy against the property or person of the debtor in respect of the debt, or
shall commence any action or other legal proceedings unless with the leave
of the Court " (of bankruptcy), " and on such terms as the Court may
impose ; " but the section is not to affect the power of a secured creditor to
realize or deal with his security.
The section is not made applicable to the admon of insolvent estates by
sect. 10 of the Jud. Act, 1876 : Pratt v. Inman, 43 Ch. D. 175 ; and see
Ingpen on Executors, p. 329.
The word " remedy " extends to process of commitment to enforce pay-
ment of a debt : Re Ryley, Exp. Official Receiver, 15 Q. B. D. 329 ; but not
to process of contempt, so that there is jurisdiction to issue an attachment
against an undischarged bankrupt solr, who is a defaulting trustee, for dis-
obedience to an order for payment in his character of officer of the Court :
Re Smith, Hands v. Andrews, [1893] 2 Ch. 1 , C. A. ; dissenting from Cdbham
V. Dalton, 10 Ch. 655, 657 ; Re Edye, 63 L. T. 762 ; 39 W. R. 198 ; following
In re Wray, 36 Ch. D. 138, 143, and disapproving Re Simes, S. v. Newbery,
1890, W. N. 114 ; 38 W. R. 570 ; 62 L.T. 721 ; and see In re Mackintosh,
Exp. Jlf., 13 Q. B. D. 235.
The receiving order is " made " on the day when it is pronounced. A
debtor arrested under an attachment after the order was pronounced, but
SECT. II.] Recovery of Money, Land, ^'c. 421
before it was drawn up, was ordered to be discharged, although he had by
his counsel submitted to the order for attachment : Be Manning, 30 Ch. D.
480, C. A.
By sect. 10 (2), " the Court may at any time after the presentation of a Stay of
bankruptcy petition stay any action, execution, or other legal process proceedings,
against the property or person of the debtor, and any Court in which pro-
ceedings are pending against a debtor, may, on proof that a bankruptcy
petition has been presented by or against the debtor, either stay the pro-
ceedings, or allow them to continue on such terms as it may think just."
A commitment under the Distress for Rates Act, 1849, s. 2, for one month,
unless the money be sooner paid, is not a legal process to enforce payment,
so as to justify the discharge of the debtor under this sub-section : Re
Edgcome, [1902] 2 K. B. 403 ; and cf. Church's Trustees v. Hibbard, [1902]
2 Ch. 784.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (63 & 54 V. c. 71), s. 1, a debtor commits Act of
an act of bankruptcy if execution against him has been levied by seizure of bankruptcy,
his goods, and the goods have been either sold or held by the sheriff for
twenty-one days ; but where an interpleader summons has been taken out
the time between the date of taking out such summons, and that at which
the sheriff is ordered to withdraw, or any interpleader issue is finally dis-
posed of, is not to be counted in the twenty-one days.
The act of bankruptcy created by this section consists of, first, the seizure
by the sheriff, and secondly, his remaining in possession for twenty-one days,
and his subsequent continuance in possession under the same seizure does
not constitute a further or continuing act of bankruptcy ; and after the
lapse of three months, the act of bankruptcy being no longer available, the
sheriff is entitled to possession money for the full period during which he has
been in possession : In re Beeston, [1899] 1 Q. B. 626, C. A.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 45, a creditor who has issued execution Beceiving
against goods or lands of a debtor, or has attached any debt due to him, order,
cannot retain the benefit against the debtor's trustee in bankruptcy, unless
execution or attachment is completed before the receiving order, and before
notice of presentation of a bankruptcy petition, or of the commission of an
available act of bankruptcy ; and for the purposes of the Act an execution
against goods is completed by seizure and sale, an attachment of a debt
by receipt of the debt, and an execution against land by seizure, or, in the
case of an equitable interest, by the appointment of a receiver.
The delivery of the land in execution under an elegit is " seizure," so that
a receiving order made subsequently, though before the return of the writ,
does not oust the right of the judgment creditor : Re Hdbson, 33 Ch. D. 493.
Under the above enactments the act of bankruptcy committed by reason
of the sheriff's holding for twenty-one days makes the execution itself void
as against the trustee in bankruptcy of the debtor : Trustee of John Burns-
Burns V. Brown, [1895] 1 Q. B. 324, C. A., approving Figg v. Mocyre, [1894]
2 Q. B. 690, and distinguishing Exp. Villars, L. R. 9 Ch. 432.
An order for the admon of the estate of a deceased debtor under sect. 125
of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, is not equivalent to a receiving order for the
purposes of the section : Hasluck v. Clark, [1899] 1 Q. B. 699, C. A. ; and
see Ingpen on Executors, p. 599.
Where, after a charging order against a partner under the Partnership
Act, 1890, s. 23, the partners by direction of the Court pay into Court a sum
of money in redemption or purchase of the interest charged, the transaction
is not a " completed execution " within the section : Wild v. Souihwood,
[1897] 1 Q. B. 317 ; but [semble) if the money had been paid out to the execu-
tion creditor, or the partners had paid him the money direct, he would have
had a good title : S. G.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 11 (2) (amending sect. 46, sub-sect. 2, of Notice of
the Bankruptcy Act, 1883), where, under an execution in respect of a judg- bankruptcy
ment for a sum exceeding £20, the goods of a debtor are sold, or money is petition after
paid in order to avoid sale, the sheriff is to deduct his costs of the execution ^"^®'
422
Execution and Contempt [chap, xxvit.
Landlord's
rights.
Publio
auction.
from the proceeds of sale, or the money paid, and retain the balance for
fourteen days ; and if within that time notice is served on him of a bank-
ruptcy petition having been presented against or by the debtor, and a
receiving order is made thereon, or on any other petition of which the sheriff
has notice, he is to pay the balance retained to the official receiver or trustee
in bankruptcy, who is to be entitled to retain the same as against the execu-
tion creditor.
The notice must be served on the sheriff or his recognized agent, not on an
ordinary bailiff or man in possession : Exp. Warren, Be Holland, 15 Q. B. D.
48, C. A. The effect of it is to deprive the creditor of the fruits of the execu-
tion, and transfer them to the trustee in bankruptcy for the benefit of the
creditors at large ; and where the sheriff is in possession under several writs,
he must, on receiving the notice, apply the proceeds of sale in satisfaction
of those under £20, according to their priorities : Re Pearce, Exp. Cros-
thwaite, 14 Q. B. D. 266 ; and so, where the debtor has paid a sum on account
and the execution has not been completed as to the balance, the execution
creditor cannot retain the amount paid : In re Ford, Exp. Official Receiver,
[1900] 1 Q. B. 264.
The sheriff (notwithstanding that interpleader proceedings are pending) is
entitled to costs of execution up to, but not after, the receipt of the ofScial
receiver's notice, as any further costs of possession are no longer costs of
execution : Re Harrison, Exp. Sheriff of Essex, [1893] 2 Q. B. 111.
The effect of the sub-section is to place a temporary stop on the money in
the hands of the sheriff, and the right of the execution creditor to the money
is not contingent but vested, liable to be divested in the event of bankruptcy
supervening within the fourteen days : Re Qreer, Napper v. Fanshawe, [1895]
2 Ch. 217.
The sub-section does not apply where execution is levied by seizure and
sale against the goods of a firm for a partnership debt, and within fourteen
days from the sale a receiving order is made against one of the partners :
Dibb V. Brooke, [1894] 2 Q. B. 338 ; and the provision as to money paid
under an execution to avoid sale does not apply to the case of money paid
to prevent seizure : Bower v. Hett, [1895] 2 Q. B. 51 ; [1895] 2 Q. B. 337,
C. A.
If a sale takes place, sect. 8 of the Small Debts Act, 1845, applies, and the
debtor is entitled to his tools of trade to the value of £5 only, and not £20 as
provided by sect. 44 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 : In re Dawson, Exp. D.,
[1899] 2 Q. B. 45.
The right of the landlord is not affected by sect. 11 (2) of the Bankruptcy
Act, 1890. The expression " the goods of a debtor " does not include the
goods by the statute of Anne (8 Ann. c. 14 or 18), s. 1, impounded lintil the
landlord is paid ; and the sheriff is justified in retaining and paying the land-
lord one year's rent though notice of the landlord's claim was not received
until after the sale : In re Mackenzie, Exp. Sheriff of Hertfordshire, [1899] 2
Q. B. 566, C. A.
Sect. 10 of the Jud. Act, 1875, does not extend these provisions to the
winding up of a co. : Re Richards & Co., 11 Ch. D. 676.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 145, where the sheriff sells under an
execution for a sum exceeding £20 (including legal incidental expenses), the
sale is to be by public auction, publicly advertised, and not by bill of sale or
private contract, unless the Court otherwise orders.
A sale by private contract might be ordered under this section upon an
ex parte application by the execution creditor : Hunt v. Frensham, 12 Q. B.
D. 162.
Now, by the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 12, where the sheriff has notice of
other executions, the Court is not to consider an application for leave to sell
privately until notice has been given to the execution creditors who may
appear and be heard on the application. The procedure upon such applica-
tion (which is to be made by summons in Chambers) is regulated by O. XLin,
8—15.
SECT. II. J Recovery of Money, Land, Sfc 423
The sheriff cannot make a valid contract for sale until he has actually
seized the goods : Exp. Hall, Re Tovmsend, 14 Ch. D. 132, C. A.
As to the duty of a sheriff's officer who receives notice by telegram of an
injunction granted by the Court of Bankruptcy to restrain a sale, see Exp.
Langley, Be Bishop, 13 Ch. D. 110, C. A.
Where the effects of a partnership are seized, and a partner buys his share Partnership,
back out of partnership moneys, there is no dissolution of the partnership ;
qucere whether there would be if he bought with his own money : Helmore v.
Smith, 35 Ch. D. 436, C. A.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 46 (3), a person who purchases the goods Title of b. f.
in good faith under a sale by the sheriff shall, in all cases, acquire a good purchaser,
title to them against the trustee in bankruptcy.
Rejection of proof for debt by judgment creditor in the debtor's bank- Annulment
ruptcy remains valid though the bankruptcy is annulled : Brandon v. of bank-
McHenry, [1891] 1 Q. B. 538, C. A. ruptcy.
BECOVEEY OF LAND BY WRIT OF POSSESSION.
By O. XLVn, 1, a judgment or order that a party recover possession of any
land may be enforced by writ of possession in manner heretofore in use in
actions of ejectment in the Superior Courts of Common Law.
By r. 2, where by any judgment or order any person therein named is
directed to deliver possession of any lands to some other person, the person
prosecuting such judgment or order may without order sue out a writ of
possession on filing an affidavit of due service of the judgment or order, and
that it has not been obeyed.
The writ of possession was by this rule introduced in substitution for the
former writ of assistance : Hall v. H., 47 L. J. Ch. 680 ; following Be Holden,
M. R., 7 May, 1878. The writ of assistance, however (which is more exten-
sive in terms than the writ of possession, and which was not issued without
an order for that purpose : Cons. Ord. 29, r. 5, and see O. Lxxn, 2), may
still be required, and has been issued for the purpose of recovering possession
of and preserving chattels which had been ordered to be delivered to a
receiver : Wyman v. Knight, 39 Ch. D. 165 ; sup. Form 4, p. 417.
An order for the issue of the writ of possession is not now necessary in any
case ; but where there is a judgment for recovery of possession under
O. XLvn, 1 (which affects parties only), the writ will be sealed, according to
the practice at law, on production of the judgment only. And in cases
under r. 2 (which includes persons as well as parties), the writ will be sealed
on production of the affidavit mentioned in that rule.
For the form of judgment for the possession of land upon Deft's default,
see p. 168, Forms 10 and 11 ; and R. S. C. App. F., Form 3. And for the
form of the writ, see Ih., App. H., Form 7a.
The issue of a writ of possession in pursuance of a judgment for possession
of premises is a proceeding in the Supreme Court, and the costs of and
incident thereto are in the discretion of the Court : Dartford Brewery Co. v.
Moseley, [1906] 1 K. B. 462, C. A.
The words of O. xli, 5, are imperative, and to obtain a writ of possession
under an order for delivery of possession of property to the Pit, he must
show that he has complied with the rule : Savage v. Bentley, 1904, W. N. 89.
A judgment for foreclosure absolute is not a judgment for recovery of After fore-
possession of land enforceable by writ of possession : Wood v. Wheaier, closure.
22 Ch. D. 281 ; secus, if it contain an order for delivery of possession ; and
see 0. xvm, 2. An order for delivery of possession by the mortgagor should
contain a description of the property, so that the same may be indicated in
the writ of possession : Thynne v. Sari, [1891] 1 Ch. 79.
Where a lessee recovered judgment for possession against sub-lessee, and Against sub-
the lessee's estate expired after action and before trial, writ of possession was lessee,
allowed to issue, it not being shown that the issuing of it would be futile or
unjust : Knight v. Clarke, 15 Q. B. D. 294, C. A. ; Gibbons v. BucUand,
1 H. & C. 736.
424
Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
By seques-
trator.
Receiver.
Purchaser.
Renewal of
writ.
Setting aside
judgment.
Under the old practice, where the Deft had refused to allow the seques-
trators to enter into possession, an order was granted for an injunction
enjoining the Deft to cause possession of a house, and premises belonging to
it, to be delivered to them : see Bird v. Littlehales, L. 0., 18 Feb. 1743,
A. 177 ; -S. O., 3 Sw. 300, n. And for the further order for the writ of
assistance to issue, see 8. C, 19 March, 1743, A. 235.
And orders for the writ of assistance to put the sequestrators into posses-
sion were granted in Barhley v. B., 7 June, 1849, A. 1720 ; Pelham v.
Duchess of Newcastle, 3 Sw. 289, n.
The same remedy might be obtained by a receiver : Cazet de la Borde v.
Othon, 23 W. R. 110 ; Sharp v. Carter, 3 P. Wms. 379, n. ; A. 6. v. De
Taslet, V.-C. K., 31 Jan. 1855 ; or by a purchaser who was kept out of pos-
session of property sold by the Court : see Toynbe", v. Ducknell, V.-C. W.,
19 July, 1856, B. 1437 ; Wilson v. Angus, V.-C. S., 28 June, 1858, B. 1089 ;
and his costs of proceedings for the purpose of obtaining possession were
payable out of the purchase-money in Court : Thomas v. Buxton, 8 Eq. 120 ;
et V. sup. Chap. XIX., " Sales by the CotrBT."
Where, after a writ of possession executed, the Deft forcibly re-took
possession, the Court made an order renewing the writ : Siachpoolev. Walsh,
7 L. R. Ir. 444.
As to form of order, in action where judgment was given for recovery of
land against the Deft who was not in possession, and possession was given
to the Pit under a writ of possession, setting aside the judgment on applica-
tion of the person in possession who did not derive title from the Deft, see
Minet v. Johnson, 63 L. T. 507.
Issue of execution for possession is not necessarily a waiver of right to
costs : Harrold v. Daly, 24 L. R. Ir. 412.
And as to the writ of possession, see Edw. Exton. 93 et seq. ; and for forms,
see D. C. P. 468—471.
ENPOECIKG CONVEYANCE OP LAND.
A direction in a judgment or order for the execution of a deed or convey-
ance may be enforced, as a judgment to do any act, by writ of attachment or
by committal : see O. xlh, 7.
The provisions of 11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 36, s. 15, for enforcing a,
conveyance by compulsory process, were superseded by the Trustee Acts,
1850 and 1852, now repealed and replaced by the Trustee Act, 1893,
enabling the Court to vest lands and other property in the cases therein
mentioned ; and by the Jud. Act, 1884 (47 & 48 V. c. 61), a. 14, which pro-
vides that where any person neglects or refuses to comply with a judgment
or order directing him to execute any conveyance, contract, or other
document, or to indorse any negotiable instrument, the Court may, on such
terms and conditions (if any) as may be just, order that such conveyance,
&c. be executed, or such negotiable instrument indorsed by such person as
the Court may nominate for that purpose ; and in such case the conveyance,
&c. so executed or indorsed shall operate and be for all purposes available
as if it had been executed or indorsed by the person originally directed to
execute or indorse it. And for instance of the appointment under this
section of the chief clerk (Master) to execute, see Be Edwards, Owen v.
Edwards, 33 W. R. 578 ; and see Form 2, sup. 416.
The jurisdiction might be exercised by the P. D. : see Howarlh v. H.,
11 P. D. 95, where an order for execution by the registrar was made on a
simple motion for attachment for non-compliance, the person in default
having by himself or his solr received notice that the application to the Court
would be made in the alternative.
KECOVBKY OF PEOPEETY, OTHEE THAN LAND OE MONEY, BY WEIT OF
DELIVBBY.
By O. XL VIII, 2, a writ of delivery of property other than land or money
(which is mentioned in 0. XLII, 6, as one of the modes in which a judgment
SECT. III.] Attachment or Committal.
for that purpose may be enforced) may be issued and enforced in the manner
heretofore in use in actions of detinue in the Superior Courts of Common Law.
Tlie writ (forms of which are given in R. S. C. App. H., Nos. 10, 11, and
D. C. P. 474) is either (1) for the return of the chattels and a distress of all
the lands and chattels of the Deft until they are returned, without giving
him the option of retaining them, and paying their assessed value, or (2) for
the return of the chattels, or if they cannot be found, the levying of their
assessed value. In the latter ease, the writ issues without order ; in the
former, an order is required. See further as to the writ, Edw. Exton. 195
et seq.
Where it was necessary to give a receiver actual delivery of specific
chattels, a writ of assistance was ordered to issue : Wyman v. Knight, 39
Ch. D. 165.
Section III. — Attachment oe Committal.
1. Order for Attachment for Default other than for non-payment
of Money— 0. xlii, 6, 7 ; 0. xliv, 2.
Wheeeas by the judgment [or order], dated &c., It was ordered
[Recite direction for the act to be done]. Now upon motion &c., by
counsel for the Pit, who alleged that the Deft has not &c. [state
default], as by the affidavit of &c. filed &c. appears, and [if so upon
hearing counsel for the Deft, and] upon reading the said judgment [or
order], the said affidavit [enter evidence of service of the judgment <£c.,
and if the person in contempt does not appear, and an affidavit of &c.,
filed &c., of service of notice of this motion upon the Deft] ; This
Court doth order that the Pit be at liberty to issue a writ or
writs of attachment against the Deft for his contempt in not &c.
[as above] ; And it is ordered that the Deft do pay to the Pit his
costs of this application and of the said attachment, to be taxed by
the taxing master.
For form of a pplication for leave to issue writ of attachment, see D. C. P. 433.
2. The like — for non-payment of Money by a Trustee or Person
acting in a fiduciary capacity under the Debtors Act (32 & 33 F.
c. 62), s. 4.
Whereas by the judgment [or order], dated &c., It was ordered
[Recite judgment or order] ; Now upon motion this day made unto this
Court by counsel for the Pit, and upon reading the said judgment
[or order], an affidavit &c., filed &c., of service of the said judgment
[or order] upon the Deft, an affidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of
notice of this motion on the Deft, an affidavit of the Pit filed &c.,
of non-payment of the said sum of £ — [or if so, the paymaster's
certificate, whereby it appears that the Deft has made default in
payment of the said sum of £ — ■ into Court pursuant to the said judg-
ment [or order] ; And it appearing to the satisfaction of the Court
that the Deft has made default in payment of the said sum of £ —
as directed by the said judgment [or order], and that such default
is a default made by a trustee or person acting in a fiduciary
capacity, and ordered to pay a sum in his possession, or under
his control, within the meaning of the Debtors Act, 1869, This Court
425
426
Execution and Contempt. [chap, xxvii.
doth order that the Pit be at liberty to issue a writ or writs of attach-
ment against the Deft for his contempt in not having paid the said
sum of £ — to the Pit \pr into Court] as aforesaid, pursuant to the said
judgment [or order]. [// so, And it is ordered that the Deft do
pay to the Pit his costs of the said motion and of the said attach-
ment, such costs to be taxed &c.]— See Young v. Ddlimore, V.-C.
S., 28 Feb. 1870, B. 549 ; Moorhouse v. M., M. R., 12 July, 1878,
B. 1394 ; European Assurance Co. v. Lee, M. R., 13 Dec. 1878, A. 2217.
Tor order for attachment to issue against a solr for non-payment of a sum
certified to be due from him on the taxation of his bill of fees and disburse-
ments, see Be Peters, Form 8, p. 429; and see Be Bush, 9 Eq. 147.
3. The like — in Default of payment by Instalments.
Whereas by an order dated &c., It was ordered that the Deft
should within &c., lodge in Court as directed in the schedule thereto
£97 : 4s. being &c.. Now upon motion &c., by counsel for the Pit, and
upon hearing counsel for the Deft, and upon reading the said order
and an af&davit of service of the said order on the Deft, and it
appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that the Deft has made
default in payment of the said £97 4«. as directed by the said order,
and that such default is a default made by a trustee or person acting
in a fiduciary capacity, and ordered to pay a sum in his possession
or under his control within the meaning of the Debtors Act, 1869, This
Court doth order that the Pit be at liberty to issue a writ or writs of
attachment against the Deft for his contempt in not lodging the said
£ — in Court pursuant to the said order ; And counsel for the Deft
alleging that the Deft is unable to pay the said £ — except by instal-
ments, and ofiering to lodge the same in Court by monthly instal-
ments as mentioned in the schedule hereto. It is ordered that the
Deft be at liberty to make the lodg ment in Court of the said £ — as
directed in the schedule hereto, the Pit by his counsel undertaking not
to issue such writ of attachment unless the Deft shall make default
in payment into Court of the said monthly instalments of the said £ —
or any of them ; And it is ordered that the Deft do lodge in Court, as
directed in the said schedule, the Pit's costs of the said motion, and
of such attachment, if any, to be taxed by the taxing master.
[Insert in Lodgment Schedule]. — Re Lawes.
Thirteen monthly instalments in respect of debt of
£97 : 4s. mentioned in this order as follows : —
On the Ist December, 1887
[_Add similar directions for lodgmerU of same amount on
the 1st of each month until 1st November, 1888, in-
clttsive, and on Ist December^ 1888, the balance.]
Add direction for lodgment of monthly instalments of
£8 of the costs to be taxed under this order or as
near thereto as practicable, the first instalment to
be made within fourteen days after the date of the
Taxing Master's certificate.
J. C. the Deft...
J. C. the Deft.
£ 8. d.
8 0 0
Re Lawes, Cole v. C, North, J., 28 Oct. 1887, B. 2477.
SECT. III.] Attachment or Committal. 427
4. Order for Attachment for Default in not transferring Stock into
Court. .
Whereas by the order dated &c., It was ordered that [Recite order
/or transfer into Court] ; Now upon motion &c. by counsel for the Pits
[if so and upon hearing counsel for the Deft], and upon reading the
said order, an affidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of the said order
on the Deft [and if Deft does not appear an affidavit of &c., filed
&c., of service of notice of this motion on the Deft], the paymaster's
certificate, dated &c., of the non-transfer of the Consols into Court
[enter any other evidence], This Court doth order, that the Pit be at
liberty to issue a writ or writs of attachment against the Deft for his
contempt in not having transferred the said sum of £ — , Consols, into
Court pursuant to the said order [if so, but such writ or writs of
attachment is or are not to be issued until the — ■ day of — ] ; And it
is ordered that the Deft do pay to the Pit his costs of this motion,
such costs to be taxed &c. — See Street v. Hope, Lopes, J., for V.-C. M.,
27 Sept. 1877, B. 1712.
For an order for attachment against the Defts for not leaving at the
Chambers of the Judge an abstract of their title to the lands in question,
pursuant to an order, see Peacockv. Morgan, M. R., 16 March, 1877, B. 320.
For an order for attachment against solrs for non-compliance with an
order to procure certain deeds to be registered and stamped at their own
expense, and to rectify any omissions, and for delivery of the deeds duly
rectified and stamped to their clients, see Be Scard, M. R., 21 Aug. 1878,
B. 1734.
5. The like— for not obeying an Order to make Affidavit as to
Documents — 0. xxxi, 21.
Whereas by an order dated &c., It was ordered that [Recite order
to make affidavit as to documents] ; Now upon motion this day made
unto this Court by counsel for the Pit, who alleged that the Deft has
been guilty of a contempt of this Court in not complying with the
said order, as by an affidavit of &c., filed &c., appears, and [if so
upon hearing counsel for the Deft], and upon reading the said order
and affidavit, an affidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of the said order
upon the Deft [and if Deft does not appear an affidavit of &c.,
filed &c., of service of notice of this motion on the Deft] ; This Court
doth order that the Pit be at liberty to issue a writ or writs of attach-
ment against the Deft, for his contempt in not complying with the
said order. — Deft to pay costs.
It has been held that the provision in O. xxxi, 21, as to attachment does
not apply to orders for delivery of the names of a firm under O. xvi, 14 (see
now O. XLViiiA, 1, June, 1891) ; or for an account claimed, to be verified by
affidavit (O. xv, 1) : Pike v. Keene, 24 W. R. 322, 35 L. T. 341 ; but in
the Ch. D. it is the usual practice to direct an attachment to be issued
in default of bringing in accounts, or making a sufficient affidavit of docu-
ments. For forms, see D. C. F. 595, 596.
428 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
6. The like— for not obeying Order for Discovery or Accounts
enforced by Attachment — 0. xxxi. 21.
Whereas by an order dated &c., it was ordered [Recite order] ;
Now upon motion this day made unto this Court by counsel for the
Pit, who alleged that the Deft has been guilty of a contempt of this
Court in not complying with the said order, and upon reading the
said order an af&davit of service of the said order upon &c. [and if
Dejt does not appear an affidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of
notice of this motion on the Deft], and an affidavit of &c., filed &c.
[as to non-compliance with order], This Court doth order that the Pit
be at liberty to issue a writ or writs of attachment against the Deft
for his contempt in not having filed an affidavit or left accounts in
compliance with the said orders dated &c. — Deft to pay costs. — See
Caulcutt V. C, V.-C. H., 30 March, 1876, A. 636.
7. Order, under Debtors Act, 1869, for Committal of Client for Six
Weeks for Non-payment of Taxed Costs, and a Sum fixed for
Costs of Application.
Whereas by an order dated &c., it was ordered [Recite shortly order
for taxation and payment, and the taxing master's certificate]. Now
upon motion &c., and upon hearing counsel &c., and upon reading
the said order and certificate, and an affidavit of G., filed &c., of
service of the said order and certificate upon C. [and if client does not
appear an affidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of notice of this
motion upon C], and an affidavit of &c., filed &c., whereby it appears
that the said C. has, since the date of the said order, had the means
to pay the said sum of £ — , and in respect of which he has made
default, and has refused or neglected [or refuses or neglects] to pay
the same ; This Court doth order that the said C. do pay to the said
A. the sum of £ — for his costs of this application ; And it is ordered
that the said C. for default in payment of the said sum of £ — be
committed to (Brixton) prison for the term of six weeks from the date
of his arrest, including the day of such arrest, unless he shall sooner
pay the said sum of £ — • and the sheriS's fees for the execution of this
order. And it is ordered that any sheriff or officer to whom an office
copy of this order shall be directed by the Masters of the Supreme
Court do take the said C. for the purpose aforesaid, if he be found
within his bailiwick.
This order would now, since the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 V. c. 52),
s. 103, and the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, 355 — 362, h& made by the Judge or
registrar in bankruptcy, to which jurisdiction the power is transferred.
In this case an office copy of the order was endorsed with a direction to
the sheriff of Staffordshire for the committal of the Defts, the prcBcipe for
which was dated the 20th Jan. 1871. The return of the sheriff stated that
the Defts were arrested by him on the 27th Jan. 1871.
The order ought to direct an immediate committal, and not a committal
in default of payment within a week from service, and should direct payment
of a sum in gross in lieu of taxed costs, to avoid detention in prison until
the costs are taxed : see also Ord. 7, Jan. 1870, r. 13 ; L. R. 5 Ch. xxxvii.
SECT. HI.] Attachment or Committal. 4:29
For previous order directing payment by monthly instalments, and in
default liberty to apply for committal, see Hewiison v. Sherwm, 10 Eq. 53.
8. Attachment against Solicitor for non-payment of Balance found
due from him on Taxation.
Whereas by an' order dated &c., It was ordered (inter alia) that
A. B., the above-named solr, should, within a fortnight after service
of the said order, deliver to C. D. a bill of fees and disbursements
in all suits, causes, actions, and other matters of business in which he
had been employed as the solr for the said C. D., and that it be
referred to the taxing master to tax and settle the said bill with all
usual and consequential directions ; And whereas the taxing master,
by his certificate dated &c., certified that there was due from the said
solr to C. D. £ — ■ Now, upon motion &c. by counsel for the said
C. D., and upon hearing counsel for the said solr and upon reading the
said order and certificate an afiidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of the
said order and certificate [and if solr does not appear an affidavit of
&c., filed &c., of service of notice of this motion on &c.]. And it
appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that the said A. B. has
made default in payment of the said £ — ■, and that such default is
a default by a solr in payment of a sum of money when ordered
to pay the same in his character of an officer of the Court within the
meaning of the Debtors Act, 1869 ; This Court doth order that the
said C. D. be at liberty to issue a writ or writs of attachment against
the said A. B. for his contempt in not having paid the said £ — to
the said C. D., pursuant to the said order and taxing master's
certificate.— Costs.— Ee Peters, Kay, J., 6 May, 1887, B. 650.
9. Committal or Attachment for breach of Injunction — 0. xlii. 7.
Wheeeas by an order dated &c. [Recite order /or injunction] ; Now
upon motion &c., and upon reading the said order an affidavit of
&c., filed &c., of service of the said order upon the Deft [and if
Deft does not appear an affidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of
notice of this motion on &c.J ; And this Court being of opinion, upon
consideration of the facts disclosed by the said affidavit of &c. [or the
said affidavits], that the said Deft has been guilty of a contempt of
this Court by a breach of the said injunction, doth order that the
said Deft A. do stand committed to (Brixton) prison for his said
contempt [or that the Pit A. be at liberty to issue a writ or writs of
attachment against the Deft B. for his said contempt].
Since Be Van Sandau, 1 Ph. 605, it is usual to insert in the order an
express adjudication on the contempt, as held the better form in a case of
special contempt ; but such adjudication is not essential : S. C. ; and for
orders not containing any, see Wilson v. Colson, L. C, 26 Sept. 1850, B.
1210 ; Truefitt v. Vmpleby, V.-C. K. B., 3 July, 1851, A. 894 ; Belt v.
Hustwick, V.-C, 12 July, 1815, A. 1165.
For order to show cause against committal for breach of injunction, see
Blanchard v. Cawthorne, 6 Sim. 156.
And for committal for breach, both sides appearing, see St. John's Coll. v.
Carter, V.-C, 8 Feb. 1839, B. 173 ; 4 M. & C 497,
430
Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
Attachment.
Notice.
Application
at chambers.
Prospective
order
irregular.
Married
woman.
10. Order for Committal for various Periods of Persons disobeying
Injunction.
Whereas by the order dated &c., it was ordered that [Recite
order] ; Now upon motion &c., by counsel for the Pits, and upon
hearing counsel for E. M., hereinafter named, and G. S. hereinafter
named in person, no one appearing for the Deft, although he was duly
served with notice of such motion as by affidavit appears, and upon
reading the said order an affidavit of &c., of service of the said
order on the said &c.. And this Court being of opinion, upon con-
sideration of the facts disclosed by the evidence aforesaid, that the
Deft and the said G. S. have been guilty of a contempt of this
Court by a breach of the said injunction, find that the said E. M.
has been also guilty, of a contempt of this Court in aiding and
abetting in such breach ; Doth order that the Deft G. P. and the
said G. S., and the said E. M., do stand committed to (Brixton)
prison for the said contempt for the following periods, the Deft
and the said E. M. for one month and the said G. S. for fourteen
days. Deft and the said G. S. and E. M. to pay to the Pits their
costs of this motion, to be taxed by the taxing master. — See Sea-
ward v. Paterson, North, J., 9 Feb. 1897, A. 464 ; S. C, 0. A. 16 Feb.
1897 ; [1897] 1 Ch. 545.
NOTES.
WKIT OF ATTACHMENT — COMMITTAL.
By O. XLii, 7, " a judgment requiring any person to do any act other than
the payment of money, or to abstain from doing anything, may be enforced
by writ of attachment or by committal."
By O. XLIV, 1, a writ of attachment is to have the same effect as a writ of
attachment issued out of the Ch. D. theretofore had ; and by r. 2, no such
writ is to be issued without the leav^ of the Court or a Judge, to be applied
for on notice to the party against whom the attachment is to be issued.
An important change has been introduced by r. 2, the former practice in
Chancery (though not at Common Law) having been that an attachment
might be obtained without further order, or notice to the party, on proof of
service and non-compliance : see Abud v. Riches, 2 Ch. D. 528 ; Jupp v.
Cooper, 5 C. P. D. 26 (against sheriff) ; Eynde v. OouU, 9 Q. B. D. 335
(against person removing goods out of sheriff's custody).
An order for attachment, if no w obtained without notice to the party, will
be discharged : Dallas v. Olyn. 3 Ch. D. 190 ; but not an order for committal
after leave has been obtained to issue a writ of attachment : Buest v. Bridge,
29 W. R. 117 ; but see CaUmi) v. Bridge, 56 L. J. Ch. 690.
A writ of atttachment may be ordered to issue on a notice of motion to
commit for contempt : Piper v. P., 1876, W. N. 302.
An application for leave to issue the writ may be properly made in
Chambers and dealt with by the Master, unless it becomes necessary to give
the leave, in which case it will be adjourned to the Judge : Davis v. Galmoye,
39 Ch. D. 322 ; explaining S. C, 40 Ch. D. 355.
An order directing attachment or sequestration on a future imcertain
event, e.g., on default of payment within a specified time, is wrong in form :
Re Lumley, Ex parte Cat?ir,art, [1894] 2 Ch. 271, C. A.
Attachment will go against a married woman administratrix disobeying
an order to pay into Court a sum of money shown by her account of the
intestate's personal estate to be in her possession ; but semble, if the object
SECT. III.] Attachment or Committal. 431
of the order had been to compel her to make good a devastavit, the order
should have been made in the form prescribed in Scott v. Morley, 20 Q. B. D.
120 ; attachment would not go : In re Tumbull, TurnbuU v. Nicholas,
[1900] 1 Ch. 180.
Undertakings, whether positive or negative, must be enforced by com- Under-
mittal and not by attachment : D. v. A. (b Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484. takings.
For forms in reference to writ of attachment, see D. C. F. 433 et seq.
DEBTORS ACT.
An order for payment of money, whether interlocutory or final, can only
be enforced by attachment in cases within the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4 (3)
and (4) : Phosphate. Sewage Co. v. Hartmont, 25 W. R. 743 ; and this applies
equally where the order is for payment into Court : see Hutchinson v. Hart-
mont, W. N. (77) 29.
Under the Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 V. c. 62), s. 4, arrest and imprison-
ment for making default in payment of money have been abolished, except
in the following cases inter alia : — (3) Default by a trustee or person acting
in a fiduciary capacity, and ordered to pay by a Court of Equity any sum
" in his possession or under his control." (4) Default by a solr in payment of
costs, when ordered to pay costs for misconduct as such, or in payment of
a sum of money when ordered to pay the same in his character of an officer
of the Court : and in these instances (by this section) the imprisonment is
limited to one year.
A trustee who, by carelessness or wilful default, without moral delin- Trustee,
quency, has lost trust moneys in his possession or under his control, is a de-
faulting trustee within the Debtors Act, s. 4 (3) : Middleton v. Chichester,
6Ch. 152; «ectts, if he has merely omitted to get in trust moneys : Ferguson
v. F., 10 Ch. 661 ; or it is not shown that he ever had them in his actual
possession : Exp. Cuddeford, 45 L. J. Bkcy. 127 ; 34 L. T. 666 ; 24 W. R.
931 ; Be Fewster, [1901] 1 Ch. 447 ; Be Wilkins, 1901, W. N. 202.
A trustee is not fraudulent and dishonest merely because he neglects his
trust and thereby wrongs those whom it is his dutv to protect : Be Smith,
Hands v. Andrews, [1893] 2 Ch. 1, C. A.
And a writ of attachment cannot be issued where the order directs pay-
ment of a sum, part of which was not in the possession or control of the
trustee, e.g., a sum consisting of a principal debt due from an executor
with interest thereon, as the interest cannot be said to have been in his
possession or control : Be Hickey, H. v. Calmer, 55 L. T. 588 ; 35 W. R. 53 ;
and V. sup., p. 196, Chap. XVI., Form 2 ; or the existing market value of
bonds improperly sold by trustees, as the difference between such value and
the amount produced by the sale never came to their hands : Be Walker's
Estate, W. v. W., 38 W. R. 766 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 25 ; 63 L. T. 237 ; and see
Croninv. Twinberrow (1887), W. N. 201.
A trustee is liable under sect. 4 (3), though personally innocent, where
the trust money has been misapplied and lost from being placed in the sole
name of his co-trustee : Evans v. Bear, 10 Ch. 76.
A debtor executor who proves the will is deemed to have the money in Debtor
his possession in a fiduciary capacity, so as to be liable to attachment on executor,
non-payment ; but as to circumstances under which such an order would
be made, see Be Bourne, Davey v. Bourne, [1906] 1 Ch. 697 ; and Ingpen on
Executors, p. 569.
The promoter of a co. is not " a trustee or person acting in a fiduciary Promoter
capacity " within sect. 4(3): see Phosphate Sewage Co.v. Hartmont, 25 W.R. of co.
743 ; nor is a person ordered to repay money received by way of fraudulent
preference : Exp. Hooson, 8 Ch. 231 ; nor one co-partner who receives assets Co-pactner.
of the partnership on account of himself and his co-partners : Piddock v.
Burt, [1894] 1 Oh. 343 ; and as to a trustee rfeceiving commission on policies
effected as security for trust money, see Be Berwick, B. v. Lane, 81 L. T.
797, C. A.
432
Execution and Contempt. [chaP. xxvii.
Agent. Secus, an agent ; as a son managing a farm for his father : Marris v.
Ingram, 13 Ch. D. 338 ; or a London agent indebted on account of his
agency : Litchfield v. Jones, 26 Ch. D. 530 ; and see Reid v. Burrows, [1892]
2 Ch. 413, 415 ; or an auctioneer as to the proceeds of property sold by him :
Orowlher v. Elgood, 34 Ch. D. 691, C. A. ; or a debtor who has admitted that
, a sum is due from him, and submitted to an order directing that he should
hold it upon certain trusts : Preston v. Etherington, 37 Ch. D. 104, C. A. ; or
an administratrix ordered to pay assets received by her into Court in a sub-
sequent action propounding a will, under which she was not an executrix :
TinnucU v. Smart, 10 P. D. 184.
The remedy provided by the section is only available by c. q. t., not by a
mere creditor : Re Firmin, London Banking Co. v. F., 57 L. T. 45.
Solicitor. Under sect. 4 (4), a solr is liable to attachment for non-payment of a
balance found due from him on taxing his bill of costs : Re Rush, 9 Eq. 147 ;
Re White, 19 W. R. 39 ; 23 L. T. 387 ; and also of the taxed costs of the bill
which he has subsequently been ordered to pay : In re a Solicitor, [1895] 2
Ch. 66 ; or of money of his client which he has improperly dealt with : In re
Dudley, 12 Q. B. D. 44, C. A.
And as disobedience by a solr to an order made on him as such is in the
nature of an offence, he cannot claim privilege from arrest under an attach-
ment for such disobedience : Re Freston, 11 Q. B. D. 545, C. A., considered
in Seldon v. Wilde, [1911] 1 K. B. 701.
But this liability to attachment is for non-payment of money or costs
as an officer of the Court, not as an unsuccessful litigant : Re Hope,
7 Ch. 523 (overruling Re Barfield and Rush, 19 W. E,. 466 ; 24 L. T.
248).
The liability remains though the solr be struck off the roll after the order
against him is made, or (semhle) previously : Re Strong, 32 Ch. D. 342,
C.A.
Discretion Although in cases of contempt generally an order to commit for non-
of Court. compliance with an order was in the discretion of the Court (see Ashworth v.
Outram (2), 5 Ch. D. 943, C. A.), in cases coming within sect. 4 (3) or (4)
attachment was a matter of right, and the Court had no discretion to refuse
the order for attachment : see Evans v. Bear, 10 Ch. 76 ; nor to discharge a
defaulting trustee where he had not cleared his contempt : Ranson v. Boyd,
1877, W. N. 236.
At common law, however, it was held that to warrant an attachment
for non-payment of money under the exceptions mentioned in sect. 4, it
must be shown that the party had the means of paying, as well as that he
had refused or neglected to do so : Re Ball, L. R. 8 C. P. 104 ; and see Re
Robinson, 10 B. & S. 75.
And now by the Debtors Act, 1878 (41 & 42 V. c. 54), in any case coming
within the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4 (3) and (4), the Court or Judge making
the order for payment, or having jurisdiction in the action or proceeding in
which the order for payment is made, may inquire into the case, and (subject
to the provisoes contained in sect. 4) may grant or refuse, either absolutely
or upon terms any application for a writ of attachment, or other process, or
order for arrest and imprisonment, and any application to stay the operation
of any such writ, or process, or order, or for discharge from arrest, or im-
prisonment, thereunder.
Under the discretion given by this Act, the Court has declined to grant a
writ of attachment against a defaulting trustee where it appeared that he had
no present means, and that there was no prospect of future payment :
Barrett v. Hammond, 10 Ch. D. 285 ; Street v. Hope, ib. 286 (n.) ; and that
he had derived no personal benefit from the breach of trust : Earl ofAyles'-
ford V. Earl Poulett, [1892] 2 Ch. 60 ; or where the misapplication of money
had been erroneous, but not fraudulent : Holroyde v. Garnett, 20 Ch. D. 532 ;
but, per M. R., mere inability to pay is not, alone, sufficient ground for
refusing an attachment or granting a discharge under the Acts : Simpson v.
Bell, 1 May, 1879, ex rel. ; which are intended for the punishment of a
SECT. III.] Attachment or Committal,. 433
fraudulent or dishonest debtor, and are in tiiat sense vindictive : Morris v,
Ingram, 13 Ch. D. 338 ; Re. Knowles, Doodsm v. Turner, 52 L. J. Ch. 685 j
48 L. T. 760 ; and see Earl of Aylesford v. Earl Poulett, sup.
Wiiere the discretion has been exercised on an erroneous view of the lav,
the Court of Appeal will review it : Be Smith, Hands v. Andrews, [1893]
2 Ch. 1, C. A.
The Debtors Act, 1869, does not affect the power of imprisonment for con-
tempt of Court in not complying with an order to do any act, even though
payment of money is directed as an alternative : Harvey v. Hall, 11 Eq. 31 ;
but the Court has no power to commit to prison for non-payment of the costs Costa of
of a motion to commit on which no other order is made : Micklethwaite v. motion to
Fletcher, 27 W. R. 793 ; nor, when the contempt has been cleared, to detain commit,
the contemnor in prison for non-payment of the costs of his contempt :
Jackson v. Mawhy, 1 Ch. D. 87 ; Ayres v. Ayres, 1901, W. N. 204.
The Debtors Act does not apply to Crown debts, including an estreated Crown debts,
recognizance for payment of the respondent's costs of an appeal to the House
of Lords if unsuccessful ; and the appellant making default was not entitled
to be discharged from custody : Be Smith, 2 Ex. D. 47.
A Pit who has levied execution, in an action against a trustee of a will for After execu-
a sum of money admitted to have been received by such trustee, cannot, by tion levied,
obtaining an order absolute for payment within a limited time, avail himself
of the remedy given by the Debtors Act, s. 4 (3) : Drewitt v. Edwards, 26
W. R. 60, 122, C. A. ; 37 L. T. 622.
An order is no longer necessary for the discharge of a person who has been Discharge of
imprisoned under s. 4 (3) or (4), as the practice is to indorse on the writ a prisoner,
note that the writ does not authorize an imprisonment for any longer period
than one year : and see Be Edwards, Brooke v. E., 21 Ch. D. 236.
An order for attachment made under sect. 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869, is
not in the nature of a remedy for the recovery of debt, but is a punishment
for an offence : so that a second punishment cannot be awarded : Church's
Trustees v. Hibbard, [1902] 2 Ch. 784, C. A.
SERVICE — EVIDENCE.
Service of the order for payment, &c., on which the attachment is sought Personal
to be grounded, must, unless substituted service has been authorized, be service,
personal, v. sup., p. 416 ; except in cases under 0. xxxi, 22, by which
service on the solr of an order for discovery or inspection (failure to comply
with which renders a party liable to attachment : r. 21) shall be sufficient
service to found an application for attachment for disobedience to the order.
But the party, against whom the application is made, may show that he has
had no ncftioe or knowledge of the order ; and semhle, personal service will
be dispensed with where the person to be served is evading service : Kistler
V. Tettmar, [1905] 1 K. B. 39, C. A., following Hyde v. Hyde, 13 P D. 166,
Re Tuck, [1906] 1 Ch. 692; and that a true copy of the order must have
been served, otherwise the writ may be set aside and the party discharged
out of custody: see Be Holt, 11 Ch. D. 168; and see Ann. Prao. note,
" Service of Order disobeyed," under 0. xliv. 2.
Personal service is not waived by the party, whose solr is served, taking Waiver,
out a summons for further time : Hampden v. Wallis, 26 Ch. D. 746, C. A. ;
nor by correspondence by the party, a solr, promising pei-formance of the
required act, the delivery of a bill of costs : Be Cunningham, 1886, W. N. 176 ;
65 L. T. 766.
Appearance of the party on the motion to commit is not a waiver by him
of any objection for want of personal service or irregularity : Mander v.
Falcke, [1891] 3 Ch, 488.
By giving time and accepting part payment a client does not waive his
right to enforce a writ of attachment against his solr : Be Fereday, [1895] 2
Ch. 437.
By the appearance of counsel for the contemnor, personal service of a rule
for his attachment was held to be. waived : Exp. Alcock, 1 C. P. D. 68.
VOL. I. 2 F
434
Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
Substituted
service.
Filing.
Director
of CO.
Solicitor.
Form of
notice.
Affidavits.
Personal service of the notice of motion or other application for attach-
ment under O. xliv, 2, is not indispensable : Browning v. Sabin, 5 Ch. D.
511 ; Richards v. Kitchen, 25 W. R. 602 ; 36 L. T. 730 ; when there is no
difficulty in effecting personal service the Court insists upon it, and will not
make an order for substituted service unless every endeavour has been made
to effect personal service : Martder v. Falcke, [1891] 3 Ch. 488 ; but when
there was difficulty, and the original order had been personally served, the
Court acted on proof of service in ordinary form on the party's solr :
Howarth v. ff., 11 P. D. 95, C. A. ; Mann v. Perry, 50 L. J. Ch. 251 ; 44
L. T. 248 ; Be Imxmore, Gordon v. Woods, 1888, W. N. 63 ; and under 0.
XXXI, 21, the writ issued though both the order for discovery and the notice
of motion were served only on the solr : Joy v. Hadley, 22 Ch. D. 571 ; Be
Mukaster, Dalston v. Nanson, 47 L. J. Ch. 609 ; 26 W. R. 435. Service at
the residence of the party has been held sufficient : Be A Solicitor, 14 Ch. D.
152 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 295.
And where the party has not appeared, the notice may be served by filing
with the proper officer pursuant to O. Lxvn, 4 ; Me Morris, M. v. Fowler, 44
Ch. D. 151 ; Evans v. Noton, [1893] 1 Ch. 252, C. A. ; but the notice of
motion should be personally served wherever it is practicable to do so, and
where the Pit evidently knew where to find the Deft, the Court declined to
allow an attachment to issue unless the notice of motion was served on the
Deft : In re Bassett, B. v. B., [1894] 3 Ch. 179.
Obedience to an order made against a corporation will not be enforced
under O. XLn, 31, by the attachment of a director of the corporation,
unless the order has been served personally upon the director : McKeown v.
Joint Stock Institute, Ld., [1899] 1 Ch. 671.
An application for attachment against a solr for breach of undertaking to
enter appearance should be entitled in the matter of the solr, under the
general jurisdiction : Be Kerly, Son & Verden, [1901] 1 Ch. 467, C. A.
By 0. Lll, 4, every notice of motion for attachment is to state in general
terms the grounds of the application ; and where any such motion is founded
on evidence by affidavit, a copy of any affidavit is to be served with the
notice of motion.
As to what is a sufficient statement of the grounds of the application, see
Treherne v. Dale, 27 Ch. D. 66, C. A.
The copy affidavits and notice of motion should be served together, and if
not personally, at the address for service ; and service of the affidavits
separately on the country solr, though two clear days before the hearing, is
irregular : Petty v. Daniel, 34 Ch. D. 172 ; but see contra, Hampden v.
WaUis, 26 Ch. D. 746, C. A.
Marking the notice of motion with the name of the wrong Judge is not a
fatal irregularity ; secus, omission to serve the affidavits with the original
notice of motion, or to notify the grounds of the appUcation : Taylor v. Boi
(1), 1893, W. N. 14. '
The order must be brought in its exact form to the attention of the con-
temnor contemporaneously with, though not necessarily attached to, the
notice of motion, on the usual affidavit of service, unless the Court is satisfied
that the order has been brought to his knowledge in some other way, as by
his appearing in Court and personally consenting or opposing, and the fact
is stated on the face of the order itself, and this is so where the order has
been made by consent of counsel : Hall <Ss Co. v. Trigg, [1897] 2 Ch. 219.
The copy of affidavit intended to be used in support of the motion for
attachment must state that the order is indorsed with the memorandum
required by O. xu, 5, and, if such statement is omitted, the service is
defective : Stockton Football C-). v. Gaston, [1895] 1 Q. B. 453,
The objection that affidavits have not been served with the summons or
notice of motion in accordance with 0. Ln, 4, cannot be insisted on by a
party who, by attending by his solr, and admitting that he cannot answer
the affidavits, has accepted what is equivalent to the advantages intended to
be conferred by the provisions of the rule : Rendell v. Grundy, [1895] 1 Q. B
SECT. III.] Attachment or Committal. 435
16, C. A. 0. Ln, 4, as to service of copy affidavit with notice of motion
applies to attacliment but not to committal: Taylor, PUnston Bros, dh Co.,
Ld. V. PUnston, [1911] 2 Ch. 605, C. A.
The certificate of the Paymaster-General that the money is not in Court Paymaater'a
must be dated on a day subsequent to the last day for payment pursuant to certificate,
the order. The want of such evidence may be cured by the appearance of
the party, and his not disputing the fact : Treherne v. Dale, sup.
An order made in Chambers cannot be enforced by attachment until Entry of
after entry : Ballard v. TorrtUnson, 52 L. J. Ch. 656 ; 48 L. T. 515 ; 31 order.
W. R. 563 ; secus, procedure orders drawn up in Chambers : 0. lxii, 2(1).
Where the time for payment limited by the order was enlarged by a sub- Enlarging
sequent order, it was sufficient that the indorsement required by 0. xli, 5, time,
was on the first order : Treherne v. Dale, 27 Ch. D. 66, C. A. ; but where an
order for possession named no time within which possession was to be given,
and no memorandum could be indorsed, attachment was ordered to issue,
but to lie in the office for a week : Re Biggs' Mortgage, 1894, W. N. 73 ; but
notwithstanding the absence of the indorsement the Deft was liable for a
contempt in retaking possession : <S. G.
Before leave is obtained to issue a writ of attachment for non-compliance
with an orderlimiting a time which is extended by a second order, both orders
must be served, or if the extended time has expired before the second order
is drawn up, a four-day order must be obtained and served before motion
for attachment : Re Seal, [1903] 1 Ch. 87.
To obtain the attachment of a judgment debtor for non-compliance with Conduct
an order under O. xlh, 32, for his attendance for oral examination at money on
Chambers, it must be shown that conduct money has been tendered, and examination
that there is some necessity for bringing him up from his place of residence : w judgment
see Protector Endowment Co, v. WhiUam, 36 L. T. 467 ; so also in the case '^®'''°'^-
of a person ordered to attend in court for cross-examination under s. 26
of Probate Act, 1857 ; Re Harvey, [1907] P. 239 ; and an order for pay-
ment of the debt by instalments need not be abandoned by the cre(Utor,
as the two processes can run simultaneously : Hayter v. Beall, 44 L. T. 131,
C. A., reversing S. C, 29 W. R. 333.
APPEAl.
An appeal has been held to lie from an order to commit, or a refusal to
commit, involving a finding : Jarmain v. Ohatterton, 20 Ch. D. 491, C. A. ;
Witt V. Corcoran, 2 Ch. D. 69 ; but see Reg. v. Jordan, 1888, W. N. 152, per
Lindley, L. J. The Court of Appeal, however, is reluctant to interfere with
the discretion of the Court below : Ashworth v. Outram (No. 2), 5 Ch.D. 943,
C. A. ; Esdaile v. Visser, 13 Ch. D. 421, C. A. ; Chard v. Jervis, 9 Q. B. D.
178, C. A.
But an application for attachment for contempt in publishing comments
calculated to prejudice the fair trial of an action is " a criminal cause or
matter " within Jud. Act, 1873, s. 47, so that no appeal will lie : O^Shea v.
O'Shea, 15 P. D. 59, C. A. ; seciis, semhle, an attachment for disobedience to
an order to attend for examination : Re Evans, E. v. Noton, [1893] 1 Ch.
252 ; and see Rendall v. Grundy, [1895] 1 Q. B. 16, C. A., sup. p. 435.
An attachment for disobedience to an order of Court, being a coercive
process in a civil action, is not an offence within sect. 19 of the Extradition
Act, 1870 : Pooley v. Whetham, 15 Ch. D. 435, C. A.
BANKEUPTCY OF CONTEMNOB.
Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, a person liable to arrest within sect. 4(3)
or (4) of the Debtors Act, might, if he became bankrupt, be protected
pending such bankruptcy from attachment for non-payment, &c. : Cobham
V. Dalton, 10 Ch. 655 ; Phosphate Sewage Co. v. Harlmont. 25 W. R. 743 ;
but in such case the application to discharge the attachment ought, it seems,
to have been made to the Court in which the writ was issued, and not to the
Court of Bankruptcy t Re Deere, 10 Ch. 658.
436 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
But bankruptcy subsequent to the issue of the writ would not protect him
from arrest, nor entitle him, if already in custody, to his discharge : E, Lewes
V. Barnett, 6 Ch. D. 252 ; and see Be Wray, 36 Ch. D. 138, C. A.
The protection from process of attachment pending bankruptcy proceed-
ings given to a bankrupt debtor by sect. 12, ani the rules of 1870, r. 282,
did not extend to the case of a compounding debtor : Pashkr v. Vincent,
8 Ch. D. 825.
As to the effect of bankruptcy generallv, under the Act of 1883, v. sup.,
p. 420.
COSTS. ■
The costs of an executed attachment are no longer a fixed sum of 13«. 4d.
(as under the former practice, except where directed to be taxed, see Dan.
5th ed., 431, n.), but are now, as of any other proceedings, in the discretion
of the Court under O. lxv, 1 : Abtid v. Riches, 2 Ch. D. 528 ; and should be
asked for upon the application for the writ : S. O.
EXECUTION OF WRIT.
The officer charged with the execution of a writ of attachment for con-
tempt in non-compliance with an order for discovery may break open the
outer door of a house : Harvey v. H., 26 Ch. D. 644 ; but for the purpose of
executing a writ oifi.fa., he can only break open the outer door of a work-
shop or other building of the judgment debtor, not being his dwelling-house
or connected therewith : Hodderv. Williams, [1895] 2 Q. B. 663, C. A.
For committal in cases of special contempt, privilege from arrest, and
discharge on clearing the contempt, v. inf.. Sects, vii. and viii.
COMMITTAL UNDEK DEBTOES ACT, 1869, S. 5 — ABREST UNDER SECT. 6.
The jurisdiction by the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 5, given to any Court to
commit to prison, for a term not exceeding six weeks, or until payment of
the sum due, any person who makes default in pajrment of any debt, or in-
stalment of any debt, due from him in pursuance of any order or judgment
of that or any other competent Court, is now, by the operation of the Bank-
ruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 V. c. 52), b. 103, and the Bankruptcy Rules (1886),
355 — 362, transferred to the Judge in bankruptcy.
Where judgment has been given for payment of a past debt by instalments
in fudxiro, an order for commitment for default in payment of an instalment
is not an anticipatory order, and may be validly made : Stonor v. Fowle, 13
App. Ca. 20, Form 3, p. 426, and where proceedings are taken under the
section for committal of a judgment debtor for default in payment of a
debt or instalment due from him in pursuance of an order of a competent
court, it is not necessary that the order of the Court for payment shall
have been served personally on the judgment debtor, though personal
service upon him of the judgment summons is required by 0. xxv. 25 (1)
of the County Court Rules: Haydon v. Haydon, [1911] 2 K. B. 191.
A creditor who having recovered judgment in the High Court, afterwards
obtains from a County Court Judge an order under sect. 5 of the Debtors Act,
1869, for payment by instalments, cannot, so long as that order is in force,
issue execution upon his judgment in the High Court : Montgomery dk Co. v.
De Bulmes, [1898] 2 Q. B. 420, C. A. (dissenting from dicta of Cave, J., in
Me Ives, Exp. Addington, 16 Q. B. D. 670, 671, and approving the principle
of Jones V. Jenner, 25 L. J. Exch. 319).
Sect. 14 (1) of the Sherifis Act, 1887 (50 & 51 V. c. 55), does not apply to
commitment under sect. 5 of the Debtors Act, and does not prevent the im-
prisonment of the debtor within twenty-four hours after his arrest : Mitchell
V. Simpson, 62 Q. B. D. 183, C. A.
By sect. 6 of the Debtors Act, 1869 (which abolished arrest on mesne pro-
cess in any action), power was given to the Superior Courts of Law to order
the arre?t of the Deft against whom the Pit before final judgment proves a
SECT. IV. J Enforcing Return of Writs. 437
good cause of action of £50 and upwards, and that the Deft intends to leave
England, and his absence will materially prejudice the Pit in the prosecution
of his action. But in general no order is granted unless the Deft is a material
witness, or is taking away material documents.
But after final judgment a Deft could not be detained in prison under
sect. 6, as the prosecution of the Pit's action could not then be prejudiced
by the Deft's absence : see Hume v. Druyff, L. R. 8 Ex, 214.
Section IV. — Enforcing Eeturn of Writs.
Order for Sheriff's Committal — 0. lii, 11.
Whereas the solr for the Pit on the — day of — , gave notice to
the sherifi of — , calling upon him to return within — days the writ
of attachment issued against the Deft for his contempt in not &c.
[State the contempt] ; Now upon motion &c., by counsel &c., who
alleged that notwithstanding the said notice the said sheriff has not
returned the said writ of attachment; and upon reading the affidavit
of &c., This Court doth order that the said sheriS of — do stand
committed to Brixton prison for his said contempt.
NOTES.
By O. LII, 2, no motion or application for a rule nisi or order to show
cause shall hereafter be made in an action against a sheriff to pay money
levied under an execution. O. lii, 1 1 , provides tiiat no order shall issue for
the return of any writ, or to bring; in the body of a person ordered to be
attached or committed ; but a notice from the person issuing the writ or
obtaining the order for attachment or committal (if not represented by a
solr), or by his solr, calling upon the sheriff to return such writ, or to bring
in the body within a given time, if not complied with, shall entitle such
person to apply for an order for the committal of such sheriff.
The notice is substituted for the former order of course.
Upon application ex parte for order nisi, the sheriff was ordered to pay
both the costs of the order nisi and of the previous order of course : Be
Heiron's Estate, Hall v. Fry, 12 Ch. D. 795.
It seems that under O. xin, 7, 26 the applicant may move on notice (see
Jupp v. Cooper, 5 C. P. D. 26) for his committal, or for an attachment.
If the attachment is to go against the late sheriff, it will be directed to tlie
present sheriff, but if against the present sheriff it will be directed to the
coroner : see Chitt. Archb. pt. i. p. 823.
Pending an interpleader issue, the sheriff cannot be compelled to make his
return immediately : Angell v. Baddeley, 3 Ex. D. 49, C. A.
Since the Jud. Acts came into operation (Nov. 1875) no particular return
day has been inserted in writs of attachment issued out of the Central Office.
The form of that writ given in R. S. C. App. H., Form 12, does not suggest
the insertion of a date of return ; but w hen a reasonable interval has elapsed
the sheriff may be required to make a return to the writ : see Owen v.
Pritcliard, 1876, W. N. 147.
The sherifi may in like manner be ordered to make returns to writs of
fieri facias, elegit, and other writs directed to him.
For the practice as to the returns of the writs in the K. B. and other
Common Law Divisions, see Chitt. Archb. pt. i. pp. 815 — 822,
The seizure of land by the sheriff is complete when he delivers in execu-
tion, and is not governed by the formal return of the writ : Re Hohson, 33
Ch. D. 493.
438 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
By the Sheriffs Act, 1887 (50 & 51 V. c. 55), s. 28, sub-s. 3, a sheriff shall
not be called upon to make a return of any writ after the expiration of six
months from the date at which he ceases to hold his office.
Section V. — Sekjeaut-at-Arms^ — Habeas Corpus.
1. Order for Serjeant-at-Arms, on return of Attachment Nan est
Inventus — Gen. Ord. 7 Jan. 1870, r. 6.
Whereas by an order dated &c., it was ordered, &c. [Recite the
direction required to be performed] ; Now, upon motion &c. by counsel
&o., who alleged that a writ of attachment issued against the Deft
for not, &c. [State the default], directed to the sheriff of — , and that
the said sheriff hath returned nan est inventus thereon ; and upon
reading the said order, writ, and return, This Court doth order that
the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this Court do apprehend the said
Deft, and bring him to the bar of this Court to answer his said con-
tempt ; and thereupon such further order shall be made as shall be
just.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 437.
NOTES.
Where an attachment is issued and returned non est inventits, the party
prosecuting will still be entitled to an order for the Serjeant-at-Arms : Ord.
7 Jan. 1870, rr. 6, 7, and 8 ; O. xxn, 28. It is, however, believed that an
application for Serjeant-at-Arms is rarely made in modern practice : see
D. C. P. 437 ; Dan. 713.
For the practice as to the Serjeant-at-Arms, and as to his powers, see
Cons. Ord. 29, r. 4, and 30, rr. 1, 2 ; O. XLii, 1 ; Gen. Ord. 7 Jan. 1870, r. 6 ;
Dan. 6th ed. 889 ; 0. v. L., [18911 3 Ch. 126 ; where he was directed to
deliver the person of an infant to the guardian having the right of custody
under the order of the Court.
The order for the Serjeant must be delivered to him, or to his deputy by
the Registrar : Cons. Ord. 30, r. 2.
The same order (rr. 4, 5) abolished the former writs of execution under
the Great Seal, attachment with proclamation, and writ of rebellion, which
were preliminary to the order of the Court for the Serjeant-at-Arms, and
the subsequent process of sequestration : see Gilb. For. Rom. 77, 166.
But where the party was proved to be abroad, the attachment was not
required to be issued pro forrna as a foundation for subsequent process :
Hodgson v. H., 23 Beav. 604 ; BuMer v. Mathews, 19 Beav. 549 ; Re East of
England BL, 2 Dr. & Sm. 284.
2. Order to turn over Prisoner hrought up by Serjeant-at-Arms to
Brixton Prison.
The Deft being this day brought to the bar of this Court by the
Serjeant-at-Arms attending this Court to answer his contempt in
not &c. [State the default], and still persisting in his said contempt.
Now upon motion &c.. This Court doth order that the Deft be turned
over to Brixton Prison, and do remain there until he shall &c. [State
what he is required to do] and clear his contempt, and this Court make
other order to the contrary.
For form of application, see D. C. F, 438,
SECT, v.j Serjeant-at-Arms — Habeas Corpus. 439
3. Order for Habeas to bring up Prisoner on his own Application.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for A. {prisoner), who alleged that an
attachment issued against him for his contempt in not &c. [State the
default], pursuant to the judgment [or order] dated &c., directed to
the sheriff of &c., and that the said A. is now a prisoner in the custody
of the said sheriff ; and upon reading the said judgment [or order] &c.,
This Court doth order that a writ of habeas corpus cum causis do issue
directed to the said sheriff, at the return thereof, commanding him to
bring the said A. to the bar of this Court ; whereupon such further
order shall be made as shall be just.
4. To bring up a Prisoner before the Court.
Upon motion &c.. This Court doth order that the Governor of H. M.
Prison at H. do produce the Deft, a prisoner in the said prison under
an order of the K. B. D. of this Court, before Mr. Justice — , in his
Lordship's Court, at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London,
on — the — day — of — at — o'clock in the forenoon precisely. — ■
See Jenks v. Ditton, Stirling, J., 21 May, 1897, A. 2615.
NOTES.
Where, on the party being brought up, the matter is postponed, and a new
writ is directed to issue (which, if the Court shall so direct, may be without
pajnment of any fee), the registrar indorses the order for the habeas " Let
another habeas issue, returnable on the &o., at — o'clock in the — noon of
the — day of — " : see O. xxxvi, 35.
A person taken to prison under an attachment need not be brought up to
the bax of the Court, to be turned over to Brixton Prison, but where the
person in contempt himself desires to be brought before the Court in refer-
ence to his contempt, or where he has been taken to a country prison and
wishes to be turned over to Brixton Prison, the habeas will still be
necessary.
For form of writ of habeas corpus, see R. S. C, App. J., Form 2 ; D. C. F.
439.
If the prisoner is already imprisoned or detained in HoUoway Prison, the
order will remand him there : Davies v. Nixon, V.-C. K., 25 Nov. 1862,
A. 2116.
The Court cannot grant a habeas corpus to a party to an action in custody
to enable him to appear in Court merely for the purpose of arguing his case
in person : Weldon v. Neal, 15 Q. B. D. 471 ; Benns v. Moseley, 2 C. B. N. S.
116 ; Short's Crown Office Practice, 366.
Since the commencement of the Jud. Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 44), the
Court, when granting an application for a habeas corpus, has jurisdiction, by
sect. 5 of that Act, to order payment by the Deft of the costs of the applica-
tion, and such jurisdiction is not affected by the provisions of sect. 4 : The
Queen v. .Jones, [1894] 2 Q. B. 382.
As to the power of the Secretary of State to order production of a prisoner,
see Prison Act, 1898 (61 & 62 V. c. 41), s. 11 ; and see Dan. 548.
No writ can be issued directed to a person who at the date of the order
is out of the jurisdiction : Rea v. Pinckney, [1904] 2 K. B. 84.
440 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
Section VI. — Sequestration.
(l.) — ISSUE or SEQUBSTEATION.
1. Order for Sequestration on return of Attachment.
Whereas by the judgment [or order] dated &c., it was ordered
[Recite the direction required to he performed] ; Now upon motion &c.
by counsel &c., who alleged that an attachment issued against the
Deft for his contempt in not &c. [State the default] directed to the
sheriff of — , and that the said sheriff hath returned that the Deft is
a prisoner in his custody [or, non est inventus thereon) ; And upon
reading the said judgment [or order], and the said writ and return
thereon, This Court doth order, that a writ of sequestration do issue,
directed to certain commissioners to be therein named, to sequester
the personal estate of the Deft, and the rents, profits, and issues of his
real estate, until the Deft shall [State the act required to he done] and
clear his contempt, and this Court make other order to the contrary. —
See Morgan v. Barnes, V.-C. E., 3 Dec. 1847, B. 117.
For the form of the writs of sequestration, see B. S. C, App. H., Form 13 ;
and for the prcecipe, H. App. G., Form 6 ; and of the writ of sequestrari
facias de bonis ecelesiasticis issuable upon return of the ordinary writ of fieri
facias, see App. H., Form 7 ; and see O. XLni, 3, 4 ; Allen v. Williams, 2
S. & G. 455 ; Norton v. Pritchard, V.-C. E., 7 Oct. 1845, B. 1568 ; D. C. F.
446-448,
2. The like — on return of Serjeant-at-Arms Non est Inventus.
Whereas by an order dated &c. it was ordered &c. [Recite direction
required to he performed] : And whereas the Deft sits out all process
of contempt to a Serjeant-at-Arms for not &c. [State the default]
pursuant to the said order, and cannot be found to be taken thereon,
as by the return of the Serjeant-at-Arms appears ; And upon reading
the said order and return. This Court doth order that a writ of seques-
tration &c. [Form 1, sup.]
3. The like — on return against a Prisoner.
Whereas by the judgment [or order] dated &c., it was ordered &c.
[Recite the direction required to he performed] ; Now upon motion &c.,
by counsel &c., who alleged &c. [State the process of contempt issued],
that it appears by the certificate of the Governor of Brixton Prison
that the said Deft is a prisoner in the said prison for his said contempt,
and upon reading the said judgment [or order] and certificate. This
Court doth order that a writ of sequestration &c. [Form 1, sup.]
The order is made on ex parte motion, and on producing the Governor's
certificate of the prisoner being in custody.
SECT. VI.] Sequesti'ation. 441
4. The like — in aid of Decree of the Arches Court — 2 & 5 W. IV.
c. 93, s. 2.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for W. &c., who alleged that pursuant
to the order made in this matter dated &c., a copy of the exemplifica-
tion of the decree of the Arches Court of Canterbury dated &c. and of
the several proceedings thereunder, has been inrolled in the rolls of
the (now Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice) pursuant to
the Act of the 2 & 3 W. IV. c. 93, s. 2, and that C. (in the said order
named) has not paid the sum of £ — , being the taxed costs mentioned
in the said decree and the said several proceedings thereunder. This
Court doth order that a writ of sequestration do issue, directed to
certain commissioners to be therein named, to sequester the said
C.'s personal estate, and the rents, issues, and profits of his real estate
until the said C. shall pay to the said W. &c. the said sum of £ — , and
this Court make other order to the contrary. — Craig v. Watson, L. JJ.,
1 Aug. 1871, A. 2378.
For the preceding order in Craig v. Watson, to inrol the decree of the
Arches Court, see C£ap. XV., Sect. IV., Form 2, sup. p. 191. The order for
sequestration was entitled in the matter of the Act as well as in the cause.
And for an order for sequestration for non- payment of costs after inrol-
ment of a decree of the Court of Arches, see Marriner v. Bp. of Bath and
Wells, L. C, 12 Feb. 1879, B. 379.
For order for an injunction in aid of a sequestration against a retired
County Court Judge, restraining him from receiving the moneys payable to
him in respect of the pension granted to him by Government, to the extent
of the arrears of the instalments of the judgment debt ; and for the seques-
trators to receive that amount from the Treasury or Pajrmaster -General out
of the payments due in respect of the pension, and to pay over the same to
the Pit, with liberty to apply at Chambers, in case of further default, for
similar orders as against any future sums payable in respect of the pension,
see Willcock v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 332 ; and see Knight v. Bulkeley, 4 Jur. N. S.
527 ; 5 lb. 817 ; 27 L. J. Ch. 592 ; 6 W. R. 610.'
For order against a City corp., which had notice of the application, for
payment to sequestrators of the arrears and future payments of a life
annuity granted by the corp. to the Deft, see Bees v. Williams, V.-C. K. B.;
1848, B. 1106.
5. Sequestration against Local Board for Breach of Injunction.
Whereas by an order dated &c. [Recite order /or injunction] now
upon motion &c. and upon reading [enter default evidence ifBefts do not
appear] ; " And this Court being of opinion, upon consideration of
the facts disclosed by the said affidavits, that the Local Board of
Health of L — , in the county of &c., have been guilty of a contempt
of this Court by a breach of the said injunction, doth order that a
writ of sequestration do issue direoied to certain commrs to be
therein named to sequester the personal estate, and the rents, issues,
and profits of the real estate of the said Local Board of Health of &c.,
until the further order of this Court." — Deft W., as the clerk of the
442 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
said Local Board, to pay Pit's costs of the application. — Heath v.
WalUngton, V.-C. W., 17 Jan. 1867, A. 210.
In this case the local board were sued by their clerk, as public officer, and
were not named as the Defts in the record.
For similar order, see Spokes v. Banbury Board of Health, V.-C. W.,
25 Nov. 1865, B. 2452 ; 1 Eq. 42. In this case the local board were made
Defts, and the bill had before the hearing been dismissed against the clerk.
See also Ooldsmid v. Tunhridge Wells Commrs, M. R., 1 Aug. 1867,
A. 2538.
6. Sequestration against Railway Company for breach of
Undertaking.
Whereas by an order &c., the Defts, the M. &c. Co. by their
counsel, undertook &c. {recite the order) ; Now, upon motion this day
made &c., who alleged that it appears by the affidavit of &c., that the
Defts have not complied with their said undertaking, by permitting
the Pits to use their said railway and conveniences connected there-
with from C. to S., and upon hearing counsel for the Defts, and reading
the said affidavits and the affidavit of &c. ; And this Court being of
opinion that the Defts, the M. &c. Co., have committed (been guilty
of) a contempt of this Court in not complying with their said under-
taking to &c. in the said order dated &c. mentioned, doth order that
a writ of sequestration do issue [Form 1, sup.] — G. N. Ry. v.
Manchester Ry., V.-C. K. B., 19 July, 1850; Aug. 1850, Order
varied, A. 1153, 1778, 1785.
See also A.-G. v. G. N. By., V.-C. K. B., 12 Nov. 1850, 4 D. & S. 89.
NOTES.
PEOCBSS OF SEQUESTBATION.
By 0. XLin, 6, upon refusal or neglect, after due service of a judgment or
order directing payment of money into Court or any. other act in a limited
time, to obey the same, the person prosecuting the judgment shall, at the
expiration of the time limited for the performance thereof, be entitled,
without obtaining any order for that purpose, to obtain a writ of sequestra-
tion against the estate and effects of such disobedient person : see Sprunt
v. Pugh, 7 Ch. D. 567 ; Sykes v. Dyson, 9 Eq. 228.
The rule applies to things which are to be done within a limited time, and
not to things which are prohibited from being done at all, as in the case of
an injunction against sewer nuisance by a Corp. ; Selous v. Croydon Local
Board, 53 L. T. 209.
Under Gen. Ord. 7 Jan. 1870, r. 6, in case the disobedient person, after he
has been taken or detained in custody, persists in his disobedience, the
person prosecuting shall, upon the sheriff's return of capture, be entitled to
a writ of sequestration against the estate and effects of the disobedient
person ; and upon a return of non est inventus the person prosecuting shall
be entitled at his option either to a commission of sequestration in the first
instance or otherwise to an order for the Serjeant-at-Aims, and to such other
process as he was formerly entitled to upon a return of non est inventus to a
commission of rebellion ; and see O. XLin, 6.
By the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 8, sequestration against the property of a
debtor may, after the commencement of that Act, be issued by a Court of
Equity in the same manner as if such debtor had been actually arrested.
SECT. VI. j Sequestration. 443
By O. XLm, 7, no sequestration for the payment of costs is to be issued For costs,
unless by leave of the Court or a Judge.
Where an order has been made for payment of costs without limiting any
time for payment, the provisions of O. xii, 5, and O. XLin, 6, do not apply,
and an immediate sequestration to enforce payment can be issued by leave of
a Judge, without any previous four-day order : Re iMmley, Exp. Calhcart,
[1894] 2 Ch. 271, C. A. ; Re Deakin, Exp. Cathcart, [1900] 2 Q. B. 478, C. A. ;
but an order directing a sequestration on a future uncertain event, e.g., on
default of payment within a specified time, is irregular : Re Lumley, sup.
A sequestration for costs was granted when it was shown that the debtor
had no property other than a military pension, so that afi.fa. was useless :
Snow v. Bolton, 17 Ch. D. 433. In order to obtain such sequestration it is
not necessary that any particular available property should be indicated :
Hulbert v. Cathcart, [1896] A. C. 470, H. L.
It is questionable whether a writ of sequestration can be properly issued For judgment
to enforce a simple judgment for payment of debt : see Ex parte Nelson, Re debt.
Hoare, 14 Ch. D. 41, C. A. ; though sequestrations have been issued in cases
where no time for payment was limited ; or where the order was to pay by
instalments : Wilcoch v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 323 ; and see Dan. 731.
The present practice appears to be to issue the writ,without order, only on When writ
judgments or orders for payment into Court, or performance of any other issued with-
act in a limited time (O. xm, 4 ; 0. XLin, 6) ; recovery of any property °"* order,
other than land or money (O. XLn, 6) ; and payment of money or costs
within a limited time (Chan. Gen. Ord., 7 Jan. 1870, r. 3) ; and, by order,
on judgments or orders for costs (O. XLin, 7), and against a corp.
(0. XLn, 31).
If the writ of attachment has been already issued, an order for the issue
of a writ of sequestration must be obtained : Porm 1, sup.
In the case of a judgment requiring the party to abstain from doiilg any When writ
act, the mode of enforcing a judgment to that effect being as prescribed by applicable.
O. XLn, 7, by writ of attachment or by committal, sequestration does not
seem applicable {Selousv. Croydon Local Board, 53 L. T. 209) ; but in other
cases it may be available either instead of, or upon any return to, a writ of
attachment, and, as distinguished from attachment, it is also the proper
remedy when the persons disobeying the order, from being members of a
Corp. aggregate {v. sup. p. 412 ; Spokes v. Banbury Board, 1 Eq. 42 ;
Suttrni V. Barnet Board, 1877, W. N. 167 ; A. 6. v. Waltkamstow Board,
1878, W. N. 90; 11 Times L. R. 220; Stancomb v. Trowbridge Urban
District Council, 1910, W. N. 105), or from privilege of Parliament (see
Sect. VII., inf. p. 459), are not liable to process of attachment.
O. Ln, 4, as to service of copies of affidavits {v. sup. p. 434), is not appli- Affidavits,
cable to sequestration : Selous v. Croydon Local Board, 53 L. T. 209.
For form of order for sequestration against a Corp., v. inf. p. 442.
For form of writ of sequestration, see R. S. C, App. H., Form 13.
NATUBB OF SEQUBSTKATION.
The commission of sequestration, which is a process of contempt in rem,
and not in personam (see Tatham v. Parker, 1 Sm. & G. pp. 513, 514), should
be directed to not less than four commrs, nominated by the person prosecut-
ing the judgment or order, and empowers the commrs to enter upon all the
messuages, lands, tenements, and real estate of the person disobejang the
order and in contempt, and to collect, receive, and sequester not only all the
rents and profits of such real estate, but also all his goods, chattels, and
personal estate, and keep the same under sequestration until the person dis-
obeying the order of the Court shall have cleared his contempt. For form of
writ, see R. S. C, App. H., Form 13 ; D. C. F. p. 446.
Sequestration to compel payment into Court is not determined by the
death of the person against whose property it has been issued, and pro-
ceedings may be continued against his legal represves : Pratt v. Inman, 43
Ch. D. 175 ; following Hyde v. Greenhill, 1 Dick. 106.
444 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvil.
For the practice before the Jud. Acts as to sequestration continuing
against the heir or personal represve, see Burdelt v. Bockley, 1 Vern. 58, 118 ;
Wharam v. BrougUon, 1 Voz. 180 ; Coulslon v. Gardiner, 2 Ch. Ca. 43 ;
3 Swa. 283, n.
Sequestration will issue for non-compliance by a non compos with an order
for payment of money made against him when sane, provided the order has
been served as directed by 0. Lxvn, 5, and 0. IX, 5 : Robinson v. Galkmd,
1898, W. N. 108.
The issue of a writ of sequestration and the receipt of the debtor's money
by the sequestrator does not constitute the creditor a secured creditor within
the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 : Be Pollard, [1903] 2 K. B. 41,
Sequestration upon mesneprocess, e.g., to compel appearance or an answer,
has been superseded : O. xxxi, 21, 22. For remedies on such default since
the Jud. Acts, see O. xxvn ; 0. xxxi, 21, 22 ; and see sup. Chap. VII.,
" Discovery," and Chap. XII., " Trial and Judgment." Although the
writ might be executed in a, proper case (see Goldsmith v. G., 5 Ha. 123,
and cases there cited), it was usually only resorted to as a step to a decree
pro confesso under the old practice.
Where a respondent in a restitution suit was evading service of decree, and
an order as to custody of children, though she was not abroad, sequestration
issued without previous writ of attachment or service of the decree or order :
Allen V. A., 10 P. D. 197 ; and see Hyde v. H., 13 P. D. 166. C. A. ; Kistler
V. Tettman, [1905] 1 K. B. 39, C. A.
PROPERTY LIABLE TO SEQUESTRATION.
Personalty : — ■
All goods and chattels in the possession of the contemnor, or which can
be reached by the sequestrators without suit or action are liable to seques-
tration ; and if the keys are denied them, the sequestrators may open boxes
and rooms that are locked, to schedule the goods in them, though they may
remove nothing from the house without special order of the Court: L.Pelham
V. Ds. Newcastle, 3 Swa. 290, n. ; and see Form 1, sup.
It has been doubted whether the books and papers of a corp. could
be seized under a sequestration on mesne process : see Lowten v. Colchester
Corp., 2 Mer. 395 ; but by 11 G. IV. & 1 W. IV. c. 36 (Contempt of Court
Act, 1830), s. 15, r. 16, sequestrators have the same power to seize books,
papers, writings, or other things in the custody or power of a contemnor
who has been committed for not delivering them or depositing them in
Court, as they would have over the contemner's own property.
For an order under this rule, see Dodd v. Turnbull, V.-C. H. at Chambers,
15 May, 1879, A. 1092.
Separate estate of a married woman is liable to sequestration : Miller v.
M., L. R. 2 P. & M. 54 ; and also dividends on a fund in Court or other
arrears of income of property to which she is entitled for her separate use
without power of anticipation : Claydon v. Finch, 15 Eq. 266 ; Hyde v. H.,
13 P. D. 166 ; but not future income where she is so restrained : Hyde v.
H., sup.
A trust fund belonging to the contemnor being in Court in an admon
action in the Ch. Div. was ordered to be transferred to sequestrators in
an action in the Divorce Div. : Be Slade, S. v. Hulme, 18 Ch. D. 653 (and
see Form, ib. at p. 654).
Choses in Action : —
If a third person has money or any chose in action in his hands belonging
to the party against whom sequestration has issued, it may, provided the
holder, who should have notice of the application, admits possession and
submits to the order of the Court, be directed to be seized by the seques-
trators and paid into Court : see Wilson Y.Metcalfe, 1 Beav. 263 ; Crispin v.
Cumano, L. R. 1 P. & M. 622 ; Bees v. Williams, sup. p. 441 ; Miller v.
Huddlestone, 22 Ch. D. 233 (where bankers, upon motion in the action, were
SECT. VI. J Sequestration. 445
required to veiify the amount of, or admit, the balance due from them and
pay same into Court) ; and such third person's costs of appearing have been
allowed : see White v. Wood, 7 Jur. 1123.
But if the stakeholder, or person indebted, does not consent to the order,
or disputes the title of the contemner and the amount, the Court cannot, it
seems, order payment to the sequestrators : Simmons v. L. Kinnaird, 4 Ves.
735 ; Crispin v. Cumano, L. R. 1 P. & M. 662 ; Johnson v. Chippendall, 2
Sim. 55, 65 ; Craig v. C. and Hamp, [1896] P. 171 ; and see FrancUyn v.
Colhoun, 3 Swa. pp. 309, 310.
Pensions : —
Pensions granted by the Crown entirely for past services may be seized
under a writ of sequestration : Wilkock v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 323, 0. A. sup. at
p. 441 ; Dent v. D., L. R. 1 P. & M. 366; McCarthy v. Gould, I Ba. & B. 387 ;
Sansom v. 8., 27 W. R. 692 ; Ea.p. Huggins, 21 Oh. D. 85, C. A.
But where the services are still being rendered, as in the case of an
equerry : Fenton v. Lowther, 1 Cox, 315 ; or of a naval oflScer on active
service : Apthorpe v. A., 12 P. D. 122 ; 57 L. T. 518 ; 35 W. R. 728 ; or may
be again required, as in the case of an officer on half-pay : M'Carthy v.
Goold, sup. ; Stone v. Lidderdale, 2 Anst. 533 ; Collyer v. Fallon, 1 T. & R.
459 ; Spooner v. Payne, 1 D. M. & G. 388 ; Crowe v. Price, 22 Q. B. D. 429 ;
the salary or half-pay cannot be sequestered ; and see Lloyd v. Cheetham,
3 Gif. 171 ; nor can the pension of an officer in the army, which is rendered
inalienable by the Army Act, 1881 (44 & 45 V. c. 58) : Lucas v. Harris, 18
Q. B. D. 127, C. A. ; Birch v. B., 8 P. D. 163 ; secus, money received from
commutation of such pension : Crowe v. Price, 22 Q. B. D. 429 ; and
compare Jones & Co. v. Coventry, [19091 2 Oh. 1029 ; and as to a pension
which is made inalienable by Indian legislation, under the Indian Pensions
Act, 1871, see In re Saunders ; Exp. Saunders, [1895] 2 Q. B. 117 ; [1895]
2 Q. B. 424, C. A.
The retiring annuity or pension of a covenanted member of the Indian
Civil Service is not subject to the restrictions imposed by ss. 11 and 12 of
the Indian Pensions Act, 1871, and is liable to sequestration in the High
Court in England : Knill v. Dumergne, [1911] 2 Ch. 199.
Where the pension is charged on and payable out of the Consolidated
Fund (15 & 16 V. c. 54, s. 5), the Court has no jurisdiction to order the Lords
of the Treas\iry or the Paymaster-General to pay the pension to the seques-
trators : but the pensioner may be restrained from receiving, and the seques-
trators authorized to receive it, the writ of sequestration being served on the
Lords of the Treasury ; but it is understood that the Treasury decline to be
bound by such an order, and will exercise their discretion as to the extent to
which they will recognize and act upon it : Willcock v. Terrell, sup. at p. 441.
Beal Estate and Chattels Beal : —
Rents and profits of real estate paid in kind, or the natural produce of a
farm are liable under a sequestration and may be applied ; but the land
itself, whether freehold, copyhold, or leasehold, or property which passes by
title and not by delivery, cannot be sold, as the writ, though it confers a
right to take possession, does not transfer the land or the term to the seques-
trators : Shaw v. Wright, 4 Ves. 22 ; and see Sutton v. Stone, 1 Dick. 187 ; et
inf. (n.) p. 446.
Bona Ecclesiastica : —
Where the contemner is a beneficed clerk, and has no lay property, a writ
of sequestrari facias de bonis ecclesiasticis and other writs in aid may, on the
commrs' return to the ordinary writ of sequestration of nulla bona, and that
the contemnor is a beneficed clerk, be issued to the bishop of the diocese, and
the benefice sequestered thereunder : Norton v. Pritchard, 2 Sm. & G. 455, n. ;
Babbitts v. Woodward, 20 L. T. 693 ; Braith. 239, 242 ; Dan. 730 ; D. C. F.
447, 448 ; et v. sup. p. 418.
^^^ Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
As to the right of an incumbent pending sequestration to appoint a parish
clerk, and as to the effect of the Sequestration Act, 1871 (34 & 35 V. c. 45),
see Lawrence v. Edwards, [1891] 1 Ch. 144.
As to avoidance of benefice on sequestration, see Benefices Act, 1898 (61
& 62 V. c. 48), s. 10, and as to execution against clersymen generallv. see
Edw. Exton, 199—209. sj' 6 J. "
(II-) — PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEQUESTRATION.
1. Order for Sequestrators to sell and fay in Proceeds— Taxation
and Payment of Costs—Power to remove Effects saleable and
unsaleable.
" Upon the application of D. &c. [names], the sequestratois acting
under the sequestration issued in this action on the — day of
against the Deft H., and of the Pits ; and upon hearing the solrs for
the applicants, and for the Deft H. ; and upon reading the order
dated &c., an affidavit of &c., filed &e., It is ordered that the said
sequestrators or any three or two of them, be at liberty to sell, or
cause to be sold, either bj- public auction or private contract,
the household furniture, goods, chattels, and personal estate of the
Deft, no-w at his residence situate &c., and also all the share and
interest of the Deft as partner with one J. of and in all the book debts,
materials, tools, implements, goods, chattels, personal estate, good-
will, and stock in trade used in the partnership business of &c. carried
on by the Deft and J. at &c. aforesaid, under the style or firm of J.
and H., all of which household furniture, goods, chattels, personal
estate, and property are now under control of the said sequestrators ;
And it is ordered that for the purpose aforesaid, the said seques-
trators, or any three or two of them, be at liberty to remove the same
household furniture, goods, chattels, personal estate, and property
from the said residence and place of business of the Deft or elsewhere
soever the same may have been deposited by or on his behalf to any
convenient place in the discretion of the said sequestrators." —
Sequestrators to pay proceeds into Court, and the costs of ex;ecuting
the writ to be taxed and paid thereout to their solrs, and the balance
to be invested. — " And it is ordered that the said sequestrators, or
any three or two of them, be at liberty to remove all unsaleable effects
and property of the Deft from his said residence and place of business
or elsewhere soever the same may have been deposited by or on
behalf of the Deft, to a convenient place under the control of the said
sequestrators."— /S<ree< v. Hope, V.-C. M., 21 June, 1875, B. 1584.
For order ex parte for sale, under a sequestration after a return of non est
inventus to an attachment, of personal chattels belonging to the contemnor
in the custody of third parties, and for removal of books and documents in
his custody as solr to a place under the control of the sequestrators, see Se
Rush. M. R., 10 Feb. 1870, B. 337 ; 19 W. R. 417 ; 22 L. T. 116.
SECT.
VI.] Sequestration. 447
2. The like — and to account and arrange Claims for Dilapidations,
and Tenant Right — Application of Proceeds.
Order that [names] the sequestrators acting under the com-
missions of sequestration issued in this cause and dated &c.,
do sell at such convenient time or times as they may determine
upon (but so that such sale be carried out on or before the —
day of — ), all the goods, furniture, plate, chattels, stock, imple-
ments, and personal estate of the Deft sequestered by them and
now remaining in their possession ; And it is ordered that the
said sequestrators do also settle and arrange with the incoming
tenant as to the amount to be paid by him in respect of the tenant
rights upon the Deft's farm, and receive such amount, and give a
discharge for the same, and also settle with the landlord, or his
incoming tenant, all (if any) claims for dilapidations in and about the
farmhouse, buildings, and lands occupied by the Deft ; And it is
ordered that the following account be taken, namely, 1. an account of
the moneys received and paid by the said sequestrators under and
by virtue of the said commissions, including the moneys to be received
or paid in pursuance of the directions hereinbefore contained ; And
it is ordered that [names] as such sequestrators, do, within — days
after the filing of the Master's certificate, lodge in Court as directed in
the schedule hereto, the balance which shall be certified to be due
from them on taking the said account ; And it is ordered that it be
referred to the taxing master to tax (as between solr and client) the
costs of the Pit and Deft, and the costs, charges, and expenses of the
said sequestrators properly incurred of and relating to the execution
of the said commissions of sequestration, including a proper allowance
to them for their time and trouble." — [Add schedule containing
directions for payment of such costs dec, out of the proceeds when paid
in, and for payment of part of the sum of £ — mentioned in the said
sequestration, to the Pit, and the residue of such money to D. as the
trustee in bankruptcy of the Deft.] — See Re Burkill, Godfrey v. B.,
V.-C. M., at Chambers, 3 March, 1873, A. 721.
3. Order for Tenants to attorn to Sequestrators.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for the Pits, who alleged that a
writ of sequestration issued on &c. against the Deft directed to A.
&c., authorizing them, or any two of them, to enter upon all the real
estate of the Deft, and to collect, receive, and sequester into their
hands all the rents and profits thereof ; and that, pursuant to the said
writ of sequestration, A. and B., two of the sequestrators therein
named, entered upon all the lands comprised in the said real estate,
and situate &c., and in the holding of &c., who refuse to attorn tenants
to the said sequestrators as by the return of the said sequestrators
448 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
now produced and read appears ; And upon reading an aflB^davit
of &c. of service of notice of tHs motion on the said {tenants) [or,
and upon hearing counsel for the said {tenants)]. This Court doth
order, that the said {tenants) do, within — days after service of this
order, attorn to and become the tenants of the said A. and B., the said
sequestrators, and pay their rents in arrear and growing rents to
the said sequestrators until further order.
Under 0. xli, 5, the order to attorn tenant should limit a time, and may
then be enforced by attachment and sequestration, or, on the return of the
attachment non est inventus, at the option of the party prosecuting, by
sequestration, under O. XLin, 6 ; or by an order for the Serjeant-at-Arms,
and subsequent process : Gen. Ord. 7 Jan. 1870, 6.
For orders for tenants to attorn to receiver, see inf. Chap. XXXIl.,
" Eeoeivees."
For forms of proceedings under sequestration, see D. C. F. 448 — 453.
NOTES.
POWERS AND DUTIES OF SEQUESTRATORS.
Possession of Sequestrators are authorized by the writ to enter into possession of lands,
lands. &c. in the possession of the contemner, and to receive the rents and profits
of such of his estates as are in the occupation of tenants, who should be
served with notice in writing to attorn and pay their arrears and growing
rents to them ; and upon refusal to attorn, &c., the sequestrators may upon
motion or summons obtain an order for them to attorn, &c. : see Form 3,
sup. ; Rowley v. Bidley, 3 Swa. 306 ; 8. C, 4 Ves. 738—740.
Rendering Sequestrators will be ordered to account for whatever comes to their hands
accounts. by virtue of their office, and are bound from time to time to make returns to
the Court : Howell v. Lord Goningsby, I Fowl. Ex. Pr. 161 ; Dan. 738 ;
Form 2, sup.
The sequestrator of a benefice was disallowed expenditure for repairs in
excess of the sum estimated by the surveyor's report, under the Ecclesias-
tical Dilapidations Act, 1871 (34 & 35 V. c. 43) : Kiniber v. Paravieini, 15
Q. B. D. 222.
Application Under a sequestration for non-performance of an order for payment of
of proceeds, money, the proceeds of the goods seized will be applied in satisfaction of the
Pit's demand : Davis v. D., 2 Atk. 24.
The sequestrators ought not so to apply the proceeds on their own
authority, but should pay them into Court upon leave obtained on motion,
or now, unless in special cases, by summons in Chambers ; and see Dan. 734.
Sequestrators under an interlocutory order for the non-performance of a
duty have the same power as under a final judgment : Cadell v. Smith, 3 Swa.
308, n. ; Dunkley v. Scribnor, 2 Mad. 443.
Abuse of Sequestrators abusing their powers may be committed : Lord PelTiam v.
power. Lord Harley, 3 Swa. 291, n. ; and see Sykes v. Dyson, 1870, W. N. 81.
Obstruotine Obstructing sequestrators is a contempt of Court : Angel v. Smith,
sequestrators ^ Ves. 336 ; Lord Pelham v. Duhe of Newcastle, 3 Swa. 289, n. ; and see
■ Franklin v. Calhoun, 3 Swa. 276 ; Dan. 739.
Priority. The title of sequestrators will prevail over that of mortgagees with full
notice of the proceedings : Ward v. Booth, 14 Eq. 195.
As to the priority of a sequestration issued by a trustee in bankruptcy, see
Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 52 (corresponding with sect. 88 of the Act of 1869) ;
and Exp. Chicks, Be Meredith, 11 Ch. D. 731, C. A.
Sale. When necessary, a sale may, on the apphcation of the sequestrators, be
ordered :
SECT. VI.] Sequestration. 449
— of rents in kind, or the natural produce of a farm : Shaw v. Wright,
3 Ves. 22.
— of houseliold goods and furniture : Mitchell v. Draper, 9 Ves. 208.
— of a Deft's reversionary interest in a fund in Court : Cowper v. Taylor,
16 Sim. 314.
But sequestrators cannot sell the estates themselves, as distinguished from
the profits, whether freehold, copyhold, or leasehold, as neither the estate
nor the term is vested in them by virtue of the writ : see Shaw v. Wright,
3 Ves. 22 ; sup. p. 445.
The application for a sale should be made by summons in Chambers (see
Turner v. Clifford, 1870, W. N. 199) ; or on motion (see Wharam v.
Broughton, 1 Ves. 184), upon notice {Mitchell v. Draper, 9 Ves. 208) ; but
where service of the notice could not be effected, an order for sale was
granted upon an ex parte motion : Re Bush, 19 W. R. 417 ; 10 Eq. 442.
The execution by the sequestrators of the writ by taking possession of
such parts of the lands of a Deft, who had failed to comply with an order
duly registered for payment of money into Court, as were in his possession,
and by procuring an attornment from the tenants of the other parts, does
not constitute the Pit, by whom the writ has been issued, a creditor to whom
the lands of the debtor have been actually delivered in execution, so as to
entitle him to a sale of the land under 27 & 28 V. c. 112 (Judgments Act,
1864) : Johnson v. Burgess, 15 Eq. 398 ; not following Be Bush, 10 Eq. 442 ;
aud as totheeffect of the Judgment Acts, 1838 — 1864, v. inf. Chap. XLVII.,
" MoETGAGBS." And the mere issuing of a sequestration against a Deft,
and service of it on his debtor or trustee, did not make the Pit a secured
creditor within the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 : Exp. Nelson, Be Hoare, 14 Ch. D.
41, C. A.
On a sequestration under a judgment, leave will be given to the seques- Leave to let.
trators to let : Harvey v. H., 4 Rep. in Ch. 49 ; and sequestrators in posses-
sion and in receipt of the rents and profits were allowed to let and set the
estate, as there should be occasion : Bees v. Williams, V.-C. K. B., 27 April,
1848, B. 842 ; S. G., sup. p. 447 ; Neale v. Sealing, L. C. March, 1744, B.
214 ; 3 Swa. 304, n. ; and see Dunhley v. Scribnor, 2 Mad. 443.
(hi.) examination pro inteeesse suo.
1. Inquiry as to Claimant's Interest.
Order that the following &c. : 1. An inquiry whether the said S.
(claimant) hath any and what interest in the lands and hereditaments
specified in the schedules to the return to the commission of sequestra-
tion issued in this action, and other the real estates comprised in the
indentures dated &c. [describe the property] sequestered by &c., the
sequestrators acting under the said commission of sequestration, or
any and what part thereof ; And it is ordered that this motion do
stand over until after the Master shall have made his certificate of
the result of the said inquiry (but this order is to be without prejudice
to any question aS to the rents of the said lands &c.). — Liberty to
apply .—See Alton v. Harrison, V.-C. S., 22 June, 1869, A. 1740.
For like order, see Jacob v. De Morgan, M. R., 1 Feb. 1878, A. 222.
For order under former practice for claimant to come in and be examined,
see Hamlyn v. Ley, L. C, 12 Feb. 1743, A. 194 ; 1 Dick. 94 ; 3 Swa. 301, n. ;
for order of reference to see if title made out, S. C, M. R., 9 June, 1743,
A. 474 ; for final order, with declaration in favour of claimant. Cooper v.
Thornton, L. C, 22 July, 1738, A. 629 ; 1 Dick. 73.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 452,
VOL. I. 2 a
450 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
2. The like — On Motion that the Sequestrators withdraw, and for
Damages, and Cross Motion that they sell.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for [claimants], that the sequestrators
might be discharged and ordered to withdraw from possession, and
for an inquiry as to damage, and that the Pits might be ordered to
pay the amount of such damage, or for an inquiry as to the claimant's
interest ; and upon hearing counsel for the Pits and the Deft H. ; and
upon motion &c., by counsel for the Pits &c. that the said seques-
trators might sell the several goods, chattels &c., and articles of
personalty in and about the house &c., situate &c., sequestered by
the said sequestrators : and upon reading &c., This Court doth
order that the following &c. : 1 . An inquiry whether the said S. and H.
[claimants] have any and what interest in the several goods, chattels
&c., and articles of personalty in and about the house &c., situate
&c., sequestered by the said sequestrators, or any and what part
thereof ; and also in the lands and hereditaments comprised in the
indenture dated &c. — Rest of motion to stand adjourned until after
the result of the inquiry. — AUon v. Harrison, V.-C. S., 28 Jan. 1869,
A. 262.
3. Sequestrators to withdraw upon Undertaking hy Claimant as to
Damages, to keep an Account, and to allow Sequestrators to take
Inventory — Inquiry.
Upon motion &c., that sequestrators withdraw, and for inquiry as
to damage and claimant's interest ; And the said H. [claimant] by
his counsel at the bar undertaking to permit the sequestrators acting
under the (writ) of sequestration issued in these actions on the
— day of — to take an inventory of the stock in trade, chattels, and
efEects in and about the warehouse &c., situate &c., sequestered by the
said sequestrators, and also not to deal with or dispose of any of the
said stock in trade &c., except in the ordinary course of business, and
to keep an account of all moneys he shall receive and pay in respect
of the said stock in trade &c., and of any disposition thereof ia the
ordinary course of business, and also submitting to be bound by any
order this Court may make as to damages, or with respect to the
proceeds of any of the stock in trade &c., dealt with in the ordinary
course of business, and to restore possession of the said warehouse &c.,
if this Court should so order. This Court doth order that such inven-
tory be taken accordingly ; And it is ordered that the said seques-
trators do withdraw from possession of the said stock in trade &c., and
also from all interference with the said premises, goods, chattels, and
effects, until the inquiry hereinafter directed has been answered, or
until further order ; And it is ordered that the following &c. : 1. An
inquiry whether the applicant is in any and what manner interested
in the said premises, stock in trade, &c., or any and what part or parts
SECT. VI.] Sequestration. ^^1
thereof. — ^Eest of motion to stand over until after the result of the
inquiry. — Alton v. Harrison, V.-C. S., 11 Jan. 1869, A. 112.
The inquiry in this case was directed before the return, on a sufficient case
being shown by the affidavits in support of the appUcation : see Dan. 740.
4. Declaration that Claimants have an interest against which Seques-
trators cannot hold — Direction to withdraw — Costs.
Upon the application of &c. [claiming as mortgagees] to vary the
Master's certificate adjourned into Court, and upon the adjourned
motion &c. ; Order that the said certificate, so far as it is thereby
certified that the applicants have not any interest in the several goods,
chattels &c., and articles of personalty in and about the house &c.,
situate &c., sequestered by the said sequestrators, nor in the lands and
hereditaments comprised in the indenture dated &c., be varied, And
Declare that the said [claimants] have under and by virtue of the said
indenture an interest in the said several goods &c., and articles of
personalty, lands, and hereditaments, against which the said seques-
trators cannot hold ; And it is ordered that the said sequestrators do
withdraw from the possession of the said several goods &c., and
articles of personalty, and from the possession and receipt of the
rents and profits of all such parts of such lands and hereditaments of
which they are in possession or in receipt of the rents and profits, and
they are not hereafter to receive any further rents. — Costs of claimant
of this and their former applications, and of the reference, to be added
to the amount due to them under their security, such costs to be taxed
&c.— See Alton v. Harrison, Vi-C. S., 24 June, 1869, A. 174] ; 1869,
W. N. 81.
NOTES.
When any person claims to be interested in or entitled to property,
whether personal or real, which has been sequestered, either he, or the party
issuing the writ, may apply to the Court to direct an inquiry as to his
interest therein. The application is now usually made by summons, but
may be on motion.
For form of application, see D. C. P. 452.
The examination and inquiry as to the title of the adverse claimant is
before the Judge at Chambers.
In Kaye v. Cunningham, 5 Mad. 406, it was held that an order for the
examination of a party ^ro inter esse sua could only be made upon his applica-
tion or by his consent ; but the current of cases is not in favour of this
decision : see Hamhlyn v. Ley, 3 Swa, 301, n. ; Bird v. Littlehales, 3 Swa.
300, n. ; Mitchell v. Draper, 2 Mad. Ch. 305.
The order cannot usually be made until the return of the sequestration :
for until then " it cannot appear to the Court what is sequestered " : L. Pel-
ham V. Ds. Newcastle, 3 Swa. 290, n. ; but see Alton v. Harrison, Term 3,
sup.
The person obtaining the order for an inquiry may be required to make
an affidavit of the documents in his possession : Alton v. Harrison, 1869,
W. N. 81.
It was said that a mortgagee must always come in and be examined :
Anon., 6 Ves. 288 ; but where the right is clear, the Court will give relief,
i52 Execution aiid Contempt, [chap, xxvil.
without compelling the party to be examined : Dixon v. Smith, 1 Swa. 457 ;
and see A.O.-v. Mayor oj Coventry, 1 P. W. 308.
And a person cannot claim, though by an adverse title, in any other way
than by coming to be examined pro inttresse suo : Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves.
336 ; though leave to bring an ejectment has sometimes been given : see
Brooks V. Oreathed, IJac. & W. 177 ; Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves. p. 340 ; A.G.v.
Mayor of Coventry, 1 P. Wms. 308 ; or the Court, by directing an issue, has
put the question of right in course of trial : Empringham v. Short, 3 Ha.
461.
In Hunt V. Priest, 2 Dick, 540, the Court refused to interfere on petition ;
but in Walker v. Bell, 2 Mad. 21, on the petition of mortgagees, directed an
inquiry into their title ; and on the report a further order was made.
The mode of proceeding was the same where the property was in the
possession of a receiver : Anon., 6 Ves. 287 ; Angel v. Smith ; Brooks v.
Oreathed, sup. ; Oswald v. Landes, V.-C, 25 March, 1840, B. 546 ; and in
Hammond, v. Maher, L. C, 4 Aug. 1821, A. 1905, on motion to commit a
person for ousting the receiver, he was ordered to deliver up possession
and pay costs, and to go in and be examined pro interesse suo ; and see inf.
Chap. XXXII., " Receivees."
If it shall appear that the party examined pro interesse suo has a title
paramount to the sequestration, it will be discharged as against him, with or
without costs according to the circumstances of the case : see A.G.y. Mayor
of Coventry, 1 P. Wms. 307, n. (citing Gilb. For. Rom. 80 ; Wharam v.
Broughton, 1 Ves. 180) ; Cooper v. Thornton, 1 Dick. 72 ; and in Copeland v.
Mape, 2 Ba. & B. 67, the goods taken having been ascertained to be the
property of the person examined pro interesse suo, were directed to be speci-
fically restored, with an inquiry as to damages.
Rents received by sequestrators were ordered to be paid to mortgagees
who had been prevented by the sequestrators from taking possession, their
title being ascertained under an examination pro interesse st(0 .• Tatham v.
Parker, 1 S. & G. 506 ; but money in the hands of a receiver in a creditor's
admon action went to the exor for the benefit of the creditors generally :
Be Hoare, H. v. Owen, [1892] 3 Ch. 94 ; and see Preston v. Tunbridge Wells
Opera House, Ld., [1903] 2 Ch. 323.
The inquiry may be applied for by the guardian of an infant, or by a
person in forma pauperis : Dan. 89 ; Pelham v. Ds. Newcastle, 3 Swa. 290, n.;
James v. Dore, 2 Dick. 788.
And see Dan. 739 et seq.
(IV.) DISCHARGE OF SEQUESTEATION.
Order to dissolve Sequestration.
Order that the writ of sequestration issued against the Defts
{applicants) on the — day of — for not obeying the said order dated
&c., do stand dissolved ; And it is ordered that the costs of the Pits,
and the costs, charges, and expenses of the hereinafter -named seques-
trators acting underthe said writ of and incidental to the sequestration,
including therein all usual and proper allowances to the sequestrators
in respect of their office and of this application, be taxed by the taxing
master as between solr and client in case the parties differ and be
respectively paid and retained by the said sequestrators in manner
hereinafter mentioned ; And it is ordered that A., B., C, and D. {seques-
trators) do forthwith withdraw from possession of the messuages, lands
&c., in which the Defts are or either of them is interested, situate at
&c., and their or either of their goods, chattels, and personal estate
SECT. VI.] Sequestration. 453
and all otter the messuages, lands, &c.,the subject of the said seques-
tration, taken possession of by the said sequestrators under the said
sequestration and from the receipt of the rents and profits thereof,
and do give notice to the tenants of the said messuages, lands, &c., of
such withdrawal ; And it is ordered that the said A., B., C, and D. do
pay to the Pits their said costs and be at liberty to retain their own
costs, charges, and expenses when respectively taxed or agreed as
aforesaid out of any moneys in their hands as such sequestrators, and
be allowed the same in their accounts as payments properly made by
them out of such moneys ; And it is ordered that the said A., B., C,
and D. do leave in the Chambers of the Judge their final account
under the said order dated &c., and do pay what shall be certified to
be due from them on passing such account to the Defts within ten
days after the filing of the Master's certificate. And thereupon it is
ordered that the said A., B., C, and D. be released and discharged from
all liability in respect of their said oflS.ce. — See Re Southall, deceased,
Onions v. Tooley, Parker, J., at Chambers, 22 July, 1908, B. 2423.
For form of notice of motion or summons, see D. C. P. 452.
NOTES.
SEQUESTRATION DISCHARGED.
■ Where the contemner has cleared his contempt, an order for the discharge clearing
of the sequestration may be obtained on summons, or by motion, TOth contempt,
directions for the sequestrators to withdraw from possession, and to pass
their final accounts, and after retaining their costs, charges, and expenses,
and any payments properly made by them, to pay the balance to the con-
temnor : Dan. 742.
A sequestration is discharged by the appointment of a receiver in the same Appointment
action : ShaviY. Wright, 3 Ves. 22 ; serrible, the order appointing the receiver of receiver,
should discharge the sequestrators.
Where a sequestration is issued to compel payment into Court, the death Death of
of the contemnor is no ground for restraining the sequestrators from selling contemner,
as previously authorized : Pratt v. Inman, 43 Ch. D. 175.
In Be Shapland, 1874, W. N. 202 ; 23 W. R. 40, upon discharge of the Costs,
sequestration, the debtor objected to the costs being between solr and client,
and the costs of the sequestrators as between party and party only were
allowed, but see Re Southall, deceased, sup. ; and as to the general jurisdiction
of the Court to award solr and client costs, see ante, p. 243 ; but the seques-
trators are entitled to their expenses and proper allowances for executing
the commission.
Where the contemnor desires to discharge the sequestration on the ground Irregularity,
of irregularity of process, he should apply by motion on notice.
An order for sequestration will not be made where there has been any
irregularity in the issue of an attachment under which the contemnor is
already in prison ; Martin v. Kerridge, 3 P. Wms. 241 ; Re Brown, 16 W. R.
962 (where the writ of sequestration was quashed).
But any irregularity in the issue of a sequestration may be waived by the
consent of the contemnor, so as to prevent him from afterwards setting aside
the sequestration : Const v. Barr, 2 Russ. 161 (discharging an order of V.-C,
setting aside a sequestration on the ground of irregularity: S. C, 2 S. & S.
452).
Where a writ of sequestration had been registered under the Land Charges Vacating
Registration and Searches Act 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 51), s. 5, there was no registration.
454 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
power to order such registration to be vacated : Oooh v. C, 15 P. D. 116 ;
but now by the Settled Land Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. o. 69), s. 19, the regis-
tration of a writ or order affecting land may be vacated pursuant to an order
of the High Court or any Judge thereof.
Section VII. — Special Contempts of Courts.
1. Committal of the Deft, and another Person, for obstructing the
Receiver.
Upon motion &c., And it appearing by the said affidavits that A.
and B. have obstructed C, the receiver appointed in this action to
receive the rents and profits of the real estates, and to collect and get
in the outstanding personal estate of &c., the testator &c., pursuant to
the said order dated &c., in receiving such rents and profits, and have
persuaded and induced the tenants of the said estates to abstain from
attorning and paying tbe rents of the said estates to the said C. as .
such receiver, and have distrained for rent upon the effects of H. a
tenant on part of the said estates after the date of the said order ;
And this Court being of opinion that the said A. and B. have, by such
conduct, been guilty of a contempt of this Court, dotb order that the
said A. and B. do stand committed to Brixton Prison for their said
contempt.— See Marsh v. Goodall, M. E., 13 Jan. 1857, B. 288.
2. The like— for Interference with possession of Receiver.
And this Court being of opinion that the said A. and B. have been
guilty of a contempt of this Court by interfering with the possession
and right to possession of the said — , the Receiver appointed by the
said order dated &c., of all the property and assets of the Deft
company by removing from the premises known as &c., the property
of the Deft company, and converting the same to their own use, doth
order that the said A. and B. do stand committed to Brixton Prison,
A. and B. to pay costs of motion and committal. — See The Gold Coast
Trust, &c. Co. V. The Electric Tramway Syndicate, North, J., 2 Feb.
1894 ; C. Carrington, Eeg. Fo. 102.
3. Committal of Deft and Another for Violence and abusive Language
to a Person effecting Service.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the Pits, and upon hearing counsel
for the Deft H. and for C. of &c. ; and upon reading an affidavit of V.,
filed &c., whereby it appears that the said Deft H. and C. have
assaulted and imprisoned and used violence and abusive language to
SECT. VII. J Special Contempts of Court. 455
the said V., a clerk in tlie employment of the Pit's solrs, whilst serving
the Deft with the (Pit's bill) in this cause [insert any further evidence] ;
And this Court being of opinion, upon consideration of the facts dis-
closed by the said affidavit, that 'the Deft and the said C. have been
guilty of contempt of this Court, doth order that the said Deft H.
and the said C. do respectively stand committed to (Brixton) prison
for their said contempt. — Pricey. Hutchinson, V.-C. M., 16 Dec. 1869,
B. 2992 ; 9 Eq. 534.
4. Committal of a Newspaper Editor for publishing an Article
reflecting on Witnesses.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the Defts, that E. of &c., might
stand committed to prison for a contempt of this Court in printing
and publishing on the — day of — , in a certain newspaper called &c.,
an article contained therein commencing with the words &c., and
concluding with the words &c. ; and upon hearing counsel for the
said E. and upon reading &c. ; And this Court having taken the
matter into consideration, and deeming the conduct of the said E.
in printing and publishing the said article in the said newspaper
called &c., a contempt of this Court, doth order that the said E. do
stand committed to (Brixton) prison for his said contempt. — Felkin
V. Herbert, V.-C. K., 19 Dec. 1863, A. 2359.
5. Newspaper Editor fined for publishing an Article reflecting on
Petrs.
{Title Re Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and Re the C — Bank
Ld.) Upon motion &c., by counsel for the C — Bank, Ld., and upon
hearing counsel for W. O'M., of — in the city of — , the publisher of
the newspaper called " The S — ," and upon reading &c.. And this
Court being of opinion that the said W. O'M. has committed a con-
tempt of this Court in publishing in the said S — newspaper of the —
day of — , a certain paragraph headed, " The C — Bank letting light
in," and describing the C — Bank Ld. as " a so-called bank " and " a
fraudulent concern," and stating that the examination of the chair-
man of the bank and Mr. G. upon the pending petition would result in
interesting revelations, doth order that the said W. O'M. do pay to
His Majesty the King a fine of (50) pounds, and do pay to the said C-^
Bank Ld. their costs of this motion as between solr and client, such
costs to be taxed by the taxing master. — See Re The Crmvn Bank Ld.,
North, J., 1 May, 1890, A. 606.
The fine should be paid to the registrar of the day, who will then get a
receiving order from the officer in the Paymaster-General's Department,
acting on behalf of the Treasury for the Bank of England to receive the
money, which together with the receiving order is lodged at the Bank of
England (Law Courts Branch).
45 G Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvil.
6. Contemnors apologizing, and Pit not insisting on Committal,
Contempt condoned, on payment of Costs.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the Pit, that &c. [Recite the notice] ;
and upon hearing counsel for the said B. and A., and upon reading
&c. ; And this Court being of opinion that the said B. and A. have
committed a contempt of this Court by &c., and the said B. and A.
by their counsel apologizing and expressing their regret for such con-
tempt, and the Pit by his counsel not insisting on their actual com-
mittal, This Court doth not think fit to make any order on the said
motion, but doth order that the said B. and A. do respectively pay to
the Pit his costs of the said motion, to be taxed &c. — See Jackson v.
Brighton Aquarium Co., V.-C. M., 8 Feb. 1872, A. 287.
7. Immediate Committal — Direction for.
The Hon. Mr. Justice A. has this day committed A. B. to Brixton
Prison for his contempt in not obeying the order dated &c.
, Registrar.
Where the person committed is actually in Court the above memo-
randum should be signed by the registrar and handed to the tipstaff, who
leaves it on lodging the prisoner with the keeper of the prison, and the
order is subsequently drawn up and a copy sent to the keeper.
8. Appointment of Usher to tahe Person into Custody in Absence ef
Tipstaff.
I [name and title of Judge] do appoint [name] one of the ushers of
my Court to execute the orders made by me in the action of &c., on
this day directing that [name] do stand committed to Brixton Prison.
Dated &c.,
(Signed) &c., , J.
In oases of contempt by breach of an injunction, an order for actual com-
mittal is not generally pressed for or directed, the more usual order being
for Deft to pay the costs of the application, though not committed. And
such order, beingan adjudication against him upon the question of contempt,
is not an order as to costs only, so as to prevent an appeal by the Deft : see
Witt V. Corcoran, 2 Ch. D. 69. But an appeal by the applicant will only lie
where there has been some miscarriage : Jarmain v. Chatterton, 20 Ch. D.
493, C. A. ; not where the matter is trifling and fairly within the discretion
of the Court below : Ashworth v. Ouiram (2), 5 Ch. D. 943 ; v. inf. Chap.
XXXVI., " Appeals."
For an order to commit a member of Parliament for writing a threatening
letter to the Master to influence his judgment, see L&chmere Charlton's case,
L. C, 26 Nov. 1836, B. 34 ; S. C, 2 Sand. Ord. 828 ; 2 My. & C. 316 ; and
for order to commit a person for writing a letter to the L. C, enclosing
money ; and for his subsequent discharge on submission, asking pardon, and
payment of costs, the money being applied for the relief of poor prisoners in
the Fleet Prison, see Be Martin, 2 Russ. & M. 674, n.
For order nisi to strike solr off the roll for writing an insulting letter to
the Master, see Ee Keane, Chap. XL., " Solicitors."
SECT. VII.] Special Contempts of Court. ^^"^
For order to commit Pit for writing a threatening letter to Deft to deter
him from defending the suit, see Smith v. Lakeman, V.-C. S., 2 Jur. N. S.
1202 ; and for his discharge on paying full costs, and an apology : 8. C,
V,-C. S., 20 Nov. 1856, Reg. Min. M. T. 110.
For order to commit a member of Parliament for removing his children
from the custody of the person appointed to act as their guardian, see
Wellesley v. D. Beaufort, L. C, 16 July, 1831, B. 1852 ; S. 0., 2 Russ. & M.
639 ; and for his discharge, S. C, 20 Aug. 1831, B. 2332.
For order to commit a person under whose care an infant had been placed,
for opposing the delivery by the officer in Court of the infant to its guardian,
see Re Kimmings, V.-C. S., 11 July, 1853, A. 1118 ; and for his subsequent
discharge, S. C, V.-C. S., 2 Nov. 1853, A. 1.
For orders to commit the husband for marrying a ward of Court, with
inquiry as to abettors, and for discharge, v. inf. Chap. XXXVIII., " In-
fants."
For orders to commit for breach of an injunction, and for sequestration,
against a co. or public body, see sup. pp. 429, 430, 441, 442.
For an order for the committal of a person (native of the U. S. of America)
for throwing a missile at the Judge in open Court, see Be Cosgrave, V.-C. M.,
16 March, 1877, A. 450 ; and for the subsequent order for his discharge On
his being placed on board a ship bound for New York, S. C, 22 Aug. 1877,
A. 1717.
In a similar case of an assault by firing a pistol at the M. R. at the entrance
to the Rolls House, the offender was given into the charge of the police,
committed, tried, and convicted for a criminal offence, and was afterwards
detained at Her Majesty's pleasure as a lunatic : Be Dodwell, Feb.
1878.
For order that the publisher of a newspaper containing improper com-
ments on pending proceedings should pay a fine of £50, and costs of applica-
tion as between soir and cUent, see Be Crown Bank ; sup. Form 5, p. 455 ;
Be O'Malley, 44 Ch. D. 649, 653.
For forms of proceedings in reference to committal, see T>. C. F. 439 el seq.
NOTES.
SPECIAL CONTEMPTS.
In cases of special contempt it has been held that the order for committal Adjudication
should contain an adjudication of the contempt, and a declaration of the °^ contempt,
guilt of the party, see Exp. Van Sandau, 1 Ph. 445, 605 ; but such adjudica-
tion is not essential : S. C, et v. supra, p. 429.
For contempt of subpoena, and assault on the party serving it, if estab- Contempt of
lished by two witnesses, the order to commit was absolute : if by one subpoena,
witness only, nisi : Elliot v. Halmarack, 1 Mer. 302 ; Van v. Price, 1 Dick.
91 ; and the course is the same where the contempt is for violence or abusive
or scandalous words against the Court or the process thereof : see Re John-
son, 36 W. R. 51.
The power of the Court to commit to prison for contempt of Court is not Effect of
affected by the Debtors Act, 1869 : Harvey v. Hall, 11 Eq. 31 ; except in Debtors Act.
cases where the contempt consists in default of payment of money : Esdaile
V. Visser, 13 Ch. D. 421, C. A. ; Micklethwaite v. Fletcher, 27 W. R. 793 ;
Tilney v. StamfieU, 28 W. R. 582.
As to when proceedings should be by way of committal, and when by way Committal or
of attachment, see Memorandum of Mr. Lavie, Registrar, note to Be Evans, attachment.
E. V. Noton, [1893] 1 Ch. 259 et seq. ; D. v. A. <Sk Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484 ;
Oswald on Contempt, pp. 263 — 269.
To publish, with or without comments, the statement of claim, pleadings. Comments
or evidence in any pending action or matter, or any ex parte or defamatory °° pending
statement tending to prejudice the minds of the public against persons con- Proceedmgs.
cerned as parties, or to prevent a fair trial, before the action, &c. is finally
458
Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
Scandalous
matter
respecting
the Court.
heard, is a contempt of Court which will be restrained by injunction (see
inf. Chap. XXXI., " Injunctions," s. xi.), and may be punished by im-
prisonment or fine : Tichborne v. Mostyn, 7 Eq. 55, n. ; Daw v. Eley, lb. 49 ;
Re Gheltenham and Swansea Wagon Go., 8 Eq. 580 ; Bowden v. Rtissdl, 1877,
W. N. 55 ; Gen. Exch. Bk. v. Hcyrner, 1868, W. N. 259 ; Roach v. Garvan, 2
Dick. 794 ; 8. G., 2 Atk. 469 ; Re Grown Bank, Ld., 44 Ch. D. 649 ; and
such a contempt is of a " criminal " nature within sect. 47 of the Jud. Act,
1873, so that there is no appeal : O'Shea v. O'Shea, 15 P. D. 59, C. A.
Secus, pending a winding-up petition, the issue, and distribution amongst
the shareholders, of a circular stating the charges against the directors on
which the petition was based : Re London Flour Co., id W. R. 474 ; and
pending an action for infringing a trade mark, the Pits are at liberty to
warn the trade by circular, but to introduce discussion of the merits of the
action is a contempt : Goates r. Ghadwick, [1894J 1 Ch. 347 ; and innocently
lending a newspaper containing scandalous matter is not such a publication
as to amount to a contempt : McLeod r. St. Aubyn, [1899] A. C. 549, P. C.
So, also, it is a contempt to address public meetings, and allege that a
Deft, against whom a true bill has been found, is innocent and the victim of
a conspiracy : Onslow and Whalley's Case, L. R. 9 Q. B. 219 ; or to advertise
the intended delivery of a sermon " with special reference to the trial in
which the town is so deeply interested " : Mackett v. Heme Bay Commrs, 24
W. R. 845 ; or prematurely to publish reports of an examination under the
Companies Act, 1862, s. 115, now substituted by the Companies (Con-
solidation) Act, 1908, s. 174: American Exchange v. Oillig, 58 L. J. Ch. 706.
The Court refused to commit a Deft who published an accurate account
of what passed in Court, and who had undertaken not to publish trade
"cautions" : Buenos Ayres Gas Go. v. lfiMe,'29 W. R. 43; or where
reports of proceedings in camera in reference to a ward constituted a con-
tempt which was not serious and was unintentional : Re Martindale, [1894]
3 Ch. 193 ; or where articles in a newspaper which referred to a pending
prosecution were not intended or calculated to prejudice the fair trial of the
charges : Reg. v. Payne and Gooper, [18961 1 Q- B. 577 ; and motions to
commit the publishers of newspapers who have inadvertently been guilty
of a mere technical contempt, may be treated as vexatious and an abuse of
the process of the Court : S. G.
A contempt of a Court may be committed before the person triable has
been committed for trial before that Court : Rex v. Parke, [1903] 2 K. B.
432.
After verdict, leave having been reserved to move for a non-suit or new
trial on technical grounds, an action is not still pending so as to make the
publication of any comments thereon a contempt : Metzler v. Gounod, 30
L. T. 264.
An action for libel against the author of a pamphlet which was published
pending a motion for new trial of an action for false imprisonment, and
severely censured the proceedings and course of trial in such action, is not a
bar to a motion by the Pit to commit for contempt of Court in publishing the
pamphlet : Gorkery v. Hickson, I. R. 10 C. L. 174.
As to the necessity of proving scienter, see Lake v. Metropolitan Music Hall
Co., 58 L. J. Ch. 613, where an application for committal in respect of com-
ments in a newspaper on the subject-matter of an action was refused, in the
absence of proof that the alleged contemnor knew of the existence of the
action.
Contempt of Court may be committed by publication of scandalous matter
respecting the Court after adjudication as well as pending a case before it.
In this country (as distinguished from the colonies) committals for such
contempts are rarely resorted to : McLeod v. St. Aubyn, [1899] A. C. 549,
P. C. ; but the summary jurisdiction wdll still be exercised in the case of
scurrilous personal abuse of a Judge : Reg. v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q. B. 36 ; 69
L. J. Q. B. 502.
Addressing a contemptuous letter to a Judge reflecting upon, or tending
SECT. vii.J Special Contempts of Court. 459
to interfere with, the administration of justice in his Court, is a contempt,
which in the case of a solr, as an officer of the Court, renders him liable to be
struck off the roll, or to suspension from practice : see Re Keane, inf.
Chap. XL., " Solicitors " ; though not punishable by this extraordinary
penalty if the letter is written by the practitioner not as an officer of the
Court, but in liis capacity as a suitor : Be Wallace, L. R. 1 P. C. 283.
Defiant disobedience of a Judge in the legitimate exercise of his juris- Defiant
diction may be punished by immediate committal : Watt v. Ligertwood, disobedience,
L. R. 2 H. L. So. 361 ; as also violent conduct and abusive language to a ^t"-
person engaged in serving the process of the Court : Price v. Hutchinson,
9 Eq. 534.
Sending letters threatening exposure, using intimidating language, or Intimidating,
publication of articles in a newspaper calculated to deter parties from
prosecuting their action, or to prevent witnesses from coming forward to give
their evidence, is also a contempt of Court : Smith v. Lakeman, 2 Jur. N. S.
1202 ; Exp. Ghetioynd, 10 Jur. N. S. 1188 ; Sliaw v. «., 2 Sw. & Tr. 517 ; Be
Tyrone Election Petn., I. R. 7 C. L. 242 ; Welby v. Still, 66 L. T. 523 ; or
slander of title of the business carried on by a receiver and manager ap-
pointed by the Court : Helmore v. Smith, 35 Ch. D. 449, C. A. ; or to publish Advertising,
an advertisement offering a reward for evidence in terms tending to pre-
judice and discredit a petitioner for divorce : Butler v. B., 10 P. D. 73 ; or
denjdng charges in divorce petition, and offering reward for information
which would lead to the conviction of their authors : Brodrihh v. B., 11
P. D. 66 ; but to advertise for witnesses is not per se a contempt : Plating
Co. V. Farquharson, 17 Ch. D. 49, C. A. (per Jessel, M. R., questioning Pool
V. Sacheverel, 1 P. Wms. 675) ; nor advertisements, pending appeal in a
patent case, for funds, on the ground that it was of general interest to the
trade, and offering reward for evidence of anticipations : S. C. ; and see
Be New Gold Coast Co., [1901] 1 Ch. 860.
A Pit was committed for endeavouring to intimidate a witness, and to Costs as
deter the Deft from calling a witness : Bromilow v. Phillips, 40 W. R. 220 ; between solr
but the Court declined to order paj^ment of costs as between solr and client : ^'^^ client.
lb.
It is not of course that the contemnor in such a case should be ordered
to pay costs as between solr and client : Bromilow v, Phillips, 40 W. R. 220 ;
Welby V. Still, sup.
The K. B. D. has power to punish by attachment contempts of inferior Inferior
Courts : Bex v. Davies, [1906] 1 K. B. 32. Courts.
The warrant may be for absolute committal, and not necessarily until a
fine be paid : Beg. v. Jordan, 1888, W. N. 162 ; 36 W. R. 796.
Though a party be in contempt, he may move to discharge an adverse Rights of
order : Futvoye v. Kennard, 2 Gift. 110, 533 ; or may take any steps neces- litigant in
sary for his defence : Fry v. Ernest, 12 W. R. 97 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1151. contempt.
As to contempt in oases of interference, or marriage without leave of the
Court, with a ward, see inf. Chap. XXXVIII., " Infants."
For a case in which counsel was ordered to pay costs, and committed for Contempt by
obstructing the course of justice by conniving at a fraud on the Court, see counsel.
Linwood v. Andrews, 58 L. T. 612 ; 1888, W. N. 81 ; Dan. 715.
PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST.
Although a peer or M.P. is not liable in ordinary cases to be attached or Privilege of
proceeded against by any civil process involving personal arrest (see D. New- Parliament.
castle V. Morris, L. R. 4 H. L. 661), this privilege of Parliament is no pro-
tection against arrest for a contempt of a gross or criminal nature : Onslow
and Whalley's case, L. R. 9 Q. B. 219 ; Wellesley v. D. Beaufort ; Lechmere
Charlton's case, sup. p. 456 ; or for breach of an order against a receiver to
pay money into Court : Be Oent, Qent-Davis v. Harris, 40 Ch. D. 190.
The privilege extends for forty days before and after prorogation or dis-
solution of Parliament, and although, after dissolution, the member is not
re-elected : Re Anglo-French Co-operative Society, 14 Ch. D, 533.
460 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
Suitors Officers and attendants upon the Court, suitors and witnesses, have
and others, privilege eundo, redeundo, et morando for their necessary attendance, but not
otherwise ; and the arrest of any of them at such times of necessary attend-
ance is a contempt of Court.
This privilege from arrest extends to witnesses and jurymen : see Qibbs v.
Phillipson, 1 Russ. & My. 19 ; to parties to an action : Andrews v. Wallcm,
1 Mac. & G. 380 ; Plomer v. Macdonough, 1 D. & S. 232 ; to prosecutors,
and also to accused persons admitted to bail and attending on their recog-
nizances : Gilpin v. Cohen, L. R. 4 Ex. 131.
^°Jj°'*°'^ • ^ ^"'"^ '^ privileged from arrest in, and on his way to or from. Court or
and barrister. Judge's Chambers on business of his client : Dodd v. Holbrook, 11 Jur. N. S.
969 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 19 ; lie Jewitt, 33 Beav. 959 ; Eyre v. Barrow, 6 W. R.
767 ; and see Cordery, Solrs, 236—239 ; and a barrister is entitled to the
same privilege : Anon., 1 Y. & C. Ex. 331.
But the privilege does not extend to arrest for disobedience to an order of
a punitive and disciplinary character : Re Freston, 11 Q. B. D. 545, C. A.
(considered in Seldon v. Wilde, [1911] K. B. 701), and see Be Dudley, 12
Q. B. D. 44, C. A. ; Hobern v. Fowler, 62 L. J. Q. B. 49.
Bankruptcy. A bankrupt is privileged from arrest under an attachment for debt issued
pending the proceedings in bankruptcy : Cobham v. Dalton, 10 Ch. 665 ; and
see lie Deere, 10 Ch. 650 ; secus, where the solr is a defaulting trustee, and so
amenable to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court under the Debtors Act,
1869, s. 4 : Be Smith, Hands v. Andrews, [1893] 2 Ch. 1, C. A. ; Be Edye,
1891, W. N. 1 ; 63 L. T. 762 ; 39 W. R. 198.
But a person who has been attached and committed to prison under the
Debtors Act, s. 4 (3) or (4), does not by subsequent adjudication of bank-
ruptcy acquire privilege from arrest, or become entitled to his discharge from
prison : E. Lewes v. Barneit, 6 Ch. D. 252.
9. Committal for Trial for Perjury.
Upon the trial of this action on the — day of — , and this day before
the Court, and upon reading an affidavit of the Pit, filed &c., and the
Pit and W. A. having been duly sworn, and upon hearing the evidence
of the Pit in his own behalf, and the evidence of the said W. A. on
behalf of the Defts, taken upon their respective oral examinations,
this Court being of opinion that the Pit has been guilty of wilful and
corrupt perjury in his evidence given as aforesaid before this Court,
and that there is a reasonable cause for the prosecution of the Pit for
perjury, doth order that the Pit [name] be prosecuted for such perjury
and be committed until the next session of oyer and terminer or gaol
delivery for the county of M. ; And this Court doth require the Deft
[name] to enter into a recognizance, conditioned to prosecute, or give
evidence against, the said Pit.— S. v. W., V.-C. B., 19 Feb. 1877,
B. 207.
10. Recognizance by Person directed to prosecute.
You [insert the name or names, and if mare than one add, and each
of you] shall acknowledge yourself [yourselves and each of you] to
owe to our Sovereign Lord the King the sum of one hundred pounds
[each] of good and lawful money of G. B., to be made and levied of
your goods and chattels, lands, and tenements to the use of our said
Lord the King, his heirs and successors ; the condition of the recog-
nizance being that if you shall appear at the next session of the
SECT. VII.] Special Contempts of Court. ^^^
Central Criminal Court to be holden in the City of London, and there
prefer, or cause to be preferred, a bill of indictment for the offence of
perjury against one \name\, and there also duly prosecute such indict-
ment, then this recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force
and virtue. Question. — Are you contented to be so bound ? Answer.
— I am.- — S. V. W., sup.
i This is to be read by the registrar ; and the obligee is not required to sign
any document.
11. Record of the Recognizance to prosecute.
Be it remembered that on the — ■ day of — , X. &c., of — [name &c.],
personally came before me [name and title of Judge], and acknowledged
himself [themselves and each of them] to owe to our Sovereign Lord
the King the sum of £100 [each] of good and lawful money of Gr. B.,
to be made and levied of his [or their] goods and chattels, lands and
tenements, to the use of our said Lord the King, his heirs and
successors, if he [or they] the said [name] shall fail in the condition
indorsed. — Taken and acknowledged the day and year first above
mentioned at Lincoln's Inn, in the county of M.
Before me.
By the Court, (Signed) ,
(Signed and sealed), , • J.
Eegistrar.
The condition of the within written recognizance is such that
whereas one [name] was on the — day of — , by virtue of an Act
passed in the 14 & 15 V. intituled " An Act for further improving the
administration of criminal justice " directed by &c. [nam£ and title of
Judge] to be prosecuted for perjury at the next session of the Central
Criminal Court, if therefore he the said [name] shall appear at the
next session of the Central Criminal Court, and there prefer or cause
to be preferred a bill of indictment for the offence aforesaid against
the said [name], and there also duly prosecute such indictment, then
the said recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and
virtue. — S. v. W., sup.
(Signed) , Eegistrar.
The recognizance is engrossed on parchment and sent to the chief clerk at
the Old Bailey.
12. Certificate signed by the Judge after the Prosecutor has been
bound to enter into a Recognizance.
I [name and title of Judge] do hereby certify that it appears to me
that the (Pit) [name] has been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury in
his evidence given orally (and by affidavit) before this Court on the
trial of this action, and that there is reasonable cause for the prosecu-
tion of the said (Pit) for such perjury, and that I have directed the
462 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
said (Pit) to be prosecuted for suot perjury, and have committed him
until the next session of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery for the
county of M. ; and I have required the (Deft) [name] to enter into a
recognizance conditioned to prosecute or give evidence against the
said — accordingly.— /S. v. W., V.-C. B., 19 Feb. 1877.
(Signed) ,
J.
This certificate is given to the prosecutor under 14 & 15 V. c. 100, so as to
entitle him to costs.
NOTES.
COMMITTAL AND PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY.
By the Criminal Procedure Act, 1851 (14 & 15 V.), c. 100, s. 19, the Judges
or a Judge of the Superior Courts of Law and Equity, and other judicial
persons, are empowered, in case it shall appear to him or them that any
person has been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, in any evidence given,
or in any affidavit, deposition, or examination, answer, or other proceeding,
made or taken before him or them, to direct such person to be prosecuted
for such perjury, in case there shall appear to him or them a reasonable cause
for such prosecution ; and to commit such person so directed to be prose-
cuted until the next session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery for the
county or other district within which such perjury was committed, unless
such person shall enter into a recognizance, with one or more sufficient
surety or sureties, conditioned for the appearance of such person at such next
session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, and that he will then surrender
and take his trial, and not depart the Court without leave ; and to require
any person he or they may think fit to enter into a recognizance conditioned
to prosecute and give evidence against such person so directed to be prose-
cuted, and to give to the party so bound to prosecute a certificate of the same
being directed, which certificate shall be given without fee or charge, and
shall be deemed sufficient proof of such prosecution having been directed as
aforesaid ; and on production thereof the costs of the prosecution are to be
allowed by the Court before whom the person is tried, unless that Court
otherwise specially directs.
These provisions were acted upon by V.-C. Bacon, in 8. v. W... 19 Feb.
1877 ; see Forms 9—12, sup. pp. 460—462.
Section VIII. — ^Discharge of Contempt.
1. Order to discharge Prisoner in Custody under Attachment upon
compliance with the Order.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the Deft, who alleged that the
Deft is a prisoner in — Prison, in the custody of the sheriff of M.,
under an attachment issued against him pursuant to the order, dated
&c., for his contempt in not [state the default], and that the Deft hath
since [state the compliance], and upon hearing counsel for the Pit, and
UDon reading [ij Pit does not appear, an af&davit of &c., filed &c., of
service of notice of this motion upon the Pit — enter any other evidence].
This Court doth order that the Deft be discharged out of the custody
SECT. VIII.] Discharge of Contempt. 463
of the said sherifi as to his said contempt ; And it is ordered that the
Deft do pay to the Pit his costs of this application, to be taxed &c.
As to mode of applioation for discharge of prisoner, see O. xliv. 1, Note,
Ann. Prao.
2. Discharge of Prisoner in Custody for not attorning to Receiver —
Plaintiff consenting.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for A., who alleged that the said A. is
a prisoner in ( — ) prison, as by the return of the governor of the
said prison appears, for his contempt of this Court in not attorning
to and becoming the tenant of S., the receiver appointed in this action
in respect of &c., occupied by him, situate at &c., being premises com-
prised in the Pit's securities, as by the order, dated &c., directed ; that
the said A. has since attorned to and become the tenant of the Pit, and
that the said A. is desirous of clearing his said contempt, and the Pit
by his counsel consenting. This Court doth order that the said A. be
discharged out of custody as to his said contempt. — Smith v. Keene,
V.-C. B., 4 May, 1878, B. 708.
3. Discharge of Prisoner under the Debtors Act, 1878
(41 & 42 7. c. 54).
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the Deft, and upon hearing
counsel for the Pit, and upon reading the order dated &c., whereby it
was ordered [state direction for payment] ; the order dated &c., whereby
it was ordered [state the leave to issue writ of attachment and the nature
of the contempt] ; an affidavit of &c., filed &c., and it appearing by the
return of the sheriff of M. that the Deft is a prisoner in ( — ) prison in
the custody of the sherifi of M. under a writ of attachment for his
said contempt ; and this Court having, pursuant to the Debtors Act,
1878, inquired into the case (and also ascertained that the Deft
is wholly unable to pay the said sum of £ — ), doth order that the
Deft be discharged out of the custody of the said sherifi of M. as
to his said contempt. — See Michell v. Malings, V.-C. H., 6 Nov. 1878,
B. 1852.
Mere inability to pay is not, in the absence of other circumstances, ad-
mitted as sufficient ground for refusing an attachment, or discharging out
of custody : see Simpson v. Bell, sup. p. 432.
4. The like Order.
Whereas by an order dated &c.. It was ordered that the said C.
should be at liberty to issue a writ of attachment against the above-
named S. for his contempt in not paying to the said C. the sum of
£30 for costs, as in the said order mentioned, and an'attachment was
accordingly issued against the said S. directed to the sheriff of Surrey
and the said sheriff hath returned that the said S. is a prisoner in
464 Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
Wandsworth prison under his custody ; And the said S. being this
day brought to the bar of this Court, by virtue of a writ of habeas
corpus issued pursuant to an order made upon his appHcation, dated
the 11th day of March, 1879, and now moving in person that he might
be discharged out of custody under the said writ of attachment ;
And upon hearing counsel for the said C, and upon reading the said
order, an affidavit filed &c., and the return of the said sheriff of
Surrey, This Court, having inquired into the case, doth order that
the said S. be discharged out of the custody of the said sheriff of
Surrey as to his contempt in not complying with the said order
dated &c., And it is ordered that the said S. do pay to the said C.
his costs of this motion, such costs to be taxed by the taxing
master.— Be Scard, M. E., 14 March, 1879, B. 476.
There is now no necessity for an order to discharge a prisoner in custody
for a year under the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4, as the writ of attachment is
indorsed with a note that it does not authorize imprisonment beyond one
year : Be Edwards, Brooke v. E., 21 Ch. T>. 230 ; R. S. C, Appendix H.,
Form 12.
5. Discharge of Order for Attachment, and Attachment for
Irregularity.
Whereas by an order dated &c. [Recite order to he discharged] ; Now
upon motion &c., by counsel for the Deft, who alleged that a writ of
attachment was issued against the Deft, pursuant to the said order
directed to the sherifi of &c., and that it appears by the return of the
said sheriff to the said writ, that the Deft is a prisoner in his custody
for not &c. [State default for which the process issued], and that the
Deft is advised that the said order and writ of attachment are irre-
gular ; And upon hearing counsel for the Pit, and upon reading the
said order and return, an aifidavit of &c., filed &c. [and ij so, an
affidavit of service of notice of this motion on the Pit], This Court
doth order that the said order dated &c., be discharged, and that the
writ of attachment issued in pursuance thereof be set aside, and that
the Deft be discharged out of custody as to the said contempt. — See
Re Holt, L. J. James for V.-C. M., 6 March, 1879, A. 385 ; 11 Ch. D.
168, C. A.
6. Discharge of Prisoner on Letter from the Home Secretary.
This Court having been informed by a letter from the Secretary of
State for the Home Department dated &c., enclosing reports relative
to the Deft, who was committed to prison for contempt on &c., and
who is now a prisoner in His Majesty's prison at Oxford, in the
custody of the sheriff of the county of Oxford under writ of attach-
ment issued against him pursuant to an order dated &c., for his
contempt in not having lodged the sum of £— in Court pursuant to
the said order, and also enclosing a doctor's certificate that it would
SECT. Viii.] Discharge of Contempt. 465
endanger the life of the said Deft if lie remained in prison, and
counsel for the Pits being present, This Court doth order that the
Deft be forthwith discharged out of the custody of the said sherifi on
the ground of his state of ill-health ; but this order is to be without
prejudice to his said contempt, and the Pits are to be at liberty at
any time to apply to the Court with respect to the said contempt as
they may be advised. — Scarlett v. Fletcher, Kay, J., 7 Nov. 1885,
B. 1386.
For forms of proceedings in reference to discharge from custody and
clearing contempt, see D. C. F. 442, 443.
NOTES.
DISCHAEGE FROM CUSTODY.
A person who has been imprisoned for special contempt will be detained in Time of
prison until he has cleared his contempt by performing the act required and detention,
paying the costs, or by making an adequate submission, upon which the
Court may think fit to release him, upon such terms as to costs or otherwise
as shall seem proper.
The form of writ of attachment now in use (see R. S. C, App. H., No. 12)
bears an indorsement (added under 0. lxi, 33), giving notice to the sheriff
that the writ, if issued for default in payment of money, under sect. 4 of the
Debtors Act, 1869, does not authorize imprisonment for any longer period
than one year, and it is the duty of the sheriff to act on this direction and
discharge the prisoner at the end of the year, without further order : Be
Edwards, Brooke v. E., 21 Ch. D. 230 (as to the mode of computation
of time, see MigoUi v. Colville, 4 C. P. D. 233). In cases not covered by the
indorsement, the order of the Court for discharge must be obtained : see
Edmonson v. Keyton, 2 Y. & C. Ex. 3 ; Gray v. Campbell, 2 Russ. & My.
223 ; and until such order has been obtained, the gaoler, whose duty is to
obey the warrant, is not liable in damages for detaining a prisoner who is in
custody under the ordinary imt of attachment : Oreaves v. Keene, 4 Ex. D.
73 ; secus, if the time of detention is expressed in the warrant of committal :
Moore v. Bose, L. R. 4 Q. B. 486.
Unless compliance with the order or performance of the act required shall
have been certified by some officer of the Court, whose certificate is received
as evidence thereof (e.g., the certificate of the paymaster), the application
for discharge must, unless the party prosecuting the order (who should be
served with notice) consents, be supported by affidavit.
In the case of committal for contempt in marrying a ward of Court, the
contemnor will not be discharged until the certificate of solemnization of the
marriage has been produced, and a settlement has been prepared and ap-
proved ; but when these requisites have been complied with, he will not he
kept in prison until the costs have been taxed : Cox v. Bennett, 31 L. T. 83 ;
22 W. R. 819.
So also in Pelkin v. Herbert, 12 W. R. 333 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 62 ; 9 L. T. 63.5,
the contemnor, after purging bis contempt by ten days' imprisonment and a
humble apology to the Court, was discharged on payment of the fees and
paying a sum to be named for costs, subject to taxation, without awaiting
taxation.
In cases of contempt for non-payment of money, a year's imprisonment
should (setnble) be treated as purging the contempt : M'Combe v. Gray, 4
L. R. Ir. 432.
A Deft who has cleared his contempt by performing the act required Non-payment
cannot, since the Debtors Act, 1869, be detained in prison for non-payment of costs of
of the costs of his contempt : Jackson v. Mawby, 1 Ch. D. 87 ; and see -Be contempt.
Jarvis, Ward v, J., 1886, W. N. 118 ; Ayres v. Ayres, 1901, W. N. 204.
VOL. I. 2 H
466
Execution and Contempt, [chap, xxvii.
Inability
to pay.
Special
terms of
order.
But where the committal has been for breach of an order of the Court, and
payment of costs has been imposed as the condition of his discharge, mere
inabihty to pay those costs does not purge the contempt, nor entitle him to
be discharged : Re M., 46 L. J. Ch. 24 ; S. C, nom. 8. v. L., 1876, W. N.
220.
Inability to pay was no ground for discharging a defaulting trustee or solr
who had been committed under the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4 (3) or (4) : Ransom
V. Boyd, 1877, W. N. 236 ; or for declining to commit in cases within these
exceptions : see Evans v. Bear, 10 Ch. 75 ; et sup. p. 432.
But by the Debtors Act, 1878 (41 & 42 V. c. 54), in cases coming within
the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4 (3) or (4), the Court has jurisdiction to inquire
into the circumstances of the case, and to grant or refuse the application for
attachment or other process, or the application for discharge from arrest or
imprisonment.
For terms of order of discharge where the contempt consisted in asserting
a claim to houses, and endeavouring to take possession of them and declining
to abandon claim, see In re Maria Anna Daviea, 21 Q. B. D. 236 ; but as to
the jurisdiction to make such order, quaere.
DISOHAKGB OK THE OEOUND OF IBEBGULARITY IN PROCESS.
Irregularity in the order on which the attachment is grounded, or in the
notice of motion to commit, and semble, for leave to issue attachment, or in
the affidavits in support, or in the issuing of the writ of attachment, are
grounds for discharging an attachment, and for releasing from custody the
person imprisoned.
Instances. An attachment has been discharged in the following instances : —
— where the indorsement on the copy of the order served stated that in
default of payment the Deft would be liable to be arrested by the " Serjeant-
at-Arms," instead of " under a writ of attachment " : Hinde v. Blake, 5 Beav.
431 ; and see O. XLI, 5 ; but where the usual four-day order against a solr,
who had not brought in his bill of costs, omitted the indorsement directed by
O. XLI, 5, leave was given to serve the original order with the indorsement :
BeBowen, 11 W. R. 607;
—where the copy of the order on which the attachment had issued was
wrongly intituled : Re Holt, 11 Ch. D. 168 ;
— where the copy of the taxing master's certificate, which had been served
with an order to pay certain sums found due thereby, contained a clerical
error by omitting the word " pounds : " Re Reynolds, 10 W. R. 709 ; and
see Rex v. Calvert, 4 Tyr. 77 ; Reg. v. Burgees, 3 Nev. & P. 366 ;
— where the title of the affidavit of service of the order on which the at-
tachment issued varied, though slightly, from the title of the order itself :
McKenzie v. M., 5 D. G. & Sm. 338 ;
— where execution was issued prematurely : Bartlett v. Stinton, L. R. 1
C. P. 483 ; but in this case the Court imposed terms upon the contemnor ;
— where the order had been complied with, and notice of such compliance
given to the Pit's solrs after issue of the writ, but before it was enforced by
imprisonment : 6ay v. Hancock, 56 L. T. 726.
Indorsements Although the indorsement directed by O. XLI, 5, has not been inserted,
on order. yet if the order is served a second time, properly indorsed, the attachment
thereunder will hold good, though the time limited by the first order has
elapsed : Be Oregg, 9 Eq. 137 ; and see Re Belton, 25 Beav. 368.
Where the time for payment is extended by a subsequent order, it is suffi-
cient if the indorsement is on the first order : Treherne v. Dale, 27 Ch. D. 66,
C. A.
Waiver of Applications to discharge or set aside a process of contempt, on the ground
irregularity, that it was irregularly issued, are made by motion on notice, and supported
by affidavit (see Dan. 726 ; D. C. F. 443), and the application must be made
before there has been any waiver by the contemnor of the irregularity by
compliance with the order (e.g., in the case of sequestration), by permitting
SECT. viii.J Discharge of Contempt. 467
the sequestrators to deal with his property, by his direction and with his
approbation : see Const v. Barr, 2 Russ. 161, 168 ; Dan. 727.
Although a person actually in custody on an attachment irregularly
issued will not by any waiver on his part of the irregularity forfeit his right
to be discharged (Haynes v. Ball, 4 Beav. 101), such waiver, if he is not in
custody, is available in answer to his application to set aside proceedings
founded on the attachment : Needham v. ^., 1 Ph. 640.
An order of course exp. discharging an attachment and made on an insuffi-
cient affidavit was discharged so as to revive the original order for attach-
ment : Price v. P., 48 L. J. Ch. 215.
As to bringing actions at law for damages for wrongful attachment or Damages
improper use of the process of the Court, see Qoucher v. Clayton, 14 L. T. 494 ; for wrongful
Whitehead v. Lynes, 34 Beav. 161. In such a case, since the Jud. Act, an attachment,
inquiry as to damages might be directed in Chambers.
(468 ) [CH. XXVIII.
CHAPTEE XXVIII.
ORDEBS CHARGING, ATTACHING, AND RESTRAINING DEALINGS
WITH FUNDS AND SECURITIES.
Section I. — Charging Orders on Funds or Shares, under
Judgments Acts, 1838 and 1840 (1 & 2 V. c. 110 ; 3 & 4
V. c. 82).
1. Order Nisi to charge Funds in Court — Interim Restraint.
Oedee that the £ — (Cons.), in Court to the credit of &c., do stand
charged with the payment to the applicants of the sum of £ — , with
interest at the rate of £4 p. c. per ann. from &c., until payment, unless
the Deft shall, within one month after service of this order [or, on or
before &c.] show unto this Court good cause to the contrary ; And it
is ordered that no part of the said Cons, be sold, transferred, or
otherwise dealt with, without notice to the applicants until this order
shall be made absolute or (shall be) discharged. — See Westby v. W.,
V.-C. P., 29 April, 1852, B. 663 ; S. C, 5 D. & S. 516.
2. Order Absolute.
Oedee that the order dated &c., whereby it was ordered [Recite
order] be made absolute ; And it is ordered that the £ — Cons, do
stand charged with the payment to the applicants of the sum of £ — ,
with interest at the rate of £4 p. c. per ann. from &c. until payment. —
See S. C, V.-C. S., 12 Feb. 1853, B. 441.
3. Order Nisi as to Cash.
UroN the application of &c. [judgment creditors] ; Order that so
much of the £ — , cash in Court to the credit of &c., as may be payable
to the said H. (after payment of the amounts due to the said incum-
brancers) do stand charged with the payment to the applicants of the
said sums of £ — (judgment debt) and £ — (costs), payable to them by
the said H. pursuant to the said judgment, with interest thereon at
the rate of £4 p. c. per ann. from the — day of — , unless &c. ; And
it is ordered that no part of the said sum of £ — cash be paid &c.
(except for payment to such incumbrancers), without notice to the
applicants &c., until &c. — Re Prince, Hopewell v. Barnes, V.-C. M. at
SECT. I.] Charging Orders on Funds or Shares. 469
Chambers, 19 Jan. 1876, B. 36 ; followed in Brereton v. Edwards, 21
Q. B. D. 226 ; 21 Q. B. D. 488, C. A., at p. 496 ; Carter v. Stadden, 34
W. E. 363.
This order is made not under sect. 14 of 1 & 2 V. c. 110 (which does not
apply to money), but by way of equitable execution in aid of the power
given by sect. 12, to take money under fi. fa. ; and having regard to
S. C. F. R. r. 99, notice to the paymaster is sufficient, and a separate stop
order is not requisite : Brereton v. Edwards, 21 Q. B. D. 496, 498, 500, C. A.
4. Order Nisi to charge Funds in Deft's Name with Pit's taxed
Costs — Interim Restraint.
Order that the £ — Cons., standing in the books of the Bank of
England, in the name of the Deft, do stand charged with the payment
of the sum of £ — , being the amount of the Pit's taxed costs of this
action and of the action in the pleadings mentioned, by the judgment,
dated &c., ordered to be paid by the Deft to the Pit, and certified by
the taxing master's certificate dated &c., with interest on the said
sum of £ — &c. [Form 1], unless the Deft shall, on or before &c.,
show unto this Court good cause to the contrary ; And it is ordered
that the Gov. and Co. of the Bank of England be restrained from per-
mitting a transfer of the said Consols, in the meantime, and until this
order shall be made absolute or (shall be) discharged. — Stanley v.
Bond, M. E., 12 March, 1844, B. 507 ; 7 Beav. 386.
The time mentioned in the order within which cause was to be shown was
the 2nd November then next.
5. Order discharged on showing Cause.
Tax the Pit his costs of the application for the order dated &c., and
of this order, And it is ordered that the Deft do pay to the Pit the
amount of such costs when taxed ; And upon such payment being
made, it is ordered that the said order dated &c. be discharged. —
Stanley v. Bond, M. E., 2 Nov. 1844, B. 41 ; 8 Beav. 50.
6. Declaration that Charging Order is invalid as against Trustee in
Banhruftcy.
Upon motion by way of appeal &c. by counsel for G. W., the senior
official receiver in bankruptcy, and trustee of the property of W. O'S., a
bankrupt ; This Court doth declare the said charging order, dated &c.,
in favour of the said S. H., invalid as against the appellant the official
receiver in the bankruptcy of and trustee of the property of the said
W. O'S. ; And it is ordered that the appellant be at liberty to
apply for payment to him of the funds in Court purported to be
charged by such charging order ; And this Court doth not think fit to
make any order as to the costs of this appeal, except that the costs of
the Pit occasioned by this appeal be taxed by the taxing master and
be paid by the appellant. — See Re O'Shea, Courage v. O'Shea, C. A-
19 Dec. 1894, B. 01028 ; [1895] 1 Ch. 325, C. A
470 Orders as to Funds and Securities. [CH. xxviii.
7. Order Nisi charging Funds in one Action with Sum due in
another.
Order that the £ — Cons, in Court to the credit of &c. do stand
charged with the payment to the Pit in this action, of the sum of £ — ,
together with interest on the sum of £ — , part thereof at the rate of
£ — p. c. per ann. from the — day of — to &c., unless the Deft shall,
within one month after service of this order [or, on or before the —
day of — ], show unto this Court good cause to the contrary. — Interim
stop order [Form 1, sup.]. — See L. Hastings v. Beavan, V.-C. S., 27
March, 1855, A. 647.
For subsequent order nisi in the cause, charging the interest of stock in
Court, in a matter under the Trustee Relief Act (now the Trustee Act, 1893,
s. 42), which had been ordered to be paid to Deft, with the residue of the
sum due to Pit, and for interim stop order, see L. Hastings v. Beavan, V.-C. S.,
19 Dec. 1861, A. 2265 ; affirmed by L. JJ., 16 Jan. 1862, A. 53 ; 10 W. R.
206 ; 4 De G. P. & J. 316 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 546 ; 5 L. T. 734.
For order absolute charging funds in Court in one cause with costs in
another, the order being entitled in both, see Hill v. Fulhrooh, V.-C. K. in
Chambers, 4 June, 1860, A. 1083.
For order nisi charging a share of fund in one cause with costs pay-
able to petitioners in another, and service on the solr to be good, see Van
Spengler v. Graham, V.-C. E., 7 May, 1847, B. 950 ; and for order absolute,
S. O'., V.-C. E., 23 July, 1847, B. 1293.
For order charging shares of persons in fund in Court in one cause with
costs in another, unless cause shown seven days after seryice, see W* ells v.
Qihhs, 22 Beav. 204.
8. The like — and to show Cause in Chambers.
Order that the sum of £ — cash, the amount payable to W., pur-
suant to the order dated &c., and the Master's certificate dated &c.,
forming part of the £ — cash in Court &c., do stand charged with the
payment to the applicants of the sum of £ — , payable to them by the
said W., pursuant to the order dated &c., made in the action of &c.,
unless the said W. shall on the — day of — &c., at — of the clock in
the forenoon, attend at the Chambers of Mr. Justice — , situate &c.,
and show good cause to the contrary ; but this order is to be served on
the said W. at least seven clear days before the said — day of — ;
And it is ordered that no part of the said £ — be paid out or otherwise
disposed of until this order shall be made absolute or be discharged. —
See Re Waldy, Bradshaw v. W., M. E. at Chambers, 9 June, 1876,
B. 1566.
9. Charging Order on Shares in an Assurance Society.
Order that the eighteen shares in the U. Life Ass. Society, standing
in the name of H., do stand charged with the payment to the appli-
cants of the sum of £ — in the order dated &c., mentioned, and interest
thereon at the rate of £5 p. c. per ann. from the — day of — (date of
order), unless &c. ; And it is ordered that the said U. Life Ass. Society
SECT. I.J Charging Orders on Funds or Shares. 471
(their servants and agents) be restrained from permitting a transfer
of the said shares in the meantime, and until this order be made
absolute or be discharged. — Re Imperial Mercantile Credit Association,
V.-C. W., 5 March, 1868, A. 566.
For charging order on shares in a building co. for costs of unsuccessful
petition to wind up, see Re. Emerson, Be Planet Building Co., M. R. at
Chambers, 30 April, 1873, A. 1051.
For order absolute charging the shares of a contributory in a joint stock
bank with the amount of an unpaid call, see Paragon and Spero Mining Co.,
V.-C. W., 14 Nov. 1861, B. 2222 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 11 ; 10 W. R. 76.
10. Charging Funds in hands of Receiver with Amount oj Judgment
in another Action.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for A. B., and upon hearing counsel
for the Pit and the Deft, This Court doth declare that the said A. B.
is entitled to a charge for the amount of his judgment debt, interest,
and costs recovered against the Deft by judgment dated &c., in an
action in the K. B. Div. of C. v. D., and for the costs of the said order
dated &c., and of this application to be taxed &c., upon the assets
which now are in or may hereafter come to the hands of the receiver
in this action, the said A. B. by his counsel submitting that such
charge shall be dealt with in such manner as the Judge shall direct,
the intention of this Court being to preserve to the said A. B. such legal
rights as he would have had if the sheriff had seized under the execu-
tion and sold on this day. — Kewney v. Attrill, Kay, J., 21 Dec. 1886,
A. 1719 ; 34 Ch. D. 345.
NOTES.
CHABGING OEDER — ^PKOCEDUEE.
By the Judgments Act, 1838 (1 & 2 V. c. 110), s. 14, as extended by
the Judgments Act, 1840 (3 & 4 V. c. 82), s. 1 ; and by O. xlvi, 1, on the
application of any judgment creditor, an order may be made by any
Divisional Court, or by any Judge, charging with payment of the amount
for which judgment has been recovered, and interest thereon, any Govern-
ment stock, funds, or annuities, or any stock or shares in any public co. in
England (whether incorporated or not) standing in the judgment debtor's
name in his own right, or in the name of any person in trust for him, or
(3 & 4 V. c. 82, s. 1) in the name of the Ace. G. (since the Chancery Funds
Act, 1872 (35 & 36 V. o. 44), s. 6, the Paymaster-General), or in which the
judgment debtor has a vested or contingent interest, whether in possession,
remainder, or reversion, and the dividends, interest, or annual produce of
any such stock, &o. Such order entitles the judgment creditor to all such
remedies as he would have been entitled to if the charge had been made in
his favour by the judgment debtor ; but no proceedings can be taken to
have the benefit of the charge until after the expiration of six calendar
months from the date of the order. As to stock, &c., standing in the name
of the paymaster it is provided, by 3 & 4 V. c. 82, s. 1, that no such order is
to prevent the Bank of England or any other public co. from permitting any
transfer of such stock, &c., or payment of the interest, &c., thereof in such
manner as the Court (of Chancery) may direct, or have any greater efEect
than if such debtor had charged such stock, &c., or interest, &c., in favour
472 Orders as to Funds and Securities, [ch. xxviii.
of the judgment creditor with the amount to be mentioned in such order.
The meaning of this enactment is that the charge is to be as eifectual as if
the debtor had power to charge, and had charged, his interest on the stock,
and therefore a charging order may be valid although the judgment debtor
is a lunatic : Re Leavesley, [1891] 2 Ch. 1. A charging order is not a
" transaction " protected by sect. 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 : In re
0' Shea's Settlement, Courage v. O'Shea, [1895] 1 Ch. 325, C. A. ; and see Wild
V. Southwood, [1897] 1 Q. B. 317. There is no power under the section to
make a charging order against the exor of a deceased judgment debtor, and
gu(ere whether judgment on which to ground a charging order can be
obtained against such exor : Stewart v. Shades, [1900] 1 Ch. 386, C. A.
Leave to issue execution under 0. xlii, 23 {v. sup. p. 414), is not equivalent
to a judgment for this purpose : 8. C.
appUcation. - ^y 1 & 2 V. c. 110, s. 15, the charging order is to be made in the first
instance ex parte and without any notice to the judgment debtor, and should
be an order to show cause only ; and such order, if any Government stock,
funds, or annuities, or any stock or shares in any public co. standing in
the name of the judgment creditor in his own right or in the name of any
person in trust for him, are to be affected by such order, shall restrain the
Bank of England or the public co. from permitting a transfer thereof in
the meantime and until such order shall be made absolute or be discharged.
If after notice of such order to the persons to be restrained thereby, or in
case of corporations to any authorized agent of such corporation, and
before the order shall be discharged or made absolute,_such corporation
or person shall permit any such transfer to be made, then and in such case
the corporation or person so permitting such transfer shall be liable to the
judgment creditor for the value or amount of the property so charged and so
transferred, orsuch part thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy his judgment.
No disposition of the judgment debtor in the meantime shall be valid as
against the judgment creditor ; and unless the debtor shall within a time to
be mentioned in such order show cause to the contrary, the order shall, after
proof of notice thereof to the debtor, his attorney, or agent, be made
absolute ; provided that the Judge shall, on application of the judgment
debtor, or any person interested, have full power to discharge or vary such
order and to award such costs upon such application as he may think fit.
The judgment debtor is the only person who can show cause : his exor
cannot : Stewart v. Rhodes, sup.
By O. XL VI, 1, an order charging stock or shares may be made by any
Divisional Court, or by any Judge, and the proceedings for obtaining such
order shall be such as are directed, and the effect such as is provided by the
above Acts, 1 & 2 V. c. 110, ss. 14, 15, and 3 & 4 V. c. 82, s. 1.
Debentures are not " stocks or shares " within the Judgments Act, 1838,
s. 14, or 0. XLVi, 1 : Sellar v. Bright, [1904] 2 K. B. 446, C. A.
An order enforcing payment of costs in lunacy by directing a transfer of
Consols is not a charging order within the rule : Re Cathcart, [1893] 1 Ch.
466, C. A.
Notice in lieu By r. 2, the writ of distringas under the Court of Chancery Act, 1841
of distringas. (5 y. 0. 5), s. 5, is no longer to issue ; and rr. 4 — 11 contain provisions sub-
stituting for such writ, and with the same force and effect, service by any
person claiming to be interested in any stock (including shares, securities,
and dividends thereon : rr. 3, 3a), standing in the books of a co. (including
the Bank of England, and any other public co., whether incorporated or not :
r. 3), of an office copy of the affidavit and duplicate of the notice made in
form therein prescribed (R. S. C, App. B., Forms 22, 27), and filed as
therein directed.
What By 1 & 2 V. c. 110, s. 18, the effect of judgments was extended to all
3"'58™6i't decrees or orders of Courts of Equity, and all rules of Courts of Common
includes. Law, and all orders of the L. C. or of the Court of review in Chancery, and
orders of the L. C. in Lunacy, whereby any sum of money, or any costs,
charges, or expenses should be payable to any person ; and by 27 & 28
SECT. I.J Charging Orders on Funds or Shares. 473
V. 0. 112, s. 2 (which enables the creditor to whom any land of his debtor
shall have been actually delivered in execution to obtain upon petition a
summary order for sale), the term " judgment " includes registered decrees
and orders of Courts of Equity and Bankruptcy, and other orders having the
operation of a judgment (sect. 2) ; but the Act is not retrospective : Re Isle
of Wight Femj Co., 11 Jur. N. S. 279 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 194 ; 12 L. T. 263.
For an order to operate as a judgment, so as to give the right to a charging
order, it must be an order for payment of a specific sum of money to some
person : Dan. 751 ; Fisher on Mortgage, 257 ; and a mere order for an
account of what is due in respect of an annuity and payment is not, pending
the account, and until the amount has been ascertained, an order for pay-
ment so as to entitle the party to a charging order : Widgery v. Tepper, 6
Ch. D. 364, C. A. ; Chadwick v. Holt, 8 D.M. & G. 584 ; nor is the Master's
certificate finding money to be due, though (according to former practice)
adopted by the Judge : E. Mansfield v. Ogle, 4 D. & J. 38 ; nor an order for
payment of money to the credit of an action : Ward v. Shakeshaft, 1 Dr. &
S. 269.
But a charging order may be presently made though the judgment is for
payment on or before a future day named : Bagnall v. Carlton, 6 Ch. D. 130 ;
Younghiisband v. Gishorne, 1 D. & S. 209.
Sect. 14 of 1 & 2 V. c. 110, does not extend to money, and O. xlvi, 3, Money,
whereby the expression " stock " was defined as including " shares, securi-
ties, and money," has been altered (August, 1888) by substituting the words
" the dividends thereon " for " money."
But by way of equitable execution, and in aid of the power conferred by
sect. 12 of 1 & 2 V. c. 110, of taking money, &o. under a,fi.fa., a charging
order can be made by a Judge of the Q. B. Div. upon cash standing to the
credit of the debtor in the Ch. Div. ; Brereton v. Edwards, 21 Q. B. D. 488,
C. A. Such an order may, in a fit case, be made ex parte, and notice to the
paymaster is sufiicient without obtaining a stop order or the appointment of
a receiver : 76. ; and v. sup. Form 3.
In order to give effect to a decree or order of the Court of Chancery a Form of
charging order might be made by a Chancery Judge : Stanley v. Bond, 7 application.
Beav. 386 ; but in order to give effect to a judgment at law upon a fund in
the Court of Chancery, the practice was first to obtain a charging order from
a Common Law Judge in Chambers, and then to apply in Chancery for a
stop order as ancillary to the charging order : Miles v. Presland, 4 M. & Cr.
431 ; Hulkes v. Day, 10 Sim. 41 ; and see Re Nowell, 11 W. R. 897.
Under the new procedure a preliminary charging order need not be ob-
tained by a person who has obtained judgment in another Division of the
High Court before application for a stop order in the Ch. Div. : Hopewell v.
Barnes, 1 Ch. D. 630 ; SJiaw v. Hudson, 48 L. J. Ch. 689.
Applications for charging orders are now usually made by summons. For
forms of summons and affidavit in support, see D. C. F. 461 — 463.
A charging order need not have been intituled in any cause or matter,
but was sufficiently intituled " In the matter of the Act 1 & 2 V. e. 110, and
of the Act 3 & 4 V. c. 82 " : L. Hastings v. Beavan, 10 W. R. 206 ; but a
charging order made in the Ch. Div. on a fund in Court is intituled either
in the action or matter to the credit of which the fund stands.
By O. Liv, 12, applications by summons for charging orders are excepted
from the jurisdiction exercised by a Master in the Q. B. Div., and by a
registrar in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division.
The six months' proviso in sect. 14 does not prevent the creditor from Effect of
obtaining a stop order against receipt by the debtor within the six months of sect. 1 4.
dividends on the stock charged : Watts v. Jefferyes, 3 Mac. & G. 372.
And within this period the judgment creditor might, it seems, file a bill for
protection of his interest in the fund : Bristed v. Wilkins, 3 Ha. 235 ; but
payment to the judgment creditor who has obtained a charging order would
not, without consent of the debtor, be ordered on petition : Whitfield v.
Prickett, 13 Sim. 259.
474
Orders as to Funds and Securities, [oh. xxviii.
Partnership By the Partnership Act, 1890, s. 23 (v. sup. p. 41 1 ), a judgment creditor of
Act, 1890. a partner may obtain a charging order on the interest of the partner in the
partnership property and profits. The procedure under the section is now
regulated by O. xlvi, la, lb, for which v. sup. p. 412.
EFFECT OF CHARGING OEDEB,
Effect of
order
absolute.
After the charging order has been made absolute the Court has no juris-
diction to rescind or vary it : Drew y. Willis, [1891] 1 Q. B. 456 ; Jeffreyes
V. Reynolds, 52 L. J. Q. B. 55 ; 48 L. T. 358.
A charging order, when made absolute, operates from the date of the order
nisi, and can only be defeated by some prior charge, showing that it ought
not to have been made ; and a subsequent admon judgment, or order on a
summons in an admon action directing pajonent out of a fund affected by
the previous order nisi, will not have this effect : Haly v. Barry, 3 Ch.
452 (explaining Warburion v. Hill, Kay, 470) ; Brereton v. Edwards, 21
Q. B. D. 488, 495, C. A. ; Re Womersley, Etheridge v. W., 29 Ch. D. 557 ;
Re Bell, Carter v. Stadden, 54 L. T. 370 ; 34 W. R. 363 ; StewaH v. Rhodes,
[1900] 1 Ch. 386, C. A.
But when an assignment has been perfected by notice to the trustees
before paying the fund into Court, a subsequent judgment creditor does not,
by obtaining a charging order on the fund in Court, get priority over the
assignee who has not obtained such order : Re Bell, 34 W. R. 363 ; 54 L. T.
370 ; Brearcliff v. Dorrington, 4 D. & S. 122 ; and for cases in which a
judgment creditor who has obtained a receiver by way of equitable execu-
tion will have priority over persons subsequently obtaining charging orders,
see Re Marquis of Anglesey, [1903] 2 Ch. 727.
And a charging order against the debtor will not affect property assigned
by the debtor Ijetween the date of the judgment on which the charging order
was obtained and the charging order : Sc^tt v. L. Hastings, 4 K. & J. 633.
Effect on A charging order under sect. 14 creates such an incumbrance as will deter-
determinable mine a life interest, limited to A. until he executes some assignment or act
life interest, whereby the interest may be incumbered : Montefiore v. Behrens, 1 Eq. 171 ;
or " until he should do or suffer any act " whereby the dividends shall
become payable to another person : Roffey v. Bent, 3 Eq. 759 ; and see
Hurst V. H., 21 Ch. D. 278 ; but it is an involuntary alienation : Re Kelly's
Settlement, West v. Turner, 59 L. T. 494 (and see Wild v. Southwood, [1897]
1 Q. B. 317), not a contract ; and therefore the incumbrancer desiring to
enforce it cannot obtain leave for service out of the jurisdiction : Morilz v.
Stephen, 36 W. R. 779 ; 58 L. T. 850 ; Kolchmann v. Meurice, [1903] 1 K. B.
534.
An order nisi charging shares under 1 & 2 V. c. 110, s. 14, is not, as
between the creditor and the debtor's trustee in bankruptcy, an " execution
against the goods of a debtor " within the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 45 : Re
Hutchinson, 16 Q. B. D. 515.
And see Pish. Mort. 662 ; and inf. Chap. XLVII., " Moktgagbs."
Notice. Mere notice pf the charging order, though left and entered in the pay office
(formerly office of the Aco. Gen.), did not operate as a stop order to prevent
a transfer of the fund ; and was of no avail against a stop order on the fund
afterwards obtained : Warburion v. Hill, Kay, 470 ; but now under the
Jud. Acts, and S. C. F. R., r. 99, notice is sufficient, and a stop order is no
longer necessary : Brereton v. Edwards, 21 Q. B. D. 488, C. A.
On the question whether a charging order on stock standing in the name
of a trustee in trust for the judgment debtor, gives the judgment creditor
priority over a prior assignment without notice to the trustee, see Watts v.
Porter, 3 E. & B. 743.
The opinion of the majority of the (Q. B.) that the assignment without
notice was inoperative as against the subsequent charging order, has been
disapproved, and that of Erie, J. .followed, in Beavan v. L. Oxford, 6 D. M. & G.
492 ; Kinderley v. Jervis, 22 Beav. 1 ; Scott v. L. Hastings, 4 K. & J. 633 ;
SECT. I.J Charging Orders on Funds or Shares. 475
Pickering v. Ilfracombe By., L. R. 3 C. P. 236 ; Robinson v. Nesbitt, lb. 264 ;
Oill V. Continental Oas Co., L. R. 7 Ex. 332 ; Punchard v. Tomkins, 31 W.
R. 286 ; fle BM, Carter v. Stadden, 54 L. T. 370 ; 34 W. R. 363 ; Be
Leavesley, [1891] 2 Ch. 1.
It has been held that a charging order may be made on shares standing in What
the name of a mere trustee : Cragg v. Taylor, L. R. 1 Ex. 148 ; Fuller v. interests may
Earle, 7 Ex. 796 ; and where tlie judgment debtor is not the only person ^ charged,
beneficially interested : S. W. Loan Co. v. Bobertstn, 8 Q. B. D. 17 ; Fowler
V. Churchill, 11 M. & W. 57, 323.
And qualification shares of a director, of which other persons are beneficial
owners, though held by him " in his own right " within sect. 14, cannot be
charged : Howard v. Sadler, [1893] 1 Q. B. 1 ; Cooper v. Griffin, [1892] 1
Q. B. 740, C. A. ; Pulbrook v. Bichmond Cons. Mining Co., 9 Ch. D. 610 ;
Sutton V. English and Colonial Produce Co., [1902] 2 Ch. 502.
It has been also held that if the judgment debtor in whose name the
shares stand has no beneficial interest in them, the charging order nisi will
not prevent a transfer : Oill v. Continental Gas Co., L. R. 7 Ex. 332.
As stated by Erie, J., in Watts v. Porter, 3 Ell. & Bl. 758, a judgment
creditor with a charging order gets all such remedies as (and no more than)
he would have been entitled to if such charge had been made in his favour
by the judgment debtor ; and see Re Blakely Ordnance Co., 25 W. R. Ill ;
35 L. T. 617 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 367 ; Onslow's Trusts, 20 Eq. 677 ; Oill v.
Continental Gas Co., L. R. 7 Ex. 332, 338 ; and the Court has no jurisdiction
to order a sale, which can only be obtained in separate proceedings : Leggott
V. Western, 12 Q. B. D. 287 ;" Kolchmann v. Meurice, [1903] 1 K. B. 534.
The interest of a legatee in the residuary produce of stocks and shares
bequeathed to him, subject to a trust for payment of debts and legacies and
conversion, is not an interest which can be charged by Mm with his judgment
debt, under 1 & 2 V. c. 110, s. 14, and 3 & 4 V. c. 82, s. 1. And see Cragg v.
Taylor, L. R. 2 Ex. 131 ; Be Ashton, 1900, W. N. 109 ; Bolland v. Young,
[1904]2K.B. 824; Wro? BetMJTig' Co. v. HoZfcmd, [1907] 2 Ch. 157." Whether
Dixon V. Wrench, L. R. 4 Ex. 154, is still law, see Ideal Bedding Co. v.
Holland, sup.
A judgment creditor could not, by analogy to an attachment of a legal
debt under the C. L. P. Act, 1854, ss. 60—67, obtain a charging order in
Equity on property which, from being in the name of trustees, was a mere
equitable debt to the judgment debtor : Horsley v. Cox, 4 Ch. 92.
A charging order on a fund standing to the credit of a lunatic, ought to be Fund of
in form unconditional, and as to a specified amount, and not leaving the lunatic,
amount to be charged to be determined by the Lords Justices : Home v.
Pountain, 23 Q. B. D. 264.
Charging orders on stock in Court to the credit of a lunatic, worded so as
not to be enforceable until his death, prevail over any claim by his adminis-
tratrix : Be Leavesley, [1891] 2 Ch. 1, C. A.
Maintenance for a lunatic will be allowed out of his fund in Court although
the capital is thereby rendered insufiioient for payment of creditors who
have obtained charging orders : Be Plenderleith, [1893] 3 Ch, 332, C. A. ; but
this rule does not affect funds in the High Court, and in such case only the
balance of the fund after satisfying the charge will be transferred to lunacy :
Be Brown, Llewellin v. B., [1900] 1 Ch. 489.
A charging order upon the next accruing dividends of property settled to Married
the separate use of a married woman with restraint on anticipation is in- woman,
operative : Stanley v. /S., 7 Ch. D. 589 ; as also a charging order in respect infant.
of a debt which is void by reason of the contractor's infancy : Onslow's
Trusts, 20 Eq. 677 ; or upon a pension granted to the judgment debtor by Pension and
the E. I. Co. ; Morris v. Manesty, 7 Q. B. 674 ; or Government life annuities annuities,
and the arrears : Taylor v. Turnbull, 4 H. & N. 495.
The order nisi could not be made absolute where the judgment debtor was Death of
dead when it was obtained : Finney v. Hinde, 4 Q. B. D. 102 ; and see judgment
Stewart v. Bhodes, [1900] 1 Ch. 386, 0. A. ; v. sup. p. 472. debtor.
^'^^ Orders as to Funds and Securities, [ch. xxviii.
Bankruptcy A bankruptcy notice was not set aside, because during the seven days of
notice. pendency the creditor had obtained a charging order on shares of the debtor,
as the shares could be sold subject to notice to the creditor : Be Sedgivick,
Exp. McMunlo, 60 L. T. 9 ; 37 W. R. 72.
nrdlr'lv Service of a charging order nisi on shares upon the solr and the broker,
^^^ also at the last address of the contributory, was held sufficient serdoe
before applying to draw up the order absolute : The Paragon and Spero
Mining Co., 8 Jur. N. S. 11 ; 10 W. R. 76.
Transfer of Consols was ordered, though not claimed or provided for by
the order nisi : Bicketts v. B., 1891, W. N. 29.
And as to charging orders, see Dan. 749 et seq. ; Lewin, 1040 et seq. ; Pish.
Mort. 259 et seq. ; Edwards on Exton., 331 et seq.
Section II. — Attachment op Debts.
1. Garnishee Order Nisi.
Order that all debts owing or accruing due from A. {garnishee) to
B. [judgment debtor] be attached to answer a judgment recovered
against the said B. by C. [judgment creditor] in the High Court of
Justice on the — day of — for the sum of £ — and £ — costs (together
with the costs of the garnishee proceedings), on which judgment the
said sum of £ — remains due and unpaid. And it is ordered that the
said A. and B. do attend before Mr. Justice — , at his Chambers in
&c., on the — day of — -at — o'clock in the forenoon, to show cause
why the said A. should not pay to the said C. the debt due from him
to the said B., or so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the
said judgment together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings.
2. Garnishee Order Absolute where Garnishee owes more than the
Judgment Debt.
Whereas by an order dated &c. it was ordered [Recite order nisi/or
attachment as above], And the said C. [judgment creditor] by his solrs
attending this day, and the said A. [garnishee] and the said B. [judg-
ment debtor] not ap-peaxiag in person nor by their solrs, though duly
served with the said order as by afiidavit of &c., appears and upon
reading &c., It is ordered that the said A. do forthwith pay to the
said C. £ — , being so much of the debt due from the said A. to the said
B. as is sufficient to satisfy the said judgment debt and costs together
with £ — , the costs of the garnishee proceedings, and that in default
thereof execution may issue for the same ; And it is ordered the said
A. be at liberty to retain £ — for his assessed costs of this application
out of the balance of the debt due from him to the said B.
3. Garnishee Order Absolute where Garnishee owes less than the
Judgment Debt.
Whereas by an order dated &c. it was ordered [Recite order nisi
for attachment as above], And the said C. [judgment creditor] by his
SECT. II. ] Attachment of Debts. 477
solrs attending this day, and the said A. [garnishee] and the said B.
[judgment debtor] not appearing in person nor by their solrs, though
duly served with the said order as by affidavit of &c. appears, and
upon reading &c.. It is ordered that the said A. (after deducting
therefrom £ — for his costs of this application) do forthwith pay to
the said C. £ — , the debt due from the said A. to the said B., and that
in default thereof execution may issue for the same ; And it is ordered
that the sum of £ — , the assessed costs of the said C. of this application,
be added to the judgment debt, and be retained out of the money
recovered by the said C. under this order and in priority to the amount
of the judgment debt.
4. Attachment of Moneys in the Hands of a Receiver on Application
of a Judgment Creditor.
Order that any sum or sums of money now in the hands of A., the
receiver, payable or accruing due to the Deft, be (subject to any prior
incumbrances thereon) attached to answer the sum of £ — , being the
amount of the judgment recovered against the Deft by the applicant
on the — day of — , with interest at £4 p. c. per ann. from the date of
the said judgment ; And it is ordered that the said receiver do after
payment of any prior incumbrances thereon pay any sum or sums of
money in his hands, payable or accruing due to the Deft, to the
applicant, not exceeding the amount of the said judgment debt with
interest.
For forms of summons and affidavit in support, see D. C. F. 466, 467.
5. Order for Oral Examination of a Judgment Debtor.
Order that A. [judgment debtor] do attend and be orally examined
as to whether any and what debts are owing to him, and whether the
said A. has any and what other property or means of satisfying the
judgment signed herein, on the — day of — , 190 , before C. D., Esq.,
one of the Masters of the Supreme Court of Judicature, at such time
and place as he may appoint ; And it is ordered that the said A. do
produce any books or documents in his possession or power relating
to the same before the said Master at the time of the examination,
and the costs of this application and of the examination thereundej
are to be in the discretion of the said Master.
NOTES.
By O. XLll, 32, the party entitled to enforce a judgment or order for the Examination
recovery or payment of money may apply to the Court or a Judge for an of judgment
order that the debtor liable under such judgment or order, or, in the case debtor,
of a corporation, that any officer thereof be orally examined as to whether
any and what debts are owing to the debtor, and whether the debtor has any
and what other property or means of satisfying the judgment or order, before
478
Orders as to Funds and Securities. [cH. xxviii.
Attachment
of debts.
Assignee of
judgment
debt.
a Judge or an officer of the Court, as the Court or a Judge shall appoint ;
and the Court or Judge ma}- make an order for the examination of such
judgment debtor, and for the production of any books or documents.
The examination under this rule is intended to be of the most stringent
character : Republic of Costa Rica v. Strousberg, 16 Ch. D. 8, C. A. ; el v. sup.
p. 415.
By O. XLV, 1, " the Court or a Judge may, upon the ex parte application
of any person who has obtained a judgment or order for the recovery or pay-
ment of money, either before or after any oral examination of the debtor
liable under such judgment or order, and upon affidavit by liimself or his
solr stating that judgment has been recovered, or the order made, and that
it is still unsatisfied, and to what amount, and that any other person is
indebted to the judgment debtor, and is within the jurisdiction, order that
all debts owing or accruing from such third person (hereinafter called the
garnishee) to such debtor shall be attached to answer the judgment or order,
together with the costs of the garnishee proceedings ; and by the same or
any subsequent order it may be ordered that the garnishee shall appear
before the Court or a Judge or an officer of the Court as such Court or Judge
shall appoint, to show cause why he should not pay the person who has
obtained such judgment or order the debt due from him to such debtor, or
so much thereof as may be sufficient to satisfy the judgment or order,
together with the costs aforesaid."
The rules make provision as to the time and mode of service of the
order nii>i, and subsequent proceedings for execution to issue or where the
garnishee disputes liability or lien of third person is suggested.
By r. 2, " service of an order that debts due or accruing to a debtor liable
under a judgment or order shall be attached, or notice thereof to the
garnishee in such manner as the Court or Judge, shall direct shall bind such
debts in his hands."
By r. 7, " payment made bj' or execution levied upon the garnishee under
any such proceeding as aforesaid shall be a valid discharge to him as against
the debtor, to the amount paid or levied, although such proceedings may be
set aside, or the judgment or order reversed."
Rule 8 provides for the keeping of a debt attachment book.
By r. 9, " the costs of any application for an attachment of debts, and of
any proceedings arising from or incidental to such application, shall be in
the discretion of the Court or a Judge, and as regards the costs of the judg-
ment creditor shall, unless otherwise directed, be retained out of the money
recovered by him under the garnishee order, and in priority to the amount
of the judgment debt."
By O. XLViHA, 9, debts owing from a firm carrying on business within
the jurisdiction may be attached under 0. XLV, although one or more
members of such firm may be resident abroad : provided that any person
having the control or management of the partnership business or any mem-
ber of the firm within the jurisdiction is served with the garnishee order.
An appearance by any member pursuant to an order shall be a sufficient
appearance by the firm.
The object of sect. 61 of the C. L. P. Act, 1854 (corresponding with r. 1),
was to give a judgment creditor, who cannot levy upon the chattels of his
debtor, a remedy against his debts by attacliing both existing and accruing
debts, and by enforcing the attachment by order for payment of debts as
and when they become payable, making a fresh order for payment when
each debt has become actually payable : Tapp v. Jones, L. R. 10 Q. B. 591 ;
and see Sampson v. Seaton Ry. Co., lb. 28.
Since the Jud. Acts any person who has obtained a judgment or order in
any Division of the High Court, for the recovery or payment of money, may
apply for a garnishee order, as provided by O. xlv, 1, 2.
The assignee of a judgment debt is a person who has " obtained " a judg-
ment within O. XLV, 1, and entitled as such to a garnishee order : Goodman
v. Robinson, 18 Q. B. D. 332.
SECT. II.] Attachment of Debts. 479
An affidavit of information and belief is sufficient on an application for a Affidavit in
garnishee order : Coren v. Barne, 22 Q. B. D. 249 ; De Pass v. Capital and support of
Industries Corp., [1891] I Q. B. 216, C. A. ; S. C, nom. Vinall v. De Pass, application.
[1892] A. C. 90 ; and though the affidavit specifies a particular debt the
inquiry is not limited to that, but the garnishee may be called upon to deny
that he owes any debt to the judgment debtor, and if he refuses to do so,
an order absolute will go.
DEBTS CAPABLE OE BEINQ ATTACHED.
A debt, in order to be capable of attachment, under O. xlv, 1, 2, must be
one in which the judgment debtor is beneficially interested, and for which he
is in a position to sue : Chatterton v. Watney, 16 Ch. D. 378 ; and only so
much of the debt can be affected as the judgment debtor can honestly deal
with at the time when the garnishee order is obtained : Davis v. Freethy, 24
Q. B. D. 519, C. A. ; Me General HorticuUuraWo., Exp. Whitehcmse, 32 Ch. D.
512 ; Badeley v. Consolidated Bank, 38 Ch. D. 238, C. A. ; and see Hancock
V. Smith, 41 Ch. D. 456, C. A. ; Re Greenwood, Sutcliffe v. Gledhill, [1901]
1 Ch. 887 ; Be Marquis of Anglesey, [1903] 2 Ch. 727.
A merely conditional debt, m hich may or may not become due, csnnot be
attached, e.g., a claim for compensation money under a notice to treat :
Richardson v. Elmit, 2 C. P. D. 9 ; Howell v. Met. Dist. Ry. Co., 19 Ch. D.
508 J or income arising from a trust fund which has not come to the hands of
the trustee : Webb v. Stenton, 11 Q. B. D. 518, C. A. ; and per Brett, L. J.,
" accruing debt " means no more than debitum in prcesenti solvendum in
futuro : S. C. ; or a legacy settled by the legatee before the garnishee order,
though the settlement be impeachable : Yyse v. Brown, 13 Q. B. D. 199 ;
and see Re Hayson, Booth v. Trail, 12 Q. B. D. 8, 10 ; and money paid by a
debtor to an agent for the benefit of his creditors, the debtor having taken
no step to revoke the trust, cannot be attached ; Roberts v. Jones, 61 L. J.
Q. B. 523 ; 66 L. T. 617 ; 40 W. R. 573 ; and see Edmunds v. Edmunds,
[1904] P. 363 (fees for vaccination and registration of births).
Salary accruing is not a " debt owing or accruing " capable of being
attached : Hall v. Pritchett, 3 Q. B. D. 215 ; Jones v. Thompson, E. B. & E.
63 ; and see Holmes v. Millage, [1893] 1 Q. B. 551, C, A. ; secus, a sum
already accrued due in respect of a superannuation pension to a retired police
constable : Booth v. Trail, sup.
As to the eifect of the Wages Attachment Abolition Act, 1870 (33 & 34 V.
c. 30), see Gordon v. Jennings, 9 Q. B. D. 45 ; Booth v. Trail, sup. ; and that
the pay of an officer on service in the army or navy cannot be attached, see
Aptharpe v. A., 12 P. D. 192 ; 35 W. R. 728 ; citing Flarty v. Odium, 3
T. R. 681 ; and that the pension of an officer in the army is inalienable under
the Army Act, 1881, whether half pay or retired pension, see Jones & Co. v.
Coventry, [1909] 2 K. B. 1029, citing Crowe v. Price, 22 Q. B. D. 429. And
as to when payments made in respect of such pensions cease to be pensions
within the meaning of the Army Act, see Jones <fc Co. v. Coventry, sup. ;
and that an assignment of the salary of the chaplain to a workhouse and
workhouse infirmary is not void as against pubhc policy, see Re Miram,
[1891] 1 Q. B. 594.
A debt due to A. and B. jointly cannot be attached to answer the judg-
ment debt of A. alone : 0' Donovan v. Goggin, 30 L. R. Ir. 579 ; Macdimald
V. Tacquah Co., 13 Q. B. D. 535 ; questioning Nash v. Pease, 47 L. J. Exch.
766, where an annuity to which a widow was entitled for the maintenance
of herself and her infant son was held attachable in the hands of trustees,
subject to inquiry what ought to be allowed for the son's maintenance.
Proceeds of a judgment paid into a County Court are not attachable as a
" debt " due from the registrar of the Court : Dolphin v. Layton, 4 C. P. D.
130 ; and an absent shareholder's share of surplus assets paid by the Uqui-
dator to the Bank of England under Co.s (Winding-up) Act, 1890, s. 15 (now
substituted by Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 224), is not a
" debt " : Spence v. Coleman, [1901] 2 K. B. 199, C. A.
480
Orders as to Funds and Securities. [cH. xxviii.
Against
married
woman.
Surplus
proceeds of
mortgaged
property.
Equitable
debt.
In Cremetti v. Crom, 4 Q. B. D. 225, it was held that an order of dismissal
with costs for want of prosecution could not be enforced by attachment of
debts due to Pit.
Arrears of income which have accrued due to a married woman restrained
from anticipation, and suing under the Married Women's Property Act,
1882, may be retained by trustees to answer costs which she has been
ordered personally to pay to them ; Cox v. BenneM, [1891] 1 Ch. 617, C. A.,
distinguishing Be Olanvill, 31 Ch. D. 532, C. A. A judgment against a
married woman, though limited to her separate estate, is still a judgment
under O. xlv, 1 : Holtby v. Hodgsm, 24 Q. B. D. 103, C. A. ; but a judgment
against a married woman restrained from anticipation cannot be enforced
by any kind of process against arrears of income accruing after the judgment:
Hood-Barrs v. Oathcart, [1894] 2 Q. B. 559, C. A.
And money recovered by a married woman in an action, as damages, could
be garnished, although the judgment in such action was not in fact entered
until after the commencement of the garnishee proceedings : Holtby v.
Hodgson, sup.
As to the right to attach surplus proceeds of mortgaged property in the
hands of a mortgagee, and that there can be no such right where the sale has
taken place after the garnishee order, see ChatterUm v. Watney, sup. ; and
for particular instances of debts which could or could not be attached, see
Dan. 759—762 ; Chitty, Archbold, 928—933.
An equitable as well as a legal debt can now be attached : Wilson v.
Dundas, 1875, W. N. 232 ; Stumore v. Campbell, [1892] 1 Q. B. 314, C. A. ;
also money in the hands of a receiver and payable under order of the Court
to the debtor : Cowan's Estate, Bapier v. Wright, 14 Ch. D. 638.
Scotch
arrestment.
Bankruptcy.
EITECT or GAUNISHEE OEDEE.
It has been held that a garnishee order nisi is a right much more specific
than is created by the mere delivery of a writ of execution to the sheriff :
Emanuel v. Bridger, L. R. 9 Q. B. 286 ; and see Holmes v. Tutlon, 5 E. & B.
65 ; but until served on the garnishee it does not create a charge : Hamer v.
Giles, 11 Ch. D. 942.
A garnishee order has not the efiect of transferring the debt, nor does it
give to the person obtaining the order any right to the securities for it, or
any claim to the land comprised therein : ChatterUm v. Watney, 17 Ch. D.
259, C. A. ; nor convert him into a creditor who can present a winding-up
petition : Be Combined Weighing Co., 43 Ch. D. 99, C. A. ; but see Pritchett
V. English and Colonial Syndicate, [1899] 2 Q. B. 428, C. A., per Romer, L. J.;
nor is notice necessary to complete the title of a previous incumbrancer as
against the garnishor : Be General Horticultural Co., 32 Ch. D. 512 ; Arden
v. A., 29 Ch. D. 702 ; Badeley v. Cmsolidated Bank, 38 Ch. D. 238, C. A.
A garnishee order served upon a co. does not give the garnishee
any right as against a debenture holder from whom the co. has subse-
quently borrowed bond fide upon the security of all their property : Geisse v.
Taylm-, [1905] 2 K. B. 658 ; and compare Nortcm v. JaJtes, [1906] 1 K. B.
112 ; Cairney v. Back, [1906] 2 K. B. 746.
A deed of assignment executed by a judgment debtor prior to garnishee
proceedings, but by the assignee subsequent to such proceedings, may be
held to relate back to its execution by the debtor, so as to be valid against
the garnishor : Edmunds v. Edmunds, [1904] P. 362.
A Scotch arrestment, being. equivalent to assignment with notice, may
give the arrester of calls due from Scotch shareholders priority over deben-
ture holders who have not given notice to such shareholders : Be Queensland
Mercantile Co., [1891] 1 Ch. 536 ; and as to the efiect of such arrestment
against the property of a co. which is afterwards wound up, see Be W.
Cumberland Iron and Steel Co., [1893) 1 Ch. 713.
A judgment creditor who had obtained and served on the garnishee a
garnishee order nisi under the C. L. P. Act, 1854, s, 61, before a liquidation
SECT. II.] Attachment of Debts. 481
petition had been presented, was a creditor " holding a security " upon the
property of the bankrupt within the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 12 : Lowe v.
Blakemore, L. R. 10 Q. B. 485 ; Emanuel v. Bridger, L. R. 9 Q. B. 286 ;
/Stoer V. Pimdcr, L. R. 6 Ex. 228 ; 7 Ex. 95 ; Exp. Roche, 6 Ch.lQb; and see
Stevens v. Phelijis, 10 Ch. 417. 422.
A foreign attachment, being merely a personal process to compel appear-
ance in an action of debt (under the custom of London in the Mayor's Court :
see London Joint Stock Bank v. London Corp., 5 C. P. D. 494, C. A. ; Mayor
oj London v. London Joint Stock Bank, 6 App. Ca. 393 ; at Bristol in the
Tolsey Court : see E.rp. Sear, Re Price, 17 Ch. D. 74, C. A.), did not, when
not perfected by judgment in the action before the commencement of the
Djft's bankruptcy, give the creditor a charge or security on the bankrupt's
property within sect. 12 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 : Levy y. Loi-ell, 14
Ch. D. 234, 238, C. A. (reversing 11 Ch. D. 220) ; Richter v. Laxton, 27 W. R.
214 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 184 ; 39 L. T. 499 ; not following London Cotton Mills
Co., 25 W. R. 109 ; and see as to the effect under this section of the issue
and service of a writ of sequestration, Exp. Nelson, Re Hoare, 14 Ch. D. 41.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 45, a garnishee order or attachment of
debt will not be valid as against the trustee in bankruptcy of the judgment
debtor, unless completed by the receipt of the debt before the date of the
receiving order : see on this section, Robson, pp. 176 et seq. ; Yate Lee, p.
409 ; Re Trehearne, Exp. Ealing Local Board, 39 W. R. 116 ; 00 L. J. Q. B.
50; Re Bagley, [1911] 1 K. B. 317. Actual receipt is necessary; mere
payment into Court is not sufficient: Butler v. Wearing, 17 Q. B. D. 182 ;
and that a garnishee order absolute is not a " final judgment " against the
garnishee within sect. 4, sub-sect. 1 [g), of this Act, see Exp. Chinery, 12 Q.
B. D. 342, C. A. But sect. 45 does not apply to a trustee in a Scottish
bankruptcy coming to England to collect the bankrupt's property :
Galhraith v. Grimshaw, [1910] 1 K. B. 339, C. A., afi. H. L. 54 L. J. 634.
The duties of the garnishee as to paying over the fund to the judgment
creditor, where there has been an intervening adjudication in bankruptcy or
registration of a deed of arrangement, are discussed in Wood v. Dunn, L. R.
2 Q. B. 73 (reversing L. R. 1 Q. B. 77), from which it appears that he will
be protected if the payment has been made without notice of the adjudica-
tion, &c., or if with notice, under such circumstances that he was vmable to
get the order set aside, and payment was made to avoid levy of execution ;
and see Re Webster, [1907] 1 K. B. 623, as to the effect of bankruptcy of
the judgment creditor. T>' i.
Payment into Court under a Judge's order operates as a discharge to the '^''. ^^^ °
garnishee under sect. 65 of the C. L. P. Act, 1854 (corresponding with O. XLV, °
7), and the subsequent execution of 9 composition deed will not affect the
right of the judgment creditor to the fund in Court : Culverhouse v. Wickens,
L. R. 3 C. P. 295 ; but if the order is not filed, the judgment creditor may
have to refund to a trustee in bankruptcy of the debtor : Exp. Smith, Re
Brown, 20 Q. B. D. 321, C. A.
A person compelled by process to pay to the sheriff could not be called
upon to pay a second time to the garnishor : Tumbull v. Robertson, 47 L. J.
C. P. 294 ; 38 L. T. 389 ; 26 W. R. 557.
In the absence of fraud, payment by the garnishee discharges him, though
the judgment is afterwards set aside : Exp. Smith, sup. A garnishee who
has paid the judgment debtor by cheque before notice of a garnishee order
is not bound to stop the cheque on receipt of such notice : Edmunds v.
Edmunds, [1904] P. 362.
A garnishee order nisi ought not to be made absolute it there is a reason-
able suggestion that the judgment debtor is a trustee of the debt sought
to be attached, but the money should be paid into Court to abide the
event of inquiry : Roberts v. Death, 8 Q. B. D. 319, C. A. ; and that the
making of a garnishee order is discretionary, see Martin v. Wadel, [190C]
2 K. B. 27.
An order attaching a debt due from exors should show on. its face that
VOL. I. 2 I
482 Orders as to Funds and Securities. [cH. xxviii.
they are charged in their representative capacity : Burton v. Robcris, 29 L. J.
Ex. 484 ; and see Stevens v. Phelips, 10 Ch. 417.
A garnishee order, whether in the High Court or a County Court, attaches
the whole money due, and bankers on whom such an order is served are
justified in declining to honour their customers' cheques until the order is
discharged : Bogers v. WhiteUy, 23 Q. B. D. 236 ; -S. C, [1892] A. C. 118,
H. L. ; compare Yates v. Terry, [1902] 1 K. B. 527.
Notwithstanding O. xui, 22, a garnishee may be ordered to pay although
more than six years have elapsed since the judgment : Fellows v. Thornton,
14 Q. B. D. 335.
Where the debt attached is the subject of an action, the judgment creditor
is entitled to be added as co-Pit, but not necessarily to the conduct of the
action : Wallis v. Smuh, 51 L. J. Ch. 577 ; 46 L. T. 473.
Execution was allowed to issue under a garnishee order, though there was
in fact no attachable debt at the time when the order was made : Bandall v.
Lithgow, 12 Q. B. D. 525.
Debts due to The effect of a garnishee order nisi on debts due to a co., obtained before
a CO. presentation of a winding-up petition, is, upon service of the order, to bind
the property in the hands of the garnishee, so as to prevent it from being
handed over to the co., or, after the winding-up, to the official liquidator :
Exp. Hawkins, 3 Ch. 787 ; Be Great Ship Co., 4 D. J. & S. 63.
If a petition to wind up has been presented before service of a garnishee
order nisi, the creditor's inchoate charge is defeated by the winding-up :
Stanhope, &c. Collieries Co., 11 Ch. D. 160, C. A. ; secus, after service : Be
National United Ins. Corp., [1901] 1 Ch. 950.
Sums set apart by a co. for payment of guaranteed interest to preference
stockholders of another co. may, before payment, be attached by a judgment
creditor of the latter : Bouch v. Sevenoaks Bail. Co., 4 Ex. D. 133 ; and the
proceeds of a call to provide for payment of a debt due by the co. may be
attached in the hands of the liquidator to answer a judgment obtained
against the creditor of the co. : Bxp. Turner, 2 D. E. & J. 354.
Effect of A creditor of a testator who has, before an admon decree, obtained a
admon decree, garnishee order wisi will not be restrained from proceeding to issue execution :
Fowler v. Bdberts, 2 Giff. 226.
And see Burton v. Bdberts, 29 L. J. Ex. 484, giving the judgment creditor
in that case a rule absolute for payment of the debt by the exor, the
garnishee.
But when the assets available for testator's debts have been removed out
of the hands of the exorsby an admon decree, a garnishes orderraisi obtained
after such decree will not be enforced against them : Stevens v. Phelips,
10 Ch. 417. A receivership order by way of equitable execution will have
priority over garnishee order obtained by subsequent creditors : Be Marquis
of Anglesey, [1903] 2 Ch. 727.
Effect on "^^^ attachment of a judgment debt overrides the general lien, or control,
soil's lien of "^ attorney over the judgment in respect of general costs due to him
for costs. from the garnishee : Hough v. Edwards, 1 H. & N. 171. But the lien given
to a solr by 23 & 24 V. c. 127, s. 28, upon property recovered or preserved
through his instrumentality, is not prejudiced by a garnishee order attaching
an amount agreed to be paid : The Jeff. Davis, L. R. 2 A. & E. 1 ; The
Leader, lb. 314 ; and see Sympson v. Prothero, 5 W. R. 814 ; 26 L. J. Ch.
671 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 711 ; Shippey v. Gret/, 49 L. J. C. P. 524 ; 28 W. R. 877 ;
42 L. T. 673 ; and see Cole v. Eley, [1894] 2 Q. B. 140 ; lb. 350, C. A. ;
Good fellow V. Gray, [1898] 2 Q. B. 498, C. A.
A charging order in favour of Pit's solr gave priority over a previous
attachment of proceeds of a ji. fa. in the hands of the sheriff : Dallow v.
Oarrold, 14 Q. B. D. 543, C. A.
A garnishee order which has been improperly obtained will not be en-
forced : Leese v. Martin, 17 Eq. 224 ; and an order made by mutual
mistake of judgment creditor and garnishee was set aside : MooreY. Peachey,
66 L. T. 198 ; Marshall v. James, [1905] 1 Ch. 432.
SECT. ITI.] Stop Orders. 483
ENFOKCEMENT OP GAENISHEE OEDBE.
An action of debt will lie to " enforce " a garnishee order (see 0. xlii, 24,
sup, p. 408), but the Pit may be saddled with costs if the amount could be
recovered by execution under 0. xlv, 3 : Pritcheit v. English and Colonial
Syndicate, [1899] 2 Q. B. 428, C. A.
And for practice as to attachment of debts, see Chitty, Arohbold, 927 —
940 ; Edwards on Execution, 349 et seq.
Section III. — Stop Oedeks.
1. Stop Order on Capital of Funds in Court.
Order that no part of the share or interest to which B. is or may
become entitled of and in the capital of £ — Consols in Court to the
credit of this action, A. v. B., 1900, A. 900, " account of B. &c.,"
be sold, transferred, or otherwise dealt with without notice to the
applicant.
N.B. — This and the following forms of stop orders have been framed having
regard to Mr. Justice Stirling's direction in MacJc v. Postle, [1894]
2 Ch. 449 ; inf. pp. 486, 487, as to the advisability of expressing on the
face of such stop orders plainly whether capital or income or both are
to be restrained.
For forms of application, &c., see D. C. P. 841 et seq.
2. The like, with ScJiedule.
Order that no part of the capital of the funds in Court (the par-
ticulars of which and the ledger credit to which the same respectively
are standing are set out in the schedule hereto) to which the said
B. is or may become entitled, be sold, transferred, or otherwise
dealt with without notice to the applicant.
The Schedule above referred to.
Particulars of Funds in Court.
Ledger Credits.
N.B. — The above form can be used where several funds are affected, including
the caae of an order made in more than one action.
3. Stop Order on Income of Futids in Court.
Order that no part of the share or interest to which B. is or may
become entitled of and in the £ — cash (being income) in Court to
the credit of this action, A. v. B., 1900, A. 900, " account of B. &c.,"
and of any interest to accrue on the £ — Consols in Court to the same
credit be paid out, or otherwise dealt with (if so, except for the purpose
of investment) without notice to the applicant.
484
Orders as to Funds and Securities. [cH. Xxviil.
4. Stop Order on Capital and Income of Funds in Court.
Order that no part of the share or interest to which B. is or may
become entitled of and in the capital sum of £ — Consols in Court
to the credit of A. v. B., 1900, A. 900, " account of E. &c.," and no
part of the £ — cash (being income) in Court to the same credit, and
of any interest to accrue on the said £ — Consols, be sold, transferred,
paid out, or otherwise dealt with without notice to the apphcant.
5. Stop Order on particular Sum of Cash in Court.
Order that the £238 6s. 8d. money on deposit and interest now
represented by the £238 6s. 8d. cash in Court to the credit of {ledger
credit) by the order dated &c., directed to be paid to the Pit be not
so paid until further order, and that such further order be not made
without notice to the applicants G. B. & Co. — Key v. Cameron,
Kekewich, J., 27 April, 1900, A. 1594. "
6. Stop Order on Cash, when carried over under satne Order,
to he inserted in Payment Schedule.
Paiticulars, etc.
Carry over caah
The fund not to be paid
out or otherwise dealt
with without notice to A.
Payees, etc.
The account o£ B. &c.
Money.
£200 0 0
Securities.
7. Stop Order on Cash when carried over under another Order.
Order that no part of the £ — cash in Court to the credit of
{ledger credit), directed by the said order dated &c. to be carried
over to the credit of &c. {ledger credit), when so carried over be paid
out or otherwise dealt with without notice to the applicant.
8. Stop Order continued on Funds when carried over to he inserted
in Payment Schedule.
Particulars, etc.
Payees, etc.
Securities.
Notwithstanding restraint,
dated, &c.
Carry over Consols
Continue the said restraint
dated, &c., requiring
notice to A. on the Con-
sols when carried over.
The account of B. &o. . .
....
£1,000 0 0
SECT. III.] Stop Orders. 485
9. Transferee to have Notice in lieu of Original Assignee.
Order that the notice required by the order dated &c., to be
given to [the respondents] prior to (follow previous stop order) be
instead thereof given to the applicants.
10. Order to stay Payment of Cheque, and Payee from receiving.
Usual undertaking as to damages, and to accept short notice of
motion to discharge this order (see p. 507, post). Order that the
note or cheque for £ — ■ drawn by the paymaster in favour of M.,
pursuant to the order dated &c., be not delivered out until after the
— day of — , or until further order ; And it is ordered that the said
M. be restrained until after the said — day of — , or until further
order, from receiving the said cheque. — Re Hmo, V.-C. M., 30 Jan.
1874, A. 127.
For order to stay payment out of cheque for dividend, see Hamilton v.
Marks, V.-C. W., 1 June, 1855, A. 1011.
For the like order upon the ex parte application of a solr who claimed a
lien on the fund for his costs under the Solrs Act, 1860 (23 & 24 V. c. 127),
see Gerrard v. Dawes, V.-C. S., 5 Nov. 1869, A. 2618 ; 18 W. R. 32.
For orders to stay payee from receiving cheques, see Courtoy v. Vincent,
M. R., 15 Jan. 1852, A. 201 ; 15 Beav. 486 ; and see Ford v. Bobinson,
V.-C. S., 10 Jan. 1854, A. 595.
11. Stop Order on Documents deposited in Court.
" And the applicant — by his sob undertaking to pay any costs,
charges, and expenses, which by reason of this order having been
obtained (so far as the same relates to the deeds hereinafter men-
tioned) shall be occasioned to any party to this action, if this Court
shall so direct," It is ordered that none of the deeds (shares) or
other documents, deposited by the Deft in the Central Office, pur-
suant to the order dated &c., be delivered out or otherwise dealt with
without notice to the applicant." — Adapted from Lang v. Griffith,
M. R., at Chambers, 5 Nov. 1870, B. 2717; for like order, S. C, M.R.,
11 March, 1861, B. 541.
By O, LXi, 30, providing for deposit of deeds and documents in the
Central Office, it is expressly provided that negotiable securities are not
to be so deposited.
12. Stop Order discharged.
Order that the order dated &c., whereby it was ordered that
(recite order) be discharged.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 567, 843.
If there is a payment Schedule to the order discharging the stop order the
direction will be in the Schedule and not in the body of the order, and will
run as follows : " The restraint dated &c., is hereby discharged."
486 Orders as to Funds and Securities, [ch. xxviii.
13. Stop Order on Fund about to he paid into Court.
Order that no part of the share or interest of A., of and in the
sum of £ — , by the order dated, &o., directed to be lodged in Court
to the credit of, &c., when so paid in be paid out or otherwise dealt
with except for the purchase of Consols ; And it is ordered that no
part of the said share or interest of and in the Consols so to be pur-
chased, be sold, transferred, or otherwise dealt with without notice
to the applicant. But this stop order is to afiect only capital {or
only income or capital, and income as the case may be).
NOTES.
STOP ORDERS.
Jurisdiction to restrain by what are called " stop orders " the transfer or
payment of funds or securities standing in Court in the name of the pay-
master to the general credit of any cause or matter, or to the account of any
person entitled in expectancy or otherwise, without notice to an assignee of
the fund, or a person having a lien or charge thereon, is exercised by the
Ch. Div. on the application of the assignee or incumbrancer on the fund :
Mode of s^6 O. XLVi, 12, 13. Stop orders were formerly obtained on petition ; and if
application, the assignor did not join in the petition, or consent, he must have been
served : Parsons v. Groome, 4 Beav. 521 ; but not the other parties to the
cause : Olazhooh v. Gillatf, 9 Beav. 611 ; and by 0. xlvi, 13, service of
" the petition or summons " upon the parties to the cause or matter, or
upon the persons interested in any part of the moneys or securities not
sought to be afEected by the order, is not required.
Persons who have obtained stop orders upon contingent interests in a fund
which, in the event, have never vested, are not necessary parties to and need
not be served with a petition for payment out of the fund : Vernon v. Croft,
36 W. R. 778 ; 58 L. T. 919.
Since 15 & 16 V. c. 86, appUcations for stop orders, where the assignor
and assignee concur, have been made in Chambers : Edmondson v. Harrison,
1 W. R. 140 ; and see Lister v. Tidd, 15 W. R. 917 ; and even where the
assignor opposes ; Wrench v. Wynne, 17 W. R. 198 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 543 ; Walsh
v. Wason, 22 W. R. 676 ; 30 L. T. 743 ; and the costs of a petition will not
be allowed : Walsh v. Wason, sup. ; and the petitioner maybe ordered to
pay the difference between the costs of obtaining the order in Chambers and
the costs of the petition : Wellesley v. Mornington, 41 L. J. Ch. 776.
But if the fund has been paid into Court under the Trustee Act, and
exceeds £1,000, and there has been no prior appUcation in the matter of the
fund, a petition and not a summons is the proper form of application : Be
Toogood's Trusts, 56 L. T. 703 ; Re Day's Trusts, 49 L. T. 499.
Form of 1'^^ *^*1^ generally of the assignor, and the assignment, either by proving
order. its execution in the regular way, or by the assignor's appearing and admit-
ting it, must be shown : Wood v. Vincent, 4 Beav. 419 ; Quarman v.
Williams, 5 Beav. 133 ; Lambert v. Hutchinson, 13 L. J. Ch. 336.
The stop order should express in distinct terms that it affects only the
share or interest of the assignor : MacLeod v. Buchanan, 4 D. J. & S. 265 ;
33 Beav. 234. And the limit or extent of the share or interest of the
]ierson whose share or interest is the subject of the restraint should also be
shown on the face of the order : Mach v. Postle, [1894] 2 Ch. 449 ; v. sup.
p. 483.
The practice in the Paymaster General's office being to tioat stop orders on
funds in Court as not affecting income unless income is mentioned on the
face of such orders, care should be taken in drawing up stop orders to express
on the face of them plainly whether capital or income or both are to be the
SECT. III.] Stop Orders. 487
subjects of restraint : Mack v. Postle, sup. See Forms 1—5, sup. pp. 483,
484 ; and Dan. 1382 et seq.
In ascertaining the effect of a stop order upon funds in Court, the Court
is not bound to confine its attention to the language of the order itself, but
may have recourse to what appears from any part of the order : S. O.
It is considered that an assignee or incumbrancer of a life interest in
funds whether on tlie general credit of a matter or action, or carried to a
separate account is entitled to notice of any dealing with the capital of the
funds, whether for change of investment or otherwise: per Stirling, J., by
notice for use in Chambers.
A stop order will not be granted where there are neither any funds in Fund to be
Court, nor any order to bring a fund into Court : Wellesley v. Morningtcm, in Court or
11 W. R. 17 ; 7 L. T. 590 ; 1 N. R. 13 ; but may be where a fund of specified ordered into
amount is about to be paid into Court under an order : Shmv v. Hudson, 48 Court.
L. J. Ch. 689.
It does not take effect until the original or an office copy has been lodged Operation of
with the paymaster, but on notice of an intended application he will not order,
immediately part with the fund.
It does not affect any other right or decide any question of title: Lucas v.
Peacock, 9 Beav. 177 ; and accordingly may be made on funds, the title to
which is in dispute : Hawkesley v. Oowan, 12 W. R. 1100 ; 11 L. T. 34.
And though it is said, in Lucas v. Peacock, sup., that the order need not be
made " without prejudice," the order on funds paid into Court under the
Trustee Relief Act was expressed to be without prejudice to a lien for costs
claimed by the trustee : Ee Blunt, 10 W. R. 379.
It may be obtained by a judgment creditor in respect of funds in Court
in the Ch. Div. without obtaining a charging order in the Division where
judgment was recovered : Shaw v. Hudson, 48 L. J. Ch. 689 ; Hopewell v.
Barnes, 1 Ch. D. 630.
A stop order on a wife's reversionary chose in action assigned by husband
and wife previously to 20 & 21 V. c. 57, was limited in operation to the
husband's life : Moreau v. Polley, 1 D. & S. 143.
Under the Married Women's Property Act, 1870 (33 & 34 V. c. 93), effect
has been given by a stop order to a charge on a married woman's interest in
funds in Court, to which she was entitled for her separate use without
restraint on anticipation : Sanger v. (S., 11 Eq. 470.
Stop orders on funds transferred into Court in lunacy will not be granted Lunacy,
on the application of a next of kin of the lunatic, and the assignee of his
expectant incerest : Re Wilkinson, 10 Ch. 73 (overruling Be PigoU, 3 Mac. &
G. 268 ; Be Moore, 1 Mac. & G. 103).
As to inspection and delivery out of documents impounded by the Court, Documents,
see O. xiiil, 33a. And that the Court cannot part with such documents, and
will not allow copies to be taken, see Be A Solr, Exp. Incorp. Law Soc., 65
L. T. 584.
For forms of application and affidavit in support, see D. C. F. 841, 842.
PKIOEITIES.
So long as a fund charged is in the hands of the trustees, notice to them When stop
is sufficient, but when paid into Court, and therefore no longer under their order neces-
oontrol, a stop order must be obtained in order to perfect the charge : Pin- ^^'^y-
nock V. Bailey, 23 Ch. D. 497 ; and so also where part of the fund only is in
Court : Mutual Life Soc. v. Langley, 32 Ch. D. 460, C. A. ; and for the pur-
pose of determining priority, a stop order obtained in an admon action has
no greater effect than notice to the trustee would have had if there had been
no action : Stephens v. Green ; Oreen v. Kniqht, [ISOSl 2 Ch. 148, C. A.
As a general rule the priorities on funds in Court are determined by the How priorities
priorities of the respective stop orders rather than by the date or nature of determined,
the charge : Elder v. Maclean, 3 Jur. N. S. 283 ; Swayne v. S., 1 1 Beav. 463 ;
Greening v. Beckford, 5 Sim. 195 ; Thomas v. Cross, 2 Dr. & S. 423.
488
Orders as to Funds and Securities. [cH. xxviii.
Effect of
equitable
execution.
Effect of
carrying over
to separate
account.
Liability of
Paymaster-
General.
Solr's lien.
Accordingly an assignee who has obtained a stop order after the bank-
ruptcy of his assignor is entitled to priority over the trustee in bankruptcy :
Stuart V. Cockerell, 8 Eq. 607 ; Palmer v. Locke, 18 Ch. D. 381, C. A. ; or
the trustees of a composition deed who have not : Birm., &c. Co. v. Carter,
20 W. R. 354.
An incumbrancer who has given due notice to the trustee before the funds
were brought into Court will not be postponed to a subsequent incumbrancer
who first obtains a stop order : Livesey v. Harding, 23 Beav. 141 ; Brearcliff
V. Dorrington, 4 Dr. & S. 122 ; Thomas v. Cross, 2 Dr. &Sm. 423 ; nor can
an incumbrancer, who has notice of a prior incumbrance at the time when
he makes his advance, gain priority by obtaining a stop order : lie Holmes,
29 Ch. D. 786, C. A. ; Mutual Life Assurance Soc. v. Langley, 32 Ch. D.
460, 468, C. A. ; but the priority will not be prejudiced by notice of a prior
incumbrance received after the date of the advance, and before the stop
order : Mutiial Life Assurance Soc. v. Langley, sup.
A stop order obtained by mortgagees of a life interest, general in terms,
upon "the share " of the mortgagor, gave priority over the trustees of a
prior settlement, not disclosed by the mortgagor, who had obtained no stop
order over the funds : Mack v. Postle, [1894] 2 Ch. 449.
In Thompson v. Tomkins, 2 Dr. & S. 8, notice to the exor of a charge on
the interest of a residuary legatee, after payment into Court of the funds
(forming part of the estate), was held valid without a stop order, as against
the legatee's subsequent assignees in bankruptcy ; but see Mutual Life
Assurance Soc. v. Langley, sup.
See also on this question Bartlett v. 5., 1 D. & J. 127 (deciding that the
assignees in bankruptcy of A., who had obtained a stop order on a rever-
sionary interest, were entitled in priority to A.'s mortgagee of the rever-
sionary inteiest who did not obtain 3 stop order) : Qrainge v. Warner, 13
W. R. 883 ; 12 L. T. 563 ; Day v. D., 1 D. & J. 144 ; 23 Beav. 391.
And see Warburton v. Hill, Kay; 470, sup. Sect. I., " CHAUGma Ordbks " ;
and as to notice, Lloyd v. Banks, 4 Eq. 222 ; Brovm's Trusts, Be, 5 Eq. 88.
Equitable execution obtained by a receivership order does not require to
be perfected by a stop order ; and therefore where both A. and B., judg.
ment creditors, had obtained receivership orders and stop orders, the priority
obtained by A.'s prior equitable execution was not lost by B.'s stop order,
second in date, having been the first formally lodged with the paymaster :
Be Galland, 1886, W. N. 96.
Where funds have been carried over to a separate account it is released
from the general questions in the cause, so that a stop order by a bona fide
creditor of the person entitled to the fund may prevail over a liability of such
person to the estate of the testator : Be Eyton, Bartlett v. Charles, 45 Ch. D.
458 ; Be Jervoise, 12 Beav. 209 ; and see Edgar v. Plomley, [1900] A. C. 431.
The priority obtained by a stop order is not afiected by a subsequent dis-
tribution and carrying over the funds to a separate account : Lister v. Tidd,
4 Eq. 462 ; and see Fish. Mort. 638. But the restraint should be continued :
see Form 8, sup.
Such priority extends only to the charge in respect of which the stop order
was obtained : Macleod v. Buchanan, 33 Beav. 234 ; 4 D. J. & S. 265.
If a person becoming interested in funds in Court standing to an account
in the name cf another does not obtain any stop order against the funds, and
the funds are subsequently paid out in disregard of his interest to a person
apparently, but not in fact, entitled to it, the Pa5rmaster-General is not
guilty of default witliin the meaning of sect. 5 of the Court of Chancery
(Funds) Act, 1872, so as to make the Treasury liable to make good the funds
out of the Consolidated Fund : Bath v. Bath, [1901] 1 Ch. 460 ; following
Jones V. Jones, [1901] 1 Ch. 464, n. (Lord Cairns).
A solr's lien on funds in Court recovered by his exertions has priority
over a stop order obtained by an assignee from the client : Haymes v. Cooper,
33 Beav. 431.
SECT.
III. J Stop Orders. 489
COSTS.
Parties are not entitled as a general rule and in all cases to the costs of
obtaining a stop order : Grimsby v. Webster, 8 W. R. 725 ; though in that
case the costs of obtaining it and of appearance were allowed.
A mortgagee is entitled to the costs of a stop order, out of the funds, where
the mortgage deed authorizes him to apply to the Court, but they should be
specially mentioned in the direction for taxation : Waddilove v. Taylor, 6
Ha. 307.
By 0. xiiVi, 12, the person by whom any order preventing the transfer or
payment of money or securities without notice to the assignee of any person
entitled in expectancy or otherwise is obtained, is to be liable, at the discre-
tion of the Court or a Judge, to pay any costs, charges, and expenses which,
by reason of such order having been obtained, shall be occasioned to any
party to the cause or matter, or any persons interested in the particular
moneys or securities.
( 490 ) [chap. XXIX.
CHAPTER XXIX.
INTBRPLEADEE.
Section I. — Interpleader at the Instance of
Private Person.
1. — Issue directed — 0. lvii, 6, 7.
Order that all further proceedings in this action against the Deft
be stayed ; And it is ordered that the following issue be tried &c.
That is to say, Whether the said &c. for which this action is brought
is the property of the Pit [add, if so, Adjourn &c.J. — Liberty to apply.
2. Interpleader Order in Chambers in the First Instance — Issue
directed without Jury — 0. lvii, 8.
Directions that the Defts {stakeholders) lodge the sum of £ — , being
the subject-matter of the action, in Court, and for taxation and pay-
ment of their costs thereout, and for the investment of the residue —
" And it is ordered that upon such lodgment in Court as aforesaid
being made, all further proceedings in this action be stayed as against
the Defts ; And it is ordered that C. {the claimant) be restrained from
commencing any proceedings against the Defts in respect of the
subject-matter of this action ; And it is ordered that the following
question of fact between the Pit and the said C. be tried before this
Court without a jury, that is to say, ' Whether the said sum of £ —
belongs to the Pit or the said C " — Question of costs reserved [add
Lodgment and Payment Schedule]. — See Bucknmster v. Lochhart,
M. R., at Chambers, 26 May, 1876, A. 1633.
In the Ch. Div., if the parties, on being served with a summons, appear,
the order will be made in the first instance.
For like order at the instance of an assurance cc, with directions for the
trial of an issue before the Court without a jury between the Pit and the
claimant, whether the Pit has any interest in moneys secured by policies,
see Cutler v. Reliance, d:c. Assurance Co., M. R. in Chambers, I Aug. 1876,
A. 2244.
3. Order staying Proceedings against the Original Deft, and
substituting the Claimant — 0. lvii, 7.
Order that all further proceedings in this action against the
Deft B. be stayed ; And it is ordered that the said C. {claimant) be
SECT. I.] Interpleader at Instance of Private Person. 491
substituted as Deft in this action instead of the present Deft B. —
Directions for bringing money into Court or for otherwise dealing
with the property in question, and as to costs [see Form 2, swp.].
4. Order tarring Claim against the Claimant not appearing —
0. LVII, 10.
And C, the party named in the said order dated &c., not appearing
thereon to maintain or relinquish his claim as thereby directed, and
having been duly served with the said orders. Order that the said C.
and all persons claiming from or under him be, and they are hereby,
for ever barred from prosecuting the claim mentioned and referred to
in the said order and the afi&davit of &c. against the said Deft — his
exors or admors, hereby saving nevertheless the said C.'s right or
claim against the Pit. [AM consequent directions, if any.']
For the forms of the affidavit of Deft to obtain a rule or order for the
claimant to appear at law ; of the affidavit of the claimant in support of his
claim ; and of the affidavit of service of the rule where the third party does
not appear, see Chit. Forms 664 — 672.
And for the forms of orders in the K. B, Div., see R. S. C, A pp. K.,
Forms 50 — 56a.
For forms of proceedings in interpleader by stakeholder, see D. C. F. 810
et seq.
NOTES.
INTEEPLBADEK GENEEALLY.
Prior to the Judicature Acts practice in interpleader in Chancery was
regulated as follows : Where several persons claimed the same debt, duty,
or property under different titles or in separate interests, and the person
owing the debt or duty, or holding the property, claimed no interest himself,
and was in fact a mere stakeholder, he might, if proceedings at Law or in
Equity (Prud. Assce Co. v. Thomas, 3 Ch. 74) were taken by any of the
claimants, or if he were harassed by conflicting claims (Mealor v. Talbot, 27
L. J. Ch. 165), file a bill of interpleader against the seveial claimants, calling
upon them to interplead (Story, Eq. J. § 806), and then, upon an affidavit
of no collusion, and (in the case of a debt or sum of money) payment into
Court of the amount due, all actions and suits, if any, were stayed by
injunction, and the rights of the claimants decided, or put in course of
decision : see 8ec. of State for India, v. Kelson, L. JJ., 6 Aug. 1861, B.
2011, on appeal (6th Edn., pp. 501, 502).
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (6), any absolute assignment, by writing (not by Absolute
way of charge only), of any debt or other legal chose in action, of which assignment,
express notice in writing shall have been given to the debtor, trustee, or J""^- ^^>
other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to receive or ■'° ' ' • ■^''■
claim such debt or chose in action, is to be and be deemed to have been
efieotual in law (subject to prior equities), to pass and transfer the legal
right to and remedies for the same, and the power to give a good discharge
without the concurrence of the assignor ; but if the debtor, trustee, or other
person liable shall have had notice that such assignment is disputed, or of
any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or chose in action, he
may call upon the several claimants to interplead, or may pay the same into
Court under sect. 42 of the Trustee Act, 1893.
The sub-section is retrospective, and applies to a debt assigned before the
Act was passed : Dibh v. Walker, [1893] 2 Ch. 429. As to the general effect
of the sub-section, see Marchant v. Morton, 70 L. J. K. B. 820.
A cheque is not an assignment within this sub-section : Schroeder v.
492
Interpleader.
[chap. XXIX.
Notice after
death of
assignor.
Written direc'
tion to pay.
Policy money,
Central Bank of London, 24 W. R. 710. An agreement to advance money to
a builder is not a debt or other chose in action capable of assignment within
the subsection : May v. Lane, 64 L. J. Q. B. 236, C. A.
Quxre, whether an assignment of part of a debt is within the enactment :
Durham Bros. v. Robertson, sup. An assignment by a person of his rights
in an agreement for the sale to him of a reversionary interest is an assign-
ment of a " legal chose in action " : Torhingion v. Magee, [1903] 1 K. B. 644,
C. A.
A claim under sect. 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, to
compensation is capable of assignment : Dawson v. 0. N. dk City Ey., [1905]
1 K. B. 260, C. A.
An assignment which increases the burden on the person liable is invalid :
Tolhurst V. Associated Portland Cement Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 811.
A mortgage of debts made in the ordinary form with proviso for redemp-
tion and reassignment on repayment is " an absolute assignment not pur-
porting to be by way of charge only " within s. 25, sub-s. 6, of Jud. Actj
1873 : Durham Bros. v. Robertson, [1898] 1 Q. B. 765, C. A. ; approving
Bancred v. Delagoa Bay Co., 23 Q. B. D. 239 ; and disapproving Nat. Prov.
Tk. V. Harle, 6 Q. B. D. 626.
An instrument passing the whole right and interest of the assignor in
moneys payable under a building contract to the assignee as security for
moneys due or to become due is an absolute assignment : Hughes v. Pump
House Hotel Co., [1902] 2 K. B. 190, C. A. ; and comp3,Te Mercantile Bank of
London v. Evans, [1899] 2 K. B. 613, C. A. ; and see Jones v. Humphreys,
[1902] 1 K. B. 10, that an assignment of an indefinite and unascertained
amount is not an absolute assignment.
And further as to the meaning of the expression ' ' absolute assignment not
purporting to be by way of charge," see National Provincial Bank v. Harle,
6 Q. B. D. 626 ; and that the existence of a resulting trust for the assignor
does not prevent the assignment being absolute, Burlinson v. Hall, 12
Q. B. D. 347.
Notice of assignment of " all moneys now or hereafter " standing to the
credit of the assignor at 3 bank could be efiectually given after his death, and
the bank could not set up the objection that the assignment was voluntary :
Walker v. Bradford Old Bank, 12 Q. B. D. 511 ; and that notice given at any
time is good, see Bateman v. Hunt, [1904] 2 K. B. 530.
A written direction by c. q. t. to trustees to pay a specified balance to a
third person is a suifi cient assignment in writing : Harding v. H. , 1 7 Q. B. D.
ii2; oompaie Brandt V. Dunlop Rubber Co., [1Q05~\ A. 0.4:54:.
The proviso was held inapplicable where there had been no assignment in
writing, but money deposited with a bank was claimed by the exor of the
depositor and her husband's administrator ; but the money having been
paid in under the Trustee ReHef Act, claimant petitioning for payment out,
thereby submitted to the jurisdiction : Be Sutton's Trusts, 12 Ch. D. 175.
Before the Jud. Act, 1873, an insurance co. could properly only pay
in, under the Trustee Relief Act (now the Trustee Act, 1893, s. 42), policy
moneys which were subject to a trust : Be HaycocFs Policy, 1 Ch. D. 611 ;
Matthew v. Northern Assce. Co., 9 Ch. D. 80.
By the Policies of Assurance Act, 1867 (30 & 31 V. J. 144), any assignee of
a policy of life assurance may sue in his own name if written notice of the
assignment has been given to the ofiice, the date of such notice determining
the priorities.
By 31 & 32 V. c. 86, the assignee of a marine policy may sue in his own
name : see N. of E. Oilcake Co. v. Archangel Ins. Co., 24 W. R. 162 ; 44
L. J. Q. B. 121 ; L. R. 10 Q. B. 249.
The Interpleader Act (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58), and the C. L. P. Act, 1860
(except sect. 17), having been repealed, the general practice as to inter-
pleader in all Divisions of the Court is now regulated by O. Lvn.
Por references to decisions under former practice, see Seton, 4th Ed.
SECT. I.] Interpleader at Instance of Private Person. 493
NEW PRACTICE — -EIGHT TO RELIEF BY WAY OF INTERPLEADER.
By 0. Lvn, 1, " Relief by way of interpleader may be granted, — Practice now
" (a) Where the person seeking relief (in this order called the applicant) is governed by
under liability for any debt, money, goods, or chattels, for or in 0. lvil
respect of which he is, or expects to be, sued by two or more jjule 1.
parties (in this order called the claimants) making adverse claims
thereto :
" (b) Where the applicant is a sheriff or other officer charged with the
execution of process by or under the authority of the High Court,
and claim is made to any money, goods, or chatels taken or
intended to be taken in execution under any process, or to the pro-
ceeds or value of any such goods or chattels by any person other
than the person against whom the process issued."
As to interpleader by the sheriff, v. inf. Sect. II., p. 498.
Under the former practice, the Pit in interpleader was entitled to pro- Mere pretext
tection not only from double liability, but from double vexation ; so that it of claim,
was sufficient that a honafide, claim had been made, and he was not required
to show that it had any substantial foundation : E. d: W. India Dock Co. v.
Littledale, 7 Ha. 59, 60 ; and see Angell v. Hadden, 15 Ves. 244.
But there must have been more than a mere pretext of a claim : Cochrane
V. O'Brien, 2 J. & Lat. 380 ; Re New Hamburgh <h Brazilian By., 1875,
W. N. 239 ; and mere refusal to assent to the payment ofthofundto another
claimant was not enough : Desborough v. Harris, 5 D. M. & G. 439, 459,
overruling Fenn v. Edmonds, 5 Ha. 314.
Interpleader will not lie as between parties to a wager ; secus, semble as Wager,
between one of the parties and a stranger : Shoolbred v. Roberts, [1900] 2
Q. B. 497, C. A.
Where a sum of money had been deposited with a stakeholder to abide the
result of a bet, he was bound to repay to either of the parties the amount
received from him unless it had been paid to the other before any demand :
Hampden v. Walsh, 1 Q. B. D. 189 ; Batson v. Newman, 1 C. P. D. 573, C. A. ;
25 W. R. 85 ; Shoolbred v. Roberts, [1899] 2 Q. B. 560 ; -S. C, [] 900] 2 Q. B.
497, C. A. ; and see Diggle v. Higgs, 2 Ex. D. 422 ; Trimble v. Hill, 5 App.
Co. 342.
An insurance co. might be entitled to interpleader after the sum due had Insurance Co.
been ascertained by judgment in favour of one of the claimants : Hamilton
V. Marks, 5 D. & S. 638 ; but not after award : Myers v. U. Chtar. Co.,
7 D. M. & G. 112, 123.
On an issue as to the right to furniture claimed by an execution creditor Trustees of
and a c. q. t., in whose possession it was, the trustees were not required to be chattels,
parties : Schroeder v. Hanrott, 28 L. T. 704.
Interpleader would not lie where the stakeholder disputed the amount When inter-
payable : DiplocJc V. Hammond, 2 Sm. & G. 141 ; 5 D. M. & G. 320 ; nor pleader will
where he had handed over the property to one claimant on an indemnity : "° '^'
Burnett v. Anderson, 1 Mer. 405 ; and see Sablicich v. Russell, 2 Eq. 441 ;
nor where the Pit claimed an interest in the fund : Mitchell v. Hayne, 2 S.
& S. 63 ; nor against the claimants to two separate independent funds, e.g.,
by an auctioneer who, having sold A.'s property to B., and resold it to C.,
and received a deposit from each of them, made A., B., and C. Defts :
Hoggart v. Cutts, Cr. & P. 197 ; nor where the claims were not conflicting :
Myers v. United, &c. Co., 7 D. M. & G. 112 ; Greatorex v. Shackle, [1895]
2 Q. B. 249 (concurrent claims for commission by auctioneers separately
employed) ; Glynn v. Locke, 3 D. & War. 11, where policy moneys were
claimed by a trustee with power to give receipts, and also by the cs. q. t.
Secus, where the trust fund had not been validly transferred to the trustee :
8. C. But where Pit had pleaded a lien on the goods in defence to an action
at law, the order was made on his withdrawing the plea and paying costs at
Law and in Equity up to that time : Jacobson v. Blackhurst, 2 J. & H.
486.
494
Interpleader.
[chap. XXIX.
Bailment.
Question of
priorities.
Interpleader
as to part.
Other in-
stances.
Rule 2.
Affidavit re-
quired.
VVareliouse keepers were held entitled to relief in respect of goods, though
one of the rival claimants also claimed damages for detention : Attenborough
V. St. Katharine's Docks Co., 3 C. P. D. 450 ; and that the existence of the
contract of bailment does not prevent interpleader proceedings by the
bailee, see Rogers v. Lambert, [1891] 1 Q. B. 318, C. A.
A warehouseman, having attorned to one of the claimants, is in general
estopped from impeaching his title : Henderson cfc Co. v. Williams, [1895] 1
Q. B. 521, C. A., discussing KingsfordY. Merry (1 H. & N. 503), Atteriborough
V. London & St. Katharine's Dock Co. (3 C. P. D. 450), Biddle v. Bond (6
B. & S. 225) ; but where wharfingers virote a letter stating that they held the
goods to the order of one of the claimants, an interpleader order could,
nevertheless, be made restraining the claimants from proceeding against the
wharfingers except in respect of any claim upon the latter : exp. Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board, [1899] 1 Q. B. 546, C. A. ; following dicta in
Attenborough v. St. Katharine's Dock Co., 3 C. P. D. 450.
As to the liability of a bailee who hands over goods deposited with him
to a third paity on a magistrate's order made on a summons issued against
him under s. 40 of the Metropolitan PoHce Courts Act, 1839, without giving
the bailor notice of the third party's claim or of the issue of the summons :
see Eanson v. Phtt, [1911] 2 K. B. 291.
Interpleader was refused where the question was substantially as to
priorities of bills of lading : Victor Sbhne v. British, &c. Steam Co., 1888,
W. N. 84.
Where a debtor, sued for the debt, has received notice of assignment, he
may interplead as to part and dispute the residue, and his application may
be either under r. 1, or by separate proceedings under Jud. Act, 1873,
s. 25 (sub-s. 6) : sup. p. 491. If an interpleader order is made in separate
proceedings, there is no power to stay proceedings in an action already com-
menced against the debtor ; Reading v. London School Board, 16 Q. B. D.
686.
Certificates of shares and, semhle, a chose in action may be the subject of
interpleader : Robinson v. Jenkins, 24 Q. B. D. 275, C. A.
Interpleader lay against Defts out of the jurisdiction, the fund being
within it : Stevenson v. Anderson, 2 V. & B. 407 ; Martinius v. Helmuth,
G. Coop. 245 ; and against a judgment creditor and his solr claiming a lien
for costs on the debt : — v. Bolton, 18 Ves. 292 ; but whether the Crown
could be made to interplead, quaire : Candy v. Maughan, 1 D. & L. 745 ;
Beid V. Steam, 6 Jur. N. S. 267.
By r. 2, " the applicant must satisfy the Court or a Judge, by affidavit or
otherwise, (a) that the applicant claims no interest in the subject-matter in
dispute, other than for charges or costs ; and (b) that the applicant does not
collude with any of the claimants ; and (c) that the applicant, except where
he is a sheriff or other officer charged with the execution of process by or
under the authority of the High Court, who has seized goods and who has
withdrawn from possession in consequence of the execution creditor ad-
mitting the claim of the claimant " under r. 16, v. inf., " is willing to pay or
transfer the subject-matter into Court, or to dispose of it as the Court or a
Judge may direct."
Under the former practice the affidavit had in general to be made by the
applicant himself : Wood v. Lyne, 4 D. & S. 16 ; but an affidavit by two
only out of four Pits has been accepted: Oloverv. Reynolds, 1867, W. N. 97;
16 L. T. 84 ; and under special cu-cumstances leave was given to the solr
to make it quantum valeat : Larabrie v. Brown, I D. & J. 204. In Nelson
v. Barter, 2 H. & M. 334, an interim injunction for a fortnight was granted
on the affidavit of the agent of the Pits, to be extended to the hearing on
Pits filing their affidavit before them. If not, Defts to be at liberty to
proceed.
The affidavit need not state the facts : Walbanke v. Sparks, 1 Sim. 385 ;
nor will the claimants be allowed the costs of affidavits which go solely into
the merits as between themselves : Poland v. Coall, Ir. Rep. 7 C. L, 108.
SECT. I.J Interpleader at Instance of Private Person. 495
A bill by the owner of land subject to a charge to wliich conflicting claims
were made, but no proceedings taken, was held not to be an interpleader bill,
nor to require an affidavit of no collusion : Vyvyan v. F., 4 D. F. & J. 183.
On pa3dng into Court the deposit, an auctioneer was allowed to have Charges,
interpleader, and to deduct his charges without prejudice : AnnesUy v.
Muggridge, 1 Madd. 593 ; but in Mitchell v. Hayne, 2 S. & S. 63, the
auctioneer's interest in the deposit was held an objection to the suit. In
Farebrother v. Prattent, 5 Pri. 303, the auction duty alone was deducted.
The word " charges " in r. 2 is not confined to the charges of the sheriff,
but includes those of a wharfinger : De Rothschilds v. Morrison, Kekewich
5 Co., 24 Q. B. D. 750, C. A.
Collusion within clause (b) of the rule does not imply moral delinquency, Collusion,
but extends to a case where the stakeholder identifies himself in interest
with, or has necessarily a preponderating interest in favour of one of the
parties : Murietta v. South American Co., 62 L. J. Q. B. 396.
Where a stakeholder takes an indemnity from one of two rival claimants,
an objection on the score of collusion cannot be taken by that claimant :
Thompson v. Wright, 13 Q. B. D. 632 ; distinguishing Tiicker v. Morris, 1
Or. & M. 73 ; and Belcher v. Smith, 9 Bing. 82.
In the case of a co. suing by its registered public officer, he should make
the affidavit, stating that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the co.
does not collude : Bignold v. Audland, 11 Sim. 23.
Where the affidavit was met by evidence charging collusion, the Pit had
to give an undertaking as to damages : Manby v. Robinson, 4 Ch. 347 ; and
Deft could at the hearing show that there was collusion, or that it was not a
proper case for interpleader : Toulmin v. Reid, 14 Beav. 499.
By r. 3, " the applicant shall not be disentitled to relief by reason only Rule 3.
that the titles of the claimants have not a common origin, but are adverse to orfein of
and independent of one another." claims.
Formerly interpleader did not lie in Equity, except for the same debt
claimed by several persons in privity of contract or tenure as mortgagor and
mortgagee, trustee and c. q. t. : Dungey v. Angove, 2-Ves. jun. 310 ; Story,
Eq. J. § 812.
And the debt must have been the same in amount : Bignold v. Audland,
11 Sim. 23 ; and also the same in fact : Olyn v. Duesbury, 11 Sim. 139 ;
Dungey v. Angove, 2 Ves. jun. 307 ; Cochrane v. O'Brien, 2 J. & Lat.
380.
But interpleader would lie in a case where the debtor had notice of claims
and liens of various amounts on the debt : Hamilton v. Maries, 5 D. & S.
638.
An agent or tenant, being unable to dispute the title of his principal or
landlord, was not entitled to interpleader on claims by his principal or by his
landlord for rent, another claiming it under an adverse or paramount title :
Dungey v. Angove, 2 Ves. jun. 304, 310 ; Cook v. E. Rosslyn, 1 Gif. 167, 170 ;
7 W. R. 537 ; Crawford v. Fisher, 1 Ha. 436 ; Crawshay v. Thornton, 2 My.
6 C. 1, 20 ; except where the principal or landlord has created a subsequent
interest in another : lb. 21 ; Clarke v. Byne, 13 Ves. 383 b ; Pearson v.
Cardon, 2 Russ. & M. 606 ; Smith v. Hammond, 6 Sim. 10 ; or where the
agent did not know whom he ought to treat as his principal : Suart v. Welch,
4 My. & C. 305.
But any estoppel binding the execution debtor will not bind the execution Estoppel,
creditor, who may set up the right of a third person even though superior to
his own, e.g., that hired goods in the possession of the debtor, and claimed
by the letter, were in fact vested in the letter's trustee in bankruptcy :
Richards v. Jenkins, 18 Q. B. D. 451, C. A. ; and see Robinson v. Jenkins, 24
Q. B. D. 275, C. A., where stockbrokers, though precluded from setting up
the JMS fertii against their principal, were nevertheless allowed to interplead ;
and Rogers v. Lambert, [1891] 1 Q. B. 318, C. A., pointing out that the pro-
vision in sect. 12 of the C. L. P. Act, 1860, has materially modified the
principle on which Crawshay v. Thornton, sup., was decided.
496
Interpleader.
[chap. XXIX.
Time of
application.
Procedure
generally.
Summary
procedure.
Question of
law.
Non-appear-
ance or de-
fault of
claimant.
Summary.
PROCEDURE IN INTERPLBADBE.
By r. 4, where the appHcant is a Deft, application for relief may be made
at any time after service of the writ of summons.
By r. 5, the applicant may take out a summons calling on the claimants to
appear and state the nature and particulars of their claims, and either to
maintain or relinquish them.
As to form of interpleader summons, see D. C. F. 810 et seq. ; and as to
service out of jurisdiction, v. sup. Chap. II. p. 14.
By r. 6, if the application is made by a Deft in an action, the Court or a
Judge may stay all further proceedings in the action.
By r. 7, if the claimants appear in pursuance of the summons, the Court or
a Judge may order either that any claimant be made a Deft in any action
already commenced, in respect of the subject-matter in dispute in lieu of or
in addition to the applicant, or that an issue between the claimants be stated
and tried, and in the latter case may direct which of the claimants is to be
Pit, and which Deft.
There is no jurisdiction to limit the defences of the substituted Deft to
those available to the original Deft : Oerhard v. Montague <b Co., 61 L. T.
564 ; 38 W. R. 76.
Having regard to r. 13, an issue must apparently be tried before a Judge
alone unless trial by jury is expressly ordered : Hamlyn v. BetteUy, 6 Q. B. D.
63, C. A., being in effect overruled.
For forms of order, see App. K., Nos. 60 to 56.
Where the claimant is a receiver, he may be directed to hold the goods
instead of paying the value into Court : -Purkiss v. Holland, 39 S. J.
702.
By r. 8, " the Court or a Judge may, with the consent of both claimants,
or on the request of any claimant, if, having regard to the value of the
subject-matter in dispute, it seems desirable so to do, dispose of the merits
of their claims and decide the same in a summary manner and on such terms
as may be just."
That such summary decision cannot be appealed from even by consent,
see Dodds v. Shepherd, I Ex. D. 75 ; 24 W. R. 322 ; Lyon v. Morris, 19
Q. B. D. 139, C. A.
As to the limit of £50 being adopted in the absence of consent, see
Topham v. Oreenside, dkc. Co., 37 Ch. D. 294. That the judge has jurisdic-
tion to dispose summarily of a matter where the amount exceeds £50, see
Harbottle v. BobeHs, [1905] 1 K. B. 572, C. A.
Bj' r. 9, " where the question is a question of law, and the facts are not in
dispute, the Court or a Judge may either decide the question without direct-
ing the trial of an issue, or order that a special case be stated for the opinion
of the Court. If a special case is stated, O. xxxiv shall, as far as applicable,
apply thereto."
As to special case under 0. xxxiv, v. sup. Chap. XXI.
By r. 10, " if a claimant, having been duly served with a summons calling
on him to appear and maintain, or relinquish, his claim, does not appear in
pursuance of the summons, or, having appeared, neglects or refuses to
comply with any order made after his appearance, the Court or a Judge maj'
make an order declaring him, and all persons claiming under him, for ever
barred against the applicant, and persons claiming under him, but the order
shall not affect the rights of the claimants as between themselves."
It will be thus seen that the Court, when making the order for interpleader,
may adopt any of the following courses : —
1. It may make any claimant a Deft in any action commenced in respect
of the subject-matter : O. Lvn, 7.
2. It may direct an issue : O. Lvn, 7.
3. It may dispose of the merits summarily : (a) by consent ; or (6) where
the amount is small : O. LVii, 8 ; or (c) where the question is one of
law, and the facts are not in dispute : O.-LVii, 9.
SECT. I.] Interpleader at Instance of Private Person. 497
4. Where a claimant does not appear, or appears and refuses to comply
with any order, it may make an order barring his claim : O. lvii, 10.
5. Where the question is one of law only, it may order a special case to be
stated : 0. lvii, 9.
By r. 14, " where in any interpleader proceeding it is necessary or ex-
pedient to make one order in several causes or matters pending in several
divisions, or before different Judges of the same division, such order may be
made by the Covirt or Judge before whom the interpleader proceeding may
be taken, and shall be entitled in all such causes or matters ; and any such
order (subject to the right of appeal) shall be binding on -the parties in all
such causes or matters."
APPEALS.
By r. 11, " except where otherwise provided by statute, the judgment in
any action or on any issue ordered to be tried or stated in an interpleader
proceeding, and the decision of the Court or a Judge in a summary way,
under r. 8 of this Order, shall be final and conclusive against the claimants,
and all persons claiming under them, unless by special leave of the Court or
Judge, as the case may be, or of the C. A."
Rules 8 and 11 must be read in connection with sect. 17 of the C. L. P.
Act, 1860, which enacts that " the judgment in any such action or issue as
may be directed by the Court or a Judge in any interpleader proceedings,
and the decision of the Court or Judge in a summary manner, shall be final
and conclusive against the parties and all persons claiming by, from, or
under them " ; and with the provision of sect. 20 of the Appellate Juris-
diction Act, 1876, enacting that where by Act of Parliament it is provided
that the decision of any Court or Judge whose jurisdiction is transferred to
the High Court of Justice is to be final, an appeal shall not lie from that
Court or a Judge thereof to the C. A. The rules do not give a right of appeal
where there was none under the Act of 1860, and no appeal lies to the C. A.,
nor is there power to give leave to appeal, in the case of summary judgments
and decisions falling within the operation of sect. 17, whether made under
r. 8 or r. 9 : Waterhotise v. Oilbert, 15 Q. B. D. 569, C. A. ; Lyon v. Morris,
19 Q. B. D. 139, C. A. ; Turner v. Bridgett, 9 Q. B. D. 55, C. A. ; Bryant v.
Beading, 17 Q. B. D. 128, C. A. ; Re Tarn, [1893] 2 Ch. 284: Van Lam
& Co. V. Baring Bros., [1903] 2 K. B. 276; and the fact that the amount in
dispute exceeds £50 cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the Judge to decide
the matter summarily : Harbottle v. Roberts, [1905] 1 K. B. 572. But the
word " parties," in sect. 17 of the Act of 1860, does not include the sheriff,
who can therefore appeal : Smith v. Darlow, 26 Ch. D. 605, C. A.
The words "except where otherwise provided by statute," in r. 11, extend
to the Jud. Acts, and after trial of an interpleader issue there is, under
sect. 19 of the Jud. Act, 1873, the same right of appeal from the judgment
with respect to the finding of the facts or ruling of the law (as distinguished
from the final disposal of the whole matter of interpleader) as in the case of
any other judgment or order : Dawson v. Fox, 14 Q. B. D. 377, C. A. ; but
when the Judge has pronounced judgment disposing of the whole matter,
there is an appeal only by leave : Robinson v. Tucker, 14 Q. B. D. 371, C. A.,
questioning Burstallv. Bryant, 12 Q. B. D. 103. Where an issue is tried by
a jury, any motion for a new trial, or to set aside a verdict, finding, or
judgment, is now to be heard and determined by the C. A., and not by a
Divisional Court : Jud. Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 44), s. 1.
An appeal lies from the order of a master determining an interpleader
issue ordered to be tried by him, and lies to the Divisional Court and to
the Judge in Chambers: Cox v. Bowen, [1911] 2 K. B. 611.
An application lies to the C. A. for a new trial of an interpleader issue tried
in the Liverpool Court of passage : Coates v. Moore, [1903] 2 K. B. 140, C. A.
By r. 13, " O. xxxi and O. xxxvi shall, with the necessary modifications,
apply to an interpleader issue ; and the Court or a Judge who tries the
issue may finally dispose of the whole matter of the interpleader pro-
ceedings, including all costs not otherwise provided for."
VOL. I. 2 K
498 Interpleader. [chap. xxix.
COSTS.
By r. 15, the Court or a Judge may, in or for the purposes of any inter-
pleader proceedings, make all such orders as to costs and all other matters
as may be just and reasonable.
Under the former practice, Pit, if in the right, was held entitled to his
costs, and out of the fund in Court, if any : Glynn v. Locke, 3 D. & War.
11, 24 ; Hale v. Saloon, <Ssc. Co., 4 Drew. 492 ; and see Clench v. Dooley, 56
L. T. 122; or to a lien upon it : Aldridge v. Meaner, 6Yes. 418; Campbell v.
Solomans, 1 S. & S. 462 ; and (inquiries being sent) to be paid out of it at
once without prejudice : See Sec. for India v. Kelson, L. JJ., 6th Edn.,
Form 5, p. 501.
Pit could obtain his costs at once on motion, unless his right to interplead
was disputed, in which case he had to set down the cause : Jones v. Qilham,
G. Coop. 49.
A stakeholder litigating the claims separately lost his right to costs
against the successful claimant : Laing v. Zeden, 9 Ch. 736 ; 17 Eq. 107.
Where the conflicting claim was withdrawn after suit brought. Pit had
his costs up to that time : Glynn v. Locke, 3 D. & War. 11 ; Symes v.
Magnay, 20 Beav. 47.
And see Mason v. Hamilton, 5 Sim. 19 ; and as to payment by Pit of
costs needlessly incurred or increased, Crawford v. Fisher, 1 Ha. 436 ;
E. & W. India Dock Co. v. Littledale, 7 Ha. 57 ; Jones v. Farrell, 1 D. & J.
208.
When an interpleader summons is taken out by a Deft in an action, he is
entitled, on bringing into Court the amount claimed, to deduct his taxed
costs to date, the question which of the parties are to be ultimately liable
for such costs being reserved : Searle v. Matthews, 19 Q. B. D. 77, n. ; and
see Goodmav. v. Blake, 19 Q. B. D. 77 ; C. v. D., 1883, W. N. 207 ; Aplin v.
Gates, 30 L. J. Ch. 6.
As to giving security for costs in interpleader proceedings, v. sup.
Chap. IV., p. 29.
Sect. 49 of the Jud. Act, 1873, preventing appeals as to costs only, applies
to interpleader : Hartmont v. Foster, 8 Q. B. D. 82, C. A.
Section II. — ^Interpleader at the Instance of the Sheriff.
1. Order for Sheriff to sell Goods seized, and fay Proceeds into
Court — Issue as to Claims.
Order that the said sherifi do proceed to sell the goods and chattels
seized by him under the writ oifi.fa. issued in this action, and lodge
the net proceeds of the sale after deducting the expenses thereof
[If so, and the possession money from the — day of — ] in Court as
directed in the schedule hereto ; And it is ordered that the following
issue be tried &c. [see Forms 1 and 2, sup. p. 359], that is to say,
Whether at the time of the seizure by the sheriff the goods &c. were
the property of the said C. (the claimant) or of the said D. (the exe-
cution creditor) ; And it is ordered that no action be brought against
the said sheriff for the seizure of the said goods [If so. Adjourn &c.]
— Liberty to apply [add Lodgment Schedule].
SECT. II. J Interpleader at Instance of Sheriff. 499
2. Sheriff to withdraw on Claimant faying into Court, and payment
of Possession Money— In default, Sheriff to sell — Issu£ directed.
Order that W. do, on or before &c., lodge in Court, as directed in
the schedule hereto, Three hundred pounds ; And thereupon, and
upon payment to the said sheriff of the possession money from &c.,
it is ordered that the said sheriff do withdraw from the possession
of the goods seized by him under the writ oifi.fa. herein ; and it is
ordered that unless such lodgment be made within the time aforesaid,
the said sherifi do proceed to sell the said goods, and within ten days
from the receipt thereof lodge the proceeds of the sale, after deducting
the expenses thereof and the possession money, in Court as directed
in the schedule hereto, subject to further order ; And it is ordered
that the parties do proceed to the trial of an issue in this Court
whether at the time of the seizure by the sheriff the goods seized
were the property of W. as against the said co., and W. is forthwith
to furnish to the sheriff's agents a copy of the inventory exhibited to
her afS.davit ; And it is ordered that the issue be prepared and
delivered by the Pit therein within twenty-two days from this date,
and be returned by 'the Deft therein within four days after delivery
thereof, and be tried at Leeds in the county of York ; And thie
question of costs and aU further questions are reserved to be dealt
with at the trial of the said issue, and no action is to be brought
against the said sherifi for the seizure of the said goods [add Lodgment
Schedule]. — See Re The Newmarket Collieries, Brickworks, and
Pottery Co., Ld., Pearson, J., at Chambers, 26 March, 1885, B. 927.
3. Sheriff to remain in Possession on default of Payment or giving
Security.
Order that upon lodgment of the sum of £ — in Court &c., or upon
the said C. giving security to be approved by the Judge, the said
sheriff do withdraw &c. [Form 2, sup.] ; And it is ordered that in
the mean time, and until such lodgment shall be made, or security
given, the said sherifi do continue in possession of the said goods and
chattels ; And it is ordered that the said C. (claimant) do pay posses-
sion money for the time he shall so continue, unless the said C.
{claimant) shall desire the said goods and chattels to be sold by
the sherifi, in which case the sheriff is to sell the same, and lodge the
proceeds of the sale, after deducting the expenses thereof and the
possession money from this date, in Court &c., to abide further
order herein ; And it is ordered that the following issue &c. [Form
1, sup. p. 359 ; Add Lodgment Schedule].
4. Summary Order by Consent for Sheriff to withdraw — 0. lvii, 8.
And C, the 'claimant, and E., the execution creditor, having, by
their solrs, consented that the claim made by the said C. should be
500 Interpleader. [chap. xxix.
disposed of on the merits, and determined in a summary manner,
and the Judge being of opinion that the goods in question were at
the time of their seizure by the sheriff the property of the said C. ;
Order that the sheriff do withdraw from the possession of the said
goods ; And it is ordered that no action be brought against the
sheriff ; And it is ordered that the said E. do pay the said C. his
costs, to be taxed &c.
5. Sheriff to proceed to sell, and to raise and fay Claim and
Expenses — 0. Lvir, 12.
Order that the said sheriff do proceed to sell so much of the goods
and chattels seized under the writ otfi.fa., issued in this action as
will satisfy the expenses of the said sale ; the rent (if any) due, the
claim of the said C, the claimant, and the said execution ; And it is
ordered that out of the proceeds of the said sale (after deducting the
expenses thereof, and rent, if any), the said sheriff do pay to the said
C. the amount of his said claim, and to the said E., the execution
creditor, the amount of his execution, and the residue (if any) to
the Deft ; And it is ordered that no action be brought against the
said sherifi.
6. Order barring Claim in favour of Execution Creditor.
Order that C, the claimant, be barred from &c. \eiiher as to the
whole or part of the suhject-matter of his claim], and do pay the costs
and charges of the said sheriff and of the execution creditor of and
occasioned by such claim to be taxed by the Taxing Master, the
costs of the said sheriff to be paid in the first instance by the said
execution creditor and recovered over against the said claimant. —
See BrinUey v. Irost, Parker, J., at Chambers, 1907, A. 3293.
NOTES.
INTEEPLBADEE AT INSTANCE OF SHEEIFF.
By 0. LVli, 1, relief by way of interpleader may be granted where the
apphcant is a sheriff or other officer charged with the execution of process
by or under the authority of the High Court, and claim is made to any
money, goods, or chattels taken or intended to be taken in execution under
any process, or to the proceeds or value of any such goods or chattels by
any person other than the person against whom the process issued.
Where the sherifE was paid out under protest by a third person, the money
SO paid is " proceeds or value " of goods taken in execution within this rule :
8mith V. Critchfield, 14 Q. B. D. 873, C. A.
Eu'e 12. By r. 12, " when goods or chattels have been seized in execution by a
sherifE or other officer charged with the execution of process of the High
Court, and any claimant alleges that he is entitled, under a bill of sale or
otherwise, to the goods or chattels by way of security for debt, the Court or
a Judge may order the sale of the whole or a part thereof, and direct the
application of the proceeds of the sale in such manner and'upon such terms
as may be just,"
SECT. II.] Interpleader at Instance of Sheriff. 501
The rule does not enable the sheriff to seize equities, and if goods are
claimed by a mortgagee under a bill of sale, the sheriff is not bound to inter-
plead, but may withdraw : Scarlett v. Hanson, 12 Q. B. D. 213, C. A.
Where an interpleader issue is directed instead of a sale by the sheriff, the
appointment of a receiver and manager may be ordered under Jud. Act,
1873, s. 25 (8) : Hmvell v. Dawson, 13 Q. B. D. 67.
Where an order is made for sale and satisfaction of a claim out of the
proceeds, the claimant is not entitled to demand from the sheriff any sum
not included in his particulars of claim under r. 5 : Hockey v. Evans, 18
Q. B. D. 390, 0. A.
Where it was doubtful whether the goods would realize enough to pay
the bill of sale holder, and neither the oiScial receiver nor the judgment
creditor were willing to redeem or give a guarantee against possible loss, the
sheriff was ordered to withdraw : Stern y. Tegner, [1898] 1 Q. B. 37, C. A.
If the official receiver asks for the delivery of the goods to him under
sect. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, the operation of 0. lvii, 12, is, it
seems, excluded ; but if he does not do so, and asks for a sale, the rule
applies : S. C.
The power of the Judge at Chambers to make such order as may be
" just " is not limited by the practice of the Courts of Equity in suits for
redemption, and though the debt is payable by instalments at a high
interest, an order for sale and payment to the claimant of the entire balance,
with interest at the agreed rate up to the time of payment only, may be
made : Forster v. Clowser, [1897] 2 Q. B. 362, C. A. ; and see West v.
Diprose, [1900] 1 Ch. 337.
When, in consequence of landlord's claim for rent, trial of an issue
between execution creditor and claimant was not proceeded with, the
execution creditor was first to pay the sheriff's costs, and the claimant to
pay to the execution creditor half the sheriff's costs from the date of the
claim : Lawson v. Carter, 63 L. J. Q. B. 159 ; 1894, W. N. 96.
By r. 16, " where a claim is made to or in respect of any goods or chattels Rule 16.
taken in execution under the process of the Court it shall be in ^vriting, and
upon the receipt of the claim the sheriff or his officer shall forthwith give
notice thereof to the execution creditor according to Form 28 in Appendix B.
or to the like effect, and the execution creditor shall, within four days after
receiving the notice, give notice to the sheriff or his officer that he admits or
disputes the claim, according to Form 29 in Appendix B., or to the like
effect. If the execution creditor admits the title of the claimant, and gives
notice as directed by this rule, he shall only be liable to such sheriff or
officer for any fees and expenses incurred prior to the receipt of the notice
admitting the claim."
Unless protected by this rule, the execution creditor is primarily liable
for the charges of the sheriff, who is entitled to an order against him,
leaving him a remedy over against the claimant, if unsuccessful : Smith v.
Darhw, 26 Ch. D. 605, C. A.
By r. 16a, " when the execution creditor has given notice to the sheriff or Notice
his officer that he admits the claim of the claimant, the sheriff may there- admitting
upon withdraw from possession of the goods claimed, and may apply for an claim,
order protecting him from any action in respect of the said seizure and
possession of the said goods, and the Judge or Master may make any such
order as may be just and reasonable in respect of the same : Provided
always, that the claimant shall receive notice of such intended application,
and if he desires it, may attend the hearing of the same, and if he attend,
the Judge or Master may, in and for the purposes of such application, make
all such orders as to costs as may be just and reasonable."
The other rules cited above (p. 493) also apply to interpleader by
sheriffs.
As to the duty of the sheriff to apply immediately, see Tuflon v. Harding, Duty of
6 Jur. N. S. 116 ; 8 W. R. 122 ; 1 L. T. 264 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 225 ; and that he sheriff,
must show that he did not get into the difficulty by his own wrong, as by
502
Interpleader.
[chap. XXIX.
Act of
bankruptcy.
Payment
into Court.
Bankruptcy
petition.
Second
execution.
Partnership
account.
Wife's
separate
estate.
Special
daioage.
seizing goods without good reason to suppose they were the debtor's : 18. C. ;
and see Slingsby v. Boulton, 1 V. & B. 334 ; and that damages are recover-
able on an interpleader summons against the high bailiff of the County
Court for seizure, though bond fide, of goods of third persons who have
suffered substantial grievance : see L. 0. <Se D. Ry. Co. v. Cable Oaslight Co.,
80 L. T. 119.
By the Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. 0. 71), s. 1, a debtor commits an
act of bankruptcy if execution against him has been levied by seizure of his
goods, and the goods have been either sold or held by the sheriff for twenty-
one days, " provided that where an interpleader summons has been taken
out with regard to the goods seized, the time elapsing between the date at
which such summons has been taken out, and the date at, which the sheriff
is ordered to withdraw, or any interpleader issue ordered thereon is finally
disposed of, shall not be taken into account in calculating such period of
twenty-one days." Any person who is for the time being entitled to enforce
a final judgment is to be deemed to be a creditor who has obtained a final
judgment within sect. 4 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. A judgment
entered in pursuance of an order obtained under 0. xiv is a final judgment
within sect. 4, Bankruptcy Act, 1883 : Be A Debtor, 1903, W. N: 6.
Where an interpleader order has been made under which the sheriff with-
draws, execution has been stayed under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 4,
sub-s. 1 (g), and the judgment creditor cannot issue a bankruptcy notice :
Exp. Ford, 18 Q. B. D. 369.
Where goods taken in execution under a judgment have been claimed by
a third party before the sheriff has made a return, and an interpleader sum-
mons has been taken out, and is pending, the judgment creditor is not in a
position to issue execution for the amount of the judgment debt, and there-
fore is not entitled to serve a bankruptcy notice on the judgment debtor :
Re Follows ; Exp. Follows, [1895] 2 Q. B. 521.
Where after the proceeds of sale had been paid into Court, notice of a
bankruptcy petition against the debtor was served on the sheriff, and
bankruptcy followed, the trustee in bankruptcy was entitled to the money
against the execution creditor : Htathcote v. Livesley, 19 Q. B. D. 285.
Where goods seized in execution have been claimed, and the claimant has
paid into Court money to abide interpleader issue, and the goods are again
seized in execution by another judgment creditor, and again claimed by the
claimant, and an interpleader issue is ordered, to prevent the goods being
sold the claimant must pay money into Court as security to the second
execution creditor : Kotchie v. Golden Sovereigns, Ld. {Bright, claimant),
[1898] 2 Q. B. 164, C. A. In general, goods have been " taken in execution "
when they have been seized under a,fi.fa. : St. Marylebone Vestry v. Sheriff
of London, [1900] 1 Q. B. 1 1 1 (decided under a local Act). By taking out of
Court the money deposited by the claimant on the first occasion the judgment
creditor accepts the money in lieu of the goods, and thereby estops himself
in respect of the same judgment from denying that as against himself the
claimant is the owner of the goods ; and therefore the claimant is entitled to
judgment on the issue : Haddow v. Morton (Trout, claimant), [1894] 1 Q. B.
665, C. A.
As to the sheriff's duty on a fieri facias where there is a partnership
account, and his right to interpleader, see Anon., 1875, W. N. 204.
A sheriff who has taken out, in respect of goods taken in execution and
claimed as separate estate of the debtor's wife, an interpleader summons on
which an order for sale in default of payment has been obtained, will not
be restrained by injunction in the Ch. Div. from selling the goods : Wright
V. Redgrave, 11 Ch. D. 24, C. A.
Any special damage to the claimant may be adjudicated on, and whether
it is or not, no other action can be maintained by him for damages : Death
V. Harrison, L. R. 6 Ex. 15 ; and see Cramer v. Mathew, 7 Q. B. D.
425.
The Judge )ias power to adjudioate as to damages, although the. goods,
SECT. II.] Interpleader at Instance of Sheriff. 503
having been sold, are no longer in the control of the Court : Mills v. Renney,
5 Ex. D. 313, C. A.
Where the goods had been sold, the sheriff might deduct his costs from Sheriff's
the money paid into Court ; but where the goods had not been, and were not costs and
to be sold, he was entitled to his costs from the parties putting him in motion, charges,
but not, in the interpleader suit, to costs of possession : Hale v. Saloon, dkc.
Co., 4 Drew. 492.
A party to interpleader proceedings who brought an action and obtained
an injunction against the sheriff, without waiting for the result of the inter-
pleader, had to bear his own costs of the proceedings against the sheriff :
Hilliard v. Hanson, 21 Ch. D. 69, C. A.
The execution creditor who is imsuccessful in an interpleader issue is
liable to repay to the claimant the charges of the sheriff which he has
deducted from the amount of the levy : Blaker v. Seager, 76 L. T.
392.
The claimant, if successful, is entitled to recover from the execution
creditor the sheriff's charges subsequent to the interpleader order : Goodman
V. Blake, 19 Q. B. D. 77.
A sheriff cannot be ordered to pay costs in interpleader proceedings. He
is no party to the issue nor in any sense a co-defendant. If ordered to pay
costs his proper course is, not to appeal against the order, but to obtain a
prohibition : Temple v. T., 63 L. J. Q. B. 556.
The sheriff's costs of interpleader are not "costs of the execution "
within s. 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (see sup., p. 419), and conse-
quently are not payable out of the debtor's estate: Re Rogers, [1911]
1 K.B. 641.
By r. 17, " where the execution creditor does not in due time, as directed
by the last preceding rule, admit or dispute the title of the claimant to
the goods or chattels, and the claimant does not withdraw his claim
thereto by notice in writing to the sheriff or his officer, the sheriff may
apply for an interpleader summons to be issued, and should the claimant
withdraw his claim by notice in writing to the sheriff or his officer, or the
execution creditor in like manner serve an admission of the title of the
claimant prior to the return day of such summons, and at the same time give
notice of such admission to the claimant, the Judge or Master may, in and
for the purposes of the interpleader proceedings, make all such orders as to
costs, fees, charges, and expenses, as may be just and reasonable."
Where a claim is made to goods taken in execution by the bailiff of a County
County Court, and the claimant does not make the deposit or give the Courts Act.
security required by sect. 156 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and the
bailiff sells accordingly, the purchaser acquires a good title to the goods
although it subsequently appears that they were the property of the claimant
at the time of seizure : Ooodloch v. Cousins, [1897] 1 Q. B. 348. Seeus,
where no claim is made to the goods and consequently the provisions of
sect. 156 do not apply : Crane v. Ormerod, [1903] 2 K. B. 514. And that
the bailiff may be liable in an action for conversion where he innocently
sells goods of a third party, see Jelks v. Hayward, [1905] 2 K. B. 460.
By the County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 43), s. 157, where claims
are made to goods taken in execution under the process of a County Court,
the registrar may, on the application of the high bailiff, issue a summons
calling the party issuing the process and the claimant before the Court,
and the Judge may adjudicate upon such claim, and as to any damages
arising out of the execution.
For practice under this section, see County Court Orders, 1889.
As to appeal in interpleader from County Court, see sect. 157 ; and
LumJ) V. Teal, 22 Q. B. D. 675 ; ColUs v. Leivis, 20 Q. B. D. 202 ; Thomas v.
Kelly, 13 App. Cas. 506 ; Chit. Arch. 1528 ; and as to interpleader generally,
76, 1354 et seq. ; County Court Annual Pr. Pt. iv. Ch. Jii. ; Pt. vi. Ch. iii.
( 504 ) [chap. XXX.
CHAPTER XXX.
NE EXEAT EEGNO.
1. Order for Writ to Issue.
Undertaking as to damages, see p. 507, fost. This Court doth
order, that a writ [or one or more writ or writs] of ne exeat regno do
issue against the Deft, until this Court make other order to the
contrary ; And the said writ [or writs] is [or are] to be marked for
security in the sum of £— in words at length, and not in figures.
For like order on affidavit, certificate and terms as above, see Close v. C,
V.-C. K. B., 24 July, 1851, A. 1169 ; and see Beverley v. Crewe, V.-C. K. B.,
13 June, 1850, A. 1088 ; Stanley v. Plevins, V.-C. K. B., 27 March, 1849,
A. 753.
For order for the writ after decree, see Evezard v. Burke, M. R., 20 July,
1876, A. 1274.
After decree for accounts, and sum certified to be due from Deft, see
Henry v. Walden, L. C, 1 May, 1766, A. 234.
For order for the writ as between co-Defts before the time fixed by the
decree for payment of an amount admitted to be due, and before the decree
had been drawn up, see Sobey v. S., V.-C. B., 14 Dec. 1872, B. 3099.
And for form of writ of ne exeat, see Braith, 229 ; Beames, ^e Exeat, 23 ;
D. C. F. 852,
2. Writ Discharged on Deft giving Security.
Upon motion by way of appeal, &c.. This Court doth order that
upon the Deft giving security to the amount of £1,000, with two
sureties, such security to be approved by the (Judge), to answer
such sum as may be found due from him in this action, the writ of
ne exeat regno issued in this action be discharged ; And it is ordered
that the order dated &c., be also discharged, except so much thereof
as ordered that the Deft should pay to the Pit his costs of that
application, to be taxed &c." — See Lee v. Melendez, L. C, 11 J"an.
1849, B. 360.
For order, that on Deft giving security, to be approved of by the Master,
for the amount certified due from him under decree, and paying costs, to be
taxed, he be discharged out of custody, see Henry v. Walden, L. C. 30 June,
1766, A. 299.
For order, that upon Deft, while in gaol, executing a security, approved
by the Court, and identified by the registrar, for the balance due from him,
he be discharged from custody, and that he pay the costs of the writ of ne
exeat and assignment, and of his application to discharge the writ, or in
default that the costs be added to the security, see Sobey v. S., V.-C. B.,
11 Jan. 1873, B. 5 ; 15 Eq. 200.
Ne Exeat Regno. ^^^
3. Ne Exeat Discharged— Inquiry as to Damages and Payment
according to UndertaJcing.
Order that the writ of ne exeat regno issued against the Deft
pursuant to the order dated &c., and the said order, be respectively-
discharged with costs, including the costs of this application, such
costs to be taxed &c., and paid by the Pits to the Deft ; And it is
ordered that the following &c. : 1. An inquiry what damages have
been sustained by the said Deft, by reason of the said order dated &c.
havmg been made ; And it is ordered that the Pits do pursuant to
their undertaking contained in the said order, within one month
after the date of the Master's certificate of the result of the said
inquiry, pay what shall be certified in respect of such damages to the
Deft.— Liberty to apply.— &cAeZZ v. Raphael, V.-C. W., 22 March,
1861, B. 815 ; 4 L. T. 114.
For order discharging the writ, and order forit with costs, and, by consent,
for Pit within one month to pay to the Deft the sum of £100 for the damage
sustained by the Deft by reason of the order (for ne exeat) having been made,
see Stoffell v. Whitworth, V.-C. M., in Chambers, 31 Oct. 1871, B. 2706.
NOTES.
The writ of ne exeat regno is granted in cases of equitable claims : Drover Nature of.
v. Beyer, 13 Ch. D. 242, C. A. ; it is in the nature of mesne process until final
judgment, to prevent a person from leaving the realm, to the damage of the
person to whom he is indebted, unless he has given security for the amount
of the debt. It is interlocutory only, and superseded by the judgment ; but
the safe course is by the judgment expressly to discharge the order for the
writ.
Where the claim made in the action is such as could not before the When
Judicature Acts have been brought forward in Chancery, the writ will not be granted,
granted : Drover v. Beyer, 13 Ch. D. 242, 0. A.
In oases of claims at common law, whether in contract or tort, the Pit
may, on proof of cause of action to the amount of £50, and that there is
probable cause for believing that Deft is about to leave England, and
that his absence will prejudice the Pit in his claim, obtain an order for the
arrest of the Deft under sect. 6 of the Debtors Act, 1869.
For the practice under this section, see O. lxix.
In order to obtain the writ the demand must be pecuniary, must be for an
ascertained amount actually due and payable in prcesenti, and is subject to
the provisions of the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 6 (in substitution for arrest by
mesne process). See Dan. 1398.
A proof that there is probable cause for believing that the Deft is about to
quit England unless he be apprehended, and that his absence will materially
prejudice the Pit in the prosecution of his action, must have been given :
Drover v. Beyer, 13 Ch. D. 242, C. A. ; Colverson v. Bloomfield, 29 Ch. D. 341.
Where the debt, though certain, is payable infuturo, the writ cannot, it
seems, be granted : see Dan. 1398, and oases there cited ; Beames, on Ne
Exeat, 27.
But the writ may be obtained before the time fixed by the order for
payment, if the Court is satisfied that the debtor is going abroad to evade
payment : Sobey v. S., 15 Eq. 200 ; Whitehouse v. Partridge, 3 Sw. 365 ; but
not before service of an order directing payment within seven days after
service : Colverson v. Bloomfield, 29 Ch. D. 341.
506
Ne Exeat Regno.
[OHAP. XXX.
Evidence
in support.
Copies of
affidavits.
Title of
applicant.
Discharging
writ.
Inquiry as
to damages.
The evidence as to the debt must be positive and clear : Thompscm v.
Smith, 13 W. R. 422 ; 34 L. J. Oh. 412 ; 12 L. T. 9 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 276 ;
Jachson v. Petrie, 10 Ves. 165 ; and the writ will not be granted in the case
of a contested and unsettled account : Anon., 5 N. R. 358 ; Fhck v. Holm, 1
J. & W. 405 ; or unless, omitting disputed items, the Pit can swear that
according to his belief a particular sum at the least is due for which the writ
can be marked : Dan. 1398.
The Deft's intention to leave the country must be clearly shown by the
affidavits : mere general belief, without stating the grounds for such belief,
not being sufficient : Perry v. Dorset, 19 W. R. 1048 ; and also that the Pit
will be materially prejudiced in the prosecution of his claim by the Deft's
leaving the kingdom : Drover v. Beyer, 13 Oh. D. 242 ; Vanzelkr v. V., 15
Jur. 115 ; Soehm v. Wood, T. & R. 332.
Copies of the affidavits upon which the writ is granted must be furnished
by the party applying for the writ ex parte, upon payment of the proper
charges, immediately upon the receipt of a written request, and undertaking
to pay the proper charges, or within such time as may be specified in such
request, or may have been directed by the Court or a Judge : O. lxvi, 7 (j).
A present vested interest liable to be divested will support the writ :
Hmvkins v. H:, 1 Dr. & S. 75.
The writ may be obtained by Defts against the Pit : Whitehouse v. Part-
ridge, 3 Sw. 365 ; and in matters of account by Defts (exors) against their
co-Deft : Sobey v. S., 15 Eq. 200 ; and see Dcme's case, 1 P. Wms. 263.
It might issue against a contributory in default without bill filed : Mawer's
case, 4 D. & S. 349 ; and see Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, ss. 176,
177 (8 Edw. VII., 0. 69) ; and need not have been prayed by the bill :
Howkins v. H.,8 W. R. 403 (in which case it was granted against a Deft,
in contempt for not answering, who, residing abroad, had come to this
country temporarily, and was about to return).
The Court uses its discretion as to the order to be made on the motion
discharging the writ, but is usually satisfied with security : Beames, 97.
As against a Deft who had obtained protection under the Insolvent
Debtors Act, and was therefore no longer personally answerable for the
debt, the writ was discharged on terms : see James v. North, 7 W. R. 150 ;
28 L. J. Ch. 374 J 5 Jur. N. S. 84.
When the writ has been obtained upon a case not borne out by Pit's
affidavits, or which has been displaced by Deft, it will be discharged with
costs : Anderson v. Stamp, 2 H. & M. 576 ; see also VanzeUer v. V., 15
Jur. 115 ; and an inquiry as to damages may also be directed : Sichell v.
Raphael, 4 L. T. 114, sup., Eorm 3 ; but if a Deft against whom the writ
has been granted has not moved to discharge it, he cannot at the hearing
claim damages in respect thereof under the Pit's undertaking : Lees v.
Patterson,! Ch.D.S66.
The undertaking as to damages, and also to accept short notice of motion
to discharge, is now usually required.
For the practice as to discharging the writ, see Dan. 1403 et seq. And for
forms, see D. C. P. 850 et seq.
SECT. I.J ( 507 )
CHAPTER XXXI.
INJUNCTIONS.
Section I. — Inteelocutoey Injunctions and Interim Ordees.
1. Under talcing as to Damages.
The Pit by his counsel, undertaking to abide by any order which
this Court may make as to damages, in case this Court shall be of
opinion that the Defts shall have sustained any, by reason of this
order, which the Pit ought to pay [If ex parte and if ordered, and also
undertaking to accept short notice of motion to discharge this order
or the injunction hereby granted]. This Court doth &c.
The above undertaking in damages is always inserted in orders for
injunctions granted on interlocutory applications. Where the Pit accepts
an undertaking from the Deft in lieu of an interlocutory injunction, the
above undertaking in damages is inserted, omitting the words " by reason
of this order " and substituting " by reason of his undertaking hereinafter
mentioned " : see p. 510.
For various forms of notice of motion for injunction, see D. C. P. 830
et scq.
2. Ex parte Interim Order.
Usual undertaking as to damages [Form I, If so, And also under-
taking to accept short notice of motion to discharge this order] ;
Order that the Deft, his servants, workmen, and agents, be restrained
from Sec, until after the — day of — , or until further order [If so,
And it is ordered that the Pit be at liberty to serve the Deft with
notice of motion for an injunction for the — day of — ].
In vacation the Judge granting an injunction is considered as sitting in
Court where counsel or parties in person only can be heard.
3. Motion treated as a motion for Judgment.
And the Pit and the Defts by their counsel consenting that the
hearing of this motion should be treated as a motion for judgment,
and consenting to this judgment ; and the Defts by their counsel
undertaking not to [in terms of the injunction claimed by the writ],
This Court doth order, &c.
4. Inquiry as to Damages after Judgment for Deft — Payment —
Costs.
Order that the following &c. : 1 An inquiry whether the Deft has
sustained any and what damages by reason of the injunction granted by
508
Injunctions.
[cHAy. XXXI.
the order dated &c., and which the Pit ought to pay acccording to his
undertaking contained in the said order ; And in case it shall appear
that any such damage has been sustained, It is ordered that the
Pit do pay to the Deft, within one month from the date of the
Master's certificate to be made pursuant to this order, the amount
which shall be thereby certified for such damages, and also pay to
the said Deft his costs of the said inquiry, to be taxed by the taxing
master ; And in case it shall appear that no such damage has been
sustained, It is ordered that the Deft do pay to the Pit his costs of
the said inquiry, to be taxed as aforesaid. — Burdett v. Hay, M. R.,
28 April, 1864, A. 1298 ; S. C, 4 D. J. & S. 41.
This form was approved by V.-C. H. in Christie v. C, 19 Feb. 1875, A.
161, where, at the joint request of PJts and Defts, an issue was directed
under 25 & 26 V. c. 42, s. 2 (repealed by the Stat. Law Revision and Civil
Procedure Act, 1883, 46 & 47 V. o. 49), whether Defts had sustained any
damage by reason of the order, and if so, what was the amount of it.
5. Dismissal — Sum certain to he paid for Damages, for Inquiry.
Dismiss Pit's (action) with costs. — " And the Deft by his counsel
offering to accept the sum of £ — for damages under the undertaking
of the Pit contained in the said order dated &c. ; Order that the Pit
be at liberty to pay the said sum of £— to the Deft ; And in default
of the Pit paying to the Deft the said sum of £— within &c.," Inquiry
what damages have been sustained by the Deft by reason of the said
order dated &c., having been made. — Pit to pay what shall be
certified, and Deft's costs of the inquiry.— Liberty to apply.— ^wMef
V. Taylor, V.-C. W., 19 Feb. 1864, A. 327.
For dismissal of action (to restrain an apprehended nuisance) without
prejudice to any further proceedings on the part of the Pit, in case the
operations of the Deft's works should occasion a nuisance, or in case the Pit
should apprehend an immediate nuisance or damage if the operations of the
Defts were continued, see Fletcher v. Bealey, Pearson, J., 15 May, 1885,
A. 776 ; 33 W. R. 745, 748.
Breach of
covenant.
UntU
judgment
or further
order.
NOTES.
FOEM OF OEDEE.
In granting an injunction the Court should see that the language of the
order is not ambiguous, but such as to make what it permits, and what it
prohibits, quite plain : Low v. Innes, 4 D. J. & S. 286 ; it must be founded
on, and consistent with, the relief claimed : Burdett v. Hay, 4 D. J. & S. 41.
In a, cas3 of breach of covenant, the injunction " ought not in general
terms to restrain the Deft from committing any breach of covenant, but
the order should contain an adjudication on the particular thing which is
said to be a breach of the covenant, so to restrain him by injunction from
doing that particular thing, and in that way to limit the generality of the
Injunction " : per Cotton, L. J., Parker v. First Avenue Hotel Co., 24 Ch. D.
282, 286, C. A. ; and see Dalglish, v. Jarvie, 2 Mac. & G. 231.
After 15 & 16 V. c. 86, the form usually adopted in granting interlooutoy
injunctions was "until the hearing of the cause," and now it is "until
judgment in this action or further order," so as to show that the injunction
is not to extend beyond judgment, unbss then continued by leave of the
SECT. I.] Interlocutory Injunctions and Interim Orders. 509
Court, nor until that time if previously discharged by "further order":
see Bolton v. London School Board, 7 Ch. D. 766, 771.
Though an injunction restraining the act complained of is claimed against Servants
the Deft alone, the order will, if necessary, be extended to his workmen, and agents,
servants, and agents (and it is of course to insert these words : Humphreys
V. Roberts, Y.-C, 1828, A. 674) ; but not to his tenants : Hodson v. Coppard,
29 Beav. 4 ; 9 W. R. 9. And when the order restrains the Deft only, his
agents, thougli not in terms enjoined, may be punished for contempt, if they
knowingly assist in a breach of the injunction : L. Wellesley v. Mornington,
11 Beav. 180; Seaward v. Paterson, [1897] 1 Ch. 545, C. A. : see inf.,
" Breach op Iujitkction."
Otherwise an injunction does not bind a person not a party : Iveson v.
Harris, 7 Ves. 256 ; Kerr, 552, 598 ; and on a bill by persons " on behalf
of all others, &c.," an injunction staying proceedings against persons not
named parties to the record was held irregular, but continued by arrange-
ment in favour of those who complied with the decree : Armitstead v.
Durham, 11 Beav. 556 — 561, n.
If the motion stands until the trial, the costs will not, as a rule, be Costs,
specially reserved, but will be disposed of together with the motion at the
trial ; the right course being to make the costs of the motion costs in the
action ; and the dismissal of the action with costs carries with it the costs
of a motion for injunction, which stood over until the trial, and was not
then brought on : see Oosnell v. Bishop, 38 Ch. D. 385. If, however, the
question on the motion is different from that involved in the action, e.g.,
whether it was right to make the motion at all, whatever the rights of the
parties may be, the proper order is, that the motion do stand over until
the trial : per Ohitty, J., Bournemouth Commrs. v. Holden, 1888, W. N. p. 205.
In order to entitle a Pit to costs, he is not bound, before moving for an
injunction in assertion of his legal right, to give any notice to the Deft :
Cooper V. Whittingham, 15 Ch. D. 501 ; Upmann v. Forester, 24 Ch. D. 231 ;
Witmann v. Oppenheim, 27 Ch. D. 260 ; but as to the effect of an offer by
the Deft to give a full and sufficient undertaking, and that a Pit nevertheless
bringing on a motion for an injunction may be made to pay costs, see
Jenkins v. Hope, [1896J 1 Ch. 278 ; Snuggs v. Seyd dh Kelly's Credit Index
Co., 1894, W. N. 95.
As to the taxation of reserved costs of interlocutory applications, v. sup.
p. 244.
TTNDBBTAKUIG AS TO DAMAGES.
Except in cases where the Pit's right is perfectly clear, or damage from
granting it is unlikely to accrue (Adamson v. Wilson, 3 N. R. 368), the
Court will not (unless under special circumstances) grant an interlocutory
injunction either ex parte or on notice, without an undertaking as to
damages, and the registrars are instructed always to insert it : Oraham v.
Campbell, 7 Ch. D. 490, 494, C. A. ; Chappell v. Davidsm, 8 D. M. & G. 1 ;
2 K. & J. 123 ; Tuck v. Silver, Joh. 218 ; Wakefield v. D. Buccleuch, 13
W. R. 866 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 523 ; 12 L. T. 628 ; Worms v. Smith, 18 W. R.
91 ; and it will be required, even when the injunction is continued by the
Court of Appeal after hearing both sides : Teign Valley Co. v. Southwood,
19 W. R. 690 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 165 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 347 ; S. C, 1 J. & H. 79 ;
30 L. J. Ch. 147 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 282 ; 3 L. T. 121 ; De Mattos v. Qibsm,
7 W. R. 152 ; but cannot be required where the action is by A. G. on behalf
of the Crown : A. 0. v. Albany Hotel Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 696, C. A. ; dis-
tinguishing Sec. of State for War v. Chubb, 43 L. T. 83 ; though the Court
might, perhaps, refuse to grant the interlocutory injunction in a special
case unless the Crown gave the undertaking. The undertaking ought not
to be inserted in an interim injunction restraining the Pit in a patent action
from pubhshing threats before judgment : Fenner v. Wilson, [1893]
2 Ch. 656.
510
Injunctions
[chap. XXXI.
Measure of
damages in
case of sale
of shares
of CO.
Undertaking
by 00.
Pit out of
jurisdiction.
Married
woman.
Operation of
undertaking.
The judges of the Chancery Division have now decided that whenever
an undertaking is given to the Court in lieu of an interlocutory injunction,
there shall be inserted in the order a cross undertaking in damages by the
applicant unless the contrary is agreed and expressed at the time : Practice
Note, 1904, W. N. 203; and seeOberrheinischeMetcdlwerhe v. Cocks, 1906,
W. N. 127. But see Howard v. Press Printers, Ld., 74 L. J. Oh. (C. A.)
The undertaking is not confined to damages sustained by the party
against whom the injunction is granted, but extends to damages sustained
by all the Defts : Tucher v. Brunswick Trading Co., 44 Ch. D. 249, C. A.
The Court has no jurisdiction to compel a party to give an undertaking :
Where an ex parte injunction was granted on an undertaking to amend the
writ which was not complied with until the opposite party moved to
dissolve the injunction, the Court dissolved the injunction : Spanish
General Agency v. Spanish Corporation, 63 L. T. 161 ; 1890, W. N. 158.
As to the amount of damages, see Mansell v. British Linen Bank, [1892] 3
Ch. 159, where, the injunction being to restrain sale of shares, and a
summons for sale by the mortgagee of them having been successfully
opposed by the Pit and the Deft mortgagor, the damages were held to be
the difference between the price when the injunction was granted and the
price when the summons for sale was issued.
An inquiry will not be granted when the Court can satisfy itself as to the
amount of damage : Graham v. Campbell, 7 Ch. D. 490, 494.
Where the application for an injunction is by a co., the Court has required
the undertaking to be given, and the registrar's book to be signed by a
director, or some person satisfactory to the Court, and his signature to be
witnessed by the solr of the co. : Southampton, &c. Co. v. Hollis, V.-C. B.,
20 Jan. 1871, B. 110 ; Anglo-Danubian Co. v. Rogerson, 10 Jur. N. S. 87 ;
1 N. R. 185 ; and where no officer of the co. is resident in London, the
undertaking has been sent by post to the registrar, and filed : Pacific Steam
Go. V. Gibbs, 14 W. R. 218 ; 13 L. T. 431 ; but in Re Tecorna Co. V.-C. H.:
21 Nov. 1874, Reg. Min., f. 142, the undertaking of counsel on behalf of the
CO. was accepted as sufficient ; and see Manchester tfe L. Bhg. Co. v.
Parkinson, 60 L. T. 47 ; and this is now usual unless the solvency of the
CO. is challenged. The solr is not now called upon to give his personal
undertaking. Where a corporation or local board are Pits, their under-
taking is sufficient : E. Molesey L. B. v. Lambeth Waterworks Co., [1892]
3 Ch. 289.
If Pit is out of the jurisdiction the Court may require an undertaking
to be given by his London agents or some responsible person : Hamilton v.
Board, 1 N. R. 379 ; Solignac v. Burden, M. R. 29 Oct. 1859, B. 2698.
It will be required from a married woman suing in respect of her separate
estate : Holden v. Waterlow, 15 W. R. 139 ; and the sole undertaking of a
married woman suing as 3. feme sole is sufficient : Re Prynne, 53 L. T. 465 ;
Pike V. Cave, 1893, W. N. 91 ; 68 L. T. 650 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 937.
The undertaking remains in force although the action is dismissed :
Newby v. Harrison, 3 D. F. & J. 287 (and see memorandum by Jessel, M. R.,
1879, W. N. 74) ; or the Pit has discontinued his action : Newcomen v.
Coulson, 7 Ch. D. 764.
Notwithstanding the dictum of Jessel, M. R., in Smith v. Day, 21 Ch. D.
421, a Deft is entitled to the benefit of the undertaking in damages, though
the injunction may have been wrongly granted by mistake of law, and not
through any misrepresentation, suppression, or other default of the Pit :
Hunt V. H., 54 L. J. Ch. 289 ; Griffith v. Blake, 27 Ch. D. 474, 477, C. A. ;
the rule being (per Cotton, L. J.) that wherever the Pit fails on the merits,
an inquiry as to damages will be granted, unless there are specal circum-
stances to the contrary : and see Sheppard v. Gilmore, 1887, W. N. 242;
Ross V. Buxton, 1888, W. N. 55.
And see, as to the time of reference and mode of assessing damages upon
SECT, i.j Interlocutory Injunctions and Interim Orders. 511
the undertaking, Southworth v. Tatjlor, 28 Beav. 616 ; Mold v. Wheatcroft,
30 L. J. Ch. 598 ; Christie v. C, sup. p. 508 ; Hunt v. H., 54 L. J. Ch.
289.
The Court will not enforce the undertaking where there has been un-
reasonable delay in applying, e.g., four years after it was ascertained that
the injunction had been improperly granted : Exp. Hall, Be Wood, 23 Ch.
D. 644, C. A.
As to breach of undertaking, v. supra, p. 521.
SEBVIOB or OBDER FOR INJUNCTION.
By 0. L, 11, the writ of injunction has been abolished ; and service of the Service of
minutes of the order, signed by the registrar, or even notice in writing if order,
fully proved, is sufficient, but should be followed by service of the order as
soon as it can be»obtained : see Heywood v. Wait, 18 W. R. 205 ; Dan.
1368 ; Kerr, 572. For form of notice, see D. C. P. 835.
A judgment or order for an injunction is to be dated and take effect from
the day on which it is pronounced : 0. xli, 3 ; 0. lii, 13 ; and a party
having notice of the order is bound by it, from that time, and not merely
from the drawing up of the order.
A party in Court when the order is made against him, or only leaving Notice before
just as it was about to be pronounced, has notice of it so as to be bound : service.
Hearn v. Tennant, 14 Ves. 136 ; James v. Dowries, 18 Ves. 522 ; and,
generally, it is sufficient if it appears beyond doubt and dispute that he
has notice, however given (even by telegram, especially if through a soir :
Exp. Langley, 13 Ch. D. 110, C. A. ; The Seraglio, 10 P. D. 120 ; Be Bryant,
4 Ch. D. 98), of the order, and that the Pit intends to proceed with it,
though it has not been served : United Telephone Co. v. Dale, 25 Ch. D.
778 ; Heywood v. Wait, 18 W. E. 205 ; and where a solr's undertaking is
embodied in an order of the Court, service of the order upon him is not
necessary before committal : D. v. A. ch Co., [1900] Ch. 484 ; and see
Be Launder, 98 L. T. 554. As to receipt of notice through the post, see
Be London & Northern Bank, [1900] 1 Ch. 220, C. A. But the order should
be drawn up, passed, and entered without delay : Van Sandau v. Bose,
2 Jae. & W. 264 ; 0. Lxn, 4 — 6 ; Avory v. Andrews, 51 L. J. Ch. 414 ;
46 L. T. 279 ; 30 W. R. 564.
Unless substituted service was directed (Kirkman -v.Honnor, 6 Beav. 400; Personal
Heald v. Hay, 9 W. R. 369 ; and see Anderson v. Lewis, 3 B. C. C. 429), service,
service of the writ of injunction must have been personal, by showing the
original, and leaving a copy with the person served : Woodward v. King, 2
Dick. 7^7 ; 3 Sw. 626 ; and this rule applies to the order which by the new
practice has been substituted for the abolished writ : O. l, 11.
As to the indorsement to be made, under 0. xli, 5, on all copies of
judgments or orders which shall be served requiring any person to do an act,
and as to service generally, v. sup. pp. 208, 433 ; and that such indorsement
is not required on orders merely prohibitive, see Selous v. Croydon Local
Board, 53 L. T. 209 ; Hudson v. Walker, 64 L. J. Ch. 204 ; 1894, W. N. 180.
notice of motion.
According to the former practice, personal service of notice of motion Before
for injunction and receiver could only be made before appearance by appearance,
leave of the Court, and such leave must have been stated in the notice :
Bamshottom v. Freeman, 4 Beav. 145 ; Hill v. Bimell, 2 M. & C. 641.
And now, by O. lii, 8, the Pit may, without any special leave, serve
any notice of motion on any Deft who, having been served with a writ
of summons, has not appeared within the time limited for the purpose.
And by r. 9, leave of the Court or Judge obtained ex parte, the Pit may
serve any notice of motion with the writ of summons, or at any time after
service thereof, and before apearance. In such case the notice must state
that it is by leave.
512 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Effect of As an application to add or strike out the names of any parties whether
amendment, as Pits or as Defts, may now be made at any stage of the proceedings
(0. XVI, 11) such application will not, it is presumed, prevent Pit from
moving for an injunction. And even under the former practice the allow-
ance or pendency of a demurrer for want of parties (now abolished, 0. XX v,
1), did not, it seems, prevent an application for an injunction or receiver :
Hamp V. Robinson, 3 D. J. & S. 97 ; Const v. Harris, T. & R. 514 ; and see
Be Thorniley, Woolley v. T., 32 W. R. 539 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 499.
Under the old practice an amendment of the bill after notice of motion for
an injunction operated as a waiver of the notice of motion, and the Pit had
to pay the costs occasioned by the notice of motion : L. & Blachwall By. v.
Limehouse Bd., 3 K. & J. 123 ; Smith v. Dixmi, 12 W. R. 934 ; 4 N. R. 259 ;
Monypenny y. M.,1 W. R. 99. Under the new practice amendment does
not in general affect the operation of an injunction : Dan. 1369.
It was irregular to move on notice of motion given before the amendment ;
the proper course being to apply for leave to amend, without prejudice to
the notice of motion : Bawlings v. Lambert, 1 J. & H. 458 ; Oouthwaite v.
Bippon, 1 Beav. 54.
And although under the new practice an injunction may be applied iof
upon the writ of summons (see O. xix, 2, 0. xx. 1 (6)), it is conceived that
the old rule of practice ought, in strictness, still to be followed ; and see
Caldwell Y. Pagham Harbour Beclamation Co., 2 Ch. D. 221, where an action
was by leave turned into an information and action, without prejudice to a
pending motion for an injunction ; and see Kerr, 563.
INTEBLOOXJTOBY APPLICATIONS AND INTERIM EBSTRAINING ORDEES
JURISDICTION.
The term " interim " is technically applied only to an order granted over
the next or some early motion day, but often extended.
The term "interlocutory" is used in a more comprehensive sense; see
ante, pp. 508, 509.
Effect of By the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), an injunction may be granted by an
Jud. Act, interlocutory order of the Court in all cases in which it shall appear to the
1873. Court to be just or convenient, and such order may be made either un-
conditionally, or upon such terms and conditions as the Court shall think
just ; and see O. L, 6, 12.
The extensive jurisdiction of granting injunctions given to the Courts of
Common Law by the C. L. P. Act, 1854, ss. 79, 82, has been transferred to
the High Court, so that injunctions will now be granted in the Ch. Div. in
cases where under the old practice there was no jurisdiction in Chancery :
see Beddow v. B., 9 Ch. D. 89 ; Aslatt v. Southampton Corp., 16 Ch. D. 143 ;
Cooper V. Whittingham, 15 Ch. D. 501 ; especially in cases of libel : see
Thorley, <tc. Co. v. Massam, 14 Ch. D. 763, C. A. ; Thomas v. Williams, 14
Ch. D. 864 ; Quartz Hill Co. v. Beall, 20 Ch. D. 501, C. A. ; Hill v. Hart-
Davis, 21 Ch. D. 798 ; Bonnard v. Ferryman, [1891] 2 Ch. 269 ; Collard v.
Marshall, [1892] 1 Ch. 571 ; Monson v. Tussauds, [1894] 1 Q. B. 671, C. A.
The principles, however, have not been altered, but only the procedure,
and an injunction should only be granted where it is just as well as con-
venient : Day v. Brovmrigg, 10 Ch. D. 294 ; Gaskin v. Balls, 13 Ch. D. 324,
C. A. ; Fletcher v. Bodgers, 27 W. R. 97 ; and the jurisdiction has not
been extended so as to enable the Court to grant an injunction where, before
the Jud. Act, it could not have done so : Kitts v. Moore, [1895] 1 Q. B. 253,
C. A. ; N. L. By. Co. v. G. N. By. Co., U Q. B. D. 30, C. A. ; Holmes v.
Millage, [1893] 1 Q. B. 551, C. A. ; Collard v. Marshall, [1892] 1 Ch. 571 ;
e.g., restraining proceedings before an arbitrator under the L. C. Act,
alleged to have been taken without the authority of the person whose name
was used : London and Blachwall By. Co. v. Cross, 31 Ch. D. 354, C. A. ;
and see Jackson v. Barry By. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 238 ; but the Court has
jurisdiction on equitable grounds to restrain Deft from proceeding to
SECT. I.J Interlocutory Injunctions and Interim Orders. 513
arbitration where an action has been brought impeaching the instrument
containing the submission : Kitts v. Moore, [1895] 1 Q. B. 253, C. A. ; and
will not refuse to protect by injunction a right which is merely statutory :
see Hayward v. East London Waterworks Co., 28 Ch. D. 138 ; or protected
by statute : Stevens v. Chown, [1901] 1 Ch. 894 ; and see A. 0. v. Ashbourne
Recreation Oround, [1903] 1 Ch. 101 ; Devonport Gorporation v. Tozcr,
[1903] 1 Ch. 759, C. A. ; A. G. v. Wimbledon House Estate Co., [1904]
2 Ch. 34 ; Carlton Illustrators v. Coleman dk Co., Ltd., [1911] 1 K. B. 771.
An interlocutory injunction to restrain a gross hbel was refused where no
danger to the Pits in person or property was shown : Salomons v. Knight,
[1891] 2 Ch. 294, C. A. ; and see Plumbhj v. Ferryman, 1891, W. N. 64.
An interlocutory injunction restraining the publication of placards and
circulars containing statements injurious to trade was granted where the
Court was satisfied upon the evidence that the statements were false :
Collard v. Marshall, [1892] 1 Ch. 571.
By O. L, 6, an application for an order under sect. 25 (8) may be made to
the Coxirt or a Judge by any party ; if by Pit, either ex parte or with notice ;
and it by any other party, then on notice to Pit, and at any time after
appearance by the party applying.
Under this rule, a Deft may, before judgment, but after appearance, and
on notice to Pit, apply for an injunction and receiver : Sargant v. Read,
1 Ch. D. 600 ; but under Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), Deft may apply ex parte :
Hick V. Lockwood, 1883, W. N. 48
By O. LH, 3, the Court or a Judge, if satisfied that the delay caused by Ex parte
proceeding in the ordinary way would or might cause irreparable or serious application
mischief, may make any order ex parte upon such terms as to costs, and jmder O. lii,
subject to such undertaking, if any, as the Court or Judge shall think fit.
Under this rule, in order to avoid delay, the order for service out of the Service out
jurisdiction, obtained ex parte under O. n, 4, before issuing the writ, has of jurisdic-
provided for the issuing of an injunction from and after issue of the writ of *'°°-
summons : Young v. Brassey, 1 Ch. D. 277.
Under the new practice injunctions have been granted by Judges of the Orders in
Common Law Divisions personally in Chambers on ex parte appHcations Chambers,
(see Fenner v. Bedford, 1875, W. N. 230, to restrain pulling down a house :
Tozer v. Walford, 1875, W. N. 250, to restrain the use of a steam engine :
Anon., 1876, W. N. 21, to restrain parting with a bill of exchange).
But this has not hitherto been the practice in Chancery, and will probably
not be encouraged in that division : see English v. CamberweU Vestry, 1875,
W. N. 256 ; and that injunctions ought not to be granted ex parte except in
cases of emergency, see Anon., 1876, W. N. 12, per Lindley, J.
For injunction in the Probate Division, after issue of the writ, but before Probate
service, to restrain any dealing with an intestate's estate, see Brand v. Division.
Mitson, 24 W. R. 524 ; 45 L. J. P. D. 41 ; 34 L. T. 854.
Applications for injunctions, mandamus, or the appointment of a receiver. Jurisdiction
under the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), or for the interim preservation of of masters
property, &c., under 0. L, 1, 2, 3, are, by 0. LIV, 12, excepted from the of ^- B. D.
jurisdiction of the masters of the K. B. Div., and of the registrars in the
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division.
In actions within its jurisdiction a County Court has power, under Jud. County
Act, 1873, s. 89, to grant an injunction, and to commit for disobedience to Court.
the order : Martin v. Bannister, 4 Q. B. D. 212, 491 ; and see Brune v.
James, [1898] 1 Q. B. 417 ; and to entertain an action in which an in-
junction onlyis claimed, provided that if there had been a claim for damages
the amount so claimed would have been within the jurisdiction of a County
Court : Stiles v. Eccleston, [1903] 1 K. B. 545 ; and to appoint a receiver
by way of execution against equitable interests in land: RexY. Selfe, [1908]
2 K. B. 121 ; but not to stay an action commenced in the High Court
(having no power to do what the High Court, since sect. 89, cannot) :
Gobbold V. Fryhe, 4 Ex. D. 315 ; nor to entertain an action for an injunction
to restrain the infringement of a registered trade mark: Bow v. Hart,
VOL. I. 2 L •
514
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
[1905] 1 K. B. 592 ; or o£ a patent : Beg. v. Judge of Halifax Co., [1891]
2 Q. B. 263.
Evidence. In oases of urgency, interim restraining orders are granted, and receivers
appointed, on affidavit of the facts before appearance of the Deft or service
of the writ (or, under the former practice, bill filed) : Carr v. Morice, 16 Eq.
125 ; Thorneloe v. Skoines, lb. 126 ; Campana v. Webb, 22 W. R. 622 ; and
even before affidavit filed. Pit undertaking to file it : Newman v. Harris,
1870, W. N. 6 ; Shimell v. Tucker, V.-C. W., 13 Ap. 1872, B. 821 ; Young v.
Brassey, 1 Ch. D. 277 (see, however, Exp. M'Phail, 12 Ch. D. 632) ; H.'s
Estate, Oolebourne v. G., 1 Ch. D. 276 ; 0. xxxvin, 19.
Applications for injunctions ex parte are strictly dealt with ; there must
have been uberrima fides ; the case must be fully and fairly stated ; and the
suppression or misrepresentation of any material fact will disentitle Pit to
relief, or at least make him liable for costs at the hearing : Dalglish v.
Jarvie, 2 Mac. & G. 231 ; A. 0. v. Liverpool Corp., 1 My. & Cr. 171
Maclaren v. Stainton, 16 Beav. 279 ; Edelsten v. E., 1 D. J. & S. 185
Fuller V. Taylor, 9 Jur. N. S. 743 ; 8 L. T. 69 ; 11 W. R. 532 ; 32 L. J. Ch'
376 ; Harbottle v. Pooley, 20 L. T. 436 ; Holden v. Waterlow, 15 W. R. 139
Wimbledon L. Board v. Croydon Sanitary Authority, 32 Ch. D. 421, C. A.
and see Schmitten v. Faullces, 1893, W. N. 64 (where the solr having sup-
pressed the fact that he was taking bankruptcy proceedings against his
client was held Hable both for costs and under the client's undertaking as
to damages). If the Deft has appeared the Court ought to be informed
of the fact : Mexican Co. v. Maldonado, 1890, W. N. 8.
But the Pit so applying is not bound to state facts supposed to raise some
point of law in reality untenable : Weston v. Arnold, 8 Ch. 1084. And see
Kerr, 634.
A motion to discharge an ex parte order for an injunction on the ground of
its having been obtained by misrepresentation, is proper, though the
injunction is about to expire : Wimbledon L. Board v. Croydon Sanitary
Authority, 32 Ch. D. 421, C. A. ; distinguishing Bolton v. London School
Board, 7 Ch. D. 766.
By O. Lxvi, 7 ij), on ex parte applications for injunctions, or ne exeat, the
party making such apphcation is to furnish copies of the affidavits upon
which it is granted, upon payment of the proper charges, immediately upon
the receipt of the usual request and undertaking, or within such time as
may be specified in such request, or may have been directed by the Court
or a Judge.
After the motion is opened no new evidence can be adduced, except with
the leave of the Court : Bird v. Lake, 1 H. & M. 118, 119 ; East Lancashire
By. Go. V. Hattersley, 8 Ha. 72, 86 ; and see Munro v. Wivenhoe By. Co., 4
D. J. & S. 726 ; which seems to extend the rule to the use by counsel of any
evidence in existence when they are called upon to address the Court.
Delay. Delay and acquiescence are very material (especially in patent cases :
Bovill V. Crate, 1 Eq. 388 ; Bacon v. Jmies, 4 M. & C. 439) ; and will more
easily than at the hearing bar Pit's right to summary relief : Hogg v. Scott,
18 Eq. 444 ; Johnson v. Wyatt, 2 D. J. & S. 18 ; Wood v. Sutcliffe, 2 Sim.
N. S. 163 ; Gordon v. Cheltenham By. Co., 5 Beav. 233 ; Ware v. Begents
Canal Co., 3 D. & J. 212 ; Wintle v. Bristol and 8. W. By. Co., 10 W. R. 210 :
6 L. T. 20 ; Salisbury v. Met. By Co., 18 W R. 484 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 429 ;
Isaacson v. Thompson, 51 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 20 W. R. 196 ; but mere delay
short of the statutory period of limitations vidll not affect the right to an
injunction in aid of a legal right : Fullwood v. F., 9 Ch. D. 176 ; Bowland v.
Mitchell, 75 L. T. 65.
And see, upon the equitable doctrine of acquiescence as applied to in-
junctions, Kerr, 16—19 ; Willmott v. Barber, 15 Ch. D. 96.
Balance of The balance of convenience and inconvenience from granting or refusing
convenience, the order is very material on interlocutory applications, espeoiaOy where
it is sought to stop carrying on a trade : Plimpton v. Spiller, 4 Ch. D. 286 ;
Mogul Steamship Co. v. McOregor, 15 Q. ?, P. 476 ; 4. (?. v. Charles,
SECT. I.] Interlocutory Injunctions and Interim Orders. 515
H W. R. 253 ; or a public undertaking : Shrewsbury and Chester By. v,
Shrewsbury and Birmingham By., 1 Sim. N. S. 410 ; Oreenhalgh v. Man-
chester By. Co., 3 M. & Cr. 784 ; Hadley v. London, dkc. Bank, 3 D. J. &
S. 63 ; or to stop the working of a mine : Hilton v. Granville, C. & Ph.
297 ; or to restrain interference with light : Newson v. Pender, 27 Oh. D.
43, C. A. ; McManus v. Cooke, 35 Ch. D. 681 ; Smith v. Baxter, [1900]
2 Ch. 138 ; or alleged infiingement of trade mark : Mitchell v. Henry,
15 Oh. D. 181, 0. A. ;
— as also the power of the Oourt completely to enforce its order, e.g., by
compelling a Pit to carry out the contract, an interference with which
he seeks to restrain : Oarretl v. Banstead By. Co., 4 D. J. & S. 462 ;
Miinro V. Wivenhoe By. Co., 4 D. J. & S. 723 ;
— as also the fact that the Pit can be adequately and more conveniently
compensated by an inquiry as to damages — and these considerations
are also applicable to relief by injunction at the hearing, and to cases
of specific performance : see Elwes v. Payne, 12 Oh. D. 468, 0. A. ;
Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 15 Q. B. D. 476 ; [1892] A. C. 25 ;
McManus v. Cooke, 35 Ch. D. 681 ; Holland v. Worley, 26 Ch. D.
578 ; Isenberg v. E. I. Ho. Co., 3 D. J. & S. 263 ; Jackson v. D.
Newcastle, ib. 275 ; Eastwood v. Lever, 4 D. J. & S. 114 ; Senior v.
Pawson, 3 Eq. 330 ; Master v. Hansard, 34 L. T. 719 ; Wilson v.
Northampton and Banbury By. Co., 9 Oh. 279.
The interlocutory order does not conclude the right, the object and effect EfJeot of
being merely to keep things in statu quo where the Pit shows a prima facie order,
case for reUef at the hearing, so that the relief shall not be ineffectual : see
Preston v. Luck, 27 Ch. D. 506, 508. The right to an injunction at the
hearing is not lost by an interlocutory motion not having been made :
Davies v. Marshall, 1 Dr. & Sm. 557. In very special cases only will any
positive act be enforced by interlocutory injunction : G. W. By. v. Birming-
ham, <Ssc. By., 2 Ph. 597 ; Blakemore v. Glamorgan Canal, 1 M. & K. 154 ;
Shrewsbury and Chester By. v. Shrewsbury and Birmingham By., 1 Sim,
N. S. 410 ; Kerr, 12.
And, generally, this summary relief will not be granted where there is a Summary
serious question to be tried : e.g., the construction of a doubtful clause in an relief, when
Act of Parliament : Dover Harbour v. L. C. <& D. By., 3 D, P. & J. 559 ; not granted.
— ^alleged interference with a franchise in respect of markettoUs : Elwes v,
Payne, 12 Oh. D. 468, 0. A. ;
— ^the validity of a patent : Plimpton v. Malcolmson, 20 Eq. 37 ;
— where the Pit claims as c. q. t., but the trust is not admitted, and the
right to the money or property in question is matter to be decided at
the hearing : Bank of Turkey v. Ottoman Bank, 2 Eq. 366 ;
— or upon a mere quia timet where there is no sufficient threatened or
intended legal injury : L. Cowley v. Byas, 5 Oh. D. 944 ; Fletcher v.
Beaky, 28 Oh. D. 688 ; A. G. v. Vestry of Bermondsey, 23 Ch. D. 60,
0. A. ; Newton v. iV., 11 P. D. 11 ; secus, where the subject-matter of
litigation is in danger of being parted with or destroyed : London and
County Banking Co, v. Lewis, 21 Ch. D. 490 ; Brand v. Mitson,
24 W. R. 524 ; 45 L. J. P. 41 ; 34 L. T. 854 ;
— or to restrain shipowners from conspiring to drive ships of other traders
off a certain line of trade, unless a case of irreparable damage is made
out : Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, 15 Q. B. D. 476 ; [1892]
A. 0. 25 ; and see Temperton v. Bussell, [1893] 1 Q. B. 75, C. A.
In Wall V. London Assets Corp., [1898] 2 Ch. 469, C. A., an interlocutory
injunction against interference with the rights of the shareholders in a co.
under the memorandum and articles was refused on an undertaking by the
CO. not to divide certain shares until after the trial of the action otherwise
than in accordance with the rights of the shareholdres under the memo-
randum and articles.
516
Injunctions.
[chap. xxxt.
Injunction
not claimed
by writ.
By Deft
or against
co-l5e£t.
Duration
of order.
The usual course in such cases is to order the motion to stand until the
trial, Deft being put upon terms and arranging for speedy trial : see
Coleman v. West Hartlepool By., 3 L. T. 847 ; Elwes v. Payne, 12 Ch. D.
468, C. A. ; Mitchell v. Henry, 15 Ch. D. 181, C. A.
It is not unusual, by consent of parties, to treat the motion for an in-
junction as a motion for judgment, which is equivalent to treating the hear-
ing of the interlocutory application as the trial of the action.
Under the old practice injunctions have been granted at the hearing
under special circumstances, though not prayed by the bill : Blomfield v.
Eyre, Goodman v. Kine, 8 Beav. 250, 379 ; Beynell v. Sprye, 1 D. M. & G.
660.
And see inf.. Chap. XXXII., " Receivers," for decisions in the analogous
case of an application for a receiver not claimed by the writ.
Under the present practice, and the large powers of amendment at any
stage of the proceedings (see 0. xxvin), although where an injunction (or
the appointment of a receiver) is a substantial object of the action the writ
should be so indorsed, an interim order, though not claimed by the writ,
may be obtained on amending the indorsement : Colcbourne v. C, V.-C. H.,
15 Jan, 1876, A. 19 ; I Ch. D. 690 ; or without such amendment if in-
cidental to the principal relief claimed.
Under the old practice injunctions have been granted at the instance of
one Deft against liis co-Deft : Edgcumhe v. Carpenter, 1 Beav. 171 ; but
not, it seems, upon interlocutory application before decree : Busaell v.
L. G. D. Ry., 4 Giff. 403.
But under O. L, 6, a Deft may before judgment apply for an injunction
(or receiver), and in a proper case the Court has jurisdiction to make the
order : Sargant v. Read, 1 Ch. D. 600 ; and see ColUson v. Warren, [1901]
1 Ch. 812, C. A.
It has been said that an interim order, if nothing is said to the contrary,
remains in force until the case is disposed of : see Carrow v. Ferrier, 3 Ch.
719 ; but in practice such orders are invariably expressed to be granted
until after or over a day fixed : see Form 2, p. 507 ; and if necessary may
be continued until a further day, or until judgment : and if an interim
injunction has been obtained on notice, until a certain day, the Pit is not
entitled, after the period for which it was granted has expired, to obtain
ex parte a further injunction : Oraham v. Campbell, 7 Ch. D. 491.
The pendency of a motion for an injunction did not prevent Pit from
obtaining an order to dismiss his own bill : Marhvick v. Pawson, 33 L. J.
Ch. 703.
Ex parte
injunction.=.
DISCHAEGING INJUNCTION.
An application to discharge an injunction must be by motion on notice ;
and an injunction until answer " or further order " was not ipso facto dis-
solved by putting in a sufficient answer : Ooddeen v. Oakley, 2 D. F. & J.
158 ; and see Mollett v. Enequist (2), 26 Beav. 467.
An application by a stranger to the suit who is injuriously affected, might,
it seems, be properly made by petition : Baiirbaud v. B., 12 W. R. 1024;
10 L. T. 781.
Upon motion to dissolve, a new injunction in terms different from those
originally prayed cannot be granted : BiirdeU v. Hay, 4 D. J, & f>. 41.
For forms of notice of motion, see D. C. F. 835.
As already stated {sup. p. 614), on applications ex parte for injunctions,
there must be uberrima fides ; and injunctions obtained ex parte on mis-
representation, suppression of, or omission to bring forward material facts,
will on that ground, mthout reference to merits, be discharged : Hilton v.
E. aianville,4:'Be3,v. 130 ; Dalglish v. Jarrie, 2 Mac.& G. 236 ; Wood v. W.,
10 Eq. 193, 207 ; even where Pit swore that he was not aware of the import-
ance of, or' forgot, the foots misstated, concealed, or omitted : Dalglish v.
SECT. I.] Interlocutory Injunctions and Interim Orders. 517
Jarvie, sup. ; Clijion v. RoUnsm, 16 Beav. 355 ; Sheard v. Webb, 2 W. R.
343 ; and see Thorpe v. Hvghes, 3 My. & C. 742 ; White v. Steinwacks,
19 Ves. 83 ; Broiim v. Newall, 2 My. & C. 558.
And this rule has been applied when the cause in which the ex parte
injunction was thus improperly obtained had been transferred to another
branch of the Court : Sturgeon v. T/ooIcer, 1 D. & S. 484 ; or where the
injunction had been granted by the L. C. in vacation, with leave to move
before a V.-C. to dissolve it : Pinchin v. L. <(■ Bl. By., 5 D. M. & 0. 851.
Where an ex parte injunction has been dissolved on the ground of conceal-
ment or suppression of material facta, the Pit may again apply for an
injunction on the merits : Fitch v. Rochfort, 18 L. J. Ch. 458 ; Joyce, 1267 ;
and where on motion for an injunction or, in thealternativo, to continue an
interim order, it appears that the interim order was obtained by suppression,
the Court may discharge the e.v parte order, though there is no cross notice
of motion, and, upon evidence, grant the injunction asked for : Boyce v.
Gill, 1891, W. N. 108 ; 64 L. T. 824.
A motion to discharge an ex parte injunction as having been obtained by
misrepresentation, may be properly made, though the injunction is about to
expire : Wimbledon Local Bd. v. Croydon San. Autliority, 32 Ch. D. 421.
An ex parte injunction, granted on an undertaking to amend the ^vrit
which was not fulfilled, was dissolved on motion : Spanish Agency v.
Spanish Corporation, 1890, W. N. 158 ; 63 L. T. 161.
A solr who in appljdng for an ex parte injunction suppressed a fact which Liability of
he thought immaterial, but which in the result rendered the undertaking in solr for Pit.
damages worthless, was held personally liable both in costs and under the
undertaking : Schmitten v. Faulhs, 1893, W. N. 64.
On dismissal of the action, tlie injunction is dissolved : Green v. Pulsford, Dismissal
2 Beav. 75 ; as also, formerly, on allowance of a demurrer, even with leave of action,
to amend : Schneider v. Li::ardi, 9 Beav. 461, 468 ; and see Harding v.
Tingey, 10 Jur. N. S. 873 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 13 ; 10 L. T. 323 ; 12 W. R. 817.
The bankruptcy of a sole Pit did not dissolve an injunction previously Effect of
obtained, but the Deft might apply to have the bill dismissed without costs bankruptcy
if the trustee did not adopt the suit within a reasonable time ; if this were °^ ^'*-
not done, the injunction would be dissolved : Joyce, 1275 ; Robson, 595.
An injunction granted on the merits was not in general dissolved by a Effect of
subsequent amendment of the bill, though the amendment was made amendment,
without expressly saving the injunction: Harvey v. Hall, 11 Eq. 31;
unless the record was changed, e.g., by adding a Pit : A. O. y. Marsh,
16 Sim. 572 ; or the equity on which the injunction was obtained was
displaced or materially altered by the amendment : Kerr, 589.
And though it has been the common practice, it is not necessary for the
order giving leave to amend to state that the amendment is made " without
prejudice to the injunction " : Warburton v. L. & Bl. By., 2 Beav. 253 ; and
see Pickering v. Hanson, 2 Sim. 488 ; Pratt v. Archer, 1 S. & S. 433.
For oases in which an injunction has been granted, with leave to apply to Leave to
dissolve if circumstances should occur to make its continuance un- ®PPly to
reasonable, see Ecc. Commrs. v. Kino, 14 Ch. D. 213, C. A. ; or upon the <i'S''°l*'^'
rendering of an account directed by the order : Macleod v. Jones, 24
Ch. D. 289, C. A.
Delay and acquiescence in an injunction may deprive a Deft of his right Delay,
to dissolve : Glascoit v. Lang, 3 M. & Cr. 451 ; 2 Ph. 310 ; Feistel v. Kinc/'a
Coll., Camb., 10 Beav. 491 ; Bell v. Hull & Selhy By., 1 Ry. Ca. 616 ;
Gordon v. Cheli. By., 5 Beav. 229.
A motion to dissolve was not allowed to stand over to enable Pit to cross-
examine Deft's witnesses : Normanville v. Stanning, 10 Ha. xx. ; and see
Morg. 185.
As to the costs of a motion to discharge an injunction, which, as in all Costs of
proceedings in the High Court, are, by O. lxv, 1, now in the discretion of motion,
the Court, see Norton v. Nichols, 4 K. & J. 475 ; Spottiswoode v. Clarke, 2
Ph. 154 ; Cory v. Yarmouth By., 3 Ha. 593 ; Dan. 1371.
518
Injunctions.
[CHA?. XXXI.
Dissolving As to the circumstances in wliicli the Court will discharge a perpetual
perpetual injunction, see A. O. v. Birmingham Tame, <kc. Drainage, Board, [1910]
injunction. ^ qj^ ^g
When
granted on
interlocutory
application.
INJUNCTIONS MANDATORY — DAMAGES IN I.IBU OF INJUNCTION.
Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction, that is, to compel
the Deft not only to desist from unlawful acts for the future, but to
restore matters to their original position, is exercised, like that of specific
performance, in cases where the injury to the Pit, active or passive, cannot
be estimated and sufficiently compensated by damages, and has not been
condoned by acquiescence.
By an interlocutory injunction the continuance of the act complained of
is stopped until the right is tried between the parties ; by a perpetual
injunction such act, when decided to be unlawful, is permanently restrained ;
and by a mandatory injunction the Deft is ordered to undo the wrong he has
done, and give the Pit complete relief by putting him in the position in
which he was before the injury was committed.
Where the effect of the mandatory injunction is to require the performance
of a certain act, such as the pulling down and removal of buildings, it is
henceforth to be made in the form of a direct command, and not in the
indirect form hitherto in use : JaAson v. Normanby Brick Co., [1899] 1 Ch.
438, C. A.
A mandatory injunction is seldom granted until the Pit has completely
established his right : Child v. Douglas, Kay, 578 ; Oale v. AVbot, 10 W. R.
748 ; 6 L. T. 852 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 987 ; unless
— ^the injury vrill be irreparable if allowed to continue until the hearing ;
e.g., the flow of water into a mine caused by removing the barrier
of an adjoining working : Westminster Brymho Co. v. Clayton-,
36 L. J. Ch. 476 ;
— or the Deft, after express notice or pending litigation, seeks to anticipate
the action of the Court by hurrying on an obstructive building :
Daniel v. Ferguson, [1891] 2 Ch. 27, C. A. ; Beadel v. Perry, 3 Eq.
465 ; Staight v. Burn, 5 Ch. 163 ; Morris v. Grant, 24 W. R. 55 ;
Von Joel V. Hornsey, [1895] 2 Ch. 774, C. A. ; and see Smith v. Day,
13 Ch. D. 651.
Delay. Delay and acquiescence are most material : Gaslcin v. Balls, 13 Ch. D.
324, C. A. (five years' acquiescence held fatal) ; Wicks v. Hunt, Joh. 373 ;
especially in cases of obstructive building: Mott v. Shoolhred, 20 Eq. 22 ;
unless there has been clear violation of an express agreement entered into by
Deft after notice that the act will not be sanctioned : Morris v. Qrant, 24
W. R. 55 ; or the buildings were such as could be easily altered, and their
effect on Pit could not be known till they were finished : Baxter v. Bower,
23 W. R. 805 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 625 ; 33 L. T. 41.
Damages in The power to grant a mandatory injunction was not taken away by
lieu of or in Lord Cairns' Act (21 & 22 V. c. 27), providing relief in damages in
addition to addition to, or in substitution for, relief by injunction (since repealed,
injunction. 46 & 47 V. c. 49), and was exercised where the Court was satisfied that
a wrong, i.e., substantial annoyance or injury (Bowes v. Low, L. R.
9 Eq. 636), had been wilfully done, and that there had been neither
delay nor acquiescence on the part of Pit : Smith v. ;Sf., L. R. 20 Eq. 500 ;
although the obstruction was completed before writ issued : Lawrence
V. Tlorbm, 38 W. R. 555 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 440 ; 62 L. T. 749 ; Slid v. Godfrey,
1893, W. N. 115; and that the repeal of Lord Cairns' Act has not
affected the jurisdiction of cither division to grant an injunction or
damages or both, see Sa^jers v. Colhjer, 28 Ch. D. 103, C. A. ; Re R., [1906] 1
Ch. 730, C. A. ; and therefore damages in lieu of injunction could be granted
though notice of action under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 264, had
not been given : Chapman v. A-uckland Union, 23 Q. B. D. 299, 300, C. A,
SECT. I.J Interlocutory Injunctions and Interim Orders. 519
And for a summary of tlio effects of the authorities on Lord Cairns' Act,
see per Buckley, J., in Ooviyper v. Laidler, [1903] 2 Ch. p. 339.
But there is no jurisdiction to award damages where no wrongful act has
been committed by the person against whom an injunction is sought :
Dreyfus v. Peruvian Guano Co., 42 Ch. D. 166 ; S. C, 43 Ch. D. 316, C. A.
(q. V. as to the principles to be adopted in working out an inquir5' as to
damages by unlawful detention, where the judgment is varied, but the
inquiry allowed to stand).
Where the injury is such that if it is not stopped the Pit's property will be
rendered useless, the Court will not compel the Pit to sell his property to the
Deft, i.e., to accept damages in lieu of a perpetual injunction ; but where
the injury is less serious, and may be compensated by money, then the
discretion given by the Act may be exercised : Holland v. Worley, 26 Ch. D.
578 ; and see Donnell v. Bennett, 22 Ch. D. 835 ; and see Martin v. Price,
[1894] 1 Ch. 276, where. Pit failing to prove that the commercial value of his
premises would be materially affected by Deft's existing buildings, damages
only were given : jSf. C.
In a case of continuing actionable nuisance, the jurisdiction of the Court
to award damages instead of an injunction, ought only to be exercised under
very exceptional circumstances : Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lighting
Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 287, C. A. ; and see Colls v. Home & Colonial Stores, [1904]
A. C. at p. 212, per Lord Lindloy.
It has been enunciated as a good working rule that damages may be given
instead of an injunction when the following requirements are all found in
conjunction, viz., where the injury to the Pit's rights is^ — (i.) small ;
(ii.) capable of being estimated in money ; (iii.) capable of being adequately
compensated by a small sum ; (iv. ) when an injunction would be oppressive :
Per Smith, L. J., S. C.
The result of the cases appears to be that where the Pit, though entitled to
relief, has not sustained serious or (pecuniarily) immeasurable injury ; or
where on other grounds, including that of the balance of convenience or
inconvenience, the Court declines to grant him the extreme and summary
relief of a mandatory injunction, an inquiry as to damages may be granted
though not claimed.
Where Pit had admitted that he would have been satisfied if the Deft's
house had been set back to a certain distance, an inquiry was directed what
damages the Pit had sustained by reason of the obstruction of light occa-
sioned bv the Deft's house not being so set back : Broomfleld v. Williams,
[1897] I'Ch. 602, C. A.
In general, where there is a threatened invasion of a legal right — as, e.g.,
where Pit has proved his right to light, and that a proposed building will
infringe that right — he is, in the absence of special circumstances, entitled
to an injunction as to the threatened building : Martin v. Price, [1894]
1 Ch. 276 ; and quaere, whether the Court has jurisdiction to give damages
in respect of threatened injury in lieu of an injunction : Martin v. Price, sup.
Cowper V. Laidler, [1903] 2 Ch. 337.
The Palatine Court has jurisdiction to give damages in lieu of an in-
junction under the Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 23), s. 3,
which it had not previously : Proctor v. Bayley, 42 Ch. D. 390.
Por the principles on which mandatory injunctions are granted or Principles
refused, and the right to relief in damages, see also Durell v. Pritchard, and instances.
1 Ch. 24; Isenberg v. E. I. Ho. Co., 3 D. J. & S. 263; Curriers' Co.
V. Corbet, 2 Dr. & Sm. 355 ; 4 D. J. & S. 764 ; A. 0. v. Mid-Kent Co.,
3 Ch. 100 ; Kelh v. Pearson, 6 Ch. 809 ; Baxter v. Bower, 23 W. B.
805 ; City of London Brewery Co. v. Tennant ; Ooodson v. Richardson,
9 Ch. 212, 221 ; L. Stanley v. E. Shrewsbury, 19 Eq. 616 ; Kilbey v.
Haviland, 19 W. R. 698 ; Musgrave v. Horner, 23 W. R. 125 ; Jolly v. Kive,
[1907] A. C. 1 ; Riley v. Mayor, &c. of Halifax, 23 T. L. R. 613 ; Colls v.
Home ct- Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 179 ; Higgins v. Belts, [1905] 2 Ch.
210 ; Roch Portland Cement Co. v. Wilson, 52 L. J. Ch. 214 ; 31 W. R. 193 ;
520 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
and that where there is jurisdiction to grant an injunction, damages may be
given in Keu thereof, not only for injury commenced before, and continued
after, writ issued, and ceased before trial, but also for injury which has
occurred since the commencement of the action, see Fritz v. Hohson, 14
Ch. D. 542 ; Chapman v. Auckland Union, 23 Q. B. D. 294, 298, C. A. ;
and see Warwick and Birmingham Canal v. Burman, 63 L. T. 670 ; and
that the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona does not apply to
the equitable remedy by mandatory injunction to prevent obstruction of
light, see Jones v. Simes, 43 Ch. D. 607.
The following are instances of mandatory injunctions : — •
{a) Compelling the removal of obstructive buildings : Smith v. S., L. E.
20 Eq. 500 ; Merchant Taylor's Co. v. Truscott, 3 D. J. & S. 271 ; Jessel v.
Chaplin, 4 W. R. 610 ; Rankin v. Hnskisson, 4 Sim. 16 ; Oreat Northern By.
V. Clarence By., 1 Coll. 517 ; OasJcin v. Balls, 13 Ch. D. 324, C. A. ; Sellors v.
Matlock Bath L. B., 14 Q. B. D. 928 (public urinal erected under authority
of Public Health Act, 1875) ; Myers v. Cattersm, 43 Ch. D. 470, C. A.
(hoarding obstructing light coming through railway arch) ; McManus v.
Cooke, 35 Ch. D. 681 (mutual agreement as to erection of skylights).
(6) Compelling the removal of obstructions, as in Hervey v. Smith, 1
K. & J. 389 ; 22 Beav. 299 (to the use of flues) ; Bickett v. Morris, L. R. 1
H.L. Sc. 47 ; Robinson v. Lord Byron, 1 Bro. C. C 588 (to the flow of water) ;
Lane v. Newdigate, 10 Ves. 192 (to the right of navigating a canal) ; Neath
Canal Go. v. Ynisarwed Co., 10 Ch. 450 (to the use of an accommodation
bridge) ; Clegg v. Castleford L. B., 1874, W. N. 229 (to the use of a drain) ;
Cannon v. Villars, 8 Ch. D. 415 (to a right of way through a gateway and
across a yard) ; Morris v. Chant, 24 W. R. 55 (porch erected in breach of
covenant). And see A. 0. v. Furniss By. Co., 26 W. R. 650 ; 47 L. J. Ch.
776 ; 38 L. T. 555 ; for an order compelHng a railway co. to construct a
bridge of height and width prescribed by Railways Clauses Act, 1845,
s. 49.
(c) Compelling the restitution of mining barriers : E. Mexborongh v.
Bower, 7 Beav. 129 ; Westminster Brymho Co. v. Clayton., 36 L. J. Ch. 476.
(d) Compelling reinstatement of staircase removed by landlord of a flat in
the tenant's absence : Allport v. Securities Corp., 64 L. J. Ch. 491, n.
(e) Compelling restoration of oyster beds, interfered with contrary to the
provisions of statute, notwithstanding that the expense of restoration would
be out of proportion to any advantage derivable therefrom : Woodlumse v.
Newry Navigation Co., [1898] 1 I. R. 161, C. A.
(/) Compelling railway co. to restore junction between their line and a
,1 siding : Woodruff v. Brecon By. Co., 38 Ch. D. 190, C. A.
(g) Compelling the erection and maintenance of fences : Bidwell v.
Holden, 63 L. T. 104.
{h) Against allowing pipes to remain on Pit's land, though under a high-
way : Goodson v. Richardson, 9 Ch. 221.
(i) Against allowing a colliery to be flooded by ceasing to pump out the
water : Strelley v. Pearson, 15 Ch. D. 113.
(k) Compelling removal from an upper floor of lithographic stones
causing danger by excessive weight to the premises : Cohen v. Poland,
1887, W. N. 159.
(I) Compelling the return of letters and other documents : Evitt v. Price,
1 Sim. 483 ; Whittaker v. Howe (R.), 25 Feb. 1841, B. 336 ; 3 Beav. 383 ;
Whitwham v. Moss, 73 L. T. 57.
(m) Compelling the withdrawal of a notice by a dismissed agent to the
post oiHce to forward all letters to his private address (thereby enabling him
to obtain letters intended for his former employers) : Hermann Loog v.
Benn, 26 Ch. D. 306, C. A.
(n) Compelling the pulling down of buildings infringing a building line,
notwithstanding that the offender has been summarily convicted under the
Public Health (Building in Streets) Acts, 1888 : A. G. v. Wimbledon House
Estate Co., [1904] 2 Ch. 34.
SECT. I.] Interlocutory Injunctions ami Interim Orders. 521
As the Court has power to award damages in an action for an injunction, How right to
a consent order in such an action is a bar to an action for damages in respect damages lost,
of the same cause : Serrao v. Nod, 15 Q. B. D. 549. The right to damages
for detention of property is not lost by the appointment of a receiver, or any
other mode of placing the property in medio : Dreyfus v. Peruvian Gmno
Co., 42 Oh. D. 166 ; 43 Ch. D. 316, C. A.
PEEPETtTAL INJUNCTIONS.
Injunctions are made perpetual at the trial for the purpose of protecting
the Pit when Ms right lias been established in the action by putting an end
to harassing and vexatious litigation, and preventing the continuance or
repetition of illegal and unauthorized acts ; or wherever this form of injunc-
tion is applicable to the nature of the relief to which the Pit may be entitled :
Kerr, 590 ; Dan. 1373 ; Joyce, 1315.
As a general rule, the injunction cannot be made perpetual except at the
trial : see Day v. Snee, 3 V. & B. 170 ; but it may be done on motion by
consent : Morrell v. Pearson, 12 Beav. 284 ; and in Hume v. Beale, 31 Jan.
1838, MSS., the only object of the suit being an injunction, the Court, at
Def t's instance, made it perpetual, and stayed all further proceedings in the
cause on payment of Pit's costs of suit, though Pit opposed the motion.
BREACH OP INJUNCTION.
By O. XLli, 7, " a judgment requiring any person to do any act other than Enforcing
the payment of money, or to abstain from doing anjrthing, may be enforced order,
by ^vrit of attachment or committal ; " and by r. 24, " every order of the
Court or a Judge in any cause or matter may be enforced against all persons
bound thereby in the same manner as a judgment to the same effect."
An order for an injunction or interim restraining order must be implicitly Obedience
obeyed : Harding v. Tingey, 12 W. R. 684 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 13 ; 10 Jur. N. S. notwith-
872 ; 10 L. T. 323 ; Daw v. Sley, 1 Eq. 42 ; even though the order may not standing
have issued regularly, in which case the party affected should move to dis- irregularity,
charge it : Robinson v. L. Byron, Woodward v. King, 2 Dick. 703, 797 ; 3
Swa. 626 ; or, in the case of a writ of prohibition, has been improvidently
issued : Iveson v. Harris, 7 Ves. 255.
It is open to the party charged with breach of an injunction to show that
the order is no longer in force ; e.g., by the determination of a patent in
restraint of a breach of wliich the injunction was granted : see Daw v. Eley,
3 Eq. 496.
If the injunction goes beyond the terms in which others have been
granted, or the reach of the principle, the partyshould apply to the Court to
alter the terms : see M. Downshire v. L. Sandys, 6 Ves. 109.
But on application against persons guilty of a breach, the Court gives
them the benefit of the fact that the order should not have been made :
Drewry v. Thaclcer, 3 Swa. 546 ; Partington v. Booth, 3 Mer. 149.
It must be conclusively shown on a motion to commit that there has been Breach,
an actual breach of the order : Mann v. Stephens, 15 Sim. 377 ; Dawson v.
Paver, 5 Ha. 415, 424.
And see Daugars v. Bivaz, 1866, W. N. 301 ; 14 L. T. 348 ; 15 L. T. 196.
To constitute a breach of the injunction it is not necessary that the order Service,
should be actually served ; service of the signed minutes is sufficient, or
even notice in writing, but the order should be served as soon as it can be
obtained: see sup. ]). 511. But there must be no delay in drawing up the
order: Bateman v. Wiatt, 11 Beav. 587; and see Joyce, 1325; secus,
where the order commands the defendant to do something within a definite
time ; in such a case actual service of the order is necessary in order to fix
the defendant with contempt : Be Tuck, [1906] 1 Ch. 692.
Notice by telegram that the order has been made is sufficient : Re Bryant, Notice.
4 Ch. D. 98 ; The Seraglio, 10 P. D. 120 ; but in order to fix with contempt
a person disregarding such a notice, it must be shown beyond reasonable
522
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Orders on
motion to
commit.
doubt that he had, in fact, notice of the order : Exp. Langley, 13 Ch. D. 110 ;
United Telephone Co, v. Dale, 25 Ch. D. 788 ; and if his bond fide belief that
no injunction has been granted is not, in the circumstances, unreasonable,
he will not be committed for breach : Exp. Langley, sup.
Breach of A person committing a breach of an undertaking is liable to be punished
undertaking, in the same way (by committal, or by payment of the costs occasioned by
his breach) as if he had committed a breach of an injunction : L. <fc Birm,.
Ry. V. Grand Junction Canal Co., 1 Ry. Ca. 224 ; Lawford v. Spicer, 2 Jur.
N. S. 564 ; O. N. By. v. Manchester By., sup. Form 6, p. 442 ; Neath
Canal Co. v. Ynisarwed Resolven Co., 10 Ch. 450 ; Callow v. Young, 56
L. J. Cli. 690 ; 55 L. T. 543.
Undertakings, whether positive or negative, are to be enforced by com-
mittal, and not by attachment (notwithstanding Halford v. Hardy, 1899,
W. N. 243 ; 81 L. T. 271) ; service of the order embodying the undertaking
is not necessary : D. v. A. cfe Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 484 ; Saunders v. Bichards,
1908, W. N. 49.
The Court refused to enforce that part of an undertaking which had been
given by mistake : Mullins v. Howell, 11 Ch. D. 763 ; and see ScoU v.
Moxm, 81 L. T. 774.
As to enforcing an undertaking by a solr given out of Court, see Be
Woodfin and Wray, 51 L. J. Ch. 427 ; 30 W. R. 422 ; and as to the nature
of an undertaking by solr to enter an appearance, and that an application
for attachment for breach should be intituled in the matter of the solr, see
Be Kerly, Son <fc Verden, [1901] 1 Ch. 467, C. A.
An undertaking to make a road was enforced by giving the other party
liberty to do the work, and apply to the Court for repayment of the expense :
Mortimer v. Wilson, 31 W. R. 927.
In practice an actual committal is seldom pressed for or directed, the
more usual order being that Deft do pay the costs of the application.
And, a fortiori, when the breach is not wilful, the parties will not be
committed, but be ordered to pay costs : Bullen v. Ovey, 16 Ves. 144 ;
Leonard v. Attwell, 17 Ves. 386 ; and so when the injunction issued
irregularly : Partington v. Booth, 3 Mer. 149 ; Drewry v. Thar.ker, 3 Swa.
546 ; or the Deft has taken some steps to put himself in the right : Cornish
V. Upton, 4 L. T. 862 ; but motions to commit for the mere purpose of
obtaining an apology and costs will not be encouraged : Plating Co. v.
Farquharson, 17 Ch. D. 49 ; and see Be Martindale, [1894] 3 Ch. 193,
sup., p. 458.
Deft is entitled to appeal from such an order, which is virtually a decision
against him on the merits, and not an order as to costs only witliin Jud.
Act, 1873, s. 49 : Witt v. Corcoran, 2 Ch. D. 69 ; Stevens v. Met. Dist. By.
Co., 29 Ch. D. 60.
And an appeal lies from a refusal to commit for contempt : Jarmain v.
Chatterton, 20 Ch. D. 493, C. A. ; explaining Ashworth v. Outram (No. 2), 5
Ch. D. 943, C. A.
Parties A party enjoined from doing a certain act, who is afterwards present
abetting. aiding and abetting it when done, acts in breach of the injunction : St.
John's Coll. V. Carter, 4 M. & Cr. 497.
Though an- injunction does not embrace " servants and agents," if an
agent knowingly aids in the breach, he may be committed for contempt, as
obstructing the course of justice : L. Wellesley v. E. Mornington, 11 Beav.
180, 181 ; Smith-Barry v. Dawson, 27 L. R. Ir. 558 ; although not a party to
the action : Seaward v. Paterson, [1897] 1 Ch. 545, C. A. (q. v. as to distinc-
tion between committals for breach and for aiding and abetting) ; and see
Hodson V. Coppard, 29 Beav. 4, that an injunction to restrain A., his servants
and agents, from carrying on a particular trade will not affect A.'s tenants ;
and Avery v. Andrews, 51 L. J. Ch. 414 ; 46 L. T. 279 ; 30 W. R. 564 ;
where an appointment of new trustees was held to be a device to evade an
injunction against existing trustees.
A Deft who has no notice of the order is liable to pay the costs of motion
SECT.
II.] Breach of Contract. 523
(to commit) for a breach of the order by his servants : Ranlzen v. Rothschild,
14 W. R. 96 ; 13 L. T. 399 ; and see Burgess v. Hills, 26 Beav. 244, 249, that
the right to an injunction carries costs.
A husband is not liable for the breach of an injunction (against himself Effect en
and wife) committed by the wife living separate and apart from him : Hope ""^ ^"^
V. Carnegie (1), 7 Eq. 254 ; and in such case ho is entitled to an order for her ° "^^^ ^jj^^
to appear separately in all further proceedings in the suit : 8. O. (2), 7 Eq.
263. .
The breach of an injunction by a public body, or by persons having the "raej ^8*'"^*
privilege of Parliament, will be punished by sequestration : see Spolces v. P" '"
Banbury Board, 1 Eq. 42; Heath v. Wallington,ante,'FoTmli,Tp. i4:l; Robinson
V. L. Byron, 2 Dick. 703 ; Ranlzen v. Rothschild, 14.W. R. 96 ; though cases of
gross contempt by privileged persons, or individual acts of setting the order
of the Court at defiance by members of a public body, may bo punished by
committal : Lechmere Cimrlton's case, 2 M. & Cr. 316 ; Wellesley's case, 2
R. & M. 639 ; Cumberland v. Richards, M. R., 8 June, 1859, B. 1776 (ordor
to commit members of the Croydon Local Board individually for breach of
injunction issued against the board generally).
And generally as to breach of injunction, see Kerr, 593 et seq. ; Joyce,
1321 ; Dan. 1373 et seq.
COSTS 01" ACTION FOR INJUNCTION.
In order to entitle a Pit to costs of action for an injunction in pursuance
of a legal right {e.g., copyright), he is not bound to give any preliminary
notice to the Pit : Cooper v. Whillingham, 15 Ch. D. 501 ; Witmani} v.
Oppenheim, 27 Ch. D. 260.
In general, an infringer of a legal right is liable to pay the costs of an
action for an injunction, although he has acted innocently : Upmann v.
Forrester, 24 Ch. D. 231 ; Witmann v. Oppenheim, snp. ; but where a full
and sufficient undertaking is offered by the Deft, the Pit ought to accept it :
Jenhins v. Hope, [1896] 1 Ch. 278 ; and where in a patent action the Pit
notwithstanding such an offer persisted, the Court, on the Deft's giving the
undertaking, declined to grant an injunction, but gave to Pit costs do^^'n to
the date of the offer and the costs of the day's appearance, and to the Deft
the other costs subsequent to the offer : Jenhins v. Hope, sup. ; Snuggs v.
Seyd and Kelly's Credit Index Co., 1894, W. N. 95.
Section II. — Breach of Contract.
For form of undertaking on interlocutory injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against Breach of Contract.
Order that the Deft be restrained from (Follow lite' words of the
covenant on ivMch the Deft is sued such as) carrying on cither alone
or in co-partnership with any person or persons whomsoever, the
practice and profession of a solr, in ■ — in the County of — , or at
any place within fifty miles thereof.
For injunction against practising in the London Court of Bankruptcy in
breach of a covenant not directly or indirectly to practise the business of a
solr within the city of London or the counties of Middlesex or Essex, see
May V. O'Neill, 44 L. J. Ch. 660.
Por injunction to restrain the Deft from carrying on or exercising the
524 Injunctions. [chaP. xxxi.
profession or business of a surgeon and apotliecary or surgeon, or from
acting as a physician in the town of — , in the county of ■ — , or within the
radius or compass of five miles thereof, until the hearing, &c., see Giles v.
Hart, V.-C. S., 2 Dec. 1859, A. 224 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1381.
For the like order, see Gravely v. Barnard, 18 Eq. 518 ; and see Lonion
and Yorkshire Bank v. Priit, 56 L. J. Ch. 987 ; 26 W. R. 135 ; 57 L. T, 875 ;
where a condition in a bond was held to be evidence of an agreement by a
bank manager, that he would not, after quitting the employ of the bank,
enter into similar employ within a specified time and distance.
Prom practising as a dentist in Chester, or within sixteen miles by the
nearest road from Chester Cross, or in any place within the boundaries of
Birkenhead, see Bullin v. Teece, V.-C. G., 19 June, 1868, A. 1481.
2. Injunction against exercising a Trade, with Account.
Order that the Deft E., the elder, be restrained from directly or
indirectly setting up, exercising, or carrying on the trade or business
of a gas-meter manufacturer and gas engineer, and matters connected
therewith, including in particular the department of gas fitting as
carried on on the Pit's premises in &c., and also from directly or
indirectly setting up, exercising, or carrying on the trade or business
of a gas-meter manufacturer and gas engineer, or matters connected
therewith, within twenty miles of G — Street, W. (until further order).
— So much of the Pit's (bill) as relates to the said Deft carrying on the
business of a gas fitter within the twenty miles dismissed without
costs, without prejudice to any action, in the name of himself and
E., the younger, the Pit giving an indemnity to the said E., the
younger, to be settled by the Judge. — 1. Account of all moneys
received by Deft E., the elder, belonging to the co-partnership
between the Pit and the Deft E., the younger, not already paid over
or accounted for. — 2. Account of what is due to the Deft E., the
elder, from the co-partnership in respect of salary or remuneration.—
Adjourn &c;— Liberty to apply.— GforAisoM v. Edge, M. K., 18 Dec.
1863, A. 2531 ; S. C, 33 Beav. 227.
For forms of injunction : —
against carrying on the trade of telegraphic agent within a limited area,
see The Oriental and Amer. Telegram Co. v. Dodwell, Fry, J., 7 Nov. 1877.
— from continuing to carry on or recommencing business as a glove
manufacturer at Woodstock or its neighbourhood, and from acting as
assistant or agent to any one there, other than the Pit, his exors, admors,
and assigns, see Daggett v. Ryman, M. R., 14 Jan. 1868, A. 85 ; 16 W. R.
302 ; 17 W. R. 486.
from carrjang on, or continuing to permit to be carried on m the
messuage, &c., No. — , at Brighton, or any part thereof, the trade or
business of a baker or confectioner, see Hodson v. Coppard, M. R., 8 Nov.
1860, A. 2123 ; 29 Beav. 4. j . j
—against advertising himself as having been formerly connected in trade
aspartner mana"er.or servant with the Pit, seeWolmershausenY.O'Connor,
V.-C. B., 3 May, 1877, B. 853 ; 36 L. T. 921.
— against using name of vendor of business in such a way as to expose
him to any liability by holding liim out as a person with whom contracts
were made, which might impose liability on him, see Thynne v. Shove,
Stirling, J., 16 May, 1890, B. 588 ; 45 Ch. D. 577 ; and see Chatteris v,
SECT. It.] Breach of Contract. 525
/soocsora, 57 L. T. 177 ; Burchdl v. V/iU&, [1900] 1 Ch. 551, C. A. ; Towns-
end V. Jarman, [1900] 2 Ch. 685.
For injunction to stay Defts evicting Pits from bookstalls, for the sale of
books at which Pits had obtained the sole and exclusive privilege, see
Holmes v. E. C. By., 3 K. & J. 675.
3. Breach of Publican's Agreement with Brewer restrained.
Order that the Deft, his servants and agents, be restrained for the
term of — years from &c., the term of the lease in the statement of
claim mentioned, or during so much of that period as the Pits are
willing to supply all beer, ale, porter, and stout and other malt liquors
of reasonable quality and at reasonable prices to the Deft, from
buying, receiving, selling, or disposing of either directly or indirectly,
or permitting to be bought, received, sold, or disposed of either directly
or indirectly, in, upon, out of, or about the premises demised by the
said lease or any part thereof, any beer, ale, porter, stout, or any other
malt liquors whatsoever other than such as should have been bond
fide purchased by the Deft (his executors, administrators, or assigns)
of the Pit CO. or their successors or successor in business contrary to
or in breach of the covenant contained in the said lease. — Courage
V. Carpenter, 17 Dec. 1909, A. 4445 ; [1910] 1 Ch. 262.
For injunction to restrain a yearly tenant, without express notice, from
using liis house as a beershop, contrary to a covenant entered into by the
owner, who had afterwards sold the house to Deft's lessor, see Wilson v.
Hart, 1 Ch. 463.
4. Breach of Farming Contract— Interlocutory .
Order that the Deft, his agents &c., be restrained from assigning
over, underletting, or parting with the possession of N. farm &c., or
any part thereof, without the licence in writing of the Pit until the
— day of — , or until further order ; and it is ordered that the
Deft, his auctioneers, or agents &c., be restrained until the said —
day of — , or further order, from putting up for sale by public auction
at N. in the (bill) mentioned, or at any other place, the right to
depasture the grass and pasture lands specified in the notice and
bandbill of sale in the (bill) set out or any part of such lands without
the licence in writing of the Pit. — CuUtt v. Heyward, V.-C. M.,
7 May, 1875, A. 685.
For form of order for injunction to stay selling, assigning, or under-
letting a farm contrary to the covenants in Deft's lease, see Dtjke v. Taylor,
3 D. F. & J. 470 ; but on appeal this order was reversed on the merits,
76. 472.
5. Injunction against removal of Hay and Straw — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, his agents &c., be restrained from removing
or suffering to be removed, from oH the demised premises in the
(bill) mentioned, any of the hay, straw, and other vestures which
526
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI,
have arisen upon the said demised premises or upon any part thereof,
and from spending or consuming, or suffering to be spent or con-
sumed, in any other place than on the demised premises, or on some
part thereof, the hay, straw, and other vestures which have arisen
upon the said premises or upon any part thereof until &c., or further
order.— Bwrroiw v. Sharj), V.-C. S., 6 March, 1871, A. 483.
For forms of injunctions : —
— against assignee of bankrupt tenant (under 56 Geo. 3, o. 50, s. 11),
notwithstanding disclaimer of lease, see Lybbe v. Hart, 29 Ch. D. 8, C. A.
— against removal from the farm occupied by the Deft, as tenant of
the Pit, of any hay or straw (except the reed of wheat), ashes, dung,
compost or manure growing or produced or brought on the farm during the
tenancy, see Williams v. Bobbins, V.-C. H., 20 July, 1876, B. 1336.
— from selling and carrying off, or permitting to be sold or carried off, a
farm any straw or chaff " grown or bred thereon," see Hoare v. Herringtcm,
V.-C. B., 31 July, 1876, A. 1372.
— against trustee in liquidation of mortgagor from cutting and removing
crops, after demand for possession by mortgagee, Bagnall v. Villar, 12 Ch,
D. 812.
— ^from using, or authorizing any person to use, a gun or firearms for the
purpose of killing game, and from killing, or authorizing to be killed,
hares on the land, and from killing with a gun rabbits on same land, see
Allhiisen v. Brooking, 26 Ch. D. 559.
NOTES.
BREACH OF CONTEACT GENERALLY.
Principles. I'or the principles on which the Court acts in cases of breach of covenant,
viz., that if the contract and breach are clear, or if, without actual breach
the right to act in breach is claimed, an injunction will be granted, see
Tipping v. Eckersley, 2 K. & J. 264 ; Wilkinson v. Rogers, 2 D. J. & S. 62 ;
Lloyd V. L. C. & D. By. Co., 2 D. J. & S. 568 ; 8hafto v. Bohkow, 34 Ch. D.
725 ; and see A. 0. v. Acton Local Board, 22 Ch. D. 221.
The same importance will not be attached to the amount of damage as in
other cases ; and it is not essential for the Pit to show serious injury from
the breach : A. O. v. Mid-Kent By. Co., 3 Ch. 100 ; Western v. M'Dermott,
1 Eq. 499 ; 2 Ch. 72 ; Leech v. Schweder, 9 Ch. 463 ; Dickenson v. Grand
.June. Can., 15 Beav. 260.
So, also, inconvenience to the public from granting the injunction is no
ground for refusing it : Raphael v. Thames Valley By., 2 Ch. 147 ; and see
Orahame v. Swan, 7 App. Ca. 547, 565, 569.
Statutory Statutory provisions, inter partes, may be regarded as a contract, and
contract. enforced accordingly : Countess of Bothes v. Kirkcaldy Waterworks, 7
App. Ca. 694 ; Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Bacecourse Co.,
[1900] 2 Ch. 352 ; [1901] 2 Ch. 37, C. A. ; Re Earl of Wilton's Settled Estates,
[1907] 1 Ch. 70 ; and in a fit case may be enforced not only between the
parties, but by members of the public who are pecuniarily chargeable :
Davis & Sons v. Taff Vale Ry. Co., [1895] A. C. 542, H. L., reversing, [1894]
1 Q. B. 43, C. A. ; Crosfleld S Sons v. Manchester Ship Canal, [1904] 2
Ch. 123, C. A. ; and that a covenant may be repealed by a subsequent Act
of Parliament, see Newington Local Bd. v. Cottingham Local Bd., 12 Ch. D.
725.
Conduct But although the balance of convenience and actual injury are less
of Pit. strictly material in cases of breach of contract, the conduct of the Pit will
be taken into consideration ; e.g., if he has himself broken the agreement, he
cannot obtain an injunction to restrain Deft from breach in any other
respect : Telegraph Despatch GOt V. M'Lean, 8 Ch, 658,
SECT. II.] Breacli of Contract. 527
For instances of delay, acquiescence, active or passive, want of fairness,
&c., which liave disentitled the party in whose favour the contract is made
to relief, see Kerr, 360—362.
As to restraining by injunction the breach of an agreement which cannot Contract not
be specifically enforced, the authorities are not easily reconciled. enforceable
Cases in which the Court has refused to give effect to such an agreement ^P*^"' "* ^'
by restraining that which would be a breach of it, are : Clarke v. Price,
2 Wils. C. C. 157 ; Kerriblev. Kean, Kimherhy v. Jennings, 6 Sim. 333, 340 ;
Hills V. Croll, 2 Ph. 60 ; Stacker v. Wedderhtim, 3 K. & J, 393 ; Adamson v.
Gill, 16 W. R. 639 ; 18 L. T. 278 ; Wheailey v. Westminster, &c. Co., 9 Eq.
538 ; Phipps v. Jackson, 35 W. R. 378 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 550.
And see Peto v. Brighton, &c. Ry., 1 H. & M. 468 ; Merchants' Co. v.
Banner, 12 Eq. 18 ; Fothergill v. Rowland, 17 Eq. 132, that the Court will
not by injunction restrain the breach of an agreement which it cannot
specifically enforce ; nor restrain a person from carrying out one part of
such an agreement while another part remains unperformed : L. Abinger v.
Ashton, 17 Eq. 358 ; Pollard v. Clayton, 1 K. & J. 462 ; nor restrain breach
of contract where one co-Deft is an infant, against whom, therefore, there
could be no specific performance : Lumley v. Bavenscroft, [1895] 1 Q. B.
683, C. A.
But if the agreement is separable, and contains a negative in addition to
the positive part {e.g., an agreement to sing at A.'s theatre, and not else-
where without his authority, or to write for a particular publisher, and not
for any other publication during the engagement), the Court has restrained
a violation of the negative, though it could not compel performance of the
positive portion : Lamley v. Wagner, 1 D. M. & G. 604 ; Bolfe v. B., 15
Sim. 88 ; Stiff y. Cassell, 2 Jur. N. S. 348 ; Daggett v. Byman, 16 W. R.
302 ; Kernot v. Potter, 3 D. F. & J. 459 ; Ogden v. Fossick, 11 W. R. 128 ;
4 D. P. & J. 426 ; Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hardman, [1891] 2 Ch. 416,
C. A. ; Star Newspaper Co. v. O'Connor, 1893, W. N. 114, 122 ; and see
Byan v. Mutual Westminster Chambers Assoc, [1893] 1 Ch. 116, C. A.
But the. tendency of recent decisions seems to negative the idea that the
jurisdiction depends on the existence in the contract of a negative stipula-
tion which can be enforced, though specific performance could not be
granted of the entire contract, but to rest the question upon the nature and
substance of the contract : whether it is a proper subject of equitable
jurisdiction, or whether it is a case for damages only, seeDonnell v. Bennett,
22 Ch. D. 835 ; and see Keith, Prowse d; Co. v. Nat. Telephone Co., [1894]
2 Ch. 147, where an injunction was granted to restrain the Defts from
interfering with a telephone wire and apparatus of which the Pits were
their tenants.
By thus restraining any act in breach, specific performance has been
indirectly compelled, e.g., by restraining railway cos. from running trains
without stopping at a particular station : Hood v. N. E. Ry. Co., 5 Ch. 525 •
RighyY. G. W. By. Co., 10 Jur. 488, 531 ; 2 Ph. 44 ; ChurchillY. Salisbury
and Dorset By. Co., 23 W. R. 534, 894 ; varying 32 L. T. 216 ; Phillips v.
G. W. By. Co., 7 Ch. 409 ; Wilson v. Northampton and Banbury Co 9 Ch'
279. '
A covenant, though positive in terms, may be in substance negative, so
that a breach will be restrained by injunction : Catt v. Tourle, 4 Ch. 654 ■
Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Bacecourse Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 37
C. A. (contract to give " first refusal " of property) ; Met. Electric Supply
Co. V. Ginder, [1901] 2 Ch. 799 (to take electricity). And a condition
in a bond is evidence of an agreement not to engage in a specified employ-
ment : Lo7idon and Yorkshire Bank v. Pritt, 56 L. J. Ch. 987 • 26 W. R
138 ; National Provincial Bank v. Marshall, 40 Ch. D. 112, C. A. ; but a
direct covenant to pump out water from a mine does not imply a covenant
not to discontinue pumping : Payne v. Bocher Colliery Co., 1887, W. N. 37.
E converse, a clause negative in form may be in substance affirmative"
'.e.g., a stipulation against dismissal from employment which, being equiva-
528 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
lent to a positive contract to employ, will not be enforced by injunction :
Davis V. Foreman, [1894] 3 Ch. 654 ; and see Mutual Reserve Fund Assoc.
V. New York Ins. Co., 75 L. T. 528 ; Kirchner v. Chuhan, [1909] 1 Ch. 413 ;
and, semble, a covenant to observe and perform the negative covenants
in a lease is not itself a negative covenant within the rule which binds the
Court to grant an injunction on proof of breach : Harris v. Boots' Cash
Chemists, [1904] 2 Oh. 376.
And in certain cases the negative term, though not expressed, has been
implied, and acts inconsistent with the agreement restrained : e.g., an
actor engaged at a particular theatre has been restrained from performing
elsewhere during his engagement : see Webster v. Dillon, 3 Jur. N. S. 432 ;
Montague v. Flockton, 16 Eq. 189 ; but see Whitwood Chemical Co. v. Hard-
man, sup., where Montague v. Flockton was disapproved of, and it was held
that, in order that an injunction in aid of a contract of service may be
granted, there must be an express negative purpose : and see Star News-
paper Co. V. O'Connor, 1893, W. N. 114 ; Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assoc.
V. New York Life Ins. Co., sup.
But the manager (and probably the publisher) who has engaged the
exclusive services of an actor (or author), unless he employs him loses his
right to an injunction : Fechter v. Montgomery, 33 Beav. 22.
Where the Deft in a patent action agreed to allow M. to conduct the
defence, an injunction was granted to restrain the Deft from breaking his
agreement and withdrawing his retainer of M.'s solr, but upon an under-
taking by M. to give indemnity against costs in a contemplated appeal,
to the House of Lords : Montforts v. Marsden, [1895] 1 Ch. 11, C. A.
RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
P Breaches of covenant or agreement relating to trade will be restrained ;
^^' as in the case of a covenant not to practise or set up business, nor to carry
on or be concerned or interested in a particular trade within certain limits,
nor to solicit custom from the customers of the former employer, or of the
purchaser : Drew v. Ouy, [1894] 3 Ch. 25, C. A. (covenant against carrying
on the business of a restaurant " similar " to that carried on by another
trader, the test in construing such covenants being whether the one business
will compete with the other) ; Sm ith v. Hancock, [1894] 2 Ch. 377 (agreement
by the vendor of a business not " to carry on or be in anywise interested in "
any similar business) ; Edmonds v. Flew, 6 Jur. N. S. 1091 ; 3 L. T. 145
(solr) ; Giles v. HaH, 8 W. R. 74 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1381 ; 1 L. T. 154 (surgeon) ;
Fox V. Scard, 33 Beav. 327 (business of a surgeon at Weymouth) ; Rogers v.
Drury, 57 L. J. Ch. 504 ; 36 W. R. 396 (medical man soliciting former
patients) ; Benwell v. Inns, 24 Beav. 307 (milk- walk) ; Harms v. Patsons,
32 Beav. 328 (horsehair manufacturer within 200 miles of Birmingham) ;
Daggett v. Ryman, 16 W. R. 302 (glove manufacturer in Woodstock or its
neighbourhood) ; NewUngv. Dobell, 19 L. T. 408 ; 38 It J. Ch. Ill (business
of a tailor within five miles E. or two miles W. of High Holborn) ; Jones v.
Heavens, 4 Ch. D. 636 (business of saddler within ten miles from Croydon ;
covenant broken by seUing as journeyman) ; Nicoll v. Beere, 53 L. T. 659
(business of a tailor within ten miles from Charing Cross for three years) ;
Parsons v. Colterill, 56 L. T. 839 (wine and spirit merchant within fifty miles
of Burton-on-Trent) ; Vernon v. Hallam, 34 Ch. D. 748 (covenant not to use
particular style or name in trade) ; Hill v. H., 55 L. T. 76 (covenant not to
eno-ago or be concerned in a trade) ; and see Watts v. Smith, 1890, W. N. 70 ;
Lmther Cloth Co. v. Lorsont, 9 Eq. 345 (manufacture of leather cloth in any
part of Europe) ; Mineral, <kc. Trade Protection Soc. v. Booth, 36 Ch. D. 465,
C. A. (covenant by members of a trade society against employment of any
traveller, carman, or outdoor employe who had left service of another
member) ; Lamson Pneumatic Tube Co. v. Phillips, 1904, W. N. 134, C. A.
(covenant not to engage in any similar business for five years in Eastern
3ECT. II.] Breach of Contract. 529
Hemisphere); Henry Leatham dk Sons v. JohnsUme-White, 1906, W. N.
227 (covenant by employee of several firms not to compete in area of such
firms) ; and see cases collected, Pollock, Contr., 6th ed., 379 et scq.
Although it has been stated in the Court of Appeal that the old rule still Reaeonable-
prevails, that a covenant in general restraint of trade, without limit of time nessr.
and space, is void (see Davies v. D., 36 Ch. D. 359, C. A. ; Underwood v.
Barker, [1899] 1 Ch. 300, C. A., per Vaughan Williams, L. J.), it has also
been held that the limits within which such restraints are valid are elastic,
and will be measured by what is reasonable for protection of the interests
of the covenantee, having regard to the nature of the subject-matter ; so
that a covenant in restraint of trade is not in all cases invalid from being
unlimited in area : Bousillon v. R., 14 Ch. D. 351, 369 ; Leather Cloth
Co. V. Lorsont, 9 Eq. 345 ; Mills v. Dunham, [1891] 1 Ch. 576, C. A. ; Davies v.
Lowen, 1891, W. N. 86 ; 64 L. T. 665 ; Badische Anilin, &c. v. Schott, [1892]
3 Ch. 447 ; Curren v. O'Connor, 32 L. E. Ir. 330 ; Robinson A Co. v. Heuer,
[1898] 2 Ch. 451, C. A. (agreement by a confidential clerk that he would not
engage in any business relating to goods sold by his employers) ; Ehrman v.
Bartholomew, [1898] 1 Ch. 671 ; Underwood v. Barker, [1899] 1 Ch. 300,
C. A. ; or in point of time and so binding on the party entering into it
during the whole of his life : Hayes v. Doman, [1899] 2 Ch. 13, C. A. ;
and see Hood & Moore! a Stores, Ltd. v. Jones, 81 L. T. 169. And, generally,
the restraint must not be unreasonable, having regard to the subject-
matter of the contract, nor grossly oppressive as against the covenantor,
but such only as to give fair protection to the interests of the covenantee,
and not so large as to interfere with the interests of the public : Collins v.
Locke, 4 App. Ca. 674 ; Allsopp v. Wheat^yroft, 15 Eq. 59 ; Avery v. Lang ford,
Kay, 663 ; Hitchcock v. Golier, 6 Ad. & E. 438 ; Ward v. Byrne, 5 M. & W.
548 ; Mallan v. May, 11 M. & W. 667 ; 1 Sm. L. Ca. (notes to Mitchel v.
Reynolds) ; Pollock, Contr. 379 ; and for an epitomized statement of the
law as to reasonableness, see Badische Anilin, <fcc. v. Schott, sup.
And as to the principles on which agreements in restraint of trade should
be construed, and that the construction of them should not be approached
with any prima facie presumption against their validity, see Mills v.
Dunham, sup.
And that the reasonableness of a contract depends on its true construction
and legal effect and is consequently a question for the Court alone and not
for experts : Hayes v. Doman, [1899] 2 Ch. 13, C. A. And the question as
to the reasonableness of a covenant against trading is for the Judge not
the Jury : Dowden v. Poole, [1904] 1 K. B. 45, C. A.
For cases upon such covenants, and instances of a reasonable or un-
reasonable restriction, see Kerr, 375 et seq. ; 1 Smith, L. C. 422 et seq.
{Mitchel V. Reynolds) ; and as to the invalidity of a covenant not to
exercise any business without the late employer's consent, such consent
not to be withheld if it can be proved to his satisfaction that the business
is not in the class of goods sold by him, see Perls v. Saalfeld, [1892] 2 Ch.
149, C. A.
A covenant in restraint of a man's trade may be upheld as good in law if In connection
necessary for the advantageous transfer of the goodwill of a business which with transfen
he is selling, and the adequate protection of those who buy it : Maxim of goodwill.
NordenfeltOuns,di:c.Co.Y.Nordenfelt,\\mZ']lCh.&m,C.A.; q.v. A sale
on condition that purchaser resells at specified minimum prices and pro-
cures an agreement maintaining prices from every trade purchaser, is not
void as in restraint of trade : Elliman v. Carrington, [1901] 2 Ch. 275.
A covenant not to trade within certain limits will pass to, and may be
enforced by, a purchaser of the goodwill of the covenantee's business :
Jacoby v. Whitmore, 32 W. R. 18 ; 49 L. T. 335 ; and so in the case of a
covenant between partners : Townsend v. Jarman, [1900] 2 Ch. 698.
In some oases the covenant has been held divisible (e.g., as regards area). Divisibility
and the good part enforced : Baines v. Oeary, 35 Ch. D. 154 ; Price v. of covenant.
Oreen, 16 M. & W. 346 : Nicholls v. Stretton, 7 Beav, 42 (as regards time) ■
VOL. I. 2m'
530
Injunctions.
[cHAt. XXXI.
Prohibited
aiea.
General
restraint as
to price.
Distinction
between
trade and
profession.
Di'tanoe, how
measured.
Davies v. Lowin, 64 L. T. 655 ; 1891, W. N. 86 ; Rogers v. Maddochs, [1892]
3 Ch, 346, C. A. (as regards trade) ; Robinson & Co. v. Hm.zr, [1898] 2
Ch. 451, C. A. (agreement not to engage in any business relating to goods
sold by the company "or in any other business whatever "). An agree-
ment not to solicit customers " who should at any time be served by or
then belonging " to the plaintiffs in their business held good as to persons
who were customers while the defendant was in their service : Bvhowski &
Sons V. Goldstein, [1896] 1 Q. B. 478, C. A. ; Underwood v. Barker, [1899]
1 Ch. 300, 0. A. But if, looking at the covenant as a whole, the illegal
cannot be severed from the legal part without creating a new covenant,
the agreement is altogether void : Baker v. Hedgeconk, 39 Ch. D. 520 (where
it was sought, ineffectually, to limit a general restriction against carrying
on " any business whatsoever " to the business of the covenantee) ; and
see Pickering v. Ilfracombe Ry. Co., L. R. 3 C. B. 235, 250.
Where the agreement was for service as confidential clerk for a term of
five years with option to the employers to renew the engagement for five
years more, the Court granted an injunction to enforce the agreement
limited to the first term of five years, the employers waiving their option,
and the Court doubting whether the agreement ought to be enforced for that
further term : Robinson & Co. v. Ileuer, [1898] 2 Ch. 451, C. A.
A covenant not to carry on a business was held not broken by carrying on
a particular part of such business : Stuart v. Diplock, 43 Cli. D. 343, C. A.,
distinguishing Feilden v. Slater, 7 Eq. 523. But a covenant not to keep a
coffee house was held to be broken by the setting up of a light refreshment
business ancillary to that of a grocer : Fitz v. lies, [1893] 1 Ch. 77, C. A.
A covenant against trading was not broken by the covenantor holding
shares in a company trading within the forbidden area : William Cory <fe
Son V. Harrison, [1906] A. C. 274.
A covenant not to carry on, " either directly or indirectly, on his own
account or as agent or assistant of, or in partnership with, any other person
or persons, or be interested or concerned in a business within two miles,"
was not broken by the covenantor acting as agent outside the prohibited
distance for a firm carrying on business within that distance : Fairbrother v.
England, 40 W. B. 220. And service at a fixed salary was held not to
infringe a covenant not to be " directly " or " indirectly " " interested " :
Oophir Diamond Co. v. Wood, [1902] 1 Ch. 950. But letters posted outside
the prohibited area to clients within the area were held to constitute carry-
ing on business within the area : FdrrmndsonY. Bender, [1905] 2 Ch. 320.
Doing business for a client residing within the prescribed area does not
amount to a breach of a covenant not to carry on the profession of a
solr within the prescribed area: Woodbridge tfe Sons v. Bellamy, \\Q\Y\
1 Ch. 326.
A contract by which members of a mineral water association bound them-
selves not to sell mineral waters below a specified price was held to be in
restraint of trade, and not enforceable : Urmston v. Whitelegg, 63 L. T. 455.
" Trade " has Ijeen distinguished from " profession " ; and accordingly,
though a covenant by A. not to carry on a particular trade, either in his o^ti
name or that of any other person, was held not to have been broken by his
acting as salaried clerk or assistant to B. carrying on that trade (Allen v.
Taylor, 19 W. B. 35, 556 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 297 ; 22 L. T. 651 ; but see Hill d:
Co. V. Hill, 35 W. B. 137 ; Jones v. Heavens, 4 Ch. D. 636 ; Dales v. Weaher,
18 W. B. 993 ; Newling v. Dobell, 38 L. J. Ch. Ill ; 19 L. T. 488 ; Rolfe v.
R., 15 Sim. 88), A., who had covenanted " not at any time to set up or carry
on the business or profession of a surgeon, &c.," was restrained from acting
as a salaried assistant to a surgeon : Palmer v. Mallet, 36 Ch. D. 411, C. A.
The mode of measuring the prescribed distance is by a straight line
measured on the Ordnance map, and not by the nearest way of access :
Duignan v. Walker, Joh. 446 ; Mouflet v. Cole, L. R. 7 Ex. 70 ; 8 Ex. 32
(and cases there cited) ; and as to points of measurement, see Cattle v.
Thorpe, 1900, W. N, 83.
SECT. II.] Breach of Contract. 531
As to the right of an assignee of the covenantee to sue, See Baines v. Assignee o!
Geary, 35 Ch. D. 154, 159 ; BenweU v. Inns, 24 Beav. 307 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 663. covenantee.
As to the liability of a quondam infant to be restrained by injunction Infant
from breach of a contract of service, see Evans v. Ware, [1892] 3 Ch. 502 ; covenantee.
De Francesco v. Barnum, 43 Ch. D. 165 ; Fellows v, Wood, 59 L. T. 513.
A covenant by a reporter (infant) not to be connected mth any other
newspaper business within twenty miles was held bad both as being un-
reasonable and on ground of defendant's infancy : Leng v. Andrews, [1909]
1 Ch. 763, C. A.
PENALTY OB LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.
The question often arises whether a sum named as payable upon the
breach of the agreement is a penalty to secure performance, or liquidated
damages on breach, in which case the covenantor does not lose his right to
an injunction — or is in the nature of an alternative for performance, in
which case an injunction will not be granted.
But in general this question will not be determined upon interlocutory
motion : Coles v. Sims, 5 D. M. & G. 1 ; Kay, 56.
For the numerous cases upon this distinction, see Kerr, 386 et seq. ;
Elphinstone v. Monldand Iron and Coal Co., 11 App. Cas. 332 ; National
Provincial Bank of England v. Marshall, 40 Ch. D. 112, 0. A.; Clydebank,
dec. Co. V. Oastaneda, [1905] A. C. 6 ; Public Works Commrs v. Hill, [1906]
A. C. 368 ; Diestal v. Stevenson, [1906] 2 K. B. 345 ; Pye v. British Auto-
mobile Syndicate, [1906] 1 K. B. 425. A plaintifi is not entitled to
both an injunction and liquidated damages, but must elect : General
Accident Assurance Corp. v. Noel, [1902] 1 K. B. 377.
ILLEGALITY.
A contract involving illegality {Davies v. Makuna, 29 Ch. D. 596, C. A.),
as the stifling of a prosecution for not repairing a road ( Windhill L. B. v.
Vint, 45 Ch. D. 351, C. A. ; and see Jones v. Merionethshire Building Society,
[1891] 2 Ch. 587), on an indemnity given to bail, whether by the prisoner
bailed or another : Consolidated Exploration Co. v. Musgrave, [1900] 1 Ch.
37 ; or against the public policy of this country (Bousillon v. R., 14 Ch. D.
351) ; Kaufman v. Oerson, [1904] 1 K. B. 591, C. A., will not be enforced ;
secus, a contract which is only void as being against the policy of a foreign
country, and not immoral or forbidden by positive law : Be Missouri
Steamship Co., 42 Ch. D. 321, C. A. And as to the effect of the Lottery
Acts, see Macnee v. Persian Investment Corp., 44 Ch. D. 306. And as to
contracts of cos. illegal or ultra vires, v. inf. Sect. XIII.
An assignment for value of a pension for military service, being void
under 47 G. III. c. 25 (see now 44 & 45 V. c. 58, s. 141), could not be
enforced by injunction : Lloyd v. Cheetham, 3 Giff. 171 (overruling Knight
V. BulJceley, 4 Jur. N. S. 527 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 817). But the Act did not apply
to a pension by the late E. I. Co. : Heald v. Hay, 3 Giff. 467 ; and the
assignment of a superannuation allowance from the Treasury has been
enforced by injunction : Lloyd v. Eagle, 5 Jur. N. S. 187.
Covenants in a separation deed may be enforced against husband or
wife, e.g., by restraining proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights:
Besant v. Wood, 12 Ch. D. 605 ; Sanders v. Bodway, 16 Beav. 207 ; Hunt v.
H., 4 D. F. & J. 221 ; Flower v. F., 20 W. R. 231. And see further on this
question, inf. Chap. XXXVII., " Maeeibd Women " ; Chap. L., " SpEcnnc
Performance."
eestkictive covenants.
Restrictive covenants (as distinguished from affirmative covenants Covenants
involving expenditure of money, e.g., to build or keep in repair : see not running
Haywood v. Brunswick Soc, 8 Q. B. D. 403, C. A. ; L. <& S. W. By. v. Oomm, with the land.
20 Ch. D. 662, 0. A. ; Austerlerry v. Oldham Corp., 29 Ch. D. 750, C. A. ;
532
injunctions.
[chap. XXXl.
Covenants
running with
the land.
Acauiesoenoe,
Right of
reversioner.
Notice.
Building
scheme.
ttall V, Swin, 37 Ch. D. 74, C. A.), may be enforced by injunction against
purchasers (or occupiers : Mander v. Fahke, [1891] 2 Ch. 554, C. A.)
taking with notice of the covenants, though they do not run with the
land at common law : Tulle v. Moxliay, 2 Ph. 774 ; Keppel v. Bailey,
2 M. & K. 517 ; Rogers v. Hosegood, [1900] 2 Ch. 388, C. A. And against
an owner claiming by adverse possession: Be Nisbet and Potts, [1906]
1 Ch. 387, A. C. Whether a covenant not to carry on a particular trade
on premises can be so enforced, quoere : Stuart v. Diplock, 43 Ch. D. 343,
C. A. But a restrictive covenant which is not made in respect of any
property of the covenantee cannot be enforced by the exors of the cove-
nantee : Formby v. Barker, [1903] 2 Ch. 539.
Upon the question what covenants run with the land, see Haywood v.
Brunswick Soc., sup. ; Fleetwood v. Hull, 33 Q. B. D. 35 ; Austerberry v.
Oldham Corp., sup. ; Andrew v. Aitken, 22 Ch. D. 218 ; Gower v. Postmaster-
General, 57 L. T. 527 ; Carter v. Williams, 9 Eq. 678 ; Catt v. Tourle, 4
Ch. 654 ; Western v. McDermott, 2 Ch. 72 ; 1 Eq. 499 ; Wilson v. Hart, 1 Ch.
463 ; 2 H. & M. 551 ; Tulk v. Moxhay, 2 Ph. 774 ; Keppell v. Bailey, 2
M. & K. 517 ; Woodall v. Clifton, [1905] 2 Ch. 257, C. A. ; Dysm v. Foster,
[1909] A. C. 98. See also Pollock, Contr. 252 et seq. : Dart. V. & P. 771.
&c., for the former distinction between the rules of Equity and Common
Law on this subject.
The right to enforce a restrictive covenant may be lost by acquiescence,
as, e.g., if the property has been so laid out and used that the object of the
covenants, namely, the preservation of its residential character, can no
longer be attained ; but not merely because in a few instances the cove-
nants have not been enforced : Knight v. Simmonds, [1896] 2 Ch. 294,
C. A. ; [1896] 1 Ch. 653 ; nor because of a change in the character of the
neighbourhood beyond the control, and independent of, the action of Pit :
Sayers v. Collyer, 28 Ch. D. 103, C. A. ; 24 lb. 180 ; Craig v. Greir, [1899]
1 1. R. 258, C. A. And as to acquiescence generally, see Willmott v. Barber,
15 Ch. D. 96 ; Kelseij v. Dodd, 57 L. J. Ch. 34 ; Duke of NoHhumberland
V. Bowman, 56 L. T. 773 ; Osborne v. Bradley, [1903] 2 Ch. 447.
Waiver of a restrictive covenant prohibiting sale of beer and spirits was
presumed from long uninterrupted user of the house to the contrary : Hep-
worth V. Pickles, [1900] 1 Ch. 108 (twenty-four years) ; Be Summerson,
[1900] 1 Ch. 112, n. (thirty years).
To give the reversioner a right of action, permanent injury so as to affect
the reversion must be shown : Cooper v. Crabtree, 20 Ch. D. 589, C. A. ;
19 76. 193.
The effect of constructive notice of a title subject to a restrictive covenant
is not done away with by express representation on the part of the lessor or
vendor of the non-existence of such a covenant : Patman v. Harland, 17
Ch. D. 353 ; nor has sect. 2, sub-sect. 2, of the V. & P. Act, 1874, pre-
cluding investigation of the lessor's title, affected the law in this respect :
S. C. ; Thornewell v. Johnson, 50 L. J. Ch. 641 ; 29 W. R. 677 ; 44 L. T. 768.
As to the liability of an underlessee of one of two houses comprised in an
original lease, sec Cresswell v. Davidson, 56 L. T. 811.
And upon the question whether sub-purchasers or assignees are affected
with notice of the restrictive covenant, see Feildon v. Slater, 7 Eq. 523 ;
Keates v. Lijon, 4 Ch. 218 ; Clements v. Welles, 1 Eq. 200 ; Hodson v. Cop-
pard, 29 Beav. 4 ; Thornewell v. Johnson, sup. ; Nicoll v. Penning, 19 Ch. D.
258. And that the assignee of a purchaser for value without notice is not
affected by an agreement not running with the land, though he himself have
notice of it, see A. G. v. Biphosphated Guano Co., 11 Ch. D. 327, C. A. ; and
see Wilkes v. Spooner, [1911] 2 K. B. 472.
Restrictive covenants, when part of a building scheme, and intended for
the common advantage of purchasers, and not merely for the benefit and
protection of the vendor, maybe enforced by the purchaser of one lot against
the vendors or the purchaser of another : Spicer v. Martin, 14 App. Ca. 12 ;
Benals v. Cowlishaw, 9 Ch. D. 129 ; 11 Ch. D. 866, C. A. ; Mackenzie v.
SECT.
II.] Breach of Contract. 533
Childers, 43 Oh. D. 265 ; Collins v. Castle, 36 Ch. D. 242 ; Nottingham, ,(■€.
Co. V. Butler, 16 Q. B. D. 778, C. A. ; Tyndall v. Castle, 1893, W. N. 40 ;
62 L. J. Ch. 555 ; and see Taite v. Gosling, 11 Cli. D. 273 ; Sheppard v.
Gilmore, 57 L. J. Ch. 6 ; 53 L. T. 625 ; 34 W. R. 179 ; Russell v. Walls,
10 App. Ca. 598 ; Nalder's Brewery v. liarman, 1900, W. N. 180 ; 82 L. T.
594, C. A. ; Rowell v. Satchell, [1903] 2 K. B. 212 ; Whitehouse v. Hvgh,
[1906] 2 Ch. 283 ; ElUston v. lieacher. [1908] 2 Ch. 665 ; Beid v. Bickerslaff,
[1909] 2 Ch. 305 ; Triiie v. St. John, [1910] 1 Ch. 84 ; but if a purchaser
alienates part of his lot, there is no implied obligation as between him and
the alienee : King v. Dielceson, 40 Ch. D. 596. If the covenant is merely
for the advantage of the vendor, a subsequent purchaser of land remaining
in the vendor's hands has no right to sue on it : Benals v. Cowlishaw,
sup.
It is a question of f aotwhether or not the restriction is only for the benefit
of the vendor ; and if it is not, the vendor will not be allowed to use any of
the land retained by him for a purpose inconsistent with the general law by
which he has purported to bind the whole : Birmingham c(: Dist. Land Go. v.
Allday, [1893] 1 Ch. 342 ; and the fact that the vendor retains a part is only
a circumstance, though an important one, evidencing intention on his part :
S.C.
Where a scheme provides for the erection by purchasers of shops and
dwelling-houses of a minimum value, a negative stipulation that nothing
but shops and dwelling-houses are to be erected cannot be implied : Holfurd
V. Acton Urban District Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 240, applying Oriental Steam-
ship Co. V. Tylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 518, 527 (as to loss of cargo).
On the general question when a restrictive covenant can be enforced by an
assignee of the covenantee, see Clegg v. Hands, 44 Ch. D. 503, C. A. ; Davies
v. D., 36 Ch. D. 359, C. A. ; Eenals v. Cowlishaw, 9 Ch. D. 129 ; 11 Ch. 1).
866, C. A. ; White v. Southend Hotel Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 767, C. A. ; John Bros
Abergarw Brewery v. Holmes, [1900] 1 Ch. 188 ; Rogers v. Hosegood, [1900]
2 Ch. 388, C. A. ; Muller v. Trafford, [1901] 1 Ch. 54 ; Reid v. Bickerstaff,
[1909] 2 Ch. 305 ; Manchester Brewery Co. v. Coombs, [1901] 2 Ch. 608.
Where the covenant was against building without the consent of D. (the
owner of the building estate), his heirs, or assigns, it was held by Romer, J.,
that the consent required was that of the owner of the estate in its popular
and broad sense, and not of all the assigns subsequently acquiring title to
other lots : Everett v. Remington, [1892] 3 Ch. 148. Upon the question
what evidence is sufficient to entitle a purchaser to assume the existence of a
general building scheme, see Tucker v. Vowles, [1893] 1 Ch. 195 ; Daris v.
Corp. of Leicester, [1894] 2 Ch. 208, C. A. ; Osborne v. Bradley, [1903] 2
Ch. 446 ; Elleston v. Readier, [1908] 2 Ch. 665, C. A.
The breach of a restrictive covenant may be a ground for a. claim to
compensation under sect. 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845,
by the owner of land for the benefit of which the restriction was imposed ;
Long Eaton Recreation Grounds Co. v. Midland Ry., [1902] 2 K. B. 574,
C. A.
A school board acquiring land for the purposes of the Elementary Corporation.
Education Act, 1870, are not bound by notice of a restrictive covenant
binding their vendor, and that the covenantee's only remedy is compensa-
tion under sect. 68 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 : see
Kirby v. School Board for Harrogate, [1896] 1 Ch. 473, C. A.
Where a corporation sell land subject to a building scheme, the approval
of the Treasury, under sects. 108, 109 of the Municipal Corporations Act,
1882, must be obtained not merely to the particular conveyances, but to
the disposition involved in the scheme : Davis v. Corporation of Leicester,
[1894] 2 Ch. 208, C. A.
The injunction should be to restrain the Deft from authorizing the breach Form of
of covenant, not from " permitting " it, as that word might render him injunction,
liable if he did not prevent breaches by his tenants (which he is not bound
to do : Ball v, Ewin, 37 Ch, D. 74, C. A, : see also Powell v. Helmsley,
534
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Covenant
with mort-
gagor only.
Perpetuities.
Cases.
[1909] 2 Ch. 252, 0. A.) ; Martin v. Spicer, 34 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; Mackenzie v.
Ohilders, 43 Ch. D. 265.
As to the presumption that a restrictive covenant when once annexed to a
piece of land passes by conveyance thereof, and as to the validity in equity
of a covenant with mortgagor only, see Rogers v. Hosegood, sup. As to the
right of mortgagor to sue without joining mortgagee, see Fairclough v.
Marshall, 4 Ex. D. 37, C. A.
A restrictive covenant not being a limitation of property, is not obnoxious
to the rule against perpetuities : Mackenzie v. Childers, 43 Ch. D. 265.
See also the following cases upon the construction and enforcement of
restrictive covenants and agreements relating to —
(a) Beerhouses and sale of liquors : AUsopp v. Wheatcroft, 15 Eq. 59 ;
L. <k N. W. By. V. Oarnelt ; Jones v. Bone, 9 Eq. 26, 674 ; Feilden v. Slater,
7 Eq. 523 ; Pease v. Ooates, 2 Eq. 688 ; Luker v. Dennis, 7 Ch. D. 227 ;
Bp. of St. Albans v. Battershy, 3 Q. B. D. 359 (beer-shop) ; Holt v. Collyer, 16
Ch. D. 718 (grocer's licence) ; NicMlv. Penning, 19 Ch. D. 258 (off-licence) ;
London and Suburban Co. v. Field, 10 Ch. D. 645, C. A. (beer-shop) ; BucMe
V. Fredericks, 44 Ch. D. 244, C. A. (retailer of wine, spirits, or beer) ; Fitz v.
lies, [1893] 1 Ch. 77, 0. A. (coffee-house) ; Fleetwood v. Hull, 33 Q. B. D. 35
(convictions not endorsed on licence) ; White v. Southend Hotel Co., sup. ;
John Bros Abergarw Brewery v. Holmes, sup. (benefit of covenant running
with business of brewer). A covenant by a publican to purchase beer from
his landlord is not broken by his buying such beer from an agent of the
landlord without the landlord's knowledge : Eduiick v. Hawkes, 18 Ch. D. 199.
(&) Buildings : Master v. Hansard, 4 Ch. D. 718, C. A. ; L. Manners v.
Johnson, 1 Ch. D. 673 ; Bowes v. Law, 9 Eq. 636 ; Peek v. Matthews, 3 Eq.
515 ; Baily v. De Crespigny, L. R. 4 Q. B. 180 ; A, 0. v. Briggs, 1 Jur. N. S.
1085 ; Child v. Douglas, Kay, 560 ; D. Bedford v. British Museum, 2 M. & K.
552 ; Kilbey v. Haviland, 19 W. T. 698 ; W()od v. Cooper, [1894] 3 Ch. 671
(trellis work screen a " building " and " annoyance ") ; Kimber v. Admans,
[1900] 1 Ch. 412, C. A. (a building containing several residential flats is
prima facie one " house " within covenant not to erect more than a certain
number of houses) ; Rogers v. Hosegood, sup. {secus, where covenant pro-
vides for erection of one " private residence ") ; Hudson v. Cripps, [1896]
1 Ch. 265 (conversion into a club of building agreed to be used as residential
flats) : Hford Park Estate v. Jacobs, [1903] 2 Ch. 522 (a building structurally
divided into two tenements not communicating with each other is two
houses).
(c) Offensive trades and nuisances : Johnstone v. Hall, 2 K. & J. 414 ;
Kemp V. Sober, 1 Sim. N, S. 517 ; Harrison v. Good, 11 Eq. 338 ; Todheatley
V. Benham, 40 Ch. D. 80, C. A. (hospital for throat diseases) ; Wauton v.
Coppard, [1899] 1 Ch. 92 (boys' school a breach of a covenant against
business or occupation causing noise or nuisance).
(d) Farming covenants : Fleming v. Snook, 5 Beav. 250 ; Drury v.
Molins, 6 Ves. 328 ; Burrow v. Sharp, sup. Form 6 ; Crosse v. Duckers, 21
W. R. 287 ; 27 L. T. 816 ; Phipps v. Jackson, 56 L. J. Ch. 550 ; 35 W. R. 378 ;
Lybbe v. Hart, 29 Ch. D. 8, C. A. (where assignee of bankrupt, notwithstand-
ing disclaimer of lease, was restrained from selling hay, straw, &o.) ; and
see Schofield v. Hincks, 58 L. J. Q. B. 147 ; 60 L. T. 573 ; 37 W. R. 157..
(e) Right of shooting : Gearns v. Baker, 10 Ch. 355 ; Pattisson v. Gilford,
18 Eq. 259 ; and see Jeffryes v. Evans, 19 C. B. N. S. 246 ; and (as to a
covenant to keep down rabbits) West v. Houghton, 4 C. P. D. 197 ; Erskine
V. Adeane, 8 Ch. 756.
( / ) Covenants against assignment or letting : Dyke v. Taylor, 3 D. F. &
J. 467 ; West v. Dobb, L. R. 5 Q. B. (Ex. Ch.) 460 ; 4 Q. B. 634; Lehmann v.
McArthur, 3 Ch. 496 ; 3 Eq. 746 ; and as to the construction of covenant
not to assign without lessor's consent, " such consent not to be unreasonably
withheld," see Sear v. House Property Co., 16 Ch. D. 387; Lehmann y.
McArthur, 3 Ch. 496; Be Marshall and Salt, [1900] 2 Ch. 202 ; and that
if lessor refuses consent except upon payment, lessee is relieved, and is
SECT. III.] Waste, 535
entitled to bring an action for a declaration to that effect and costs : see
West V. Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 1.
A restrictive covenant as to the letting or user of property will be con-
strued strictly : Brigg v. Thornton, [1904] 1 Ch. 386.
A lessor who enters into a covenant with a lessee not to let the adjoining
premises for the purpose of the trade carried on by the lessee, has discharged
his liability it on granting a lease of the adjoining premises, betakes from
the lessee thereof a covenant that the premises shall be used only for the
purposes of a different trade : Ashhy v. Wilson, [1900] 1 Ch. 66 ; following
Kemp V. Bird, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 549, 974 ; and distinguishing Fiiz v. lies,
[1893] 1 Ch. 77. The lessee of a person bound by a restrictive covenant
may be bound thereby although " lessees " are not mentioned in the
covenant : Holloway Bros. v. Hill, [1902] 2 Ch. 612, holding that Kemp v.
Bird, sup., is not inconsistent with Fitz v. lies, sup.
[g) Against use of private dweUing-house for business or trade purposes,
or anything which should bo a nuisance or annoyance to the neighbourhood :
Parhcr v. Whyte, 1 H. & M. 167 ; Wilkinson v. Rogers, 2 D. J. & S. 62 ;
Kemp V. Sober, 1 Sim. N. S. 517 (keeping a girls' school restrained as a
breach of such a covenant) ; Wanton v. Coppard, [1899] 1 Ch. 92 (a boys'
school) ; Hobson v. Tulloch, [1898] 1 Ch. 424 (boarding-house for girls at
school) ; Johnstone v. Hall, 2 K. & J. 414 (injunction in like case refused on
application of remainderman) ; Rolls v. Miller, 27 Ch. D. 71, C. A. (free
home for working girls) ; German v. Chapman, 7 Ch. D. 271 (school for
education and lodging of missionaries' daughters) ; Bramwell v. Lacey, 10
Ch. D. 691 (throat and chest hospital supported mainly by voluntary
contributions) ; Portman v. Home Hospital Association, 27 Ch. D. 81, n.
(hospital with home comforts and advantages not carried on with a view to
profit) ; Watson v. Leamington Coll., M. R., 6 Nov. 1880 (sanatorium) ;
Hudson. V. Cripps, [1896] 1 Ch. 265 (a club) ; Wood v. Cooper, [1894]
3 Ch. 671 (trellis-work screen).
A sale by auction on the premises of furniture of the house is no breach
of such a covenant : Reeves v. Gattell, 24 W. R. 485.
These cases show that, in order to constitute a breach of such a covenant,
it is not material that the covenantee has not suffered actual pecuniary
damage, or that the premises are not being used for purposes of profit, or
even that payment is not required from the inmates ; and semhle, that such a
covenant excludes all use beyond that of ordinary domestic life.
Skotion III. — ^Waste.
For ¥orm of Undertaldng on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante,
1. Injunction to stay felling Ornamental Timber and other Waste
— Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, her servants, workmen, and agents, be
restrained from cutting down any timber or otiier trees growing
on the estate in the statement of claim mentioned, which are
planted or growing thereon for the protection or shelter o£ the
several mansion-houses belonging to the said estate, or for the
ornament of the said houses, or which grow ia lines, walks, vistas,
or otherwise, for the ornament of the said houses, or of the gardens,
or parks, or pleasure grounds thereunto belonging ; And also from
cutting down any timber or other trees, except at seasonable times,
and in a husbandlike manner; and likewise from cutting down
536 Infimctions. [chap. xxxi.
oaplings and young trees, not fit to be cut as and for the purposes
of timber ; until &c. — See Chamberlayne v. Dummer, L. C, 9 July,
1782, A. 421 ; 1 B. C. C. 166 ; 2 Dick. 600.
That this is tlie form which has been always used in cases of equitable
waste, see Eden, Inj. 182 ; L. Tamworth v. Ferrers, 6 Ves. 420.
2. Inquiry as to felling Timber — Life Tenant sans Waste.
Order that the following &c., 1. " An inquiry whether the woods
called &c., or any or either, and which of them, and the six elm trees,
and one oak tree on L. farm, and the oak trees and elm trees on
the pasture land in W. farm, which have been marked for cuttmg,
or any or either and which of such trees, were or was, or have or
has been, planted, or left standing, by any owner in fee or in tail
of the H. estate or any parts thereof, for the ornament or shelter of
the mansion-house on the said estate, or of the gardens, park, or
pleasure-grounds thereto belongmg, or of any road or roads, drive
or drives, path or paths leading thereto, for the purpose of inter-
rupting the view of any object or objects intended to be kept out of
sight from the said mansion-house, gardens, park, or pleasure-
grounds, or any part thereof.
" And in case it shall be so certified as to the said woods or any or
either of them — 2. An inquiry whether the trees therein have
ordmarily or otherwise, and under what circumstances, been cut for
repairs or for sale ; and what estate or interest the person or persons
by whom, or by whose order or direction, the same were so cut, had
in the said H. estate at the time of the cutting thereof ; and whether
the trees in the said woods, and the said other trees which have been
marked for cutting, or any or either and which of such trees, injure
or impede the growth of any other trees adjoining or near thereto,
which are of so much importance to the purposes of ornament or
shelter to the said mansion-house, gardens, park, or pleasure-grounds,
that the removal of the trees so marked for cutting is essential to
such purposes of ornament or shelter." Reserve the question of
the costs of this application to be dealt with by the V.-C. — Ford v.
Tijnte, L. JJ., 10 March, 1864, A. 570 ; 2 D. J. & S. 127 (penned by
L. J. Turner).
For similar inquiries as to ornamental timber, see Lushington v. Boldero,
M. R., 5 Aug. 1815. And for further inquiry in the same case whether any
and which of the timber and other trees so cut and sold injured or impeded
the growth of any other trees adjoining thereto, which were of so much
importance to the purposes of ornament or shelter intended by the devisor,
that the removal of the timber and other trees so cut and sold was essential
to such purposes of ornament and shelter, see jS. C, V.-C, 26 July, 1819,
B. 765 — 767 ; on exceptions to report under the above inquiries, 6 Madd.
149, S. C.
For like inquiry, and also whether any and which of the trees cut were
prejudicial to the health of the inmates, or interfered with the comfortable
enjoyment of the mansion-house, or of any other building on the estate, see
Baker v= Sebrigjif, 13 Ch, D, 179, 181,
Sect. hi. J Waste. ^^'
Tor declaration that the personal estate of the deceased life tenant is liable
to account for all the benefit and profits received from acts of equitable
waste, with interest at 4 p. c, and decree for an account of money received
by the sale of the materials of the mansion and buildings pulled down, and
inquiry as to the ornamental timber felled, and for account of the proceeds,
with interest at 4 p. c. from the day of the life tenant's decease ; and in case
assets not admitted direction for the admon of his personal and real estate,
see D. Leeds v. E. Amherst, V.-C. E., 3 July, 184G, A. 1655 ; 14 Sim. 367 ;
affirmed 2 Phil. 120.
For issue as to the right to cut ornamental timber, and the directions and
declarations with which it should be guarded, see Wombwell v. Bellasijse,
6Ves. 110a.
For decree declaring Deft entitled to fell all such timber on the devised
estate as is matm-e and fit to be cut, except such as is planted or left standing
by way of ornament or shelter with reference to the occupation of the
mansion, but not to fell any unripe timber, or timber planted or left for
ornament or shelter, with inquiry as to timber put or marked for cutting,
and injunction pending it. Pit undertaking to answer damages, see Turner v.
>rn(?7rf,V.-C.W.,27 March, 1860, B. 1084; 8. C, Joh.753; 2 D. F. & J. 234.
For injunction on bill by the patron of a living against the rector to stay
his cutting timber on the glebe, or other lands of the rectory, except for
repairs necessary on the buildings or lands, and from selling timber thereto-
fore cut and remaining unsold, see I). Marlboroughv. Si. John, 5 D. & S. 181 ;
against cutting timber in the churchyard, except for repairs of the parsonage
or chancel, see Strachy v. Francis, 2 Atk. 217.
3. Life Tenant impeachable of Waste allowed such Wind-felled
Timber as he might properly have cut — Inquiry.
"Order that, in carrying into efEect the order dated &c., the Deft
be allowed the benefit of the sale of all such trees felled by the wind
which he would have been entitled to fell and cut himself, and to all
proper thinnings, and all coppices which are periodically cut in the
nature of crops, whether osiers, hazel, or oak ; And it is ordered
that the following itiquiry be made. 1. An inquiry what portion of the
sum of £ — received by the Deft derived from timber or cuttings
of that description contained in the account brought in by him under
the said order, the said Deft is entitled to." — Costs of application to
be costs in the cause. — Bateman v. HotchJdn, M. R., 8th Nov. 1862,
A. 2109 ; S. C, 31 Beav. 486.
As to the meaning of the expression " timber " in this Form, see observa-
tion of Chitty, J., in Dashwood v. Magniac, [1891] 1 Ch. 306.
4. Inquiries as to Minerals as between Tenant for Life and
Remainderman and Consequent Accounts and Directions.
Order that the following &c. 1. An inquiry what coal and
minerals were gotten and won from the settled estates by the said
B. A. B. (tenant for life), or any person or persons by his order or
under his authority, from mines other than such as were in the
course of being worked at the time of the decease of W. B. (the infant
Pit's grandfather and the original testator), distinguishing such coal
and minerals as were gotten and won prior, and such as were gotten
aud won subsequently, to the 2Jst day of Jan. 1847, the date of the
538 Injunctions, [chap. xxxi.
birth of the Pit [the infant tenant in tail in remainder), and further
distinguishing such coal and minerals as were gotten and won from
old mines remaining dormant at the time of the decease of the
testator W. B., and such as were gotten and won from mines newly
opened by the said E. A. B., and in making such inquiry it is to be
ascertained and stated for how long, and under what circumstances,
any such dormant mines had remained dormant or unworked, and
also whether, with respect to any new pits or mining works sunk or
opened upon the said settled estates by the said E. A. B., any and
which were so sunk or opened for the purpose of facilitating any and
what old workings ; And whether any and which were so sunk or
opened for the purpose of opening any and what fresh mines, and
the circumstances under which all fresh workings were commenced
durmg the life of the said E. A. B. are also to be ascertained and
stated. 2. An account of all moneys received by the said B. A. B.,
or by any person &c., in respect of coal and other minerals gotten
and won from the said settled estates from mines, other than such
as were in the course of being worked at the time of the decease
of the testator distinguishing the moneys so received in respect
of coal and other minerals gotten and won from each particular
mine or separate working, and distinguishing the dates of such
receipts respectively, and the total amount of the moneys so received
in respect of workings prior to the said 21st day of Jan. 1847, and
the total amount of those received in respect of workings subse-
quently to that date. 3. An inquiry what mines and minerals and
seams and veins of coal, other than mines and seams and veins of
coal which were in course of being worked at the time of the decease
of the testator, are now in existence upon the said settled
estates, and what is doing in respect of them, and whether it will be
for the benefit of the inheritance that any and which of such mines
and minerals and seams and veins of coal should be worked or that
the working thereof should be continued. 4. An account of all
moneys derived since the death of the said E. A. B. from the working
of the said mines and seams of coal other than such as were in course
of being worked at the time of the decease of the testator, and by
whom the same have been received, and how the same have been
applied.— Adjourn kc—Bagot v. B., M. R., 8 June, 1863, A. 1479
(omitting the directions as to the fall and sale of timber, and the
grant of leases) ; 32 Beav. 509.
For declaration of the riglit of widow and tenant for life to the rents,
issues, and proceeds (in tb.e proportion given by her liusband's will) arising
from a new seam of coal discovered by lessee since the death of lessor
(husband), on the ground that the working of such new seam was not the
opening of a new mine, see Spencer v. Scurr, M. R., 23 July, 1S62, B. 1861 ;
31 Beav. 334.
Tor injunction by copyholder (though a reversioner only) and damages
against the lord for digging ooprolites under a copyhold tenement, see A. G.
V. Tomline, 5 Ch. D. 750,
SECT, iii.j Waste. 539
For injunction to restrain tenant for life from working mines pending an
inquiry whether thoy were in course of working at the death of testator,
see Finer v. Vaughan, 2 Beav. 466.
For declaration on bill by patron of a living that the working of mines by
the incumbent under agreement with patron, but without the ordinary's
consent, was unlawful ; that the proceeds ought to be laid out for the
permanent benefit or improvement of the rectory, with an inquiry what
steps would be proper to be taken for enabling the incumbent, ^^■ith the
concurrence of the patron and all other necessary parties, to carry on such
workmg, see Holden v. Weekes, IJ. & H. 278, 287.
For injunction against removal of shingle from foreshore to injury of
adjoining Crown land, see A. G. v. Tomline, 14 Ch. D. 58, C. A.
5. Mandatory Injunction against Waste hy Tenant.
Order that the Deft be restrained from making any further
alterations in the premises &c. — " and from otherwise committing
waste in the said premises, and it is ordered that the Deft do forth-
with fill up the openings made by him in the party walls, and m
the main wall at the rear of the said premises in the statement of
claim mentioned. And it is ordered that the Deft do forthwith pull
down and remove the baker's oven and wooden shed at the rear of
the said premises, and forthwith restore such parts of the said
premises as have not been converted by him into a shop, as in the
statement of claim mentioned, to the state and condition in which the
same were at the date of the execution of the said indenture of lease,
except that the Deft is not to be required to restore the dwarf wall
and railings in front of the premises &c., nor to remove the bow
window on the first floor of the house &c." — Deft to pay Pit's costs
oi suit, to be taxed. — Liberty to apply. — Daggett v. Gurnow, V.-C. B.,
8 March, 1876, A. 671.
In this order and other mandatory orders quoted in this chapter the
form has been altered to suit the direction of the Court of Appeal in Jackson
v. Nornianby Brick Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 438, in which case the Court of Appeal
directed that the old form of mandatory injunction should not be followed
in future, but that the order should go in the form of an absolute order to
the Deft to remove or pull down what is complained of instead of restraining
him from permitting it to remain. The M. R. said that of course the effect
was the same, but that there was no reason why the more simple and direct
form should not be adopted {ex relat. Lavie, registrar).
See Smyth v. Carter, 25 Nov. 1853, B. 449, 18 Beav. 78, for an injunction
restraining a tenant from pulling down a house and building another.
For an injunction at suit of owners in fee restraining a contractor em-
ployed by the lessees to do certain works on the property from acts of
spoliation, and in effect limiting him to the terms of his contract, see Allen
V. Martin, 20 Eq. 462.
6. Injunction at Suit of Bishop against Disturbance of
Churchyard.
" Order that the Defts (the mayor &c.) do restore the surface of the
churchyard attached to the church of the perpetual curacy of &c.,
in the statement of claim mentioned, to its original state so far as
practicable ; And it is ordered that the Defts (the mayor &c.), their
540
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
agents &c., be perpetually restrained from pulling up, destroying,
damaging, or disturbing the said cliurcliyard, or the walls thereof,
and from removing or disturbing the remains of bodies interred
therein, and from using the said churchyard for any secular purpose
until they be lawfully authorized so to do ; And it is ordered that
the Deft M. (incumbent) be restrained from permitting any such
acts as aforesaid, and from completing the sale of the portion of the
said churchyard comprised in the said indenture, dated &c."— Defts,
the corporation, to pay the bishop's costs of suit.— See B. of Durham
V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corp., V.-C. W., 23 Jan. 1864, A. 322.
For injunction to restrain Deft from destroying family graves, and re-
moving or defacing tombstones, or obliterating or defacing inscriptions
thereon, in burial grounds attached to a chapel, see Mordand v. Richardson,
24 Beav. 33.
For a perpetual injunction, at the suit of one of the churchwardens on
behalf of himself and the other parishioners, restraining the perpetual
curate, and a, builder employed by him, from altering the floor, walls or
brickwork, or the internal arrangements or structure of the church, or any
of the works, fixtures, or fittings pertaining thereto, in any other manner
than should be sanctioned or directed by the ordinary in any faculty to be
obtained from the chancellor of the diocese ; Pit being ordered to take
proceedings for obtaining a faculty from the bishop for repairing and
restoring the church according to the scheme set out in the chief clerk's
certificate, &c. ; so much of the order as orders Defts to concur in and
take proceedings for obtaining a faculty for repairing or restoring the church
according to the scheme, &c., and that thereupon the scheme be carried
into effect, being discharged: see Cardinall v. Molyneux, L. C, 4 July,
1861, A. 2374 ; 4 D. F. & J. 117 (varying order of V.-C. S„ 2 Gifi. 536).
NOTES.
Tenant for
life sans
waste.
Equitable
waste.
The law as to legal and equitable waste has been much simplified, and
distinctions formerly taken have been removed, by the Jud. Act, 1873,
s. 25 (3), which provides that an estate for life without impeachment of
waste shall not confer or be deemed to have conferred upon the tenant for
life any legal right to commit waste of the description known as equitable
waste, unless an intention to confer such right shall expressly appear by
the instrument creating such right.
At Law there was neither preventive nor compensative remedy against
acts of waste, however excessive, committed by tenant for life sans waste :
see Lewis Bowies'" case, 11 Co. 79 b ; and notes to Davis v. D. Marlborough,
2 Swa. 146, &o.
But in Equity the jurisdiction to restrain the improper and uncon-
scientious exercise of this legal power, to the detriment of those interested
in remainder, has long been exercised, though first defined and settled in
the leading case of Oarlh v. Coiton, 1 L. C. Eq. 697 ; and for a statement
of the doctrine as to equitable waste, see Baker v. Sebright, 13 Ch. D. 179,
184, &c.
Equitable waste has been defined as " wilful and malicious," and also as
" extravagant and humoursome " waste : Garth v. Cotton, sup. ; Abraham
V. Babb, 2 Freem. 65 ; Aston v. A., 1 Vez. 264, 265 ; and in more recent
cases as " an excessive or unconscionable use " of a legal power : Mickle-
thwait V. M., 1 D._& J. 504 ; an " unconscientious "use : Baker v. Sebright,
13 Ch. D. 185 ; or as aggravated acts of spoliation and destruction, which,
apart from any malicious motive, " a prudent man would not do in the
sficT. m.] Waste. S41
management of his own property " : Turner v. Wright, 2 D. P. & J. 234 j
E. Talbot V. Hope Scott, 4 K. & J. 96 ; and see Joyce, 134.
Acts of equitable waste which have been restrained are —
(a) Pulling down the mansion-house : Vane v. L. Barnard (Raby Castle
case), 2 Vern. 738 ; or other buildings on the estate : Williams v. Day,
2 Ch. Ca. 32 ; Aston v. A., I Vez. 264.
(6) Cutting down timber planted or left standing for ornament and
shelter : Gliamberlayne v. Dummer, 1 Bro. C. C. 166 ; Keknvirh v. Marker,
3 Mac. & G. 311 ; Marker v. M., 9 Ha. 1 ; Campbell v. Allgood, 17 Beav.
623 ; Morris v. M., 15 Sim. 205 ; Wellesley v. W., 6 Sim. 497 ; Ashby v.
Hincks, 58 L. T. N. S. 557.
(c) Cutting saplings or underwood at unseasonable times : Hole v.
Tlwmas, 7 Ves. 589 ; Dunn v. Bryan, Ir. R. 7 Eq. 143 ; and generally any
act of wanton destruction and spoliation of the property : see Kerr,
71.
As to the "intention to confer such right " (to commit waste), referred
to in Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 {sub-sect. 3), the use of the words " in strict
settlement," in executory trusts for a settlement, does not imply that the
tenants for life are not to be punishable for waste : Stanley v. Coulthiirst,
10 Eq. 259 ; Davenport v. D., 1 H. & M. 775, and cases there cited ; except
in cases where the trust is executed by cutting down words of inlieritance
to an estate for life in the first taker : 8. C. ; and see Bankes v. Le Despencer,
10 Sim. 576 ; 11 Sim. 508 ; Woolmore v. Burrows, 1 Sim. 512 ; Vaizey on
Settlements, 166 ; Kerr, 74.
Nor arc words conferring powers of management per se sufficient : Pardoe
V. P., 82 L. T. 547.
Tlie power of a tenant in tail in possession to make the estate his own. Tenant
and therefore to exercise full rights of ownership, i.e., to commit acts of i" t*il-
legal and equitable waste, has been expressly recognized : Turner v. Wright,
Job. 752 ; Saville's Case (see Mos. 224 ; 1 L. C. Eq. 13).
Tenant in fee subject to an executory devise over, like tenant for life sans Tenant in
waste, might cut timber, but not commit equitable waste : Turner v. f^^ with
Wright, Joh. 740 ; and see Blake v. Peters, 10 W. R. 826 ; 1 D. J. & S. 345. Revise over.
As between tenants in common, acts of spoliation or destructive waste Tenants in
only will be restrained : Hole v. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589 ; Arthur v. Lamb, 2 common.
Dr. & Sm. 428 ; Bailey v. Hobson, 5 Ch. 180 ; and see Watson v. Cray, 14
Ch. D. 192 (as to a party wall). And this rule applies to the rights of
tenants in common in a mine : Job v. Potion, 20 Eq. 84.
The grant of a right of shooting does not entitle the grantee to restrain Shooting
the grantor from cutting trees : Oearns v. Baker, 10 Ch. 355 ; nor from I'ghts.
using the land in the ordinary and accustomed way, provided his acts
are not for the express purpose of destroying or damaging what he has
granted : Jeffryes v. Evans, 19 C. B. N. S. 246 ; Pattisson v. Gilford, 18
Eq. 262 : and see sup. Sect. II., " Bkkacii op Contract."
Ordinary or legal, as distinguished from equitable, waste consists in the Legal waste,
commission of acts which, from his limited interest in the property, the
tenant has no authority to do, viz., acts which change without bettering
the nature of the property, or which, though effecting a personal benefit,
diminish the value of the inheritance: see Yool on "Waste," 1, &c. ;
Kerr, 37, 38 ; Vaizoy, 558. Such acts are cutting timber, pulling down
or even rebuilding houses, ploughing up meadow or ancient pasture,
opening mines, &c.
For definitions of waste, see Com. Dig. " Waste " ; Co. Litt. 53 ; Viner's
Abr. " Waste " ; Kerr, 37, 38 ; Lord Darcy v. Askwith (a.d. 1017), Hob. 234 ;
W. Ham Central Charity Bd. v. E. London Waterworks, [1900] 1 Ch. 624,
635, 636. For the distinction between acts of waste and bad husbandry, and
that the Court will interfere in the former but not in the latter case, see
Kerr, 49 (citing Bro. Ab. Waste, pi. 5 ; 2 Ro. Ab. 814).
Converting meadow or pasture into arable is prima facie an act of waste :
Simmons v. Norton, 7 Bing. 648 ; and so alteration of the level of building
542 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
land by using it as a shoot for rubbish : W. Ham Central Charity Bd. v. E.
London Waterworks, sup-
And see on tliis question, D. St. Albans v. Skipwiih, 8 Beav. 354.
Deer in The reclamation of deer in a park is an act of waste, as when reclaimed
park. they cease to be part of the inheritance : Ford v. Tynte, 2 J. & H. 152 ;
Morgan v. Abergavenny, 8 B. C. 768.
Pigeons. And see Maynard v. Gibson, V.-C. B., 1876, W. N. 204, for a declaration
that tenant for life was not entitled to deer and pigeons absolutely, but only
to their reasonable enjoyment.
TIMBER.
On the question of the rights of tenant for life in trees, see Honywood v.
H., 18 Eq. 307 ; Dashwood v. Magniae, [1891] 3 Ch. 306 ; and Craig on
Trees.
A very wide extension has been given to the term " ornamental timber,"
and the doctrine of the Court has been that everything planted, or left
standing, for ornament by the settlor (whose intention is made the test :
Coffin V. C, Jac. 70 ; and see WeU Blundell v. Wolseley, [1903] 2 Ch. 664)
will be protected : M. Dovmshire v. L. Sandys, 6 Ves. 107 ; Wombwetl
V. Bellasyse, 6 Ves. 110 a ; Ford v. Tijnte, 2 D. J. & S. 127 ; Bedoyere v.
Nugent, 25 L. R. Ir. 143 ; and though it has been held that tenant for
life sans waste may deal with ornamental timber as a prudent owner in
the proper or ordinary course of management would (Halliwell v. Phillips,
4 Jur. N. S. 607 ; 6 W. R. 408), this more liberal view has been dissented
from in Ford v. Tynte, 2 D. J. & S. 127.
Although the mansion-house has been pulled down, tenant for life sans
waste has been restrained from cutting the ornamental timber : Morris v.
M., 15 Sim. 505 ; Wellesley v. W., 6 Sim. 497 ; on the principle, it seems,
that tenant for life sans waste cannot, by pulling down the house, entitle
himself to the ornamental timber. But thinning trees in a reasonable and
husbandlike manner, according to the usage and due course of manage-
ment of a timber estate, is not legal, nor, a fortiori, equitable waste :
Bagot V. B., 32 Beav. 509 ; Honywood y. H., 18 Eq. 306 ; Dashwood v.
Magniae, sup. ; Dunn v. Bryan, L. R, 7 Eq. 143 ; Bedoyere v. Nttgent,
sup. ; Kerr, 40.
And generally tenant for life sans waste may cut all such timber (except
ornamental) as the absolute owner, having due regard to his present
interest, and to the permanent advantage of the estate, might properly
cut : Vincent v. Spicer, 22 Beav. 380. (For the decree, see Reg. Lib. 1855,
B. 1200 ; and see Dunn v. Bryan, sup. ; Bedoyere v. Nugent, sup.)
Prima facie, the term " timber " is confined to hard woods, such as oak,
elm, and ash, and does not, except by the custom of the particular county,
include soft woods (larch, Scotch fir, or willow, &c.) : Honywood v. H.,
sup. ; Be Harrison, 28 Ch. D. 220 ; Phillipps v. Smith, 14 M. & W. 589 ;
Craig on Trees, 11 ; and see Dashwood v. Magniae, [1891] 3 Ch. 306.
The term " timber-like trees " means, it seems, trees of the timber class
which have not yet attained sufficient growth, and does not include other
trees not of that class : Lowndes v. Norton, 1876, W. N. 221.
MINES AND MINERALS.
Opening and A tenant for life (subject to waste) cannot open, but may work mines
working already opened : Whitfield v. Bewit, 2 P. Wms. 240 ; Clavering v. C, lb.
mmes. 333 . and see Knight v. Mosely, Amb. 176.
But working new seams of coal by a new shaft is not opening a new
colliery : Spencer v. Scurr, 31 Beav. 334 ; and the onus of showing when a
quarry was first opened must depend on a consideration of all the circum-
stances : Elias v. Snowdon Slate Quarries Co., 4 App. Ca. 454 ; 8 Ch. D.
521, C. A.
Mines under two pieces of land which are separated by a narrow strip
SECT. III.] Waste. 543
of land belonging to a diftoront owner must bo treated as two separate
mines : Be Maynard's Settled Estates, [1809] 2 Ch. 347.
Whether he may open a dormant or abandoned mine without committing Abandoned
waste is a question of evidence on which an inquiry will be directed : Bagot mine.
V. B., 32 Beav. 509.
And see Viner v. Vaughan, 2 Beav. 460 ; Spencer v. Scvrr, 31 Beav. 334.
Under a lease of land (without mentioning mines) the lessee may Mork Lessee,
open but not unopened mines : Clegg v. Rowland, 2 Eq. 160 ; Co. Litt. 54 b.
And as to the construction of a power to let an estate " with the mines
and minerals," and the rights of lessee thereunder, see Daly v. Beckett, 24
Beav. 114.
Unless the nature and context be repugnant, stone will be included in a Stone,
lease or reservation of mines and minerals : Bell v. Wilso7i, 1 Ch. 303 ;
Midland By. v. Checkley, 4 Eq. 19 ; and see Johnstone v. Crompton, [1899]
2 Ch. 190, Form 8, inf. p. 550.
As to the right of tenant for life or years to take reasonable estovers of Estovers,
gravel, clay, coal, and limestone, see Kerr, 46 ; citing 2 Ro. Abr. 816.
Copyholders of inheritance may by custom open and work new mines : Copyholders.
Bp. Winchester v. Knight, 1 P. Wms. 406 ;
— or dig clay : Marg. Salisbury v. Gladstone, 9 H. L. C. 692 ;
— or dig and cart away sand within their tenements without licence
from the lord : Hanmer v. Chance, 4 D. J. & S. 626.
But not without custom : Gilb. Ten. 327 ; and the onus of establishing
such a custom lies upon the tenants : D. Portland v. Hill, 2 Eq. 765, in
whicli case the lord obtained relief by account and injunction : see inf.
Sect. IV., " Tebspass " (III.), Form 1 ; and conversely, the lord, when not
entitled by special custom will be restrained from digging coprolites under a
copyhold tenement : A. 6. v. Tomline, 5 Ch. D. 750.
And freeholders of a manor by custom may get stone from the waste : Freeholders
Heath v. Deanc, [1905] 2 Ch. 86. of manor.
MORTGAQOB AND MORTQAGEE.
Mortgagor in possession will be restrained from cutting timber, if the
security be insufficient : Harper v. Aplin, 54 L. T. 383 ; see also Hitmpherg
v. Harrison. IJ. & W. 521 ; King v. Smith, 2 Ha. 239 ;
■ — or, if he has become bankrupt, until trustee (formerly assignees) is
appointed : Hampton v. Hodges, 8 Ves. 105.
So also after decree for account in forclosure suit : Goodman v. Kine,
8 Beav. 379.
And a person in possession under agreement to purchase will also be
restrained from waste : Croclcford v. Alexander, 15 Ves. 138.
The owner of a rent- charge is not in the position of a mortgagee for the
purpose of an injunction against waste : Sandeman v. BiisMon, 61 L. J. Ch.
136 ; 66 L. T. 180.
Mortgagee in possession whose security is suflSoient will be restrained
from waste : see Milletl v. Dave.y, 31 Beav. 470 ; Fish. Mort. s. 1780 ;
Bobbins, 823 ; Kerr, 59 ; and see inf. Chap. XLVII., " Mortgages " ;
but the Conv. Act, 1881, s. 19, sub-s. 1 (iv), empowers a mortgagee in
possession to cut and sell timber and other trees ripe for cutting, and not
planted or left standing for shelter or ornament, or to contract for any
such cutting and sale to be completed within twelve months from making
the contract.
PERMISSIVE Vl^ASTE.
In cases of permissive waste, i.e., suffering the estate and buildings to fall
out of repair, the rule of the Court of Chancery (notwithstanding a decision
to the contrary in Parteriche v. Powlet, 2 Atk. 383) has been not to interfere
either to prohibit by injunction, or to give satisfaction by account : L.
Castlemain v. Craven, 22 Vin. Abr. tit. Waste, p. 523 ; Lansdovme v. L.,
1 Jac. & W. 522 ; even though the estate were vested in trustees : Powys
544 Injunctions. [cflAP. xxxi.
V. Blagrave, 4 D. M. & G. 448 ; Ee Gartwright, Avis v. Newman, 41 Ch. D.
532 ; and see Barnes v. Bowling, 44 L. T. 809 ; Vaizey, 912 ;
— except under special circumstances : see Yool, 58 (citing Caldwall v
Baylis, 2 Mer. 408 ; Marsh v. Wells, 2 S. c& S. 87).
But at law, tenants for terms of years and tenants for life have been held
liable for both commissive (voluntary) and permissive waste : Yelhwly v.
Gower, 11 Ex. 274 ; Harnett v. Maitland, 16 M. & W. 257 ; Co. Litt. 53 ;
Davies v. L>., 36 W. R. 399 ; 38 Ch. D. 499 ; Vaizey, 911 ; but as to tenant
for life, see Re Gartwright, Avis v. Newman, sup. ; Be Parry and Hopkins, inf.
After the death of the particular tenant, however, without some special
circumstances {e.g., personal liability imposed by the will or settlement, and
capable of being enforced in equity : see Origg v. Goates, 23 Beav. 33 ; Bees
V. Engleback, 12 Eq. 225), there was no remedy, either at law or in equity,
for permissive waste : Turner v. Buck, 22 Vin. Abr. 523 ; Phillips v. Horn-
ray, 34 Ch. D. 439, 455, C. A. ; and see Woodhouse v. Walker, 5 Q. B. D.,
404 ; Be Gartwright, Avis v. Newman, sup. ; Be Williames, Andrew y. W.,
54 L. T. 105 ; 8. G., 52 L. T. 41.
But under 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 2, which gives a right of action against the
exor in respect of permissive waste or wrongs by the testator against another,
in respect of his property, the remainderman can bring an action against
the exor of the devisee for life for non-repair of the premises which such
devisee was directed to repair : Woodhouse v. Walker, 5 Q. B. D. 404 ; and
see Jenks v. Viscount Clifden, [1897] 1 Ch. 694 ; and where by the will the
persons to whom equitable interests have been successively given have been
directed to keep the property in repair, the liability for permissive waste can
be enforced by the trustees against the estate of a deceased life tenant,
without being affected by the limit of time imposed by 3 & 4 W. 4, v. 42,
s. 2 : Re Williames, Andrew v. W., 54 L. T. 105 ; 52 7b. 41.
A tenant for life of leaseholds is not liable to the remainderman for per-
missive waste, nor the estate of the tenant for life for breach by him of
covenants to repair : Be Parry and Hopkins, [1900] 1 Ch. 160.
A tenant for life of leaseholds left in disrepair by testator is not bound to
put them in the repair required by the leases : Be Gourtier, Goles v. Gourtier,
34 Ch. 136, C. A. ; distinguishing Be Fowler, 16 Ch. D. 723 ; and v. inf.
Vol. II. p. 1465.
As to the liability of a copyhold tenant, who accepts his tenancy upon
the terms of the custom of the manor, to keep the premises in repair, see
Blackmore v. White, [1899] 1 Q. B. 293.
MELIOEATINO WASTE.
In cases of meliorating waste, i.e., permanent alteration of the character
of land or buildings, even though the value be increased, or rebuilding a
house more large than it was before (so that there will be more charge for
the lessor to repair it : Co. Litt. 53), an injunction and an account may be
obtained ; see Yool, 21 ; West Ham Gentral Gharity Board v. East London
Waterworks Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 624.
Accordingly, tenant was restrained from altering the property by pulling
down and rebuilding a house against the landlord's will : Smyth v. Carter,
18 Beav. 78 ; and compelled to reinstate premises which had been altered
in excess of a licence to convert a dwelling-house into a shop : Doggett v.
Curnow, V.-C. B., 8 March, 1876, sup. Eorm 5 ; and an injunction with
damages was granted to restrain the shooting of rubbish on land, notwith-
standing that, as alleged, an increased rent would be obtainable by the
reversioners by reason of the alteration of level : W. Ham Central Gharity
Bd. V. E. London Waterworks, [1900] 1 Ch. 624.
But in order to obtain an injunction against waste it must be shown that
the Deft is doing that which is prejudicial to the inheritance, and the
erection of buildings upon land which improve the value, e.g., the conversion
of a farm into a market garden by erection of glass-houses, &c. is not waste :
SECT. III. J Waste, 545
see Meux v. Cohley, [1892] 2 Ch. 253 ; Jones v. Chappell, 20 Eq. 640, 541 ;
W. Ham Central Charity Bd. v. E. London Waterworks, [1900] 1 Ch. 635,
636 ; and see Dohtrty v. Allman, 3 App. Ca. 709 ; Grand Canal Co. v.
M'Namee, 29 L. R. Ir. 131 ; and sernble, the Agricultural Holdings Act,
1883, has abolished part of the old common law doctrine of waste, buildings
which render land more profitable being " improvements " within the Act :
Meux V. Cohley, sup.
ANCILLARY EELIEP IN KESPEOT OV WASTE.
Tenant for life will not be allowed to benefit by his own wrong, and when Accounting
he has committed acts of waste must account for the proceeds, or make good for procoedB.
the damage done : Seagram v. Knight, 2 Ch. 628 ; Bateman v. Hotchhin, 31
Beav.486; Bfafce v. Peters, ID. J. &S. 345; Z).£eedsv.-4mAe»-s<,2Ph. 120;
14 Sim. 357 ; Williams v. D. Bolton, 3 P. Wms. 268.
Even in cases of equitable waste the whole proceeds have been given to
the owner of the first estate of inheritance : Butler v. Kynnersley, 8 L. J. Ch.
O. S. 67 ; 7 L. J. Ch. 0. S. 150 ; 15 Beav. 10, n. ; Bolt v. Somerville, 2 Eq.
Ca. Ab. 759.
But according to the general rule the proceeds are invested so as to follow
the uses of the settlement, giving the income to the successive owners for
life (except the wrongdoer) : ffonj/woot? v. fl^., 18 Eq. 307 ; and see iJog'oi v.
B., 32 Beav. 509 ; E. Cowley v. Wellesley, 1 Eq. 656 ; Cent v. Harrison, Joh.
519 ; Lushington v. Boldero, 15 Beav. 1, 9, n. ; and the corpus to the first
person who, from the nature of his estate, would have been entitled to cut
timber : Lowndes v. Norton, 6 Ch. D. 139.
The proceeds of periodical cuttings or trimmings which are not acts of Proceeds
waste have been held to belong to tenant for life as incident to his estate : of timber.
Pidgeley v. Bawling, 2 Coll. 275 ; Bateman v. Hotchhin, 31 Beav. 486.
The proceeds of timber blown down and of cuttings made by direction of
. the Court, or of decaying timber, will be invested, and the interest only
given to tenant for life : E. Cowley v. Wellesley, sup. ; LusMngton v.
Boldero, 15 Beav. 1, 7 ; Tocher v. Annesley, 5 Sim. 235 ; Wichham v. W.,
19 Ves. 419. Where tenant for life (impeachable for waste) and tenant
in fee were both lunatics and an order was made in Chancery and Lunacy
for sale of timber, the proceeds, subject to the life interest, were personal
estate of the tenant in fee : Hartley v. Pendarves, [1901] 2 Ch. 498.
But a tenant for life sans waste would not be restrained from properly
cutting timber (Bridges v. Stephens, 2 Sw. 150, n. ; Smythe v. S.,2 Sw. 251 ;
A. O. V. D. Marlborough, 3 Madd. 498) ; and he is absolutely entitled to the
proceeds of timber cut by direction of the Court : L. Lovat v. D. Leeds (2),
2 Dr. & Sm. 75 ; or to windfalls : Lewis Bowles' case, 11 Co. 79, b.
If tenant for life (sans waste) cuts timber which, though ornamental,
might have been ordered by the Court to be cut for preservation and im-
provement of the rest, he is entitled to the proceeds, though the remainder-
man might, before the timber was cut, have obtained an injunction :
Baker v. Sebright, 13 Ch. D. 179 ; Ford v. Tynte, 2 D. J. & S. 133.
Assignees in bankruptcy of a tenant for life who have committed equitable
waste are in no better position than tenant for Ife, and will not be allowed
to receive the income of accumulated proceeds of ornamental timber
improperly cut by them : Lushington v. Boldero, 15 Beav. 1, 9, n.
(On appeal this case was compromised and two years' interest was paid to
the assignees : L. J., 16 Jan. 1852, Reg. Min. f. 18.)
Trees which are severed from the soil are personal estate, and trees which
are not actually severed, though injured by a gale, or dead, belong to the
inheritance, the life and manner of growth being no test of attachment to
the soil : Be Ainslie, Swinburne v. A., 30 Ch. D. 485, C. A. (reversing
28 Ch. D. 89) ; Re Llewellin, 37 Ch. D. 317, 324. Proceeds o timber sold
by order of the Court are personalty : Hartley v. Pendarves. [1901] 2 Ch,
498 ; Burgess v. Booth, [1908] 2 Ch. 648.
VOL. I. 2 N
546
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Proceeds of An account was given in the case of mines, the working of which was
minerala. waste, even in oases where no injunction would lie : Jesus College v. Bloome,
3 Atk. 262.
And see cases collected in Parrott v. Palmer, 3 My. & K. 632.
The produce of mines, the opening of which is waste, belongs, as in the
case of timber, to the owner of the first estate of inheritance : Bell v.
Wilson, 1 Ch. 303 ; but compensation money paid by a railway co. for
minerals which might possibly have been gotten during the life of a tenant
for life sans waste belonged to him : Be Barrington, Oamlen v. Lyon, 33
Ch. D. 523.
And the tenant for life is not entitled to the interest unless the remainder-
man has debarred himself by adopting the act for other purposes : Qresley v.
Measure of Mousley, 3 D. F. & J. 433.
damages. xhe amount of damages to be recovered in respect of equitable waste
was measured by the injury to the inheritance : Bubb v. Yelverton, 10 Eq.
465.
Credit is given for the application of the proceeds by tenant for life in
permanent improvements : Birch Wolfe v. Birch, 9 Eq. 683.
And neither tenant for life sans waste nor his estate were made account-
able for the materials of a mansion-house pulled down, when such materials
had been applied in rebuilding : Morris y.M.,ST>.& J. 323.
So also tenant for life will not be charged with sums produced by acts of
(technical) waste which have improved the land (e.g., by digging and carry-
ing away turf) : Harris v. Elkins, 20 W. R. 999 ; 26 L. T. 827.
In the case of the lord digging without special custom for minerals under
copyhold tenements, the measure of damages is the gross amount produced
by the sale of the minerals (coprolites), less the expenses of working, and
such a sum by way of profit as would have induced a stranger to undertake
the working : A. G. v. Tomline, 6 Ch. D. 750 ; and see S. C, 15 Ch. D.
150.
Delay. The claim in respect of acts of equitable waste must be made within six
years from death of tenant for life : Birch Wolfe v. Birch, 9 Eq. 683 ; D.
Leeds v. E. Amhmst, 14 Sim. 365 ; 2 Ph. 117 ; -S. C, p. 186 ; Dashwood v.
Magniac, [1891] 3 Oh. 306, 386, C. A.
But the right of action or account for the proceeds of legal waste accrues,
it seems, and the Statute of Limitations begins to run, from the time when
the wrong was committed, not from the death of tenant for life : Higgin-
botham v. Hawkins, 7 Ch. 676 ; Birch v. Wolfe Birch, sup. ; Seagram v.
Knight, 3 Eq. 398 ; and see Gent v, Harrison, Joh. 517 ; Dashwood v.
Magniac, [1891] 3 Ch. 306, C. A. ; Lewin, 209.
Delay is very material on such a claim : see Bagot v. B., 32 Beav. 509 ;
Harcourt v. White, 28 Beav. 303 ; Ernest v. Vivian, 12 W. R. 295 ; 9 L. T.
785 ; PhUlips v. Homfray, [1892] 1 Oh. 465, C. A.
Interest on Interest on the produce of waste is chargeable from the death of tenant
proceeds. for life : Bagot v. B., sup. ; and see B. Leeds v. Amherst, 14 Sim. 367 ;
Garth V. Cotton, 1 L, C. Eq. 697.
ECCLESIASTICAL WASTE.
A rector or vicar will be restrained from felling timber, save for necessary
repairs, for the parsonage buildings and premises, &c. ; Starchy v. Francis,
2 Atk. 217 ; D. Marlborough v. St. John, 5 D. & S. 174 ; Sowerby v. Fryer, 8
Eq. 417 ; but not from ploughing up ancient meadow in order to clean and
lay it down again : D. of St. Albans v. Shipwith, 8 Beav. 354 ; and see S. C,
as to the position of a rector or vicar in respect to waste.
The patron, or, if he is a consenting party, the ordinary, may sue for an
injunction against waste on the glebe : Holden v. Weekes, 1 J. & H. 278 ;
and is, it seems, entitled to an account of the proceeds of timber wrongfully
cut by the incumbent ; and if the timber so cut has not been sold, to have it
SECT. IV.] Trespass.
sold and the proceeds brought into Court : Sowerhy V. Fryer, sup. ; Yool,
78—80; Kerr, 63— 65.
See, however, Knight v. Mosely, Amb. 176 ; HoUen v. Weehes, sup.
For the application for the permanent improvement of the living ot the
produce of past waste, see Bar^teH V. P/»iWiy«, 4 D. & J. 414.
The Ecclesiastical Commissioners can maintain an action to restram the
working of mines in glebe lands othermse than under a lease sanctioned by
them : Eccksiastical Commissioners v. Wodehouse, [1895] 1 Oh. 552 ;
explaining Holden v. Weekes, 1 J. & H. 278.
Churchwardens may sue, on behalf of themselves and the other
parishioners, to restrain an alteration of the floor, walls, brickwork, or
the internal arrangement or structure of the church : Cardinall v. Moly-
neux, 4 D. F. & J. 117 ; 2 GifE. 536 ; sup. Form 6 ;
—or the pulling down of the churchyard wall : Marriott v. Tarpley, 9
Sim. 279.
But the Court has no jurisdiction to compel the restoration of the church,
and will not order the incumbent to concur in taking proceedings to obtain
a faculty for that purpose, nor direct a scheme thereupon to be carried into
efiect : Cardinall v. Molyneux, sup.
And the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to compel by mandatory
injunction the restoration of a way into a churchyard, when the Ecclesi-
astical Court has jurisdiction to order the restoration : Batten v. Gedye,
41 Ch. D. 507.
As to waste by ecclesiastical corporations, see Wither v. D. and C.
Winchester, 3 Mer. 427 ; Herring v. D. and C. St. Pauls, 3 Sw. 492 ; and
Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law, 1254 et seq.
Section IV. — Trespass.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
(l.) TRESPASS (ordinary).
1. Injunction against Trespassing on Pit's Land — Interlocutory.
" Okder that the Deft, his agents &c., be restrained until judgment
in this action, or until further order, from committing any trespass
upon the Pit's estates at &c., devised by the will of &c., or any part
thereof."— iowMcZes v. Thomas, V.-C. H., 11 Jan. 1876, B. 21.
For injunction against cutting trees in a wood, and acts of trespass in
exercise of an alleged legal claim, see Stanford v. Hurlstone, 9 Ch. 116 ; and
see Lowndes v. Settle, 10 Jur. N. S. 226 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 451 ; 10 L. T. 55 ;
12 W. R. 399 ; 3 N. R. 409.
For injunction restraining a lessor, without express power of entry for
the purpose, from entering upon the demised premises to effect repairs
which lessee refused to do, see Stacker v. Planet Bldg. Soc, 27 W. R. 793,
877.
2. Injunction against laying down Water Pipes under Public
Footway.
Declare that the Defts are not entitled in connection with the
waterworks at &c., to lay down the six-inch main which they are
threatening or intending to lay down under the public footway on
the W. side of the Pit's property, and that the Defts are not entitled
S48 Injunctions. [chap. XXXl
to lay down any mains, pipes, conduits, service pipes, or other works
or engines in or under the public footway on the W. side of the
Pit's property without giving notice to the Pit, and doth order
and adjudge the same accordingly. And order that the Defts
their servants and agents, be perpetually restrained from laymg
down or placing a six-inch main or any other pipe or works in
connection with the said waterworks at &c., under the said footway.
■ — Marriott v. East Grinstead Gas and Water Co., S. Eady, J., 10 Nov.
1908, B. 3145 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 70.
3. Mandatory Injunction to remove Pipes on Pit's Land or
under a Highway.
Order that the Deft do remove all pipes which have been laid by
the Deft in or through the land or soil beneath the surface of the
highway adjoining the Pit's lands in the statement of claim men-
tioned to the undivided moiety whereof the Pit is entitled as in the
statement of claim also mentioned. — Adapted from Goolson v.
Richardson, M. R., 3 Dec. 1873, A. 2980 ; affirmed, 9 Ch. 221.
For injunction restraining an encroachment by buttresses on Pit's land,
see Holme.s v. Upton, 9 Cli. 214, n.
For interim order restraining Dett from removing the soil on land adjoin-
ing the parish church of St. Stephen, Walbrook, &c., and the churchyard
belonging to the said church, so as to deprive the walls of the church and
churchyard of the support they derive from such adjoining land, see Windle
V. Brass, V.-C. H., 19 Juno, 1876, B. 1046.
Por injunction restraining Deft from any further excavation upon his
premises so as to occasion damage or injury to Pit's warehouses and build-
ings, with inquiry as to damages, see Barnett v. Marzciti, V.-C. W., 14 Dec.
1867, A. 3061.
4. Injunction against huilding, without iwejudice to Rights under
London Building Act, 1894.
Order that without prejudice to the Deft's rights, if any, under
the Metropolitan Building Act, 1894, the Deft, his workmen and
agents, be perpetually restrained from heightening or raising the wall
which separates the Deft's premises. No. — , from the Pit's premises)
No. — , in the county of — ■, and is referred to in the said aflidavits,
and is the wall in controversy in this action, and from placing any
erection upon the said wall or from otherwise interfering therewith.
— Deft to pay Pit's costs of action, to be taxed &c. — Thereupon all
further proceedings in the action to be stayed, except for the purpose
of enforcing the order, with liberty to apply for that purpose. —
See List v. Tharj,, Chitty, J., 13 Jan. 1897, B. 133 ; [1897] 1 Ch. 260.
5. Injunctio7i against laying Rails, &c. on PWs Land, or across
Bridge, and Mandatory Injunction to remove — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, their workmen &c., be restrained until &c.,
from laying or placing or affixing on or to the bridge, or the approaches
SECT. IV.] Trespass. ^^^
thereof, or any part of the land of the Pits in the statement of claim
respectively mentioned, any rails, tramplates, sleepers, or other
articles, or any earth, stones or rubbish ; And it is ordered that
the Defts do forthwith remove all rails, tramplates, sleepers, and
other articles, earth, stone, and rubbish laid, placed or aflixed on or
to the said bridge, and the approaches tlicreof, and any part of the
land of the Pits ; And it is ordered that the Defts &c. be restrained
until &c., from makmg or oonstructmg any tramroad or railroad
over, upon, or across the said bridge, or the approaches thereto, or
upon any part of the land of the Pits, and from makmg any embanlc-
ment in any part of the said land of the Pits for the purpose of a
tramroad across the said bridge ; And it is ordered that the Defts
do forthwith remove such tramroad or railroad and such embank-
ment accordingly; And it is ordered that the Defts, their (con-
tractors) workmen &c., be restrained until &c., from excavating or
in any manner interfering with any part of the fabric of the said
bridge, and fi'om digging any holes in, or otherwise injuring or mter-
fering with, the soil of the Pits' said land, and from using the said
bridge, or the approaches thereto, or any part of the said land of
the Pits for the purpose of a tramroad, or for the passage along such
tramway of waggons or vehicles of any kind either for the carriage
of coal, minerals, or other articles, or otherwise. — Adapted from
Neath Canal Co. v. Ynisanved Resolvcn CoUicnj Co., L. J., 3 May,
1875, B. 761 (varying order of V.-C. B., 23 March, 1875, B. 505, by
adding the usual undertaking by Pits as to damages) : /S. C., 10 Ch.
450.
As to omitting from the above order the word " contractors," see note,
p. 586, post.
For injunction to restrain Deft from permitting photographic room to
remain on the flat roof of the Pit's shop, on the ground of trespass upon the
construction of Pit's lease, see Martyr v. Lawrence, 2 D. J. & S. 266.
To restrain the removal of a signboard affixed to the side of Deft's house,
and being the signboard of Pit's house next door, see Moody v. Steggalls, 12
Ch. D. 261.
To restrain interference with a fascia fixed on the wall of the house
adjoining the Pit's house, and comprised in the grant from the comniun
landlord, see Francis v. Hayward, 22 Ch. D. 177, C. A.
To restrain the obstruction of an casement by preventing the passage of
smoke from flues, see Hervey v. Smith, 1 K. & J. 389. See also for additional
instances of injunctions in Equity to stop a mere trespass, L. A- N. W. liy.
Co. V. Lane. By. Co., 4 Eq. 174 ; Hodgson v. Duca, 2 Jur. N. S. 1014 ; or
trespass in the exercise of disputed rights over land, or under colour of
title, Oreenhalgh v. Manch. Ry. Go., 3 M. & Cr. 784 ; Foolcs v. Wilts By. Co.,
5 Hare, 199.
6. Injunction against Construction of Unlawful Accommodation
Works and Mandatory Injunction to remove.
Order that the Deft, her solrs and agents, be perpetually re-
strained from erecting any bridge, or a single or double line of railway,
or other accommodation work, over the land or railway of the Pit
550 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
CO., passing througli certain lands in the parish of — , between the
Pit co.'s bridge at — and the — works of the — Co. Ld. at — , in
the parish of — ; And it is ordered that the Deft do forthwith pull
down and remove all bridges and single and double lines of railway,
and other accommodation works so erected over the land or railway
of thePlt CO. as aforesaid. — TheDeft to paycosts of action and appeal.
— Adapted from The Rhondda and Swansea Bay Ry. Co. v. Talbot,
C. A., 2 June, 1897, B. 3019 ; [1897] 2 Ch. 131, C. A.
7. Injunction against ohstmcting Communication with Branch
Railway and Mandatory Injunction to restore.
Order that the Defts, their officers, servants, and agents, be
perpetually restrained from continuing to prevent communications
between the Pit's branch railway at &c., and the Defts' railway in
the writ mentioned ; And it is ordered that the Defts do forthwith
restore the junction between the said branch railway and Defts'
railway in such a manner as to permit carriages to be brought to
and from the said branch railway and Defts' railway. — Woodruff v.
The Brecon, &c. Ry. Co., C. A., 5 Dec. 1884, B. 1456 ; S. C, 28
Ch. D. 190, C. A.
8. Injunction against Trespass on excepted Minerals — Interlocutory.
Declare that the red rock and thin coal bored by the Defts are
" mines and minerals " within the reservation contained in the lease
dated, &c. — Order that the Defts, their workmen, servants, and
agents, be restramed until judgment in this action or further order
from contmuing to bore under the land demised by the said lease
so as to interfere with or trespass upon the mines or minerals excepted
by the said lease. — See Johnstone v. Crompton S Co., Byrne, J.,
10 June, 1899, A. 2486 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 190
9. Trespass in Churchyard by Interment of non-Parishioners
restrained — Interlocutory.
" Order that the Deft, the Eeverend S. (clerk), his assistant
curates, parish officers, servants &c., and all other persons claiming
authority, commission, or licence from him or them, be restraiaed
from burying, or interrmg, or sufiering to be buried or interred m
the churchyard of &c., without the consent of the churchwardens and
parishioners of the said parish, the corpse of any person not being a
parishioner of the said parish, or any person not bemg a parishioner
who may have died within its precmcts, until &c. But this order
is to be without prejudice to any question in this action, and is not
to extend to interfere with interments in any graves already pur-
chased."—^. G. V. Strong, V.-C. G., 19 March, 1868, A. 660 (made
perpetual, by consent, 3 June, 1868, A. 1481).
SECT. I V.J Trespass. 551
It seems that strangers may not be buried in the churchyard of another
parish than that in which they died, at least without the consent of the
parishioners or churchwardens, whose parochial right of burial is invaded
thereby, and perhaps also of the incumbent, whose soil is broken : Phill.
Ecc. Law, 843 ; 2nd ed. 654 ; Whitehead Church Law, 3rd ed. 55 ; and
see Glen, Burial Board Acts, 3, 4.
10. Injunction against interfering with Telephone Wires — ■
Interlocutori/.
Oedee that the Defts, their directors, agents, servants and work-
men, be restrained from acting on their notice dated — , to terminate
the Pits' agreement with the Defts, and from cutting, disconnecting,
removing, or otherwise interfering with any wire pursuant to the
said notice. — Defts to pay costs of action.— -See Keith, Prowse & Co.
V. National Telephone Co., Ld., Kekewioh, J., 9 Feb. 1894, A. 180 ;
[1894] 2 Ch. 147.
11. Injunction against cutting Reeds or Sedges on Pits' Land.
Order that the Deft, his servants, agents and workmen, be
perpetually restrained from digging or carrying away land or soU,
and from cutting reeds or sedges, and from committing any trespass
upon the Pits' estates situate &c., or any part thereof, and from
interfering in any way with the use and enjoyment by the Pits of
their said estates ; And it is ordered that the Deft do forthwith
remove the stakes driven by him or by his order in the bed of the
stream belonging to the Pits and forming part of their said estates
in the pleadings mentioned. — Inquiry as to what damages (if any)
Pits are entitled to as compensation for the wrongful acts of the Deft
in the pleadings mentioned. — Costs. — Liberty to apply. — Hammond
v. L. Ashhurton, V.-C. B., U July, 1883, A. 1584.
For injunction to restrain trespass by holder of bill of sale from tenant
after the expiration of the tenancy, see Smith v. Brown, 48 L. J. Ch. 694.
For injunction against highway board for trespassing on land of Pit for
the purpose of clearing out a " dumb well," i.e., a well into which water
from the highway flowed, and thence percolated into the soil, see Croft v.
Bickmansworth Highway Board, 39 Ch. D. 272, C. A., and see Croysdale v.
Sunbury-on-Thames Urban District Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 515.
As to right of local authority to repair a public well on private property,
see Smith v. Archibald, 5 App. Ca. (Sc.) 489 ; and Public Health Act, 1875,
s. 64.
12. Injunction against removing Shingle so as to endanger
Neighhour!s Land.
Oeder that the Deft, his agents, servants and workmen, be
perpetually restrained from so digging or removing any shingle from
the natural barrier of shingle protecting the land situate at or near
Felixstowe' Ferry, which forms the site of and the enclosure sur-
rounding the Martello Tower known as &c., and from authorizing
any such shingle to be so digged or removed as to endanger the said
552
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
land or expose the same to inroads of tlie sea. — See .4. G. and Secretary
of State for War v. Tomline, Fry, J., 19 May, 1879, A. 1354.
NOTES.
Jud. Act, Before tho Jud. Acts, Courts of Equity did not, except in the case of
1873. destructive waste, interfere to restrain a legal trespass, though by the C. L. P.
Act, 1854, s. 82, in an action of trespass (at law) Pit might obtain an in-
junction to restrain the repetition or continuance of the wrongful act : see
Stocher v. Planet Bldg. Soc, 27 W. R. 793, 794 ; and continued acts of
trespass or of irreparable injury to property would be restrained by per-
petual injunction, without compelhng the party injured to obtain verdicts
at common law : Goodson v. Richardson, 9 Ch. 221 ; Allen v. Martin, 20
Eq. 462 ; L. & N. W. By. Co. v. Lane, &c. By. Co., 4 Eq. 174 ; Ardley v.
St. Pancras Chmrdians, 39 L. J. Ch. 871 ; and see Turner v. Bingwood
Highway Board, 9 Eq. 418 ; Kerr. 81 et seq. But by the Jud. Act, 1873,
s. 25 (8), an injunction to prevent any threatened or apprehended waste or
trespass " may be granted, if the Court shall think fit, whether the person
against whom such injunction is sought is or is not in possession under any
claim of title or otherwise, or (if out of possession) does or does not claim a
right to do the act sought to be restrained under any colour of title ; and
whether the estates claimed by both, or by either of the parties, are legal or
equitable."
The distinctions formerly taken between the cases where the Deft com-
mitting the acts of trespass or spoliation complained of was or was not in
possession, and claimed under any colour of title, or was a mere stranger
(see Stanford v. Hurlstone, 9 Cli. 116 ; Lowndes v. Beltle, 12 W. R. 399 ;
4 N. R. 609 ; 33 L. J. Ch. 45 ; E. Talbotv. Scott, 4 K. & J. 96 ; HaighY. Jaggar,
2 Coll. 231 ; Shaw v. Earl of Jersey, 4 C. P. P. 359, C. A.), no longer exist.
Although a reversioner camiot maintain an action of nuisance without
proving an injury to the reversion, yet it what is complained of is of such
a permanent nature that the reversion may be injured, the question of
injury or no injury is one for the jury of the tribunal which has to find
the facts of the case and when injury is found he may obtain an injunction
without joining his tenant, Jones v. Llanwst, U. D. C. [1911] 1 Ch. 393.
In the case of trespass by tipping spoil from a colliery upon a neighbour's
land, the amount of the damages is not limited by the diminution in value
of the land, but is determined according to the principle of the wayleave
cases (see Martin v. Porter, 3 M. & W. 351 ; Jeyne v. Vivian, 6 Ch. 742 ;
Phillips V. Homfray, 6 Ch. 770), the value of the land actually covered with
spoil for the purpose for which it is used by the wrongdoers being taken
into account ; Whitwham v. Westminster Brymbo Coal and Coke Co., [1896]
2 Ch. 538, C. A. ; S. C, [1894] 6 Ch. 1.
Dedication In an action to restrain alleged trespass. Pit is entitled to particulars of
of way. any specific acts of dedication, or specific declarations of intention to
dedicate, whether alone or jointly with evidence of user, on which Defts
intend to rely, and of the names of the persons by whom the same were done
or made : Spedding v. Fitzpatrick, 38 Ch.-D. 410.
Trespass As to trespass on a private stream in exercise of an alleged right of
on private recreation, and that such a right cannot exist by custom in the public
stream. generally, but only in the inhabitants of a particular district, see Bourke v.
Davis, 44 Ch. D. 110.
Overhanging As to the right of the owner of land which is overhung by his neighbour's
branches. trees, to cut the branches (without trespassing) so far as they overhang,
though they have done so for more than twenty years, see Lemmon v. Webb,
[1895] A. C. 1, H. L. ; affirming [1894] 3 Ch. 1, C. A.
Repairing As to entry on land to repair a bridge, see Campbell Davys v. Lloyd, [1901]
bridge. 2 Ch. 518, C. A.
Party. And that a person using his property, e.g., a party wall, so as to involve
risk to a neighbour's property, is bound to see that all proper precautions
Reversioner.
Tipping soil,
measure of
SECT. IV. J Ancknt Lights. ^^"^
are taken, and cannot escape liability by employing a contractor, see
Hughes v. Percival, 8 App. Cas. 443 ; and as to the user of and rights m a
party wall, see Watson v. Gray, 14 Ch. D. 192 ; Biwhan v. Artlett, 1888,
W. N. 76 ; May/air Property Co. v. Johnston, [1894] 1 Ch. 508 ; List v.
Tharp, [1897] 2 Ch. 260. And as to the nature of the easements implied by the
grant of a moiety of a party wall, see Jones v. Prilchard, [1908] 1 Ch. 630.
As to the effect of sect. 29 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, pro- Waterworks,
hibiting entry upon land for the purpose of laying water-mains without the
consent of the owner, and that the protection of the landowner is not taken
away by the Pubho Health Act, 1875, sects. 4, 16, and 54, see Hill v.
Wallasey Local Board, [1892] 3 Ch. 117 ; and as to the power of a local
authority under the Act to lay down water-mains on land in an adjoining
district, see Jrmes v. Conway and Colwyn Water Board, [1893] 2 Ch. 603, C. A.
As to restriction on construction of " waterworks " under the i'ublic
Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 V. o. 55), ss. 51, 52, 55, and that the provision
in sect. 52, requiring notice to be given by the local authority before com-
mencing to " construct waterworks " within the limits of supply of any
water company, apj)lies only to " new waterworks " and not to additions or
improvements in existing waterworks, see Cleveland Water Company v.
Redcar Local Board, [1895] 1 Ch. 168.
As to the power of a local authority under sects. 1 6, 54, and 57 of the Public Drainage.
Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 V. c. 55), to lay down pipes in n private road
without the owner's consent, and making him proper compensation under
sect. 308 of the Act, see Hill v. Wallasey Local Board, [1894] 1 Ch. 133, C. A. ;
and see King's Coll., Cambs. v. Uxhridge District Council, [1901] 2 Ch. 768.
For oases in which a drainage authority have been restrained from acts of
trespass on private land not forming part of the drainage system vested in
them, see Croft v. Bickmansworlh Highway Board, 39 Ch. D. 272 ; Croysdah
v. Sunbury-on-Thames Urban District Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 515.
As to the right of a railway company to exclude from their stations all Railway
persons not using the railway, and to impose upon the public conditions of stations.
admittance, see Perth General Station Committee v. Boss, [1897] A. C.
479, H. L.
The general public cannot acquire by user a right to visit a pubUc Visiting
monument or other object of interest on private property : A. Q. v. public
Antrobus, [1905] 2 Ch. 188. monuments.
(ll.) ANCIENT LIGHTS.
1. General form of Injunction against obstructing Ancient Lights.
Order tliat the Deft, liis servants and agents, be restrained from
erecting any building so as to cause a nuisance or illegal obstruction
to the Pit's ancient windows as the same existed previously to the
taking down of the house which formerly stood on the site of the
Deft's new buildings.
This form is framed to meet the dictum of Lord Macnaghten in Colls v.
The Home & Colonial Stores, [1904] App. Ca. 179.
2. Injunction against building higher than old Level, and Inquiry as
to Damages.
Order that the Deft, his agents and workmen, be perpetually
restrained from continuing to erect upon his premises in T — Stree*,
B— , any house or building of a greater height than the buildings
which formerly stood upon his said premises and which have been
recently pulled down, so or m such manner as to darken, injure, or
obstruct such of the Pit's windows in his said premises ^s are einciQut
55'* Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
lights. Direct an inquiry before the official referee what damages
the Pit has sufiered by reason of the building already erected
by the Deft upon the said premises to a greater height than the
former buildings so pulled down as aforesaid ; And for payment
by the Deft to the Pit of the amount of such damages within 14 days
after the filing of the said referee's report.— The Deft to pay to the
Pit his costs of this action, and occasioned by the said appeal to be
taxed. — The costs of the said inquiry are reserved to be disposed
of by the Judge.— See Martin v. Price, C. A., 19 Dec. 1893, B. 1150 ;
[1894] 1 Ch. 276.
As to the omission of the word " contractors," which was included in the
above order, see note, p. 586, post.
3. Perpetual Injunction as to Light — Angle of Incidence.
" Order that the Defts B. &c., their servants &c., be perpetually
restrained from raising or heightening the Defts' buildings in J —
Street &c., in the pleadings mentioned, to a greater height than they
stand at present, namely, 46 feet from the level of the pavement on
the west side of J — Street aforesaid ; but this injunction is not to
prevent the Defts from putting on a sloping roof higher than 46 feet,
so long as the angle of incidence of light over such sloping roof on
the centre part of the ground-floor windows of Nos. — , — , in J — ■
Street aforesaid, be not less than 45 degrees from the perpendicular
above the point of incidence." — ^Defts to pay Pit's costs of action,
and of motion for injunction to be taxed. — Ilachett v. Baiss, M. K.,
9 June, 1875, A. 988 ; 20 Eq. 494 ; see Parler v. First Avenue Hotel
Co., 24 Ch. D. 282, C. A. ; and v. inf. p. 558.
The word " air," as coupled with light, ought not to be inserted in these
orders, unless by special direction : Baxter v. Bower, 23 W. R. 805 ; City of
London Brewery Co. v. Tennant, 9 Ch. 212 ; v. inf. p. 560.
4. Perpetual Injunction against obstruction of Light hy reference to
Report.
Order that the Defts, their servants, workmen, and agents, be
perpetually restrained from erecting or building any building or
erection whatsoever on the Defts' land abutting on or adjoining the
street separating the said land from the Pit's property, and known
as &c., and immediately fronting or contiguous or adjacent to the
N.E. and N.W. side of the Pit's warehouse and premises situate
at &c., in such manner as to hinder or obstruct the free access of
light and air coming to the Pit's ancient windows, Nos. &c., in the
report &c., Ln a greater degree than the buildings recommended by
the said report would if erected. — Cooper v. Straher, Kay, J., 10 Nov.
1888, A. 1709.
As to the omission of the word " contractors," see note, p. 686, posl.
r- c e
SECT. IV.] Ancient Lights.
5. Mandatory Injunction against obstruction of Ancient Lights.
Oeder tliat the Deft do fortliwitli pull down and remove so much
of the wall and other buUdings erected by him as obstruct (so as to
cause a nuisance) the access to the Pit's present windows in the first
floor of the south wall of the area of and the skylight over the ground
floor of the light which formerly came to the old window in the first
floor and the old window in the ground floor of the south wall of the
Pit's old buildmg known as &c., in the pleadmgs mentioned such
building and wall being shown on the plan marked &c. ; And it is
ordered that the Deft, his servants &c., be perpetually restrained
from obstructing (so as to cause a nuisance) his access to the Pit's
said present and skylight of the light which formerly came to the
said old windows in the first and ground floors on the said wall of
the Pit's said old building as shown in the said plans.— ^Wretos v.
Waite, Neville, J., 19 June, 1907, A. 2240 ; [1907] 2 Ch. 500.
G. Damage for Subsidence, not to cover future subsidence — In-
junction as to Light with proviso as to Height.
Order that the Defts, the S. S. & D. Gas Co., their servants and
agents, be perpetually restrained from raising or using the gas-holder
upon their land adjoining ■ — , so as to darken, injure or obstruct the
Pit's ancient lights as enjoyed previously to the commencement of
the works of the Defts in the pleadings referred to ; But this injunc-
tion is not to prevent the Deft co. from raising or using the said
gas-holder to or at a height not exceeding ■ — feet from the ground.
And it is ordered that the Pit do recover against the Defts,
The S. S. & D. Gas Co. and A. H. H. and C. W. K. (trading as H.
& K.), £ — in respect of damage sustained to this date by reason of the
subsidence of the Pit's land in the ■ — paragraph of the statement
of claim mentioned, but this sum is not to include any damage
which may hereafter be sustained. Directions as to costs. — See
Jordeson v. Sutton, Southcoates and Drypool Gas Co., North, J.,
4 Aug. 1898, A. 3737 ; [1898] 2 Ch. 614 ; C. A., [1899] 2 Ch. 217.
For injunction on bill by the owner of one of the two houses in a row to
restrain Deft, the owner of another of the houses, from building a bay
window, contrary to the covenant of his vendor with the briginal land-
owner, of which he had notice, see Western v. Maedermott, 1 Eq. 499 (affirmed,
2 Ch. 72).
For injunction against erecting any building so as to darken, hinder or
obstruct the lights of any building to be erected on a site, so far as such
lights should occupy the same position as the lights of a building previously
standing thereon, see Eccl. Commrs. v. Kino, C. A., 5 March, 1880, A. 761 ;
14 Ch, D. 213, C. A.
7. Mandatory Injunction to remove Hoarding.
Order that the Deft do forthwith pull down and remove all
walls, buildings, hoardings and woodwork erected in or upon the
^^^ Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
arch (No. 88 in the evidence mentioned) ; And it is ordered that
the Deft, his agents, servants and workmen, be perpetually restrained
from doing or permitting, or suffering to be done, any act or thing
so as to obstruct the access of light to the sitting-room and kitchen
wmdows of the Pit's messuage in the pleadings mentioned, as the
same was enjoyed before the erection of the hoarding at the west
end of the said arch— Adapted from Myers v. Catterson, Kekewich, J
15 July, 1889, B. 1019 ; S. C, 43 Ch. D. 470, C. A.
Thedeoisionin this case was founded on the imphed obligation of a railway
CO. towards the purchaser from them of superfluous lands.
8. Mandatory Injunction as to obstructing Ancient Lights-
Operation suspended—Arbitrator to decide whether Ordjir had
been complied with.
Order that the Deft do pull down and remove all walls, erec-
tions, and buildings erected or built upon, along or adjoming the
party wall forming the boundary between the Pit's premises and
the Deft's premises as m the buildings mentioned, of greater height
than the height of the said party wall as it stood at the commence-
ment of the building operations of the Deft in the pleadings also
mentioned ; And it is ordered that the Deft do pull down and
remove all walls, buildmgs and erections built on the site of the
back-yard of his premises, or any part thereof, so or in such manner
as to darken, injure, or obstruct any of the ancient lights or windows
of the Pit's premises, as the same ancient lights and windows were
enjoyed previously to the erection of — by the Deft in the pleadmgs
mentioned ; and the Pit and Deft by their counsel consenting to
this judgment, It is ordered that, in the event of any difference
arising between the parties whether the Deft has pulled down
sufficient to comply with the said injunction, such difEerence or differ-
ences, so often as they may respectively arise, be referred to H., of
&c., as arbitrator ; and the costs of every such reference are to be
in the discretion of the said arbitrator. — By consent the Deft to
pay Pit £25 for damages, and his costs of suit to be taxed — " and
the (operation of the) injunction hereby awarded is to be suspended
until the — day of — ." — Liberty to apply. — Adapted from Smith
V. S., M. K., 11 June, 1875, B. 1025 ; 20 Eq. 500.
For reference to a surveyor in case of any dispute wlictlier what the Deft
pulled down was sufficient to meet the exigency of the order, see Jcsscl v.
Cliaplin, 3 Jur. N. S. 931, Ex.
For reference to an architect as special referee to inquire and report
whether the Pit had sustained, and would continue to sustain, material
injury in the carrying on his professional business by the Deft's proposed
buildings, and the extent of such injury ; and if Pit had sustained any
material injury, what ought to be done as to pulling down or lowering
the buildings or otherwise, see Carlwright v. Last, V.-C. M„ 3 Feb. 1876
A. 353. But see note, inf. p. 558,
SECT. IV.] Ancient Lights. 557
For mjunetion giving liberty to Defts to apply to dissolve if oircuttistanceS
should occur making its further continuance unreasonable, see Ecclesiastical
Commrs. v. Kino, 14 Ch. D. 213, C. A.
9. Injunction refused — Inquiry as to Damages.
" This Court dotli not think fit to grant any injunction in this
action ; but doth order that an inquiry be made what, if any, sum
of money is proper to be awarded to be paid by the Deft to the Pit
by way of compensation for any injury that has been sustained by
the Pit by the erection of that part of the party wall in the statement
of claim mentioned adjoining that part of the shop belonging to the
Pit's premises which is lighted by means of the dome or skylight in
the statement of claim mentioned." — And after certificate, liberty
to apply.— See CJiapple v. Grow, V.-C. S., 14 Dec. 1865, A. 2466.
For the like inquiry, see Senior v. Pawson, 3 Eq. 330 ; 1863, A. 2520 ;
Isenhenj v. E. I. Ho. Co., 3 D. J. & S. 263 ; Curriers' Co. v. Corbeit, 2 Dr. &
Sm. 355.
For inquiry what sum of money is proper to be awarded to be paid to the
Pit by the Deft by way of compensation for any damage occasioned by
Deft's new buildings, see Hunl v. Hiller, V.-C. M., 13 June, 1873, A. 1829.
10. Form of Reference by the Court to an Expert.
The Judge, by consent of all parties, nominates C. of &c., surveyor,
to inquire and report —
1. Whether any addition to the Deft's buildings on the site of
Nos. 8 and 9, — Street, as they now stand, to be made in accordance
with the present plans of the Deft, will materially obstruct the exist-
ing access of light to the Pit's windows.
2. Whether the Deft's buildings, if completed in accordance with
such plans, will interfere with the access of light to the Pit's windows
as it existed before the Deft's buildings on the site of Nos. 8 and 9,
— Street, were pulled down.
3. Whether any addition made to the Deft's buildings since &c.,
the date of the service of the writ in this action, has materially
obstructed the access of light to the Pit's windows as it existed at
that time.
The report of the said surveyor is to be filed at the Central Office
after the order has been made on the Pit's motion. — Andrade v.
Knowles, Stirling, J., 27 June, 1890.
By O. Lv, 19, the Judge in Chambers may, in such way as he thinlis fit,
obtain the assistanoa of accountants, merchants, engineers, actuaries, and
other scientific persons the better to enable any matter at once to be deter-
mined, and he may act upon the certificate of any such person.
This rule is taken from sect. 42of 15 & 16 V. o. 80, but is worded differently
from that section, so as to confine the power to the Judge in Chambers.
In some cases a reference has been sent to Chambers to appoint a person
to make the inquiry ; and if a person is appointed in Court, it must be by
consent of the parties, and no order is drawn up.
A view by the Judge (unless he is expressly appointed arbitrator) only
assists him to understand the evidence.
558
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Statutory
rights.
Inchoate
right.
Tenant
obtaining
injunction.
NOTES.
BIGHT TO INJUNCTION AGAINST OESTEtTCiTION OF LIGHT,
The right to an injunction to restrain an interference with ancient lights
exists whenever an action could be maintained at law, and damages— not
merely nominal, but really substantial or considerable— recovered : Avnslev
V, Glover, 18 Eq. 544. "
And to give a right o£ action there must have been a substantial privation
of hglit enough to render the occupation of the house less comfortable
according to the ordinary notions of mankind, or (in the case of business
premises) to prevent Pit from carrying on his accustomed business on the
premises as beneficially as he had formerly done : Oolls v. Hoine S
Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 179. " The single question in these eases is,
whether the obstruction complained of is a nuisance " : per Lord Bavey
S. C, 204 ; and see Jolly v. Kine, [1907] A. C. I. " And the test of nuisance
is not how much light has been taken, and is it enough materially to
lessen the enjoyment and use of the house that its owner previously had ?
but— how much is left, and is that enough for the comfortable use and
enjoyment of the house, according to the ordinary requirements of man-
kind ? " per Farwell, J., Higgins v. Belts, [1905] 2 Ch. 210.
A right to a special amount of light necessary for a particular business
cannot be acquired by twenty years' enjoyment to the knowledge of the
servient owner : Ambler v. Gordon, [1905] 1 K. B. 417,
There is no rule of law that if a person has 45 degrees of unobstructed
light through a particular window left to him, he cannot maintain an
action for a nuisance caused by diminisliing the light which formerly came
through that window. The 45 degrees test is merely a fair working rule
in ordinary circumstances : per Lord Lindley, CoUs v. Home & Qolonial
Stores, [1904] A. C. 179.
The question of amount of obstruction is always one of fact, and the
Pit whose light is obstructed is entitled to judgment in general terms with-
out reference to the angle of incidence, unless there is special evidence
justifying the insertion of such a reference : Parlcer v. First Avenue Hotel
Co., 24 Ch. D. 282, C. A. ; and there is no presumption except of the
slightest kind, that where the angular height of an erection is less than
45 degrees, the access of light is not substantially interfered with : Eccle-
siastical Commrs. v. Kino, 14 Ch. D. 213, C. A.
For the statutory rule as to the angle of 45 degrees in buildings erected
in London, see the Metropolis Local Management Amendment Act, 1862
(25 & 26 V. c. 102), s. 85, and the bye-law issued under parliamentary
authority by the Metropolitan Board of Works ; and Theed v. Debenham,
2 Ch. D. 168. In determining the height of the building and the width of
the street, the measurement is taken from the level of the centre of the
street : S. C.
The right given to the building owner by the Metropolitan Building Act,
1855 (18 & 19 V. c. 122), s. 83, to raise any party structure permitted by
the Act to be raised, upon condition of making good all damage occasioned
thereby to adjoining premises, does not authorize the obstruction of adjoin-
ing ancient lights : Crofts v. Haldane, L. R. 2 Q. B. 194.
An inchoate right to light and air to windows commences when the
exterior walls of the building with the spaces for the windows are completed,
and the building is properly roofed in, although the window sashes and
the glass are not then put in and the interior is not finished : Collis v.
Laugher, [1894] 3 Ch. 659, following Cortauld v. Legh, L. R. 4 Ex. 126.
A mere tenant may obtain an injunction to restrain obstruction of light,
but the injunction will be limited to the continuance of his tenancy : Simper
V. Foley, 2 J. & PL 555.
The grant of a lease of lights and easements may be so controlled by
antecedent agreement as to deprive the lessee of the right to restrain an
obstruction of light by other lessees : Salaman v. Glover, 20 Eq. 444.
SECT. IV.] Ancient Lights. 559
MANDATOEY INJUNCTION — DAMAGES.
On the question whether a Pit who has not established a case for relief by-
mandatory injunction in respect of interference with his ancient lights may
obtain relief by an inquiry as to damages, see Ladij Stanley v. E. Shrewsbury,
19 Eq. 616 ; City of London Brewery Co. v. Tennant, 9 Ch. 212 ; Calcrafi v.
Thompson, 35 Beav. 559 ; Sparling v. Olarson, 17 W. R. 518, and oases there
cited ; Kino v. Budkin, 6 Ch. D. 160, C. A. ; Nat. Prov., cfcc. Co. v. Pru-
dential, &c. Co., 6 Ch. D. 757.
The discretion reposed in the Court by Lord Cairns' Act (v. sup. p. 518) Lord Cairns'
must be exercised according to the facts of each particular case, and not so Act.
as to grant or sell to the Deft, against the Pit's will, a licence to commit tho
wrong of which the Pit complains, especially where an undertaking to pull
down has been accepted from Deft on motion : Greenwood v. Horsey,
33 Ch. D. 471 ; and see Hollond v. Worley, 26 Ch. D. 578 ; Aynsley v.
Olover, 18 Bq. 544 ; Krehl v. Burrell, 7 Ch. D. 55 ; 11 Ch. D. 146, C. A. ;
Lawrence v. Horton, 59 L. J. Ch. 440 ; 62 L. T. 749 ; 38 W. R. 535 ; Dicker
V. Popham, 63 L. T. 379 ; and in cases of continuing actionable nuisance
the jurisdiction so conferred ought only to be exercised under very excep-
tional circumstances : Shelf er v. City of London Electric Lighting Co., [1895]
1 Ch. 287, C. A. ; and see Colls v. Home d: Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 179 ;
Higgins v. Belts, [1905] 2 Ch. 210.
Where Deft appealing against injunction offered an undertaking to pull Undertaking
down, the Court of Appeal accepted the undertaking and discharged the to pull down,
injunction, but observed that, without the undertaking, there would be
jurisdiction at the trial to order the pulling down of buildings erected
after action or notice that Pit objected : Smith v. Bay, 13 Ch. D. 651, C. A. ;
but in Newson v. Pender, 27 Ch. D. 43, C. A., the balance of convenience
was held to be in favour of granting an interim injunction, rather than
allowing completion of the buildings upon an undertaking to pull down.
A mandatory injunction may be granted although the obstructing
building was completed before the issue of the writ : Latorence v. Horton,
sup. ; Shiel v. Godfrey, 1893, W. N. 115.
A mandatory injunction will be granted where Deft, upon receiving
notice of motion, seeks to anticipate the action of the Court by hurrying
on his building : Daniel v. Ferguson, [1891] 2 Ch. 27, C. A. ; et v. sup.
p. 518.
And that the maxim of the common law, actio personalis moritur cum
persona, does not apply to the equitable remedy by mandatory injunction
for the removal of an obstruction to light, see Jones v. Simes, 43 Ch. D.
607 ; nor to a cause of action arising out of a statutory duty : Peebles v.
OswaUtwistle Urban District Council, [1896] 2 Q. B. 159, C. A. ; (but as
to the remedy applicable in the particular case, see 8. C, [1897] 1 Q. B.
625 ; [1898] A. C. 387, H. L., nom. Pasmore v. &c.).
EVIDENCE.
When the Court has not been satisfied on the evidence whether the pro- Report of
posed building will or not materially obstruct the Pit's light, the erection of surveyor.
a temporary screen or scaffolding to the height of the proposed wall has
been directed, and a surveyor appointed to report on the effect : Leech v.
Sckweder, 9 Ch. 463.
Personal inspection by the Judge of the property alleged to be injured Inspection
was considered not advisable : see Jackson v. D. Newcastle, 3 D. J. & S. 275 ; by Judge.
Leech v. Sckweder, 22 W. R. 292 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 232 ; but such inspection is
expressly authorized by 0. L, 4 ; v. inf. pp. 572, 625.
The power given to the Court by the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 56, to refer Referee
questions in pending causes or matters for inquiry and report to any official
or special referee, will not be exercised by appointing a scientific person
before the trial to report upon the extent of injury likely to arise from the
erection of the proposed building : Baltic Co. v. Simpson, 24 W. R. 390.
560 Injunctions. [chap. xxxl.
AIR.
The ancient formula by which, in these obstruction cases, " air " was
invariably coupled with " light " not only in the pleadings and order, but
also in the evidence, has been most distinctly disapproved : City of London
Brewery Co. v. Tennant, 9 Ch. 212 ; Baxter v. Bower, 23 W. R. 805 ; 44
L. J. Ch. 625 ; 33 L. T. 41 ; though in a proper case an obstruction to free
access of air as well as of light is the subject of relief : Hall v. Lichfield
Brewery Co., 43 L. T. 380 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 655 ; but see Bussell v. Watts, 25
Ch. D. 559, C. A. ; 10 App. Cas. 590.
In the absence of actual contract, a right to have the general current of air
to a man's property over the property of his neighbour kept uninterrupted
cannot be estabUshed : Chastey v. Achland, [1895] 2 Ch. 389, C. A. ; (but
see S. C. in H. L., [1897] A. C. 159) ; but the right to the access of air
over a neighbour's land in a particular channel to a particular place or
through a definite aperture in the nature of a window on the property
granted may be acquired by immemorial user or by express grant : Chastey
V. Achland, sup. ; Aldin v. Latimer Clark, Muirhead <Ss Co., [1894] 2 Ch.
437 ; Cable v. Bryant, [1908] 1 Ch. 259. And a right to the passage of
air over the servient tenement may be acquired in respect of a definite
aperture though there is no defined channel through which the air flows :
Cable V. Bryant, sup. But the grantor of land to be used for a particular
purpose is under an obligation to abstain from doing anything on adjoin-
ing property belonging to him which would prevent the land granted
from being used for the purpose for which the grant was made : Aldin v.
Latimer Clark, sup. (where an injunction was granted to restrain assigns
of lessor from building so as to interfere with the access of air to drying
sheds used for the lessee's business of a timber merchant) ; but this doctrine
will not be extended to interference merely with comfort and privacy :
Browne v. Flower, [1911] 1 Ch. 219.
ACQUISITION 01? BIGHT — ^PEESCEIPTION ACT,
The general words in sect. 2 of the Prescription Act (2 & 3 W. IV. c. 71)
do not apply to the easement of light, which is governed by sect. 3 and
subsequent ancillary sections : Perry v. Eames, [1891] 1 Ch. 658. Sects.
3 and 4 must be read together, with the result that a right to access of hght
is not absolute and indefeasible even after twenty years' enjoyment, unless
and until some suit is commenced in which this right is called in question :
Hyman v. Van den Bergh, [1908] 1 Ch. 167, adopting dictum of Lord
Macnaghten in Colls v. Home tfe Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 179.
The nature and extent of the right to access of light have not been altered
by this Act, but merely the mode in wliich that right may be obtained :
Kelh V. Pearson, 5 Ch. 813 ; Leech v. Schweder, 9 Ch. 472.
^pi^ggg In order to bring a case witliin the section, there must have been access liy
one and the same definite channel for the statutory period : Harris v. De
Pinna, 33 Ch. D. 238, C. A. As to how far the right may be affected by
alteration of the dominant building, see Andrews v. Waite, [1907] 2 Ch. 500.
Form 5, p. 555, ante. And as to the meaning of the expressions "access"
and " right thereto " used in sect. 3, see Scott v. Pape, 31 Ch. D. 554, C. A.
A timber stage or structure for storing timber has been held not to be a
building within the section : Harris v. De Pinna, 33 Ch. D. 238, C. A. (per
Cliitty,°J.) ; secus, a greenhouse : Clifford v. Holt, [1899] 1 Ch. 698 ; or a
memorial chapel, unconsecratcd and used for services and confirmation and
other classes, and illumination of works of art : A. G. v. Queen Anne
Mansions Co., 60 L. T. 759 ; 37 W. R. 572 ; and as to a church, see Duke oj
Norfolk V. Arbuthnot, 5 C. P. D. 390, C. A. ; Ecclesiastical Commrs. v. Kino,
14 Ch. D. 213, C. A.
Enioyraent. The use of light has been " enjoyed " within the section if the owner has
had the amenity or advantage of using the light ; continuous user is not
necessary : Cooper v. Straker, 40 Ch. D. 21. where light was acquired in
SECT. IV. J Ancient Lights. ^"1
respect of windows with moveable shutters, which were only occasionally
opened ; Smith v. Baxter, [1 900] 2 Ch. 138, where windows were covered with
shelving which allowed substantial amount of light to pass.
As to what constitutes an " interruption " wthin the Act, permanent or Interrup-
fluctuating, see Preskmd v. Bingham, 41 Ch. D. 268, C. A. ; und that the tion.
word means adverse obstruction, not mere discontinuance of user, Smith v.
Baxter, [1900] 2 Ch. 138 ; and that to establish acquiescence in an interrup-
tion, the existence of actual notice must be proved, Seddon v. Bank of
Bolton, 19 Ch. D. 402.
Where interruption takes place for the first time during the twentieth
year, an injunction to protect the inchoate right will not be granted before
that year has expired : Bridewell Hospital v. Ward, 62 L. J. Ch. 270 ;
1892, W. N. 194 ; even if efifectual interruption before the title becomes
absolute is impossible : L. Battersea v. Comnirs. of Sewers for City of London,
[1895] 2 Ch. 708, where interference with access of light was restrained by
interlocutory injunction, but not so as to prevent building up to the
height of houses removed more than nineteen and less than twenty years
before action brought.
A provision in a lease for the purpose of relieving the lessor from the Consent,
application of the rule against derogating is not a consent or agreement by
the lessee within the section ; Mitchell v. Cantrill, 37 Ch D. 56 ; and that
the mere fact of there being windows in an adjoining house is not con-
structive notice of any agreement giving a right to light, see Allen v.
Seckham, 11 Ch. D. 790, C. A. ; observing on Miles v. Tohin, 16 W. R. 465 ;
17 L. T. 432.
A reservation in a lease of the right to obstruct light prevents the lessee
from acquiring a right to light under sect. 3 of the Prescription Act, 1832 :
Haynes v. King, [1893] 3 Ch. 439.
It is sufficient if the consent is signed by the owner of the dominant
tenement : Bewley v. Atkinson, 13 Ch. D. 283, C. A.
But the right cannot be acquired during unity of possession of the house Unity of pos-
and the land over wliich the right would extend : Ladyman v. Grave, 6 Ch. session.
763. Where two adjoining tenements are held by different lessees under
a common landlord the right acquired by one lessee is absolute, not only as
against the otlier lessee, but also as against the landlord : Morgan v. Fear,
[1907] A. C. 425 ; and see Bichardson v. Graham, [1908] 1 K. B. 43. Secus,
in the case of claims made not under sect. 3 but under sect. 2 of the Pre-
scription Act : Kilgour v. Gaddes, [1904] 1 K. B. 457.
As to the possibility of the acquisition, in respect of a church, of a title to Church,
light by prescription or grant over the glebe, see Ecclesiastical Commrs. v.
Kino, 14 Ch. D. 213, C. A.
The Crown not being named in the section is not bound by it : Perry v. Crown
Eames, [1891] 1 Ch. 658 ; nor are the lessees of the Crown, as tliere can be
no easement by prescription for a limited time : Wheaton v. Maple, [1893]
3 Ch. 48, C. A.
IMPLIED GRANT.
The implication in favour of a grantee, whereby, under a grant of part of
a tenement, continuous and apparent easements over the other part pass to
the grantee, does not, in general, apply in favour of a grantor ; so that if a
vendor does not on conveyance reserve the right to light, no reservation is
implied, and the purchaser can build so as to obstruct the windows : Wheel-
don V. Burrows. 12 Ch. D. 31, C. A. ; Ray v. Hazeldine, [1904] 2 Ch. 17 ;
Tawes v. Knowles, 39 W. R. 512 ; [1891] 2 Q. B. 564 (where the principle
was applied to a mortgagee) ; that the implication holds-good in the case
of a grant by mortgagee selling under his power of sale : Born v. Turner,
[1900] 2 Ch. 211 ; and of a lease by a mortgagor under the Conveyancing
Act, s. 18, as against a subsequent grantee from the mortgagee : Wilson v.
Queen's Club Co., [1891] 3 Ch. 522 ; secus, where there is any contract
between the parties, e.g., a building scheme, which would render such an
VOL. I. 2 O
562 Injunctions. [chap, xxxi,
act contrary to good faith : Russell v. Watts, 10 App. Ca. 590 (reversing
S. C, 25 Ch. D. 559, C. A.). And as to the difference between implied
grant and impUed reservation, see also Bayley v. G. W. Ry. Co., 26 Ch. D.
434, 458, C. A. ; Ellis v. Manchester Carriage Co., 2 C. P. D. 13.
Where the owner of a house and land sells and conveys contemporaneously
the house to one and the land to another, either purchaser being aware of
the conveyance to the other, the purchaser of the land cannot obstruct the
light of the house : Allen v. Taylor, 16 Ch. D. 255 ; and where a railway co.
sold land adjoining railway arches, with a recital that all other land acquired
by them would be used for the purpose of their railway, there was an
implied obligation on their part not to obstruct the light coming through the
railway arches : Myers v. Catterson, 43 Ch. D. 470, C. A. (see Form 7, sup.
p. 555) ; q. v., also, as to the principles upon which the doctrine of implica-
tion depends.
On a similar principle the lessor of a house was held estopped from relying
as a defence on thefact (known to the lessee) that the house was an unstable
structure : Orosvenor Hotel Co. v. Hamilton, 42 W. R. 626, C. A.
The principle of Allen v. Taylor, 16 Ch. D. 355, may apply as between
devisees by will, as well as grantees by contemporaneous deeds : Phillips
V. Low, [1892] 1 Ch. 47.
The implication is not prevented by the fact that the dominant tenement
is in lease, and therefore not in the possession of the grantor : Barnes v
Loach, 4 Q. B. D. 494 ; and applies though the title of the grantor is
equitable only : Beddington v. Atlee, 35 Ch. D. 317 ; the extent of the right
of the grantee being measured by the state of the grantor's title; ex. gr.,
being subject to any contract of sale entered into by the grantee : 8. G. ;
and see Davies v. Thomas, 1899, W. N. 244 ; and depending on all the
circumstances existing at the time of the grant, and known to the grantee ;
ex. gr,. an improvement scheme as to land sold by a corporation : Birming-
ham Bhg. Co. V. Ross, 38 Ch. D. 295, C. A. ; Godwin v. Schweppes, [1902]
1 Ch. 927.
And the grantor does not escape the operation of the rule by leaving a
strip of vacant land intervening between the house granted and land
retained : S. C.
The mere fact that in a conveyance and the plan affixed thereto, the land
adjoining to the land conveyed is described as " building land " will not
afiect the appUcation of the doctrine of implied grant of an unrestricted
right to light : Broomfield v. Williams, [1897] 1 Ch. 602, C. A. ; and see
PoUard v. Gare, [1901] 1 Ch. 834.
The quantum of light to which the grantee is entitled is that which,
having regard to all the circumstances of the grant, could be reasonably
deemed to have been in the contemplation of the parties ; e.g., primd facie
where a house is granted for business purposes, so much light as is sufficient
for ordinary purposes of business in the locality : Corbett v. Jonas, [1892]
3 Ch. 137.
The provisions of sect. 6, sub-sect. 2, of the Conveyancing Act, 1881, that
a conveyance of land with houses on it shall operate to convey all lights
appertaining thereto extends only to such lights as the grantor could grant
by express words, and will not pass lights which he had no power to grant
expressly : Quiche v. Chapman, [1903] 1 Ch. 659.
ABANDONMENT OS EIGHT.
The fact that an owner of ancient lights has altered and enlarged his
windows, or added new ones will not deprive him of the right to an injunc-
tion against interference with his ancient light— provided there be a
material injury to that which is a clear legal right, and damages will give
no adequate compensation : Aynsley v. Glover, sup. ; Staight v. Bum,
5 Ch. 163 ; Tapling v. Jones, 11 H. L. C. 290 ; Barnes v. Loach, 4 Q. B. D.
494 ; Newson v, Pender, 27 Ch. P. 43, 55, C. A. ; Greenwood v. Horseyt
SECT, iv.j Mineral Rights. 563
33 Ch. D. 471 ; Raper v. Fortescue, 1886, W. N. 78 ; though where the
portion of an ancient window, which ia retained in the area of a new
window, is so small that the damage to the ancient light is insignificant,
the Court might decline to grant an injunction : Newson v. Pender, 27
Ch. D. 43, 62, C. A. ; and the right to light is not abandoned by alteration
of the plane of the windows by advancing them or setting them back :
Scott V. Pape, 31 Ch. D. 554, C. A. ; Bullets v. Dickinson, 29 Ch. D. 155 ;
if there is user through the new apertures of the same, or a substantial part
of the same cone of light which passed through the old apertures : Scott
V. Pape, sup. ; Andrews v. Waite, [1907] 2 Ch. 500; Form 5, p. 555,
ante ; unless the owner of the dominant tenement has increased the burden
on the servient tenement, so that it is impossible to sever the newly imposed
from the original burden : Ankerson v. Connelly, [1906] 2 Ch. 544 ; nor
lost, although the actual enjoyment of the light has been entirely suspended
by reason of there being no existing windows : Ecclesiastical Commrs. v.
Kino, 14 Ch. D. 213, C. A. ; but there may be an abandonment of the
ancient lights if the alterations are such as to show such an intention :
Newson v. Pender, 27 Ch. D. 43, C. A. ; Nat. Prov. Co. v. Prudential Assce.
Co., 6 Ch. D. 757 ; or if the owner of the dominant tenement has by his
alterations so confused the evidence that he cannot prove the identity of
the light : Scott v. Pape, sup. ; and as to the importance of preserving
distinct evidence as to the position and dimensions of the ancient windows,
see -S. C, and Fowlers v. Walker, 49 L. J. Ch. 598 ; 28 W. R. 579 ; 42
L. T. 356 ; Newson v. Pender, 27 Ch. D. 43, 55, C. A. ; Smith v. Baxter,
[1900] 2 Ch. 138 ; and evidence connecting together defined parts
of the ancient and existing windows : Pendarves v. Munro, [1892] 1 Ch.
611.
No alteration of a building which would not involve the loss of a right
to light when indefeasibly acquired, will, if made during the currency of
the statutory period, prevent the acquisition of the right : Andrews v.
Waite, sup.
(ill.) MINERAL RIGHTS.
1. Injunction as to Coal Workings — Mandatory Injunction —
Account of Coals gotten — Support.
" Order that the Deft, his servants &c., be perpetually restrained
from working or getting any coals or other materials in the mines
under the close of land called &c., or other lands of the Pit, situate
at &c., or from carrying on any working under the same lands ; And
it is ordered that the Deft do forthwith close the ways, passages,
and apertures which have been made or opened in or to the said
mines, and cause the surface of the land to be sufficiently supported ;
And it is ordered that the following, &c. : 1. An account of all coals
and other materials worked or gotten or rendered unworkable under
the same lands by the Deft, and of the value of such coals and other
material, without any allowance for the cost of working or getting the
same."— Adapted from Bell v. Joell, V.-C. H., 8 July, 1875, A. 295.
2. Lateral Support to Church — Coal Workings restrained.
" Order that the Defts, their agents &c., be restrained from
further proceeding with their mining operations and workings in
the coal mines so occupied by them as in the stfitemejit of cla,im
564 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
mentioned, and from working the coal in tlaeir said mines at any
part thereof nearer to the Pit's church than that to which the
workings of their predecessors (in title) were carried, and from
getting the ribs and pillars of coal, including the thick rib of coal in
the said statement of claim mentioned, so left by their predecessors
as aforesaid, within eighty yards from the ground immediately
under the said church, and from commencing or proceeding with
any mining operations or workings in such manner as to cause
damage to the Pit as the vicar of the said church ; Liberty to the
Pit and his agents from time to time to inspect the said mines and
workings, and the working plans connected therewith, at all reason-
able iimeB."— Wall v. Dunn, V.-C. M., 2 March, 1876, B. 693;
affirmed on appeal, 7 July, 1876.
3. Declaration of Right to Work Clay under Railway from Surface
— Injunction — Inquiries .
" Declare that the Pits are entitled to work their clay from under
the land of the Defts conveyed by the Pits to the Defts by deed
dated &c. , and for that purpose are entitled to enter upon the said land
of the Defts so conveyed as aforesaid, and to remove the ballast, fey
or surface soil lying or being above such clay ; And it is ordered
that the Defts, their servants, agents, and workmen, be perpetually
restrained from hindering or interfering with the Pits working their
said clay under the land of the Defts so conveyed as aforesaid, or
entering the said land, or removing the ballast, fey or surface soil
lying above such clay for that purpose. Direct the following in-
quiries, viz. : (1) Whether any and what damages have been
sustained by the Pits by reason of the Deft's breach of their under-
taking contained in the said order dated — ; (2) Whether any and
what damages have been sustained by the Pits by reason of the Defts
having hindered or impeded the Pits in the workmg of their clay
pit, and the getting of clay necessary for the carrying on of the
Pits' manufacture." — See The Ruabon Brick and Terra Gotta Co. v.
The Great Western Rail. Co., Kekewich, J., 10 Nov. 1892, B. 1341 ;
[1893] 1 Ch. 427.
For decree restraining the working of minerals, to the support of which
Pits were entitled under their contracts, in such a manner as to occasion
damage to them, see N. E. By. Co. v. Grassland, 2 J. & H. 565 ; 4 D. P. & J.
550.
For injunction to stay the owner of a bed of china clay from getting it
so as to destroy or seriously injure the surface, see Hext v. Gill, 7 Ch. 699.
As to china clay and minerals, see 0. W. By. v. Carpalla United China Clay
Co., [1910] A. C. 83, inf. p. 571.
For injunction to stay Deft working coals under Pits railway, or withm
twenty yards of any building, so as to damage or obstruct it, unless after
the notice required by the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, s. 78, or so as to
affect a bridge, without prejudice to Deft's right to pump water from the
shaft, see N. E. By. Co. v. Elliott, X J. & H. 158 ; 2 D. F. & J. 423,
SECT. IV.] Mineral Rights. ^^5
For inquiry with a view to an injunction against a lessee of mines
disturbing supports of lessor's house, sec Dugdale v. Robertson, 3 K. & J.
695.
4. Injunction as to Mines — Sujiport — Inspection — Account.
(By consent) Order that the Defts &c., be restrained from digging
or getting any coals, culm, or other minerals or soil from under the
E. estate, in &c., mentioned, or in any manner digging under the
same, and also from destroying or taking away the pillars or supports
which have been left or erected in the workings under &c., or any
part thereof, and also from using such parts of the communications
called the &c., as lie under the said &c., or any part thereof, or such
parts of any other communications from &c., until &c. ; And it is
ordered that the Pits, or a proper person to be appointed by them
for that purpose, Tjc at liberty, on reasonable notice being given, to
inspect the workings of the Defts under the said E. estate ; And
it is ordered that the following &c. — 1. An account of the several
quantities of coal, culm, and other minerals, worked, raised, or pro-
cured by the Defts, or any of them, or by any other person or persons
by their or any of their order, or for their or any of their use, out of
or from the said E. estate or any part thereof ; 2. An inquiry how,
and in what manner, and at what time or times, and for what sum
or sums of money, the same, and every part thereof, have or has
been sold, applied, or disposed of. — Adjourn &c. — See Baynton v.
Leonard, M. R., 15 Feb. 1853, A. 454.
For an interlocutory order for Pit to inspect at all reasonable times, upon
giving one day's notice, so far as might be necessary to ascertain whether
Deft liad worked into Pit's land, and how far and to what extent, M-ith
liberty to measure, dial, and make all such plans or surveys as might be
necessary for that purpose, and to use the Deft's machinery for descending
and ascending, doing no injury to the Deft's works, and paying the Deft
any expenses he may incur, see Bennitt v. WhiteJiouse, M. R., 9 Feb. 1860,
A. 232; 28Beav. 119.
For an order in Chambers under the C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 58, that Pit be
at liberty by his witnesses &c., to inspect the Deft's mine ; that for this
purpose the Defts give all reasonable facilities for access to and in the mine,
and for ventilation during the process ; and that Pit be at liberty, so far as is
necessary for the purpose of inspection, to make a drift- way as described &e. ;
before commencing the inspection Pit to give security, to the satisfaction of
the Master, to the extent of £500, or deposit that sum with the Master
to abide any order as to indemnifying Defts for any loss or damage which
might be sustained in consequence of the inspection, see Bennett v. OriJJiths,
30 L. J. Q. B. 98 ; 7 Jur. (N. S.) 284 ; 3 L. T. 735 ; 9 W. R. 332.
For form of application for inspection, see D. C. F. 950.
For order for injunction to stay Deft getting coals under the Pit's land,
and for Pit and his agents to be at liberty to inspect the workings, see
E. Lonsdale v. Curwen, L. C, 7 June, 1799, A. 399 ; and for further order
appointing persons to view, and directing obstructions to be removed and
air-courses opened, and inspection to be allowed from time to time so
as to enable the viewers to make a complete report of the workings, Ih.
For a similar order, see Lev)is v. Marsh, 19 April, 1849, B. 791 ; 8 Ha.
100,
566 Injunctions. [cuap. xxxi.
5. Using Way under Pit's Land for conveying Coals from Deft's
Mines restrained.
Order tlie Deft, his viewers &c., be perpetually restrained from
conveying any coal or ironstone, or other produce of the freehold
lands in the (bill) mentioned, and from making or using, or allowing
any road or way to remain underneath the copyhold lands in the (bill)
also mentioned, for the purpose of conveying such coal &c., or other
produce, or for the purpose of working or getting, or assisting the
Deft to work or get any coal out of the freehold mines, and from
usiag or continuing to use any part of the surface of Pit's copyholds,
for the purpose of a railway for conveying any coal &c., or produce
of the said freehold lands, or any coal out of any other estate or
property not comprised in and held of the said manor of N. —
Eardley v. Earl Granville, M. E., 18 Feb. 1876, A. 629 ; 3 Ch. D. 826.
For an interlocutory order (upon Pit's personal undertaking) restraining
mineral lessees of the lord of the manor from entering upon or taking
possession of any part of Pit's copyhold lands in the manor, and from pro-
ceeding with the construction of the tramway commenced by Defts upon
part of the said copyhold lands, and from proceeding to construct any rail-
way or tramway upon any part of the said copyhold lands, see Holden v.
Hargreaves, V.-C. B., 3 Aug. 1876, A. 1584.
For an injunction to restrain Deft from conducting or allowing to pass any
water into the Pit's mine by means of the troughs or air-drifts constructed,
&c., by the Deft, or by any other new works to be constructed by the Deft,
see Westminster Brymbo Co. v. Clayton, V.-C. W., 25 April, 1867, B. 1337 ;
36 L. J. Ch. 476.
6. Account of Coal obtained ly Dejts from within Pits' Barrier,
inadvertently or under Belief of Title — Damages — Way-haves.
Vary the decree — ^And his Lordship being of opinion that as be-
tween the parties hereto the indenture dated &c., in the pleadings
mentioned, could not in equity be disputed as a valid demise of the
mines in the pleadings mentioned for twenty-one years, from the 25th
March, 1840, and the Defts by their counsel submitting to account as
assignees of the said lease, and as the parties in possession of the
mines and premises &c., since the expiration of the said lease, as this
Court shall direct. Order that the following &c. : 1. An account of
rents and royalties payable under the lease of the 2nd May, 1840
(with a direction as to the mode in which the rent was to be cal-
culated) ; 2. An account of all coal and other minerals got from the
said mines by the Defts, or either of them, or by the S. Co. [assignors
of the lease), since the 25th March, 1861, and of the value of such
last-mentioned coal and other minerals ; And in taking such last-
mentioned account the Defts are to be charged with the fair value
of such coal and other minerals at the same rate as if the said mines
had been purchased from the Pits by the Defts at the fair market
value of the district ; 3. An inquiry whether any and what -damage
has been occasioned to the C. estate beyond the removal of the coal
and other minerals by the working of the said mines since the said
SECT. IV.] Mineral Rights. 567
25th March, 1861, and what if anything is proper to be allowed to
the Pits as compensation for such damage ; 4. An inquiry what
since the said 25th March, 1861, ought to be paid by the Defts, or
either of them, or the said S. Co. to the owner of the C. estate, as
or by way of way-leave in respect of the passing of the coal and other
minerals not the produce of the said mines, and of materials, through
and by means of the mines and workings in and under the said C.
estate ; And it is ordered that the total amount due on taking the
said accounts and making the said inquiries be ascertained ; And
it is ordered that the same be paid by the Defts to the Pits
within one month after the date of the Master's certificate to be
made in pursuance hereof. — So much of the Pits' (bill) as prayed
damage, save as to damage done since the 25th March, 1861, to the
estate and mines by worlcing the mines, and by not leaving barriers,
and not sinking proper shafts, dismissed — no costs up to the hearing.
' — Liberty to apply in Chambers as to the costs of the accounts
and inquiries. — Jegon v. Vivian, L. C, 25 Jan. 1871, A. 273 ; 6 Ch.
742 ; and see Livingstone v. The Eawyards Coal Co., 5 App. Ca. 25.
For allowance in the case of an innocent trespasser for severing and
bringing the coal to bank, see Ashton v. Stock, V.-C. H,, 2 May, 1877,
A. 1055 ; 6 Ch. D. 719 ; Taylor v. Mostyn, 33 Ch. D. 226, C. A.
7. Inquiry as to Value of Coals wrongfully got, and Damage by
breaking through Pits' Boundary.
Order that the following inquiries be made, namely : 1. An
inquiry what was the market value at the pit's mouth of all
the coal worked and gotten by the Defts from the Pits' mine at
— in the Pits' (bill) mentioned, and the aggregate amount thereof,
after making to the Defts all just allowances for the costs and
expenses incurred by them in bringing such coal to the pit's mouth,
and all other just allowances, but not including the cost of severing
such coal ; And it is ordered that the Defts do within (one month)
from the date of the Master's certificate of the result of such inquiry
pay such aggregate amount as aforesaid to the Pits ; 2. An inquiry
whether the Pits have sustained any, and if any what, damage by
reason of the Defts having broken through the boundary between
their mine at — in the pleadings mentioned, and the said mine
of — ; And declare that the Defts are liable to pay to the Pits the
amount, if any, that shall be certified to be payable in respect of
such damage. — Defts to pay Pits' costs up to and including the hear-
ing.— Adjourn &c. and subsequent costs. — Liberty to apply. — Llynvi
Coal Co. V. Brogden, V.-C. B., 15 Nov. 1870, B. 2891 ; 11 Eq. 188.
For the like inquiry as to value of minerals removed, and damage by such
working, see Hunt v. Pealce, Joh. 713.
For inquiry as to damage sustained by Pit in respect to his coal which,
though not worked by Deft, had been rendered valueless by reason of the
Deft's working other coal of the Pit, see Williams v. Raggett', Fry, J., 7
August, 1877, B. 1844 ; 37 L. T. 96 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 849 ; 25 W. R. 874.
568
Injunctions,
[chap. XXXI.
Right to sup-
port gener-
ally.
Vertical
support.
Lateral
support.
Right as
affected by
contract, etc.
NOTES.
SUPPOKT.
Pnmd facie there is a natural right of support forthe soil as an incident of
property and not m tlie nature of an easement : Bonomi v. Backhouse, E. B.
r< la oo' ^ ^^' ^'' ^" ^^^ ' ^"^"^ '""' Midland Rij. Co. v. Eobinsm, 15 App.
La. 19, 30 ; and minerals cannot be worked by the owner of the subjacent
or adjacent soil (that is, the " owner of that portion of land the existence of
which in its natural state is necessary for the support of the land " of his
neighbour : Mayor, ci:c. of Birmingham v. Allen, 6 Ch. D. 284, 289) so as to
cause that land to fall in : Humphries v. Brogden, 12 Q. B. 739 ; Hunt v.
Pealce, Joh. 705 ; Dugdale v. Robertson, 3 K. & J. 695 ; Bell v. Wilson, 1 Ch.
303 ; Hext v. Oill, 7 Ch. 699 ; and see Bowhotham v. Wilsmi, 8 H. L. C. 348 ;
Galo, 372, &c. ; Goddard, 61 et seq.
As to how far this right way bo modified or lost by the erection of buildings
on the land so as to render additional support necessary, see Wyatl v.
Harrison, 3 B. & Ad. 871 ; Hunt v. Pealce, sup.
A grant of minerals and also the reservation of minerals in the grant of
the surface will imply such a working as not to affect the right to support
which is incident to the occupation of the surface ; Bowhotham v. Wilsmi, 8
H. L. C. 360 ; Caledonian By. Co. v. Sprot, 2 Maoq. 449 ; N. E. By. Co. v.
Crosland, 2 J. & H. 565 ; 4 D. F. & J. 5.50.
An owner or lessee of underground strata is not liable in damages to the
owner of buildings on the surface for injury by subsidence resulting from an
excavation by a predecessor in title : Greenwell v. Law Beechburn Coal Co.,
[1897] 2 Q. B. 165 ; Hall v. Norfolk (D. of), [1900] 2 Ch. 493.
As to the right to support of the surface of land by subterranean water
or an underground stratum of natural pitch, see Jordeson v. Sutton Qas Co.,
[1899] 2 Ch. 217. C. A. ; Trinidad AsphaltCo. v. Ambard. [1899] A. C. 594, P. C.
Lateral support for buildings from adjoining land or buildings may be
acquired by twenty years' enjoyment : Dallon v. Avrjus, 6 App. Ca. 740 ;
4 Q. B. D. 162 ; 3 'lb. 85 ; Love v. Bell, 10 Q. B. D. 547, C. A. ; 9 App. Ca.
286 ; Lemmtre v. Davis, 19 Ch. D. 281 ; Bonomi v. Backhouse, sup. ; and
see Rogers v. Taylor, 2 H. & N. 828 ; and this right may also be claimed as
an easement under the Prescription Act (2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 71), s. 2 : see
Dalton V. Angus. 6 App. Ca. 798 ; Lemailre v. Davis, 19 Ch. D. 281 ; but
the enjoyment of the support must be as of right : Tone v. Preston, 24 Ch.
D. 739 ; and not clam : Gately v. Martin, [1900] 2 I. R. 269 ; Union
Lighterage Co. v. London Graving Dock Co., [1902] 2 Ch. 557, C. A.
There is an implied obligation on the vendors not to work minerals in
their adjoining land so as to cause a subsidence in tlie land sold : Siddons v.
Short, d'C. Co., 2 C. P. D. 572 ; and that a right of support from adjacent
land of a grantor may be implied in a grant for building purposes, see Bigby
V. Bennett, 21 Ch. D. 559, C. A.
To support an action for infringement of the right of support there must
have been appreciable damage : Smith v. Thackerah, L. R. 1 C. P. 564 ; and
see A. G. v. Conduit Colliery Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 301.
The primd facie right to support may be affected by express contract, or
by necessary implication, or by statutory enactment.
(a) In a grant of land for building purposes the reservation to the grantor
of the right to take and work minerals, making compensation to the grantee
for all damage to the buildings thereby occasioned, gives the grantor, subject
to his obligation to make compensation, the right of working, even to the
injury of the buildings : Aspden v. Seddon, 10 Ch. 394.
And that the terms of the grant of the surface may be such as to contract
the grantee out of his right to sujiport, or even to compensation for loss of
support, see Buchanan v. Andrew, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 286; Williams v.
Bagnall, 12 Jur. N. S. 987 ; Roivbotham v. Wilson, 6 E. & B. 593 ; 8 E. & B.
123 ; 8 H. L. C. 348.
But the reservation of minerals in a grant of the surface must be so framed
SECT. IV.] Mineral Eights. ^^^
as to show the clear intention to get the minerals without regatd to the
surface (e.g., by quarrying) : Hext v. Oill, 7 Ch. 699.
Coprolites (see A. 0. v. Tomline, 5 Ch. D. 750), china-clay (see Hext v. What are
Gill, 7 Ch. 699), and generally anything got from underneath the surface for mmerais.
profit (but see remarks of Halsbury, L.C.,in Todd v. N. E. iJ»/.,[1903] 1 K. B.
p. 608, and of Lord Loreburn in North Brit. By. Co. v. Budhill Coal and
Sandstone Co., [1910] A. C. 116, 125, and Caledonian By. v. Olenboig Union
Fireclay Co., [1911] A. C. 290, 299), are " minerals," the property in which
is in the lord, though, in the absence of special custom, he cannot dig them
without permission of the tenant ; and see Johnstone v. Cromplon tb Co.,
[1899] 2 Ch. 190, mp. p. 550; Form 8 (where a stratum of red rock and
a layer of coal from six to eight inches in thickness, which could not be
worked at a profit, were held to fall within a general reservation of
mines and minerals contained in a lease).
And clay was held to be a mineral within a reservation of minerals : Earl
of Jersey v. Neath Guardians, 22 Q. B. D. 555, C. A. ; and see 0. W. By.
Co. V. Carpalh, etc., Co., [1910] A. C. 83 (china-clay) ; Caledonian By. v.
Ghnboig, etc.. Co., sup. (fire-clay). As to freestone, see Hvgh Stjmingtom v:
Caledonian Bly. Co.; [1911] W. N. 231.
In a reservation of minerals to the Crown, granite was held to be included
although the words " coal, limestone, and slate " were added : A. G. v.
Welsh Granite Co., 1887, W. N. 86.
Working by instroke from an adjoining colliery has been held no breach Working by
of a covenant to work the coal in a, proper and workmanlike manner ; instroke.
Lewis V. Foihergill, 5 Ch. 103 ; Jegon v. Vivian, 6 Ch. 742.
A lessor who wishes to reserve rights of working in derogation of the Operation
lease must do so in plain terms : Mimdy v. Duke of Portland, 23 Ch. D. 81, ef general
C. A. Ceasing to pump out water from a mine is no derogation from a reservation,
grant of right of access to lessees : Payne v. Bocher, 1887, W. N. 37.
A reservation of full and free liberty to get minerals does not operate as an
exception, but only as a grant of the right to work, and prima facie not to
the exclusion of, though without disturbance by, the o^vner of the land :
Duke of Snihcrlatnl v. Heathcote, [1892] 1 Ch. 475, C. A. Under a building
lease with reservation of minerals, the lessee may dig foundations, and dis-
pose of the material dug out, but not dig in order to improve the surface
as a building site : Bohinson v. Milne, 53 L. J. Ch. 1070.
(b) The terms of the instrument under which the minerals are worked may Letting down
be such as to give by manifest intention an unrestricted power of working surface.
the mines without regard to the safety of any of the surface not specially
protected : see Taylor v. Shafto ; Shafto v. Johnson, 8 B. & S. 228, 252,
n. ; Eadon v- Jeffcock, L. R. 7 Ex. 379 ; Smith v. Darby, L. R. 7 Q. B. 716.
But inasmuch as the common law right to support exists unless it is taken
away, the onus lies on those who assert the right to let down the surface,
and no implication will be made in their favour in the absence of clear
intention : Love v. Bell, 9 App. Ca. 286 ; Davis v. Treharne, 6 App. Ca.
460 ; Dixon v. White, 8 App. Ca. 833 ; Earl of Westmorland v. Nerv Sharlston
Collieries Co., 1899, W. N. 2, 88, C. A. ; Greenwell v. Low Beechburn Coal Co.,
[1897] 2 Q. B. 165, where a clause in a, deed providing for compensation
for damage by working to the surface, or the buildings thereon, was held
not to cover damage by subsidence ; and see Buiterknowle Colliery Co. v.
Bishop Auckland, &c, Co., [1906] A. C. 305 ; and compare Butterley Co. v.
New Hucknall Colliery Co., [1910] A. C. 381.
(c) A local custom for a tenant (under an agreement for a lease) to Custom,
remove and sell flints thrown up in the course of husbandry is reasonable
and valid : Tucker v. Linger, 8 App. Ca. 508 ; 21 Ch. D. 18.
In the absence of custom or prescription the lord cannot take minerals
from under copyhold lands either by surface or underground workings :
see Bourne v. Taylor, 10 East, 201 ; Mitchell v. Dors, 6 Ves. 147. That a
custom to work mines within a manor without making compensation for
damage by subsidence is bad, see Hilton v. E. Granville, 5 Q. B. 701 ;
Blazkett v. Bradley, 1 B. & S. 940 (but see Gill v. Dickinson, 5 Q. B. D. 15J).
570
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Inolosure
Act.
Railways
Clauses Act.
In an action by a copyholder to restrain lessees of the lords from working
coal, the lords may be joined as Defts authorizing and justifying the wrong-
ful worldng : Shafto v. Bolckow, 34 Ch. D. 725.
As to the right of the lord of the manor, under the reservation to him by
an Inclosure Act, to work minerals, even to the utter destruction of the
surface, subject to the hability of making reasonable compensation, see D.
Bucchuch V. Wakefield, L. R. 4 H. L. 377, varying 4 Eq. 613 ; QUI v.
Dickinson, 5 Q. B. D. 159 ; Hext v. Oill, 7 Ch. 699 ; but such a right
cannot be established by the lord unless the language of the Act is explicit
to that effect : Love v. Bell, 9 App. Ca. 286, 293 ; 10 Q. B. D. 547, where a
compensation clause was held to be limited to surface workings, and there-
fore not to confer any right to let the surface down ; and see Dixon v. White,
8 App. Ca. 833; New Sharlston Colleries Co. v. Earl of Westmorland, [1904]
2 Ch. 443, n. ; the prima facie inference being that the owner of the surface
allotted shall enjoy it, and have the common right of support for liis
tenement : Butterhnowle Colliery Co. v. Bishop Auckland, &c. Co., [1906]
A. 0. 305 ; Bell v. Earl of Dudley, [1895] 1 Ch. 182. In order to rebut this
inference the burden lies on the owner of the minerals to show affirmatively
and by clear words that he has the right of letting down the surface ; but
express words are not required, and the presence or absence of a compensa-
tion clause is an important element : S. C. The primA facie inference in
favour of the surface owner is strengthened by the absence of any provision
for compensation, though the presence of a limited compensation clause is
not of itself sufficient to rebut the inference : 8. C. The onus of proving
that the lord is unduly availing himself of his right lies on the tenants :
Hall V. Byron, 4 Ch. D. 667. The reservation of minerals in such an Act
includes, as incident to the enjoyment of the mines, all usual working
powers, e.g., the right of sinking shafts on the common land for the purpose
of winning and carrying away minerals under any part of the common :
Hatyes v. Pease, [1899] 1 Ch. 567.
(d) The effect of the Railways Clauses Act (8 & 9 V. c. 20), ss. 77—85, is
to modify the ordinary purchaser's or grantee's right to lateral and vertical
support in the case of a statutory purchase by a co. of the right to make a
line or a tunnel through land : see G. W. Ely. Co. v. Bennett, L. R. 2 H. L. 27.
As to the distinction between tliis right, which is negative, and a right to
support to buildings which is capable of being created by grant, see 0. N,
By. Co. V.' Inland Rev. Commrs, [1901] 1 K. B. 416, C. A.
Sects. 77 — 85 apply to lands acquired by voluntary purchase, as well as
under compulsory powers, but they do not apply to mines lying outside
the forty yards' limit under s. 78: L. & N. W. By. Co. v. Hemley Park
Coal and Cannel Co., [mi-\2Ch. 97. ,.,...,
If the railway co. exercises its option of purchasing the land without tlie
minerals, the owner of them may work in the usual way, without regard to
whether such working will let down the surface : Pountney v. ClayUm, U
Q. B. D. 820, 0. A. .... i .i.
After notice by the owner, under sect. 78, of his intention to work the
minerals within the prescribed limit, the co. cannot restrain such working
unless they compensate the owner for the loss of his minerals : L. * -"• •I'-
By Co. Y.Ackroyd, 10 W. R. 367 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 588 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 911 ;
6 L T, 124 ; and although in the case of apprehended injury workings
within or even beyond the prescribed limit maybe restrained, the injunction
will only be granted upon an undertaking by the co. to pay the amount of
compensation when ascertained : Midland By. Co. v. Checkley 4 Eq. 19.
And the amount of compensation so payable is the full value of the minerals
required to be left unworked, i.e. the price the minerals would have fetched
if worked, less the cost of getting them : Ed^nj-N. E.By, [1907] A- «; 400 ,
and see Bughy Portland, &c. Co. v. L. & N. W. By., [1908] 2 K. B. 606.
Where a railway co. purchase some of the underlying minerals as well as
the surface of land, the mining clauses (sects. 77-85) of the Railways
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, apply, and if coal is excepted the land-
SECT.
IV.] Mineral Rights. 571
owner's right to compensation does not arise until he is desirous of actually
working the coal : In r& Lord Oerard arid London & North Western By. Co.,
[1895] 1 Q. B. 459, C. A.
But after compensation has been agreed on, and paid or tendered, a
perpetual injunction may be granted against the working of the mines :
Smith T. 0. W. By. Co., 3 App. Ca. 165 ; and the oo. may give the counter-
notice of their willingness to compensate at any time when danger to the
line is apprehended : Dixon v. Caledonian, dec. By. Co., 6 App. Ca. 820.
Interest on the sum awarded as compensation cannot be allowed by an
arbitrator for the time between the date of the counter-notice and of the
award : Be Bichard & the O. W. By., [1905] 1 K. B. 68.
To the same effect, as establishing the right of the owner either to work
the minerals or to be compensated, see Fletcher v. 0. W. By. Co., 4 H. & N.
242; 5/6.689.
For cases in which it has been held that the general right to support was
not qualified by the particular Act under which the land was compulsorily
acquired, see Caledonian By. Co. v. Sproi, 2 Macq. 449 ; Caledoniav By. Co.
V. BelJiaven, 3 Macq. 56 ; N. E. By. Co. v. Elliott, IJ. & H. 145 ; 2 D. F. & J.
423 ; 10 H. L. C. 333 ; N. E. By. Co. v. Crosland, 2 J, & H. 565 ; 4 D. P. &
J. 550 ; Gale, 376 et seq. ; Goddard, 64, 318; and see New Moss Colliery
Co. V. Manchester Corporation, [1908] A. C. 117.
A railway co. by paying compensation, under sect. 78, to a mineral lessee
for leaving the minerals under the Une, acquires the right to support, and to
restrain the reversioner, on the surrender or determination of the lease,
from working the minerals, without prejudice to any question as to com-
pensation, having regard to the payment already made : O. W. By. Co. v.
Smith, 2 Ch. D. 235 : affirmed, 3 App. Ca. 165.
A notice by a mine owner, under sect. 78, of his intention to work the
mines may be validly given, although he intends to let them, provided he
has a bond fide intention of working either by himself or his lessees, and
although the notice includes minerals under a long extent of railway :
Midland By. Co. v. Bobinson, 37 Ch. D. 386, C. A. ; S. C, 15 App. Ca. 19.
The " mines " and " minerals," specified in sects. 77 and 78, include such
as can only be gotten by open working, e.g., ironstone, limestone, clay :
Midland By. Co. v. Bobinson, 15 App. Ca. 19 ; 37 Ch. D. 386, C. A. ; Midland
By. Co. V. Haunchwood Erich Co., 20 Ch. D. 552 ; but not clay forming the
surface or sub-soil and constituting the " land " compulsorily taken : Todd
Burleston & Co. v. N. E. By., [1903] 1 K. B. 603, approving Q. W. By. v.
Blades, [1901] 2 Ch. 624, and explaining Lord Provost of Glasgow v. Farie,
13 A. C. 657 ; and see G. W. By. v. Carpalla, &c. Co., [1910] A. C. 83.
Sect. 78 extends to the working of clay from the surface, and when the
manner of working such clay in the district is by open working, the owner
can enter on the land and remove ballast and surface soil : Buabon Brick
Co. V. G. W. By. Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 427, C. A.
The owner of a mineral estate intersected by lines of railway is not
entitled to trespass upon the railway in order to work his mines : Midland
By. Co. V. Miles, 30 Ch. D. 634.
A right of support to a tramway acquired under a deed of grant was held
not to be lost by the conversion of the tramway under a special Act into a
railway : G. W. By. Co. v. Cefn Cribbwr Brick Co., [1894] 2 Ch. 157.
As to the power of a railway co. to purchase mines compulsorily, see
Smith V. G. W. By. Co., 3 App. Ca. 165 ; Errington v. Met. Dist. By. Co.,
19 Ch. D. 559, C. A.
The same principle has been applied to working mines under canals Canal
regulated by Acts containing provisions similar to those of the Railways companies.
Clauses Act, ss. 77, &c. {e.g., the Waterworks Clauses Act, 10 & 11 V. o. 17,
ss. 22 — 27) : Wyrley Canal Co. v. Bradley, 7 East, 368 ; Dudley Nav. Co. v.
Grazebrook, 1 B. & Ad. 59 ; Stourbridge Canal Co. v. E. Dudley, 3 E. & E.
409 ; Birm. Canal Co. v. E. Dudley, 7 H. & N. 969 ; Birm. Canal Co. v,
Swindell, lb., 980, n. ; Midland By. Co. v^ Checkley, sup. ; Knowles v.
''^ Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co., 14 App. Ca. 248 ; M. 8. & L. Ry. Co. v.
Johnson, 36 Ch. D. 629, n. ; Bwllfa and MeHhyr, &c. v. Pontypridd W. W.
Co., [1903] A. C. 426. Under the usual clauses in the Acts of canal cos.,
an owner of mines adjacent to, but not under, the canal is under no statutory
liability to the canal co. in working his mines, and if the working near
the canal will not endanger fuither working, though it may damage the
canal, the owner cannot insist upon the minerals being left, if the co. are
willing that the owner should work as he pleases and prefer to bear the
expense of repairs from time to time : Chamber Colliery Co. v. Rochdale
Canal Co., [1895] A. C. 564, H. L., affirming, [1894] 2 Q. B. 632, C. A., and
distinguishing Knowles v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co., 14 App. Ca.
248, and Cromford Canal Co. v. Cutis, 5 Rail. Ca. 442, and as to form of
judgment and working out rights in such a case, see New Moss Colliery Co. v.
M.S. & L. Ry. Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 725 (where declarations were made as to
Pit's right to work their adjacent coal, but on the co. undertaking not to
claim damages in respect of the working of the subjacent coal, the Pits
were held not to be entitled to any declaration as to it).
Where a special Act operated as a grant of a mere right to make and
maintain a canal as a waterway, and not of the surface land, no right of
support passed so as to prevent landowners from working their subjacent
mines : L. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Evans, [1892] 2 Ch. 432 ; and as to the
materiality of a compensation clause, see S. C. at p. 448.
Public Health As to the rights of a mineral owner through whose land a sewer is con-
Act, 1875. structcd under the Public Health Act, 1875, and liis duty to preserve
subjacent support, see Re Corporation of Dudley, 8 Q. B. D. 86, C. A.
Actio per- That the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persond applies to an action
sonalis. for an account in respect of mines wrongfully worked by A. under the Pit's
land, see Phillips v. Homfray, 24 Ch. D. 439, C. A.
INSPECTION.
Upon a primA facie case of mineral trespass or encroachment by the Deft,
and where the fact of trespass {which is denied) can only be ascertained by
inspection, and no injury will result to the Deft therefrom, an interlocutory
order will be made for inspection of his mine : Bennitt v. Whiteliouse, 28
Beav. 119 ; and see Whaleij v. Branehcr, 12 W. R. 570, 595 ; 10 Jur. (N. S.)
535 ; 10 L. T. 155.
The order will, when necessary, extend to the removal of obstructions to
the inspection : E. Lonsdale v. Curwen ; Walker v. Fletcher, 3 Bli. O. S.
168, n., 172, n. ; A. O. v. Chambers, 12 Beav. 159 ; and see Ennor v. Barwdl,
1 D. F. & J. 529 ; where, in a suit to restrain the diversion of water, so much
of an order for inspection on motion before the hearing as gave Pit leave to
break up soil by making trenches, remove earth and obstructions, and cut
down an embankment, was struck out on appeal.
And by O. L, 3, power is given to the Court or a Judge, upon the applica-
tion of any party to a cause or matter, and upon such terms as may be just,
to make any order for the detention, preservation, or inspection of any
property, being the subject of such cause or matter ; and to authorize any
person, &c., to enter upon or into any land or building in the possession of
any party to such cause or matter, and to authorize samples to be taken,
observations made, or cxperiemnts to be tried, which may be necessary or
expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence.
By r. 4 power is given to the Judge, by whom any cause or matter may
be heard with or without a jury, or on appeal, to inspect any property or
thing concerning which any question may arise therein ; and by r. 5 the
provisions of r. 3 are made applicable to inspection by a jury ; an order for
which may, where the other side consents, be obtained ex parte : see Pickant
V G N. Ry. Co., 1883, W. N. 194; similar provisions were contained in
C. K P.' Act, 1852, s. 114, C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 58 ; and v. inf p. 625.
Digging up a street to ascertain the course of drains said to come from
SECT. IV.] Mineral Rights. 5' ^
Deft's premises was treated as coming within " experiments ' under this
rule : iMvub v. Beaumont, 27 Ch, D. 356.
ACCOUNT AND COMPENSATION.
In assessing compensation for mineral trespass or wrongful working, a
different principle is applied when the minerals have been taken in-
advertently, and when taken fraudulently, or in wilful wrong — ■
(a) If taken by Deft inadvertently or under a bond fide belief of title, the inadvertence.
Ht is entitled to be paid the value of the coal or minerals, as if the field had
been purchased by Deft at the fair market value of the district ; the
expenses of winning and getting being allowed to Deft : Jegon v. Vivian,
6 Ch. 742, sup.. Form 6, p. 5G6 ; Hillon v. Woods, 4 Eq. 432 ; and see
West V. Morewood, 3 Q. B. 440, n. ; Morgan v. PowcU, 3 Q. B. 278 ;
Joicey v. Dickenson, 45 L. T. 643 ; Ashton v. Stoch, 6 Ch. D. 719 ; Living-
stone v. Eawyards, &c. Co., 5 App. Ca. 25.
So also in Powell v. Aiken, 4 K. & J. 343, an inquiry was directed to
ascertain " the market price or value, or as near thereto as might be, of all
coal, &c. (improperly taken) at the pit's mouth, all just allowances being
made to the parties chargeable in respect of their charges and expenses on
account of such coal." And for the mode of calculating the profits and
expenses, with interest on expenses (at the rate of 5 p. c.), see L. Bokchy v.
EUiot, 13 Ch. D. 277, C. A. ; 9 Oh. D. 685 ; and for a case in which under
peculiar circumstances the best evidence of value was considered to be
the royalty paid in surrounding coal-fields, see Livingstone v. Eawyards, sup.
{b) If taken fraudulently or wilfully, after full notice of Pit's title. Fraud,
damages will be assessed against the Deft on a stricter principle ; and he
will be allowed the costs of bringing the coal to the pit's mouth only, not of
severing or getting : Phillips v. Homfray, 6 Ch. 770 ; Llynvi Co. v. Brogden,
11 Eq. 188. sup., Form 7, p- 567 ; Morgan v. Powell, 3 Q. B. 278 ; and see
Trotter v. Maclean, 13 Ch. D. 574 ; Martin v. Porter, 5 M. & W. 351 ;
Dreyfus v. Peruvian Ouano Co., 42 Ch. D. 166 ; Bulli Coal Mining Co. v.
Osborne, [1899] A. C. 351. P. C.
And the further inquiries — what is fit and proper to be paid by Deft for
way-leave for minerals carried through Pit's property (Phillips v. Homfray,
6 Ch. 770 ; Jegon v. Vivian, sup. ; Martin v. Porter, sup. ), and as to
damages by reason of Deft having broken through Pit's boundary {Llynvi
Co. V. Brogden, sup.), — will be directed.
For case in which compensation was awarded once for all, where persons
were exercising right of mining under Pit's land, subject to payment of
compensation for permanent injury, see Great Laxey Mining Co. v. Clague,
4 App. Ca. 115.
The inquiry may be extended to damage sustained by Pit in respect of
coal which, though not worked, has been injured by the Deft's working of
Pit's coal : Williams v. Raggett, 37 L. T. 96 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 849 ; 25 W. R. 874.
In cases of subsidence, the cause of action arises when and as the sub- Subsidence,
sidence, or each successive subsidence, occurs, and the action may therefore
be maintained though more than six years have elapsed since the last
working of the mines : Darley Main Colliery v. Mitchell, 11 App. Ca. 127 ;
S. C, 14 Q. B. D. 125, C. A. ; Crumbie v. Walhend Local Board, [1891] 1
Q. B, 503, C. A. And in assessing damages for subsidence, depreciation
in the property from fear of future subsidence mil not be considered :
West Leigh Colliery Co. v. Tunnicliffe <k Sampson, [1908] A. C. 27. And
as to measure of damage, see further Lodge Holes Colliery Co. v. Wednesbury
Corp., [1908] A. C. 323.
So long as the wrongful working can be treated as inadvertent, the Statute of
Statute of Limitations applies, and the account will be limited to six years Limitations,
from issue of writ : Trotter v. Maclean, 13 Ch. D. 574 ; Dean v. Thwaite, 21
Beav. 621 ; and see Hood v. Easton, 2 Jur. N. S. 917 ; 2 Gifi. 692.
The Statute of Limitations has no application to a claim for damages in
respect of coal furtively taken by wilful trespass where there has been no
574
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Settled
estate.
Assessment
o£ compensa-
tion by
Court.
laches by the party defrauded, and it is immaterial whether or not the
wrongdoer has taken active measures to prevent detection : Bulli Coal
Mining Co. v. Osborne, [1899] A. C. 351, P. C. (disapproving Ecd. Commrs.
V. N. E. By. Co., 4 Ch. D. 845), but see In re Aslley and Tildesley Coal Co.,
80 L. T. 116 ; and that a submission to arbitration as to what encroachment,
if any, has been made does not preclude the raising of the defence of the
statute, see Re Astley and Tildesley Goal Co., sup. The wrongful getting of
neiglibouring coal by a mine-owner confers no title under the statute :
Thompson v. Hickman, [1907] 1 Ch. 550.
As to the right to compensation money for coals wrongfully worked
under a settled estate, see Me Barrington, Oamlen v. Lyon, 33 Ch. D. 523.
As to the right to have compensation assessed by the Court where the
statutory tribunal provided for assessing such compensation has become
non-existent, see Bentley v. M. S. & L. By. Go., [1891] 3 Ch. 222.
WAY-LEAVES.
A right of way over or under copyhold tenements of the manor, for the
conveyance of minerals worked within the manor, may be asserted by the
lord, but not for the conveyance of minerals dug beyond the limits of the
manor : Bowser v. Maclean, 2 D. P. & J. 415 ; and see Eardley v. Oranville,
sup.. Form 5, p. 566 ; 8. G., 3 Ch. D. 326.
But the owner of minerals by grant, or under a general reservation in a
grant of the surface, is entitled to use them for any purpose, and to drive
way-leaves through them for conveyance of minerals gotten from adjacent
lands : Proud v. Bates, 34 L. J. Ch. 406 ; 6 N. R. 98^ 11 Jur. N. S. 441 ;
13 L. T. 61 ; D. Hamilton v. Graham, L. R. 2 H. L. Sc. 166 ; Batten Pool v.
Kennedy, [1907] 1 Ch. 256.
Where a grantor of land reserved the mines and also a specified right of
way " for a waggon or cart road," he was not entitled to lay down a railroad
or tramway : Bidder v. N. Staffordshire By. Co., 4 Q. B. D. 412, C. A.
And as to the right, under a Canal Act, of a mineral owner to make roads
and railways over the lands of other persons from his mines to the canal, and
that he is not of necessity restricted to the shortest line, see Richards v. B.,
Joh. 255.
A landowner, entitled under a special Act, and sect. 80 of the Railways
Clauses Act, to make passages under a railway from his land, has no iniplied
right of way over the railway for the purpose of working minerals : Midland
By. Go. V. Miles, 33 Ch. D. 632.
(rv.) EIGHT OF WAY.
1. Restraining Use of Private Road— Interlocutory.
Ordee that the Defts, their agents &c., be restrained until after
&c., or until further order, from using or permitting to be used any
part of the lane at &c., the soil of which, it is alleged, belongs to the
Pits as a carriage-way for the passage of carts, carriages, or other
vehicles, either going to or from the land marked B. in the plan
annexed to the said (bill) or for any purpose whatsoever.— J'osier
V. Lumb, V.-C. H., 1 June, 1876, A. 1100.
2. Perpetual Injunction against obstructing Road^-Mandatory
Injunction to remove Obstructions — Damages.
"Oedbr that the Defts, their servants &c.,be perpetuallyrestrained
from doing any act whereby the Pit may be hindered or obstructed
SECT.
IV.] Eight of Way. ^^^
in tlie free use of the Eock Koad in the (bill) mentioned, from
Eock House therein mentioned to the other terminus thereof, on
foot or by horses or carriages ; And it is ordered that the Defts do
forthwith remove the obstructions to the said road which have been
placed there by the Defts, their servants &c., and whereby the Pit
and other persons going to or from the said Eock House and premises,
on foot or by horses or carriages, are prevented or hindered from
using the said road ; And it is ordered that the Defts be restrained
from interfering with the Pit, his servants &c., in the removal of
any of the obstructions which have been placed on the said road
preventing the user thereof by the Pit as aforesaid ; And it is
ordered that the following, &c. : 1. An inquiry what damages, if
any, the Pit has sustained in consequence of the obstruction of the
said Eock Eoad by the Defts as in the (bill) mentioned."^ — Adapted
from Dendy v. Gary, V.-C. W., 26 June, 1863, A. 1418.
For an injunction against blocking uptlie access by a footpath to a station
of the Pit CO., see L. dk N. W. By. v. Lane, and Yorks. My., 4 Eq 174.
Against obstructing the free use of roads and ways through Deft's estate
by a fence erected by him at the extremity of his land, Phillips v. Treehy;
8 Jur. N. S. 711 ; 3 Giff. 632.
3. Establishing Public Right of Way, and for removal of
Obstructions.
" Declare that there is a public right of way through and over
the whole of St. M. Alley in the pleadings mentioned up to the eastern
end thereof ; And it is ordered that the Defts, their surveyors, &c.,
be restrained from erecting or proceeding with the fence or barricade
ia the information mentioned, and otherwise obstructing the free
passage of persons passing over and along St. M. Alley aforesaid or
any part thereof ; And it is ordered that the Defts do remove all
such girders, fences, and other obstructions as they shall have already
erected or made in the said alley." — See A. G. v. Wrench, V.-C. H.,
22 July, 1874, A. 2359.
As to omitting the word "surveyors " in tliis order, see note on word
" contractors," post, p. 586.
For declaration that Pit and Defts have an equal and reciprocal right to
the use of the roadway, and that the persons interested therein have not
nor have any of them, any preferential right of way, and that the necessity
or urgency of their particular trade or business does not give them any right
to occupy such roadway by any stationary obstruction when the passage ia
required by any other person having the right of any such roadway, with
consequent directions ; and an injunction to restrain the Defts and any
persons interested in the said roadway, their respective servants, &o., from
placing or leaving any stationary obstruction in the said roadway, except at
such time as the use thereof is not required for any other of the persons
interested therein, and from making use of the said roadway in any manner
inconsistent with the meaning of the said declarations, see Thorve v
Brumfitt, 8 Ch. 650, 654. '
For the like declaration of the concurrent right of Pit and other owners
(of whom Deft was one) of adjoining houses to use a private road (forming
a, cul-de-sac) for the purpogeg of access to thejr property find that Deft was
^''^ Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
not entitled to place any stationary obstruction when the road was required
by the other persons so entitled, and was bound, when required, to remove
such obstruction, see Shoesmith v. Byerkij, V.-C. W., 9 May, 1873 21 W R
669 ; Cannon v. Villars, M. R., 7 March, 1878, A. 454, 8 Ch. D 415
For perpetual injunction to restrain stopping up an implied way of
necessity, see Daviea v. Sear, 7 Eq. 427.
4. Railway Company restrained from obstructing a Right of Way
over a Level Crossing.
Declare that the Pits are entitled for themselves and their
tenants and the under-lessees and occupiers of the messuages, lar is,
and hereditaments so purchased by them as in the (bill) mentioned,
and their officers and servants &c., to the free and uninterrupted
use and enjoyment of the level crossings in the (bill) mentioned,
and each of them, but so as not to interfere with the traffic
on the railway ; And order that the Defts, the co., their officers,
servants &c., be perpetually restrained from permitting any train,
engine, carriage, or truck to stand across the level crossings
or either of them, and from doing or permitting any other act so as
to obstruct or impede the Pits, or their tenants or lessees, or the
occupiers of the lands purchased by the Pits, or any of them, from
or in the free and uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the said level
crossings or either of them. But this injunction is not to restrain
the CO. from the use of the railway for the reasonable and proper
working of their traffic. — See United Land Co. v. G. E. Ry. Co.,
as varied on appeal, L. JJ., 13 July, 1875, B. 1951 ; 10 Ch. 586 ;
S. C, V.-C. M., 5 Nov. 1873, B. 2912.
For injunction to restrain conservancy board from using a towing-path so
as to interfere with the use of it by the public for purposes of navigation, see
Lee Conservancy Board v. Button, 12 Ch. D. 383, C. A., at p. 410 ; S. C,
6 App. Ca. 685.
For injunction to restrain railway co. from using part of their railway on
the site of a diverted road until they had made a sufficient road for the use
of the public, see A. G. v. Barry Docks and Ry. Co., 35 Ch. D. 573.
For injunction to restrain railway co. ftom making or maintaining a,
bridge over public land with less headway than fifteen feet, or any bridge
which, by reason of the road thereunder being of too low a level, might cause
the road to be flooded, see A. 0. v. Furness By. Co., 47 L. J. Ch. 776 ; 38
L. T. 565 ; 26 W. R. 650.
5. Declaration as to user of Level Crossing — Liberty to apply for
Injunction.
Declare that the Defts, their tenants or licencees, are not entitled
to use the level crossing over the Ehondda branch of the Pits'
railway in the parish of &c., as a means of access to the several
pieces of land in the pleadings mentioned lying between the Pits'
railway and the river Ehondda for the use thereof by the members
of the Upper Ehondda Lawn Tennis Club or their friends or other
persons as a recreation ground or otherwise so as substantially tq
SECT. IV .J Right of Way. 577
increase the burden of the easement over the level crossing by
altering or enlarging its character, nature, or extent as the same
was enjoyed immediately after the construction of the railway. —
Liberty to apply for an injunction to restrain any user of the level
crossing inconsistent with the declaration aforesaid. — The Taff Vale
Railway Co. v. Canning, Swinfen Eady, J., 6 May, 1909, B. 1678 ;
[1909] 2 Ch. 48.
6. Railway Company restrained from using WorJcs until Public
Highway restored — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, their servants, agents, and workmen, be
restrained until judgment &c. from using the railway and works
made by the Defts upon the site of the part of a parish road or public
highway, called &c., until the Defts shall have caused to be made
and appropriated for the use of the public a sufficient road as con-
venient for passengers and carriages as the said part of the said
road was before the Defts used or interfered with the same, or as
near thereto as may be, and from encroaching upon other parts of
the said road which lie on the west side or road side of a wooden
fence erected by the Defts at the side of the said road, and which
commences at or near &c., and from interfering with such last-
mentioned parts of the said road in such a way as to render them
dangerous to passengers and carriages passing along the same. —
A. G. V. The Barry Docks and Rys. Co., North, J., 15 Jan. 1887, A. 78.
7. Railway Company restrained from Trespassing or permitting
Trespass over Passage Way.
Order that the Defts &c.,be perpetually restrained from passing
and from licensing or inviting any person using their railway station
as travellers by the railway or otherwise to pass either to or from
W. Street, in the pleadings, mentioned along the passage in the
pleadings, also mentioned. — See Milner's Safe Co. v. Great Northern
Railway Co., 17 July, 1906, B. 2408 ; [1907] 1 Ch. 208.
8. Injunction against Local Board, restraining Obstruction of
Footway.
Declare Defts not entitled to enclose, occupy, or use the high-
way lying between the Pit's house and grounds, in the pleadings
mentioned, and the curbed footway coloured &c. as or for a stone-
yard, or as or for a place for the permanent or general deposit of
stones and other materials for road-making or mending {injunction
in terms of declaration), and from otherwise obstructing the Pit, her
servants or agents, in the enjoyment of a convenient access to or
from the said house and grounds, or any part thereof over the said
highway, but this injunction is not to preclude the Defts from
lawfully exercising over or in relation to the said highway any power
or authority which is or may be vested in them by statute or otherwise
VOL. I. 2 P ■
578 Injunciions. [chap. xxxi.
— Grosvenor v. The Sutton (Surrey) Local Board, Chitty, J., 22 Nov.
1888, A. 1680 ; 1888, W. N. 223.
NOTES.
EIGHT OF WAY.
User. In claiming a riglit of way by user, tlie purposes for which the way may
be used are limited by the previous state of user.
Thus a right of way for farming purposes across a common cannot be
enlarged into a right of way for carting building materials when the con-
dition of the dominant tenement has been altered by laying out as building
land that which was a farm : Wimbledon Conservators v. Dixon, 1 Ch. D.
362 ; and see Allan v. Oomme, 11 A. & E. 759 ; Aekroyd v. Smith, 10 C. B.
164 ; Cowling v. Higginson, 4 M. & W. 245 ; Williams v. James, L. R. 2
C. P. 577 ; Bradhurn v. Mwris, 3 Ch. D. 812 ; Finch v. G. W. Ry. Co.,
5 Ex. D. 254 ; Harris v. Flower, 1904, W. N. 180, C. A. ; Milner's Safe Co.
V. G. N. & City Ry., [1907] 1 Ch. 208 ; Taff Vale Ry. v. Canning, [1909]
2 Ch. 48.
For the general principle that the owner of the dominant tenement
cannot extend his enjoyment of the easement so as to impose an additional
servitude, see Gale, 566 et seq. ; Goddard, 371 et seq.
Express The grant of a right of way to a club extends to all persons lawfully
grant. going to and from the club, including persons other than those expressly
referred to in the grant. See Baxendale v. North Lambeth, &c. Club, [1902]
2 Ch. 427 ; and compare Thornton v. Little, 1907, W. N. 68 (meaning of
the word " visitor " in a grant of way).
The use of a particular easement will in general be restricted to a reason-
able use for the purpose of the land as it was when the grant was made, see
Wood V. Saunders, 10 Ch. 582 ; Corporation of London v. Riggs, 13 Ch. D.
798 ; but see Finch v. G. W. Ry. Co., 5 Ex. D. 254 ; and that a local
board taking land eompulsorily for sewage works may acquire a right of way
for all purposes connected with such works, see Serffr. Acton Local Board,
31 Ch. D. 679. Where thexight of way or easement is vested by grant, the
question whether the grant is for all purposes, or limited to certain purposes
only, is one of construction : United Land Co. v. G. E. Ry. Co., 10 Ch. 586 ;
Ardley v. St. Pancras Guardians, 39 L. J. Ch. 871 ; Mayor of New Windsor v.
Stovell, 27 Ch. D. 665 ; Gale, 366 ; Goddard, 368.
In the case of a right of way an enlarged construction will be given to
the grant : Selby v. C. P. Gas Co., 30 Beav. 606 ; Henning v. Burnet, 8 Ex.
194 ; and see Watts v. Kelson, 6 Ch. 166 ; Cousens v. Rose, 12 Eq. 366 ;
Kay V. Oxley, L. R. 10 Q. B. 360 ; Brett v. Clowser, 5 C. P. D. 376 ; Barh-
shire v. Orubb, 18 Ch. D. 616 ; Thomas v. Owen, 20 Q. B. D. 225, 231, C. A. ;
Baring v. Abingdon, [1892] 2 Q. B. 374, 390; Baijley v. G. W. Ry. Co.,
26 Ch. D. 434, 457, C. A. ; May v. Belleville, [1905] 2 Ch. 605 ; International
Tea Stores v. Hobbs, [1903] 2 Ch. 165, showing that under general words
in a conveyance a right of way may pass where such right has been
speciiioally enjoyed, although, by reason of unity of possession, it could not
be actually acquired : Gale, 110 ; Carson's, R. P. S. 61 et seq. ; Goddard,
133 et seq. And accordingly the use of level crossings constructed by a
railway co., under the obligation imposed by their Act of making com-
munications between severed portions of the land, will not be restricted
to the purposes for which the land was used when the railway was made :
United Land Co. v. G. E. Ry. Co., 10 Ch. 586. But it may not be enlarged
so as substantially to increase the burden of the easement : Taff Vale Ry.
V. Canning, [1909] 2 Ch. 48 ; G. W. Ry. v. Talbot, [1902] 2 Ch. 759, C. A.
Where one of two pieces of land connected by a level crossing provided
under the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, was conveyed away
without any reservation of a right of way over the land retained, the right to
the level crossing was held to be altogether abandoned : Midland By. Co. v
Gribhle, [1895] 2 Ch. 827, C. A. ; [1895] 2 Ch. 129.
SECT. IV.] Right of Way. 579
A right of way over a passage granted by a lease (containing a covenant
by lessee to do nothing to the annoyance, &o., of lessor or his adjoining
tenants or occupiers) will not be allowed to be used so as to cause a nuisance,
e.g., by making it a noisy access to a noisy entertainment : Collins v.
Slade, 23 W. R. 199.
A conveyance of premises, together with the exclusive use of a gateway
under part of a house, described by its dimensions, was held to pass not a
mere right of way, but the right to use the gateway for all lawful purposes :
Beilly v. Booth, 44 Ch. D. 12, C. A. For case in which a railway co. having
defined their lessee's right of way could not afterwards alter it, see Deacon v.
8. E. Ry. Co., 61 L. T. 377.
That a grant of land together with all ways appertaining will not bind the
grantor to grant new easements over land acquired by him under an in-
closure award, in lieu of old easements extinguished by the inclosure, see
Turner v. Crush, 4 App. Ca. 221.
The devisee of a servient tenement under a will who by paying ofE a
mortgage acquires from the mortgagee the property free from any easement,
has a right so to hold it as against the devisee of the dominant tenement,
who is equally a volunteer with himself : Taws v. Knowles, [1891] 2 Q. B.
564, C. A.
The grantee of a right of way which has been obstructed by the grantor is Right to
entitled to deviate over the grantor's land, without enforcing the removal deviate,
of the obstruction, and to protection by injunction : Selhj v. Nettlefold,
9 Ch. Ill, 115.
As to the nature of the private right of access from a house to the adjoin- Unreason-
ing highway and the right to sue in respect of interference by an unreason- able user,
able use of the highway, see Fritz v. Hobson, 14 Ch. D. 542 ; Chaplin v.
Westminster Corp., [1901] 2 Ch. 329 ; and as to injunction against unreason-
able use of a street by traders resident therein, see A. 0. v. Brighton, &c.
Supply Assoc, [1900] 1 Ch. 276, C. A.
As to the presumption, in the case of a towing-path, that river commrs Towin<'-path.
have acquired an easement merely, and not the soil, see Lee Conservancy
Board v. Button, 6 App. Ca. 685.
The refusal of a mandatory injunction does not take away the right of the Removal of
Pit as owner of a right of way to remove on notice an obstructing house : obstruction
Lane v. Capsey, [1891] 3 Ch. 411.
Although a tenant cannot, as against his landlord, acquire an easement Way of
(Russell V. Harford, 2 Eq. 507 ; Oayford v. Moffait, 4 Ch. 133, 135), the necessity,
tenant of " land-locked " land will be entitled to a way of necessity for the
purposes of his tenancy over an outer close belonging to his landlord :
Gayford v. Moffatt, sup. The implied right of way of necessity passes by
way of re-grant, and is limited by the necessity which created it : Corpora-
tion of London v. Riggs, 13 Ch. D. 798 ; Midland Ry. Co. v. Miles, 33 Ch. D.
632. And see Daniel v. Anderson, 8 Jur. (N. S.) 328 ; Gale, 175 et seq. ;
Goddard, 364 et seq.
That such a way of necessity will pass where the owner of two closes, one
of which can only be reached by the other, devises them to two different
persons, see Pearson v. Spencer, 3 B. & S. 761 ; and as to the right of grantor
to select one of several ways, see Bolton v. B., 11 Ch. D. 968.
As to an imphed grant of a right of way, see Espley v. Wilkes, L. R. 7 Ex. Implied
298 ; and see Brown v. Alabaster, 37 Ch. D. 490, where a right of way over grant,
a formed road leading to a gate, useless without the way, was held to pass ;
and see Nicholls v. N., 1900, W. N. 4 ; 81 L. T. 811 ; and that there cannot
be a way of necessity where the land is at a higher level than an adjoining
liighway to which access is possible, see Tiichmarsh v. Royston Water Co.,
1899, W. N. 256 ; 81 L. T. 673 ; and as to the application of the doctrine
of implied grant to a right of way, see Tawes v. Knowles, 39 W. R. 512.
Under the Prescription Act, 1832 (2 & 3 W. IV. c. 71), s. 2, where the way Prescription
has been enjoyed for forty years, the right is absolute, in the absence of Act.
proof of enjoyment by consent or agreement in writing, but the existence of
580
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Fishery.
Dedication.
Cul-de-sac,
Strips of
land by side
of highway.
Tithe map.
Soil of
highway.
a parol license in consideration of an annual payment may negative enjoy-
ment " as of right " : Gardner v. Hodgson's Kingston Brewery Co., [1903]
A. C. 229.
As to the effect of unity of possession by a tenant in negativing a claim
under the Act, see Damper v. Bassett, [1901] 2 Ch. 650.
In order to support a right of way by prescription there must have been
a user raising a reasonable inference of continuous enjoyment : HolUns v.
Verney, 13 Q. B. D. 304, C. A. ; where the right is claimed by virtue of forty
years' enjoyment under the Prescription Act, the time during which the
servient tenement has been vested in a tenant for life cannot be deducted :
Symons v. Leaker, 15 Q. B. D. 629 ; and see Laird v. Briggs, 19 Ch. D. 22, C. A.
A right of way cannot be acquired under sect. 2 of the Prescription Act,
by a tenant against a tenant of the same landlord : Kilgour v. Gaddes,
[1904] 1 K. B. 457, 0. A.
A right of way may be appendant or appurtenant to a fishery : Hanbury
V. Jenkins, 70 L. J. Ch. 730.
PTTBLIO WAY.
Dedication of a right of way from continuous user can only be presumed
in favour of the public generally, not of the inhabitants of a particular
parish : Bermondsey Vestry v. Brown, 1 Eq. 204.
As to sufficiency of evidence of public user in the case of a mountain path .
in a thinly-populated district, see Macpherson v. Scottish Bights of Way Soc,
13 App. Ca. 744 ; and see Mann v. Brodie, 10 App. Ca. 978.
As to evidence of user in support of presumed dedication of a way over
copyholds, see Powers v. Bathurst, 49 L. J. Ch. 294 ; 42 L. T. 123 ; 28
W. R. 390.
The dedication to the public of a right of way across a field may be
limited by the right of the owner of the soil to plough it up periodically in
due course of farming ; and any interference on behalf of the public with
this right in the owner constitutes a trespass : Arnold v. Blaker, L. E. 6 Q. B.
433 ; Mercer v. Woodgate, L. R. 5 Q. B. 26.
A statutory body may dedicate a highway over land vested in it by
statute provided that the dedication is not incompatible with the objects
prescribed by the statute: Arnold v. Morgan, [1911] 2 K. B. 314.
As to the circumstances under which a cul-de-sac may be a highway, see
Bourke v. Davis, 44 Ch. D. 110 ; A. G. v. Antrobus, [1905] 2 Ch. 188 (road
leading to monument on private land) ; Whitehoiise v. Hugh, [1906] 2
Ch. 283, C. A.
As to the right of the public in respect of strips by the side of the highway,
see Nicol v. Beaumont, 53 L. J. Ch. 853 ; 50 L. T. 112 ; Curtis v. Westeven
County Council, 45 Ch. D. 504 ; Belmore (Cless.) v. Kent County Council,
[1901] 1 Ch. 873 ; Harvey v. Truro Rural Council, [1903] 2 Ch. 638. That
a ditch running alongside a highway may be dedicated, see Charley Corp. v.
Nightingale, [1906] 2 K. B. 212, C. A. Fences by the side of a highway are
primd facie the boundaries of the highway : Offin v. Rochford Rural District
Council, [1906] 1 Ch. 343: Copestakev. West Sussex Co. Council, [1911]
2 Ch. 331. As to presumed dedication by an owner of land adjoining a
public footway, see A. G. v. Esher Linoleum Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 647.
User of a highway for a purpose other than that of a highway may con-
stitute a trespass as against the owner of the soil : Harrison v. Duke of
Rutland, [1893] 1 Q. B. 142, C. A. ; Reg. v. Pratt, 4 E. & B. 860 ; Hickman
V. Maisey, [1900] 1 Q. B. 142, C. A. That no length of time can legalize
the user of a public footway set out by an inclosure award for purposes
other than those of a footway, see Sheringham U. D. C. v. Holsey, 1904,
W. N. 83.
A tithe map is not admissible as evidence of the extent of a public right
of way : Copestake v. West Sussex Co. Council, sup.
As to the presumption that the soil of a highway passes to the grantee of
adjoining land ad medium filum vice, and that such presumption does not
SECT. IV. J Right of Way. 581
apply to land intended to be used as a highway, but never dedicated to the
public, see Leigh v. Jach, 5 Ex. D. 264, C. A. ; and that the presumption
applies to streets in a town as well as to liighways in the country, and is not
rebutted by the fact that the vendor is the owner of the soil beyond the
medium filum vice, see In re White's Charities, Charity Commrs. v. London
Corp., [1898] 1 Ch. 659 ; whether it applies to a lease, qu. : Landrock v.
Met. Dist. Ry. Co., 1886, W. N. 195.
Where documents of title are respectively sufficient to pass the soil ad
medium filum vice, houses on opposite sides of a street are adjacent or con-
tiguous to each other : Haynes v. King, [1893] 3 Ch. 439.
An injunction to restrain the obstruction of a public way may be obtained Private
in respect of the particular private injury to the Pit without making the injury.
A. G. a party : Cooh v. Mayor of Bath, 6 Eq. 177 ; Spencer v. L. <i> B. Ry.
Co., 8 Sim. 193.
The vestry of a parish could not maintain a suit to restrain the infringe- Information
ment of a public right of way, except as relators on information by the by A. G.
A. G. : Bermondsey Vestry v. Broum, 1 Eq. 204. The A. G. may sue to
restrain such interference without proof of public injury : A. O. v. Shrews-
bury Bridge Co., 21 Ch. D. 752. That the A. G. cannot sue where the right
infringed is that of a limited section only of the public, see A. 6. v. Oarner,
[1907] 2 K. B. 480.
Surveyors of highways will not be restrained by injunction from removing Highway
that which has been decided to be an obstruction to a pubUc liighway : authority.
Bagshaw v. Buxton Board, 1 Ch. D. 220 ; and see Turner v. Ringwood Board,
9 Eq. 418.
As to the right of a highway authority in case of subsidence to restore
the highway to the original level, see Lodge Holes Colliery Co. v. Mayor of
Wednesbury, [1908] A. C. 323.
A highway authority doing repairs where others were under statutory
liability to repair, are mere volunteers, and cannot recover : Macclesfield
Corpn. V. 6. C. Railway, [1911] 2 K. B. 528.
A pipe which merely discharges water from a highway on to land is not a
drain within sect. 67 of the Highway Act, 1835 (5 & 6 W. IV. c. 50), nor
can the right to use it be acquired as an easement to the public right of
passage : A. O. v. Copeland, [1901] 2 K. B. 101.
A local authority having only a limited statutory property in a street, so
far as necessary for their control of it and its safe and convenient user (see
Coverdale v. Charlton, 4 Q. B. D. 104, C. A.), could not maintain an action
for an injunction to restrain the carrjdng of telephone wires across the
street : Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co., 13 Q. B. D.
904, C. A. Secus, where the fee simple of the highway is vested in the
urban authority : Finchley Electric, cfcc. Co. v. Finchley U. D. C, [1902]
1 Ch. 866.
Where highway is not repairable by the inhabitants at large it is not
under the control or management of the R.D.C. within s. 8 of the Gas-
works Clause Act, 1847: Redhill Gas Co. v. Reigate R.D.C, [1911]
2 K. B, 565.
Under 18 & 19 V. c. 120, s. 96, streets in the metropolis are vested in the Vestry
vestry only so long as they are highways, and if they are legally stopped up
or diverted, the interest of the vestry determines : Rolls v. Vestry of St.
George's, 14 Ch. D. 785, C. A.
That a borough council under s. 105, in paving an old road which has
become a new street has no power to alter the respective widths of the
carriageway and footpaths, so as to cast upon the frontagers the expense
of throwing portions of the footpaths into the carriageway: see Wands-
worth Borough Council v. Golds, [1911] 1 K. B. 60.
As to the power of a lighting company, under an Act empowering them to Statutory
lay underground wires, to break up the surface of streets and make excava- powers
tions, see City of Montreal v. Standard Light and Power Co., [1897] A. C. 527. affecting
And as to the power of a telephone company, acting under a licence from li'gli^^ays-
582 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
the Postmaster-General pursuant to the Telegraph Acts, 1863, 1878, and
1892, to break open a street without obtaining the previous consent of the
local tramway company who is liable to repair the street or public road :
Bristol Tramways and Carriage Co. v. National Telephone Co. , [1899] 2 Ch. 282.
The power of a railway co. to divert a road, under sect. 16 of the Railways
Clauses Act, 1845, is exercisable only when the road presents an actual
obstacle to the line, and not merely for the purpose of saving the co. expense :
Pugh V. Golden Valley By. Co., 15 Ch. D. 330, C. A. ; Morris v. Tottenham
and Forest Oate By., [1892] 2 Ch. 47 ; and that sect. 53 (providing for
substitution of roads previous to interference with existing roads) applies
to a permanent as well as a temporary diversion, see A. O. v. Barry Docks
and Bail. Co., 35 Ch. D. 573.
Seashore. That the seashore is not a public highway, see Brinckman v. Matley,
[1904] 2 Ch. 313, C. A. ; Llandudno Urban Council v. Woods, [1899] 2
Ch. 705 (following Blundell v. Caiterall, 5 B. & Aid. 268), where the Court
made a declaration that the Deft was not entitled to deUver addresses on
the seashore without the consent of the Pits, but held that the matter was
too trivial to justify the granting of an injunction ; and compare Behrens v.
Bichards, [1905] 2 Ch. 614 ; and as to the foreshore of a tidal river, see
Fitzhardinge v. Purcell, [1908] 2 Ch. 139.
(v.) WATER EISHTS.
1. Injunction against diverting or diminishing Flow of Water.
Order tliat tlie Deft &c., be restrained from diverting the water
in the ponds or springs situated &c., so as to prevent the same from
flowing into the river P. ; and from employing any steam engines,
pumps, or any other means of using the water in the said ponds or
springs so as to diminish the quantity of the said water which flows
into the said river ; And also from diverting the course of the water
■which flows from surface springs on the south side &c., so as to
prevent the same from flowing in its natural course towards and
into the said river. (Parties agreeing that the legal right should be
decided by the Court), Declare that the Pit is not entitled to the
use of the water in the reservoir, nor to the use of the water in the
pond called P. ^oni.—Ennor v. Barwell, V.-C. S., 12 July, 1860,
A. 2331. — Leave was afterwards given to bring an action : S. C,
1 D. F. & J. 530.
2. Injunction restraining Defis from Interfering with Mill Stream.
Order that theDefts &c.,be perpetuallyrestrained from in any way
preventing or hindering the Pits from having the full use and enjoy-
ment of the mill stream in the pleadings mentioned and the water
thereof in the manner in which the same was used and enjoyed
prior to the — day — .—See Whitmores (Edenhridge), Ld. v. Stanford,
9 Dec. 1908, B. 3657 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 427.
3. Plaintiffs Claim to Dam disallowed— Injunction against
diverting.
Disallow the claim of the Pit that he is entitled by prescription
to dam up the water of the lake called LI— Cw— in the pleadings
SECT. IV. j Water Rights. ^^^
mentioned. And this Court doth order that the Defts, their servants,
agents, and workmen, be perpetually restrained from taking any
water from the aforesaid lake for the purpose of supplying their
district with water, and from doing any other act for that purpose
whereby the flow of water in the stream and through and by the
Pit's mill and lands in the pleadings mentioned shall be diminished.
—See Roberts v. The Owyrfai District Council, Kekewich, J., 26 Jan.
1899, B. 325 ; [1899] 1 Ch. 583 ; S. C, [1899] 2 Ch. 608, C. A.
4. Injunction to restrain interruption of Water Supply — Mandatory
Injunction to restore Same — Inquiry as to Damages — Operation
of Injunction suspended.
Declare that the Pits and the Defts B. &o., are entitled, according
to their respective interests iu the messuage called &c., now in the
Pits' occupation, and situate &c., to the free and uninterrupted
enjoyment of the supply of water to the said messuage for the use
of the occupiers thereof, from the Deft H.'s land, called &o., and
all ancient wells, spriags, troughs, and drains therein as such supply
of water has heretofore, and up to the interruption thereof by the
Deft H., been enjoyed as in the (bill) mentioned ; And order that
the Deft H., his servants &c., be perpetually restrained from inter-
rupting or interfering with the said supply of water as so hereto-
fore enjoyed, and from in anywise infringing the Pits' right to the
said supply ; And it is ordered that the Deft H. do restore the
said supply, and remove from his said land all drains and works
whereby the said supply is or may be, wholly or partially, diverted
or interfered with. But the operation of the said injunction is hereby
suspended for the period of three months from this date ; — And it is
ordered that the following &c. : 1. An inquiry what sum or sums the
said Deft H. ought to pay, and to whom, by way of compensation in
damages for any temporary or permanent injury occasioned, or to
be occasioned, to the Pits and the other persons interested in the said
messuage, according to their respective interests therein by his inter-
ruption of, or interference with, the said supply of water thereto ; —
And it is ordered that the Deft H. do pay any sum or sums so
certified to the Pits and such other persons (if any) as may be
named in the Master's certificate as entitled to the same. — Adapted
from Harrop v. Hirst, V.-C. B., 13 March, 1872, A. 705.
For the like decree against diverting a watercourse, with inquiry as to
damages, see Ivimey v. Stacker, 1 Ch. 396.
— to restrain a local board from drawing off, by their drainage works,
subterranean waters, and thus diverting water from a running surface
stream, see 0. Junction Canal v. Shugar, 6 Ch. 483 ;
— to restrain grantees of a watercourse from altering the level of the
watercourse so as to encroach upon the grantor's land, and from causing any
diminution in the overflow of water at the weirs, with order on them to
restore it to its original state, see Taylor v. St. Helen's Corp., 6 Ch. D. 26;
■ — to restrain riparian owners from continuing the erection of a weir, and
584 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
from obstructing the rights of the Pits to the flow of the water, according to
its usual course and volume to a part of their lands, see Belfast Bopeworks
Co. V. Boyd, 21 L. R. Ir. 560.
5. Declaration of Water Rights of Canal Proprietors, and Injunction
to restrain Interference therewith.
Declare that the Pits, as the owners of the tenement called W.
Mill, are entitled to the W. stream, and to the waters flowing in a
defined and natural channel into and forming part of the same, as
such stream and waters have been accustomed (before the inter-
ference therewith &c.) to flow down to the said tenement, subject
to the ordinary and reasonable use of the said stream and waters
by the riparian owners higher up on the said stream ; And Declare
that the diversion by Defts of the said stream and waters into their
reservoir &c., for the purpose of supplying water to the town of S.,
is not within such ordinary or reasonable use ; And Declare that the
Pits, under and by virtue of the powers contained in the Acts of
Parliament in the pleadings mentioned, are entitled to use the said
stream and waters as the same have been accustomed (before such
interference as aforesaid) to flow down to and into their canal, so
far as the said stream and waters are required for the supply and
navigation of their canal, and subject to such ordinary and reason-
able use by upper riparian owners as hereinbefore mentioned ; And
order that the Defts &c., their servants &c., be restrained from
diverting into their reservoir or otherwise the said stream and
waters, so as to interfere with the supply of water required for
the navigation of the said canal. — See Wilts and Berks Canal Co.
v. Swindon Waterworks Co., Lords' Journals, 15 June, 1875 ; L. E.
7 H. L. 697, 715 ; 9 Ch. 451.
6. Declaration against Water Company supplying Water outside
Statutory Limits — Injunction restraining same.
Declare that the Deft co. is not entitled to supply water within
the parish of — , in the county of — , or in any other place or places
outside the area within which the Deft co. is by statute authorized
to supply water. And order that the Defts &c., be perpetually
restrained from supplying water in the said parish or in any of
the places aforesaid. — See A. G. v. West Gloucester Wnler Co.,
Neville, J., 19 Feb. 1909, B. 899 ; [1909] 1 Ch. 636.
7. Declaration against draining Surface Water, or laying Sewer
without License — Injunction and Mandatory Injunction with-
out prejudice to future Exercise of Statutory Powers.
Declare that tlie Defts are not entitled, without the leave or
license of the Pit, to drain the surface water from — Street, or from
any of the roads or streets in the parish of — , into the Pit's pond
or land in the pleadings mentioned, or to lay down or make on the
Pit's said land, or to use any drain pipe or trench for any
SECT. IV.] Water Eights. ^^^
purpose; And order that the Defts, their servants and agents,
except with such leave and licence as aforesaid, be perpetually
restrained from draining such surface water into the Pit's pond or
land, and from laying down or making on the Pit's said land, and
from using any drain pipe or trench for any such purpose as afore-
said, and from trespassing on the Pit's said premises ; And it is
ordered that the Defts do forthwith remove all drain pipes and
trenches so laid down or made as aforesaid. — Order to be without
prejudice to the future exercise by the Defts of any statutory powers
vested in them.— Adapted from Croydsdale v. The Sunhury-on-
Thatnes Urban District Council, Stirling, J., 6 Aug., 1898, A. 3117 ;
[1898] 2 Ch. 515.
8. Obstruction of Navigable Stream restrained^— Mandatory
Injunction to remove Obstructions.
Oeder that the Deft, his servants &c., be restrained from erecting
or constructing any platform, piles, or other erections or works in
or above the river S., beyond the line of his quay, and from other-
wise obstructing the navigation of the river [or the public use of
his quay for the purpose of mooring vessels along the same] ; And
it is ordered that the Deft do forthwith remove all such platforms,
piles, and other erections and works. — Adapted from A. G.y. Terry,
as varied on appeal by omitting the words in brackets, L. C, 3 March,
1874, A. 612 ; 9 Ch. 423.
9. Obstruction of Wharfinger's Right of Access to the Thames
restrained.
Order that the Defts, the wardens &c., of the Fishmongers of the
city of London, their servants and agents, be perpetually restrained
from making or putting up any embankment facing their property
on the south side, and facing the Pit's property on the west side
thereof, or constructing any other works or doing any other thing
whereby the Pit's right of access to the river Thames on the west
side of his wharf in the (bill) mentioned, or the privilege heretofore
enjoyed by the Pit of laying and mooring craft, and loading and
unloading, embarking and disembarking goods on the west side of
his said wharf, directly from the river, may be defeated, destroyed,
or prejudiced ; and also from continuing any works or creating or
continuing any obstructions so as to interfere with the Pit's right
of access to the river, and privilege as aforesaid ; And it is ordered
that the Defts, the Conservators of the river Thames, be in like
manner restrained from selling any part of the shore or granting or
continuing any authority or license to the other Defts, whereby
the Defts, the Fishmongers' Co., their servants, contractors, or
agents, may be authorized or empowered to make or put up any
embankment on the south side of their premises, and from creating
or continuing any obstructions whereby the Pit may be stayed,
impeded, or prejudiced in the right or privilege heretofore enjoyed
586 Injunctions. [chap. xxxt.
by him of free access to and from his said wharf from and to the
river on the west side of his wharf, and of mooring or laying craft
on the river, or loading or unloading goods directly into or from
his said wharf into or from the river. — Directions as to costs. —
See Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co., V.-C. M., 3 May, 1875, B. 1002.
Eeversed by C. A., 30 Jidy, 1875, B. 2112 ; 10 Ch. 679 ; but restored
H. L., 27 July, 1876, 1 App. Ca. 662.
" Contractors " were included in the above injunction, but having regard
to Cozen v. Hundred of Hoo By., Kent, 19 April, 1880, in which case the
M. R. refused to restrain " contractors " unless made parties to the action,
the word has been omitted in the above.
For an injunction to restrain a railway co. from taking water from the
river Cam for the supply of the Cambridge Station so as to impede or injure
the navigation of the river, see A. O. v. 0. E. Ry. Co., 6 Ch. 572.
For injunction to restrain owner of a servient tenement from building a
small house over a line of underground pipes which supplied the dominant
tenement with water, see Ooodhart v. Hyett, 25 Ch. D. 182.
10. Judgment estailishing Right to Oyster Fishery and quieting
in Possession, with Perpetual Injunction.
Declare that the Pit and his assigns, and every other the person
or persons claiming or to claim under or by virtue of the will of &c.,
is and are entitled to the exclusive right to use the piece or parcel
of ground (land), part of the soil or bed of the Straits of M — , lying
and being between &c., and the water or waters covering the same,
as beds or a bed for oysters or oyster spat, and to put down and
replace, and to dredge, take, and carry away oyster spat and oysters
therefrom ; And adjudge that the Pit be quieted in the exclusive
possession of the oyster fishery or oyster fisheries situate, lying,
and being upon or within the said piece or parcel of ground (land),
or the water or waters covering the same ; And it is ordered that
the Defts J., K. &c., and each and every of them, their and each
and every of their agents, servants, and workmen, be perpetually
restrained from using the said piece or parcel of ground (land), water
or waters, and every part thereof, as beds or a bed for oyster spat of
oysters, and from putting down, or dredging, taking and carrymg
away any oyster spat and oysters thereupon or therefrom, and from
moving or in any maimer disturbing the oyster spat or oysters now
or at any time lying and being upon or within the said piece of
ground (land), water or waters, and from interfering with or in any
way hindering the enjoyment, use, or occupation by the Pit and his
assigns, and every other the person or persons claiming or to claim
under or by virtue of the said will of the said &c., of the said piece
or parcel of ground (land), and the water or waters covering the
same, as an oyster bed or oyster fishery. — Bulkeley v. Jones, M. E.,
23 July, 1856, A. 1560.
For declaration that Pits were entitled against the Deft to the benefit ot
the decree dated, &c., made in the og.use in the pleadings mentioned.
SECT. IV. J Water Eights. 587
establishing their right to toll on coals ; with a perpetual injunction to
restrain the Deft from disputing, denying, putting in issue, or calling in
question in, by, or at, or upon the occasion of the trial of the action in the
pleadings mentioned, or any other action, suit, or proceeding whatsoever,
the right of the Pits, as owners of • — , to demand and receive toll, &c. ; but
without prejudice to any other question which the said Deft might or ought
to be at liberty to raise by or at the trial of the said action, &c., according
to his pleadings therein, and the due course of law in that behalf ; and
Deft to pay Pits' costs of suit, see Corp. of Rochester v. Owlelt, V.-C. S.,
24 Feb. 1853, B. 469 ; and see Corp. of Rochester v. Lee, 2 D. M. & G. 427;
where Pits' right had been established on an issue.
NOTES.
As to the right of a riparian owner to the ordinary use of water flowing Riparian
past his land, and also, provided he does not thereby interfere with the rights,
rights of other proprietors above and below, to the extraordinary use, see
Miner v. Oilmour, 12 Moo. P. C. 156 ; Belfast Ropeworks Co. v. Boyd, 21
L. R. Ir. 560. C. A. ; BaiUy v. Clark, [1902] 1 Ch. 649, C. A.
In order to give rise to riparian rights, the land must be in actual daily
contact with the stream : North Shore Ry. v. Pion, 14 App. Ca. 612.
The diversion or obstruction of the flow of water in a stream will be
restrained by injunction at the suit of the riparian owner thereby affected :
Robinson v. L. Byron, 1 Bro. 0. C. 588 ; Elwell v. Crowther, 31 Beav. 163.
Although the riparian owner's right is not limited by the actual damage
sustained {Bickeit v. Morris, L. R. 1 H. L. So. 47 ; E. Norbury v. Kitchin,
15 L. T. 501 ; Roberts v. Gmjrfai District Council, [1899] 1 Ch. 583, sup..
Form 3, p. 582), a diversion of water by licence from an upper riparian
owner will not, when the water has been returned to the stream undiminished
and uninjured, give a lower riparian owner any right of action : Kensit v.
0. E. Ry. Co., ■2,1 Ch. D. 126, C. A. ; 23 lb., 566 ; and see W. Cumberland
Iron Co. V. Kenyrni, 11 Ch. D. 782, C. A. ; Mostyn v. Atherton, [1899] 2 Ch.
360 ; following Dudden v. Clutton Union, 1 H. & M. 627 ; and holding that
the licensee of a local authority was not entitled to interfere with the natural
flow of a stream at its source.
The owner of land containing underground water, which percolates by Underground
undefined channels (or by a defined channel whose existence and course is water,
not known : Bradford Corporation v. Ferrand, [1902] 2 Ch. 655) and flows
to the land of a neighbour, has the right to divert or appropriate the
percolating water within his own land so as to deprive his neighbour of it :
Acton V. Blundell, 12 M. & W. 324 ; Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. C. 349 ;
Bradford v. Pickles, [1895] A.. C. 587. And his right is the same although
his motive be not to improve his own land, but to maliciously injure his
neighbour or induce liis neighbour to buy him out {S. C.) ; it being a general
principle of law that the legal use of property is not rendered illegal because
it is prompted by a motive which is improper or even malicious : 8. C,
and see Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1 ; Ajello v. Worsley, [1898] 1 Ch. 274 ;
but any pollution by him of the common source, so as to interfere with the
beneflcial use by a neighbour of the water which reaches his well, will be
restrained : Ballard v. Tomlinson, 29 Ch. D. 115, C. A. (reversing 26 Ch. D.
194) ; and see Snow v. Whitehead, 27 Ch. D. 588. And so if, with the water,
silt forming a support to the neighbour's land, is withdrawn : Jordeson v.
Sutton, &c. Oas Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 217, C. A. ; and compare English v.
Metrop. Board of Works, [1907] 1 K. B. 588.
A railway company owning property adjoining a stream was restrained
from diverting water to a place outside that property and there using it
for purposes not connected with that property : McCartney v. Londonderry,
di:c. Ry. Co., [1904] A. C. ^01, overruling Earl of Sandwich v. G. N. Ry. Co.,
10 Ch. D. 707.
Turning the natural gravitation of the water into water power is a reason- Reasonable
ableuse : Belfast Ropeworks Co-, v. Boyd, 21 L. R. Ir. 560. use.
588
Injunctions.
[chap.
XXXI.
Artificial
watercourse,
A riparian owner cannot, except as against himself, confer on one who is
not a riparian owner any right to use the stream : Ormerod v. Todmorden
Mitts Co., 11 Q. B. D. 155.
An easement exorcised for the benefit of the dominant estate, e.g., a right
to open sluices or locks when a river is in flood, is not invalid merely because
from the very nature of the right its exercise by the dominant estate confers
some benefit upon other tenements : Simpson v. Oodmanchester Corp.,
[1897] A. C. 696, H. L. ; affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal
S. C, [1896] 1 Ch. 214.
Whether riparian owners can establish a private right of way over a
stream, or a right of boating for recreation for themselves and their friends
by custom, qu. : Bcmrhe v. Davis, ii Ch. D. 110.
As establishing the right of a riparian owner on the Thames to compen-
sation for the loss of his water frontage by the construction of the Embank-
ment, see D. Buccleuch v. Metropolitan Board of Works, L. R. 5 H. L. 418 ;
Metropolitan Board of Works v. McCarthy, L. R. 7 H. L. 243.
The rights inter se of riparian owners on a tidal navigable river and on an
inland stream do not differ ; and the right of a wharfinger to bring an action
in respect of an obstruction which deprives him of, or renders less easy,
access to his wharf, is not limited by the extent to which his interest in the
public right of navigation has been affected, but extends to interference with
his private right as a riparian owner : Lyon v. Fishmongers' Co., 1 App. Ca.
662 (reversing, 10 Ch. 679), sup. Form 9 ; North Shore By. v. Pion, 14
App. Ca. 612 ; and see A. 0. v. E. Lonsdale, 7 Eq. 377 ; Exeter Corp. v. E.
Devon, 10 Eq. 234 ; A. 0. v. Thames Conservators, 1 H. & M. 1 ; Kearns v.
Cordwainers' Co., 6 C. B. N. S. 388 ; Beg. v. C. N. By. Co., 9 Q. B. 315.
As to the distinction between the primd facie right of a riparian owner in
respect of a natural watercourse, and his right in respect of an artificial
watercourse, which must rest on some grant, either proved or presumed, or
on some other legal origin, see Rameshur v. Koonj, 14 App. Ca. 121 ; and as
to the acquisition of riparian rights in artificial streams, see Blackburne v.
Somers, 5 L. R. Ir. 1 ; Kensit v. C. E. By. Co., 27 Ch. D. 122, C. A. ; BoieHs
V. Bichards, 50 L. J. Ch. 297 ; 44 L. T. 271 (see 51 L. J. Ch. 944, C. A.) ;
following Sutcliffe v. Booth, 32 L. J. Q. B. 136 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 1037 ; Hanna v.
Pollock, [1900] 2 I. R. 664 ; Baily v. Clark, [1902] 1 Ch. 649, C. A. ; Burrows
V. Lang, [1901] 2 Ch. 502 ; Whitmores v. Stanford, [1909] 1 Ch. 427.
An enjoyment by virtue of a lease is not an " enjoyment as of right "
which can confer a prescriptive right to a watercourse after expiration of the
lease : Chamber Colliery Co. v. Hopwood, 32 Ch. D. 549, C. A. ; and as to
evidence of unity of possession negativing such onjojTiient, see Outram v.
Maude, 17 Ch. D. 391.
Bed of river. The presumption that a grant of land (of any tenure : see Tilbury v. Silva
45 Ch. D. 98) passes the adjoining half of the bed of a river may be rebutted
by circumstances showing a contrary intention at the time, but not by
circumstances arising subsequently : Micklethwait v. Newlay Bridge Co., 33
Ch. D. 133, C. A. As to the application of the presumption to a case where
there is an island in the middle of a stream, see Great Torrington Commons
Conservators v. Moore Stevens, [1904] 1 Ch. 347.
As to the circumstances under which a strip of land is to be deemed to have
ceased to form part of the bed of a river, and that regard must be had to all
such material circumstances as the fluctuations of the river, the nature of
the land and its growths and user, see Hindson v. Ashby, [1896] 2 Ch. 1, C. A.
For forms of orders and notes relating to the interference with the rights
of riparian owners by fouling the stream, v. inf. Sect. V., " Nuisance " (ii.).
A right by immemorial user to fix, by fixing moorings in the soil of fore-
shore, may be supported either as an ordinary incident of the navigation, or
on a presumption of a legal origin by grant from the Crown, or by concession
by ,1 former owner of the foreshore : A. O. v. Wright, [1897] 2 Q. B. 318, C. A.
But a claim by cnllieiy owners of a right as members of the public to
mocr in a pubhc harbour a coal hulk for the purpose of supplying coals
Prescription.
Fouling
stream.
Moorings.
SECT,
iv.J Rights of Common. 589
therefrom to merchant vessels entering the harbour is a claim of a right
not incidental to navigation and is bad in law : Denahy and Cadehy Main
Collieries, Ltd. v. Anson, [1911] 1 K. B. 171.
ESCAPE OF WATER.
On the principle that a man who, for his own purposes brings on his land
things which have a tendency to escape and cause mischief {e.g., water) must
take care that thoy do not get on to his neighbour's land, he is primd facie
answerable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape :
Fletcher Y. Rylands, 3 H. & C. 774 ; L. R. 1 Ex. 265 ; 3 H. L. 330 ; Crompton
V. Lea, 19 Eq. 128 ; Baird v. Williamson, 15 0. B. N. S. 376 ; and see Smith
V. Fletcher, L. R. 9 Ex. 64 ; Westminster Brymbo Co. v. Clayton, 36 L. J. Ch.
476, sup. p. 566 ; Evans v. Manchester, &c. By. Co., 36 Ch. D. 626 ; Ballard
V. Tomlinson, 29 Ch. D. 115, C. A. ; National Telephone Co. v. Baker, [1893]
2 Ch. 186, where the principle was applied in the case of an electric current
discharged into the earth beyond the control of the person so discharging it,
but see Eastern cfe South African Telegraph Co. v. Cape Toum Tramways Co.,
[1902] A. C. 381, contra, where the escape of electricity is a natural incident
of operations authorized by statute.
A canal co. being bound to keep the water in their canal were held liable
for the preventible consequences of a leakage by third parties : Evans v.
M. S. and L. By. Co., 36 Ch. D. 626.
But when the escape of water has been caused by vis major, or the act of Vis major.
God, or by percolation and gravitation, the Deft will not be liable : Nichols
V. Marsland, L. R. 10 Ex. 255 ; 2 Ex. D. 1 ; Box v. Jubb, 4 Ex. D. 76 ;
Wilson V. Waddell, 2 App. Ca. 95 ; Dixon v. Met. Board of Works, 7 Q. B. D.
418.
And it seems that a distinction will be taken between water trespassing by Natural
natural overflow, and by the diversion of the watercourse : Smith v. overflow.
Fletcher, L. R. 9 Ex. 64 ; Smith v. Kenrick, 7 C. B. 515 ; and see West
Cumberland Co. v. Kenyan, 11 Ch. D. 783 (reversing 6 Ch. D. 773), that if
the escape of water is only the result of the proper use of the land, whether
for mining or other operations, and throws no new burden on the neigh-
bour's land, such neighbour has no right of action.
An owner whose land is flooded has no right to protect himself by trans-
ferring the mischief to the land of his neighbour : Whalley v. Lancashire and
Yorkshire By. Co., 13 Q. B. D. 131, C. A., but cf. Greyvensteyn v. Hattingh,
[1911] A. C. 355.
A reversioner whose land is flooded cannot recover damages for a mere
temporary injury, though the selling value of his reversion is thereby
diminished: Bust v. Victoria Graving Dock Co., 36 Ch. D. 113.
Although the owner of the foreshore is not bound to maintain a natural Inroad of
barrier of shingle on the foreshore against the inroads of the sea, he will be the sea.
restrained from removing the barrier or using his land so as to cause an
inroad of the sea to the injury of the adjoining land : A. 0. v. Tomline, 14
Ch. D. 58 ; 12 lb. 214.
(VI.) BIGHTS OF COMMON.
1. Decree establishing Commonable Rights — Mandatory
Injunction to remove Fence — Injunction.
Declare tliat the Pit and the other freehold tenants of the manor
of Tooting Graveney, in the county of Surrey, are entitled to a right
of common of pasture upon the common and waste land generally
known as Tooting Common, delineated in the plan annexed to the
Pit's bill, and thereon coloured &c., for all manner of commonable
beasts and animals levant and couchant upon their tenements
590 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
holden of the lord of tlie said manor, and also to the right to cut
from the said common and waste lands so much heath, gorse, fern,
and furze, as may be required for fodder and litter for cattle levant
and couchant upon their said tenements ; also to a right to dig in
convenient places on the said common and waste lands, and carry
away sufficient gravel and sand for necessary use and consumption
on their said lands and houses ; And order that the Deft do on
or before the — day of — pull down and remove so much of the
fence erected as in the Pit's bill mentioned as lies between the
parts of T. G. Common, coloured &c. on the said plan ; And it
is ordered that the Deft, his servants &c., be perpetually restrained
from inclosing any part of the said common and waste lands, and
from erecting, replaciug, restoring, or repairing, or causing to be
erected, replaced, restored or repaired, any fences or iaclosures
upon the said common or waste lands or any part thereof, and also
from digging up and destroying, or causing to be dug up and
destroyed, any of the pasture, heath, gorse, and heather growing
on the said common or waste lands, so as in any manner to disturb
or interfere with the exercise or enjoyment by the Pit and the other
freehold tenants of their rights hereinbefore declared, without pre-
judice to the lord's right to dig and take away the soil for his own
benefit. — Adapted from Belts v. Thompson, L. C, 2 Aug. 1871,
A. 2701 ; 6 Ch. 732.
For like decree, except as to gravel and sand, and restraining Defts from
erecting, or commencing to erect, any houses, buildings, or fences upon any
part of Plumstead, &c. commons and from allowing any roads or paths in or
over the same, or any part thereof, which have been stopped up, at any time
in or since the year — , to remain so stopped up, see Warrick v. Provost, <fcc.
of Queen's Coll., Oxford, L. C, 2 Aug. 1871, B. 2537 ; 6 Ch. 716.
For a similar decree restraining the inclosure of Berkhampstead Common
in a suit by a freehold and copyhold tenant of the manor on behalf of himself
and all other copyhold and freehold tenants, see Smith v. Brovmlow, M. R.,
14 Jan. 1870, B. 324 ; 9 Eq. 241.
For a similar decree, see Hall v. Byron, V.-C. H., 15 Feb. 1877, A. 386 ;
4 Ch. D. 667 ; also Commrs. of Sewers, d>c. v. Glasse, M. R., 24 Nov. 1874,
B. 552 ; *S. C, 19 Eq. 134 (Epping Forest).
For decree where the right was partially established, but no infringement
proved, see Bobinson v. Dhuleep Singh, Fry, J., 27 May, 1879, 11 Ch. D.
837.
NOTES.
COMMONABLE OR CtTSTOMAEY EIGHTS.
Class repre- A freehold tenant of a manor claiming by prescription on a presumed
sentation. grant, is entitled to sue on behalf of himself and all others who are free-
holders to establish and protect their rights of common as against the lord :
Warrick v. Queen's Coll., Oxford, 6 Ch. 716 ; 10 Eq. 105 ; Mayor of York v.
Pilkinglon, 1 Atk. 282.
And see Belts v. 'Thompson, 6 Ch. 732, where the necessity of joining the
copyholders as Pits in a suit by the freeholders against their common invader
is discussed : Smith v. Brovmlow, 9 Eq. 241 ; and Ellis v. Duke of Bedford,
[1899] 1 Cb. 494, C. A. ; S. C. (sub nom. Duke of Bedford v. Ellis), [1901]
A. C. 1, H. L. ; where it was held that Pits might sue as representing a class
of persona claiming preferential rights to stands in Covent Garden market
SECT.
IV. J Rights of Common. 591
witliin the meaning of a local Act (9 G. IV. c. oxiii.), joining the A. G. as
a party representing the public interested in contesting the preference (sed
qu. as to necessity for joining A. G.; per Lord Macnaghten).
In Commrs of Sewers v. Olasse, 19 Eq. 134 (Epping Forest case), the
bill was, on behalf of Pits and all others the owners and occupiers of lands
and tenements lying within the forest, other than the waste lands of the said
forest, to estabUsh a general right of common of pasture upon all the waste
lands, and to restrain the Defts from inclosing or building upon the
waste.
And see the frame of suit discussed on demurrer, 8. C, 7 Ch. 456.
To obtain against a purchaser of a portion of the waste the benefit of the
former decree in this case establishing rights of common, and restraining
interference therewith, leave of the commrs must be obtained under the
Epping Forest Act, 1872 (35 & 36 V. c. 95), s. 3 : Commrs of Sewers v.
Gellatly, 24 W. R. 1059 ; 3 Ch. D. 610 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 788.
As to the effect of an enfranchisement deed in preventing the lord from Effect of
again granting rights of fisliing on the expiration of the existing lives for enfranchise
which the copyholds were held, see Tilbury v. Silva, 45 Ch. D. 98, C. A. ment.
To establish a right of common, under the Prescription Act, actual enjoy- Prescription
ment and possibility of legal origin by custom, prescription or grant must Act.
be shown, but the ground on which the claimant rests his alleged right is
not material : Barl de la Warr v. Miles, 17 Ch. D. 535, C. A. ; q. v. as to the
object and effect of the Act generally ; and see Tilbury v. Silva, 45 Ch. D.
98, C. A. And that " common without stint " cannot be claimed by
prescription, see Morley v. Clifford, 20 Ch. D. 753.
A lost grant cannot be presumed where such a grant would have been in
contravention of a statute : Neaverson v. Peterborough Rural D. C, [1902]
1 Ch. 557, C. A.
A right of fishing, being in the nature of a profit it prendre cannot be
claimed by prescription on behalf of a large and indefinite class, such as
owners and occupiers : Tilbury v. Silva, 45 Ch. D. 98, C. A. (per Kay, J.) ;
distinguishing Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash, 17 App. Ca. 633, as to pre-
sumption of a legal origin for an immemorial usage. And as to prescription
for common of pasture, and that a copyholder cannot prescribe in excess of
the custom of his manor, see Morley v. Clifford, 20 Ch. D. 753.
A demise of " all the warren of conies " in L. was held, under special ExtenL of
circumstances, to pass a right to the soil : Robinson v. Dhuleep Singh, 1 1 particular
Ch. D. 798, C. A. rights.
The rule of Enghsh law, that a right to an incorporeal hereditament can
only be conveyed by deed, is part of the lex loci, not of the lex fori ; so that
an English lease of sporting rights over land in Scotland can be enforced in
England, though not under seal : Adams v. Clutterbuck, 10 Q. B. D. 403.
A fold course is not a several right to the herbage, but a right of common
appurtenant of pasture for sheep : Robinson v. Dhuleep Singh, sup.
Under " common pasturage and herbage," in a decree in 1653, commoners
could only take by the mouth or bite of cattle, and could not cut or carry
away the growth of the soil : Earl de la Warr v. Miles, 17 Ch. D. 754, C. A.
Evidence of subsequent usage was not admitted to affect the construction
of the decree, wliioh was plain and unambiguous : S. C. ; and see N E. By.
Co. V. Hastings, [1900] A. C. 260.
As to the extent of an obHgation to fence adjoining land against
commonable beasts, see Coates v. Wilhochs, [1911] 2 K. B. 124.
Under the Statute of Merton, the lord can (upon issuing advertisements Approve-
under the Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 V. c. 56, s. 31), approve against ment.
common appurtenant of pasture ; and the proviso in 13 Edw. I., c. 46,
only prevents derogation from an express grant : Robinson v. Dhuleep
Singh, sup.
In the case of approvement, the onus is on the lord, his right to inclose
being conditional upon his showing that he has left sufiicient waste for the
tenants to enjoy their right of common : Hall v. Byron, 4 Ch. D. 667.
592
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Custom to
get stone.
Effect of
enfranchise-
ment of
seigniorial
rights.
Presumed
grant.
Inolosure
Act.
The question whether there is a sufficiency of common of pasture {or sheep
must be determined not according to the average number of sheep turned
out during a long course of years, but the aggregate number which the
commoners are entitled to turn out : Robertson v. Hartopp, 43 Ch. D. 484,
C. A. (considering Lahe v. Plaxton, 10 Ex. 196 ; Lascelles v. Onslow, 2 Q. B.
D. 433), where the lord was restrained from doing any acts which would
diminish the amount of pasturage. Whether, in ascertaining the sufficiency,
the modern system of farming, whereby the sheep do not get all their
sustenance from the common, ought to be considered, quaere ; S. C.
A custom for the lord with consent of the homage to make copyhold
grants of the waste, although sufficiency of common be not left, may be
good, and binding on a former copyholder, who, having enfranchised,
can no longer attend the manor court : Ramsey v. Craddas, [1893] 1 Q. B. 228.
A custom for freeholders of the manor to get stone from a quarry in the
waste of the manor may be good, and an entry on the Court Rolls is good
evidence thereof : Heath v. Deane, [1905] 2 Ch. 86.
On the release by enfranchisement of seigniorial rights in ancient arable
land of customary freehold tenure, there is not, as in the case of copyholds,
an extinguishment of rights of common, which anciently was a thing
necessary and incident to the feoffment of such land : Baring v. Abingdon,
[1892] 2 Ch. 374 ; Broome v. Wenham, 68 L. T. 651.
The presumption which the Court makes in favour of a legal origin of a
right long exercised depends on the circumstances of the enjoyment, and a
legal origin cannot be presumed in favour of a body of copyholders on the
assumption of a long series of lost grants : Tilbury v. Silva, 45 Ch. D. 98,
C. A.
Where surveyor of highways had for more than 50 years let the herbage
for pasture, a grant from the owner of the soil was presumed : Neaverson v.
Peterborough District Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 22.
That the Act of 29 G. II. c. 36, applies only to agreements entered into
by persons entitled to common of pasture, and does not legalize agreements
affecting the rights of freehold tenants to bushes and underwood, see
Nicholls V. Mitford, 20 Ch. D. 380.
A right of shooting over freehold allotments, under an Inclosure Act,
cannot be reserved to the lord unless in express terms, or by necessary
implication : Duke of Devonshire v. O'Connor, 24 Q. B. D. 468, C. A.
The usual saving clause of the lord's rights in an Inclosure Act does not
reserve to the lord any merely territorial right, e.g., the right, incident to
his ownership of the soil, of entering upon land for fishing purposes : Ecroyd
V. Coulthard, [1898] 2 Ch. 358, C. A. ; [1897] 2 Ch. 554.
Where upon inclosure, under 8 & 9 V. o. 118, rights of common have been
extinguished, allotments awarded in lieu of them are not to be deemed parts
of the lands of the commoners so as to pass by general words in a lease of
such lands : Williams v. Phillips, 8 Q. B. D. 437, C. A.
An allotment of land made in pursuance of sects. 34 and 73 of the Inclosure
Act, 1845, to the churchwardens and overseers of a parish in trust to allow
the occupiers of certain ancient cottages in the parish to get turf therefrom,
vests the legal estate in the land in the churchwardens and overseers :
Simcoe v. Pethick, [1898] 2 Q. B. 555, C. A. ; distinguishing A. 0. v.
Meyrick, [1893] A. C. 1 ; and Beg. v. Inclosure Commrs, 23 L. T. 778.
As to the conclusive character of a scheme for the inclosure of a common
under the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, see Cool v. Mitcham Common
Conservators, [1901] 1 Ch. 387.
Inolosure Commrs will not be restrained from affixing their seal or apply-
ing to Parliament for its sanction toa scheme approved bythem for inclosure
of a common : Queen's College, Oxon. v. Darby, 1876, W. N. 301.
A custom that a bull and boar for parishioners' use should be maintained
by the owner of the great tithes was not, in the absence of express words in
an Inclosure Act, shifted by the Act to the allottees of lands in lieu of tithes :
Lanchbury v. Bode, [1898] 2 Ch. 120.
SECT. IV.] Market. ^^^
By the Commons Act, 1876 (39 & 40 V. u. 56), which contains provisions County Court
for the regulation or inclosure of commons, jurisdiction is given by sect. 30 jurisdiction,
to the county court within whose jurisdiction any common is situate to hear
any case relating to any illegal inclosure or encroachment of or upon such
common made after the passing of the Act, or to any nuisance impeding the
exercise of any right of common arising after the passing of the Act, and to
grant an injunction against such inclosure, encroachment, or nuisance, or to
make an order for the removal or abatement of such inclosure, encroach-
ment, or nuisance, with right of appeal to the High Court of Justice in a,
summary manner, or by special case or otherwise, as may be prescribed by
rules of the Supreme Court, against any order, &c., by a county court under
this section. Pending an appeal from the county court, the order directing
the removal or abatement of any inclosure, encroachment, or nuisance, is
to be suspended. Nothing in the Act contained is to abridge or interfere
with any existing right of abating or otherwise preventing any illegal
inclosure of, or encroachment on, any common, or any nuisance interfering
with any right of common.
Where a statute vested land in the lord in trust for occupiers, though the
trust was charitable, the lord was held not to be deprived of the ownership
of the soil : A. O. v. Meyrick, [1893] A. 0. 1.
A right of recreation by custom upon the land of another cannot exist in Right of
the public generally, but must be confined to the inhabitants of a particular recreation,
district : Bourhe v. Davis, 44 Ch. D. 110.
A custom for the inhabitants of several adjoining or contiguous parishes
to exercise the right of recreation over land situate in one of such parishes
is bad : Edwards v. Jenkins, [1896] 1 Ch. 308.
A custom for inhabitants of a parish to have a churchway through the Churchway.
demesne of a manor within the parish may be good : Brocklebank v.
Thompson, [1903] 2 Ch. 344.
(VII.) MARKET.
1. Injunction against establishing a Market.
Declare that the Pits and others claiming under the charter
of the 34 Chas. II., in the statement of claim mentioned, are
entitled to two markets every week, namely, on Thursday and
Saturday, for the sale of fruit and vegetables, to be held in or next
to the place described in the said charter as the S — Square, in
the parish of S., in the county of M. ; And order that the Defts,
their directors, servants, agents, and workmen, be, from and after
the — day of — , perpetually restrained from establishing a fruit
and vegetable market at B., and from using or permitting to be used
any portion of their station or property there in any such manner
as to interfere with or prejudicially afEect the rights of the Pits in
the said markets as hereinbefore declared ; And it is ordered that
the Defts, their directors, servants, agents, and workmen, be per-
petually restrained from advertising, or causing to be advertised,
any portion of the said station or property at B. as a market, or as a
place used or to be used in any such manner as to interfere with or
prejudicially aSect the rights of the Pits as hereinbefore declared. —
Goldsmid v. Gt. Eastern Ry. Co., C. A., 18 Dec. 1883, A. 1935 ; S. C,
25 Ch. D. 511 ; 9 App. Ca. 927.
VOL. I. 2 Q
594
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
NOTES.
Disturbance, As to what acts amount to a disturbance of market, see Aherga/venny
Improvement Commrs v. Siraker, 42 Cli. D. 83 ; 6. E. Ry. Co. v. Ooldamid,
9 App. Ca. 927 ; 25 Ch. D. 511, C. A. ; Elwes v. Payne, 12 Ch. D. 468, C. A. ;
Mayor of Manchester v. Lyons, 22 Ch. D. 287, C. A. ; Wolverhampton Water-
works V. Hawkesford, 28 L. J. C. P. 242 ; Mayor of London v. Low, 49 L. J.
Q. B. 144 ; 42 L. T. 16 ; 28 W. R. 250 ; Wilcox v. Steel, [1904] 1 Ch. 212,
C. A. ; Haynes v. Ford, [1911] 2 Ch. 237, C. A. ; and as to the jurisdiction
of the Court to grant rehef, Stevens v. Chovm, [1901] 1 Ch. 894.
Accommo- Insufficiency of accommodation in an existing market, though a defence
dation. on the part of a person selling outside because he cannot find room within,
is no answer to an action for infringement by setting up a rival market :
0. E. Ry. Go. V. Ooldsmid, sup.
In such an action the Court of Appeal, on the balance of convenience,
reversed the order of Jessel, M. R., granting an interlocutory injunction,
and put the Defts on an undertaking to keep an account ; as if the in-
junction were granted, and the Defts ultimately proved to be in the right,
there would be great difficulty in ascertaining the compensation to which
they were entitled ; whereas, if the injunction was refused and the Pits
succeeded, the compensation to them could be readily ascertained, and
their market would suffer no permanent injury from the interim sales by
Defts : Elwes v. Payne, 12 Ch. D. 468, C. A.
In order to make the Deft liable, it is not necessary to prove that he acted
with intent to defraud the Pits of their tolls by taking advantage of the
concourse at their market : Ooldsmid v. 0. E. Ry. Co., 25 Ch. D. 511, C. A. ;
S. C, 9 App. Ca. 927, where a railway co., having established a depot for
the sale of vegetables brought by their line, within a quarter of a mile of
the Pit's ancient market for vegetables, though no tolls were taken at the
depot, were held to have infringed the Pit's rights.
An ancient charter of 1 Edw. III. though (semhle) capable of operating as
an Act of Parliament conferring on " citizens of London " individually
rights distinct from the Corp., wasconstrued as a grant to the corp. of which
they had power to waive the benefit : 0. E. Ry. Co. v, Ooldsmid, sup.
A grant of a market " in sivejuxta " a specified place, was held to extend
to external as well as internal streets, the inference being drawn that the
streets were dedicated to the public subject to exercise of the market rights :
A. O. V. Horner, 11 App. Ca. 66 ; 14 Q. B. D. 245, C. A.
As to how far a statutory dedication of the site of a market as a liighway
will interfere with the market, see Oingell v. Stepney Borough Council,
[1908] 1 K. B. 115, C. A.
As to the right of a grantee of a market, not confined to a particular
locality, to change the site to suit his convenience, on condition that he
provides a. market place, i.e., gives reasonable accommodation to those
members of the public who use the market, see Magistrates of Edinburgh v.
Blackie, 11 App. Ca. 665.
Effect of -A^" ancient right of market granted by the Crown was held superseded by
Local Act. a local Act conferring a right of market extending further than, and differing
in other respects from, the ancient market : Corp. of Manchester v. Lyons, 22
Ch. D. 287, C. A. ; and see New Windsor Corp. v. Taylor, [1899] A. C. 41 , H. L.
An injunction was granted to restrain a local board from interfering with
the erection of a weighing table and acoompanjdng building on the market
plain by the owners of the market, as market authority, under the Markets
and Pairs (Weigliing of Cattle) Act, 1887, s. 4 : Mcintosh v. Romford Local
Board, 61 L. T. 185.
Market There is no impossibility in holding a market and a fair on the same day :
and fair on D. of Newcastle v. Worksop V. D. C, [1902] 2 Ch. 145. The owner of a fair
same day. is not bound to charge all persons alike, so long as his tolls are reason-
able : S. C.
A. G. aa As to joining A. G. as a party, see Ellis v. Duke of Bedford, [1899] 1 Ch,
a party. 494, C. A., sup. p. 590.
Intent to
defraud not
necessary.
Effect of
ancient
charter.
Locality.
SKCT. v.] Nuisance. 595
Section V. — Nuisance.
P'or forms of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Nuisance from burning Bricks restrained.
Order that the Defts S. &c., their servants &c., be perpetually
restrained from burning, or causing to be burnt, any bricks on the
Defts' plot of land, in the writ mentioned, so as to occasion a nuisance
to the Pit, as the owner or occupier of the messuage or dwelling-house
and garden in the writ mentioned to belong to, and to be occupied
by, the Pit. — Deft S. to pay Pit's costs of suit, to be taxed. — Liberty
to apply.— BmJ^/ v. Stevens, M. R., 18 Feb. 1876, A. 261. (Language
dictated by the Court after reference to the cases.)
For the like order against allowing smoke, steam, or vapour to issue from
the Deft's clamp or brick-kiln, &c., so as to occasion nuisance, &c. to Pits
as occupiers of the cottage, &c., or any of them, see Haywood v. Richards,
V.-C. W., 4 Aug. 1873, A. 2341.
The leading case of Walter v. 8elfe, 4 D. G. & S. 315, restraining brick-
burning so as to occasion " damage or annoyance " to Pit, or " injury or
damage " to the house and premises, shrubberies, and plantations, is not to
be taken as having settled the general form of order in nuisance cases ; and
the words " nuisance or injury," or " nuisance " (see Ball v. Bay, 30 L. T.
1 ; 21 W. R. 282, inf. Form 2), when used in the prayer for relief, will be
adopted in preference : per Selborne, C, 21 W. R. 449 ; and see Ooose v.
Bedford, 21 W. R. 449, inf Form 6, p. 597.
For injunction to restrain the Defts from using their kilns " for the burn-
ing of cement, and from carrying on their works in such a way as to be
injurious to the health and comfort of the occupants of the fort at C — , or
other persons resident or employed upon the land belonging to the War
Department," but operation of injunction suspended until the 1st of
December, 1874, see A. O. v. Francis, V.-C. H., 13 July, 1874, A. 1933.
For an injunction to restrain Defts, as from the 2nd of November, 1866,
from permitting any vapours or gases to be emitted or to escape from their
works to the injury or damage (nuisance or injury) of the inhabitants of the
township of O — , see A. 0. v. Staffordshire Copper Extracting Co., V.-C. W.,
29 June, 1866, A. 1501.
The form of order in cases of nuisance from burning or " calcining " heaps
of mineral refuse is discussed in Fleming v. Hislop, 11 App. Ca. 686.
There, and in Shotts Iron Co. v. Inglis, 7 App. Ca. 546, the absolute
words of the " interlocutor " were modified by adding the words — " or in
any other manner so as to cause material discomfort and annoyance to the
(Pits) " ; so as not to exclude all scientific attempts to get rid of the material
without causing a nuisance:
2. Nuisance — Offensive Occupation — Inquiry as to Damages.
Order that the Deft, his servants &c., be restrained from keeping
or suffering any horse to be on the ground-floor of No. 19 G — Street,
in the (bill) mentioned, so as to occasion any nuisance to the Pit,
his family and lodgers, residing at No. 18 G — Street aforesaid.
Inquiry what damages have been sustained by reason of the user
by the Deft of the said building No. 19 G^ Street, so as to occasion
a nuisance to the Pit, his family and lodgers, as aforesaid ; And
506 Injunctions. [chap. XXXI.
order for payment of amount certified. — Ball v. Bay, C. A., 16 Jan.
1873, A. 86 ; 8 Ch. 467.
For the like order to restrain nuisance from the business of a veterinary
surgeon, carried on in the ground-floor of a house in Old Bond Street, see
G-ullich V. Tremktt, V,-C. B., 31 Jan. 1872, A. 227 ; 20 W. R. 358.
3. Injunction against Use of a Building as a Small-Pox Hospital —
Interlocutory.
Oeder that the guardians of the Union of &c., their servants and
agents, be restrained, on and after the — day of — , until judgment
in this action or until further order, from using or permitting to
be used the cottage now occupied by them as a small-pox hospital
at &o., or any other premises at &c., so as to occasion a nuisance to
the Pits as the owners and occupiers respectively of the three mes-
suages or dwelling-houses, gardens, farm, and dairy, at &c., belonging
to the Pit B. and occupied by the other Pits, the Defts by their
counsel undertaking until the — day of — , to continue the pre-
cautions, hitherto used, and not to allow any communication through
<tc., and so far as possible to prevent any communication over the
wall ifec, and not to bring any other patients into the hospital. —
Bendelow v. Worthy Union, Stirling, J., 15 Nov. 1887, A. 1694 ;
57 L. J. Ch. 762 ; 57 L. T. 849 ; 36 W. R. 168.
4. Nuisance from storing Heavy Weights on Upper Floor —
Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft E., his servants and agents, be restrained
until judgment in this action, or until further order, from leaving,
storing, or continuing to leave or store, or permitting to be left or
stored in any part of the first floor of the messuage known as &c.,
at &c., now underlet to the Defts P. & Co., to the Deft D., any
lithographic or other stones or materials of such weight or size, or
so placed, left, or stored, as to injure any of the principal timbers
or walls of the said building, or doing or causing any damage, danger,
or nuisance to the Pits, or any of them, or the superior landlords of
the same premises, contrary to the covenants in an indenture of
lease dated &c., and made between &c., the reversion of which lease
is now vested in the Pits C. &c., and from doing any other act or
thing to endanger the stability of the building aforesaid, or the
safety of the Pit M. on the ground-floor thereof. — Cohen v. Poland,
North, J., 22 July, 1887, A. 1104.
5. Nuisance from Carriages &c., drawing to and leaving Cluh after
Midnight.
Order that the Deft be perpetually restrained from carrying on
or permitting to be carried on by himself, his managers or agents,
SECT, v.] Nuisance. 5^7
the business or concern of the P — Club, so as to cause a nuisance
by noise to the Pits or any of them, as owners, lessees, or occupiers
of the premises No. — , — Street, or any of the tenants or under-
lessees of the Pits, as owners or lessees of the last-mentioned premises,
first by cabs or carriages drawing to or leaving the club premises
or by the whistling for cabs or carriages drawing to or leaving the
club premises between the hours of midnight and 7 a.m., and secondly
by any crowd caused to be assembled by the boxing contests or enter
tainments held on the club premises. — Bellamy v. Wells, Romer, J.
16 Dec. 1890, A. 1712 ; -S. C, 39 W. R. 158 ; 63 L. T. 635.
6. Nuisance from Steam Hammer — Noise and Vibration restrained.
Ordee that the Deft B., his servants &c., be restrained from
working the steam-hammer in the pleadings mentioned in such a
way as to cause a nuisance or injury to the Pit and his premises in
the pleadings mentioned ; And it is ordered that the following, &c. :
1. An inquiry what damage has been occasioned to the Pit and his
said premises by the working of the said steam-hammer ; and refer it
to the taxing master to tax the Pit his costs of this cause. — Direction
for set-ofE of costs and payment. — Liberty to apply. — Goose v.
Bedford, C. A., 25 Feb. 1873, A. 602 ; 21 W. R. 449.
For the like order to restrain Deft from working a steam-engine and
machinery between the hours of 7 p.m. and 6 a.m., so as to occasion a
nuisance (or annoyance) to the Pit or the tenants or occupiers of his house,
see Beaumont v. Emery, V.-C. M., 23 Feb. 1875, L. J., 31 Mav, 1875, A. 392,
1364.
For order appointing special referee to report as to noise coming from
Deft's stables, and whether the Pit's premises are likely to be affected by
the drainage from the Deft's stables, see Broder v. Saillard, M. R., 1 March,
1876, A. 338 ; and for further order after report of referee, see 8. C, M. E.,
29 March, 1876, A. 837 ; ;S. C, 2 Ch. D. 692.
7. Nuisance by Vibration— Inquiries as to Damage.
Order that the Defts, their directors, agents, servants &c., be
restrained from using or working or causing or permitting to be used
or worked in or upon the Deft's premises at — in the county of — ,
any dynamo or other engine or machinery in such a manner as by
reason of vibration or otherwise to injure the structure, fixtures or
fittings of the leasehold tenement and premises called the — Arms
in the judgment mentioned, and held and occupied by the Pit, or
to interfere with the enjoyment by the Pit of the said premises or
his use thereof for the purposes of his business of (a licensed victualler
and innkeeper), or otherwise or in any way so as to cause a nuisance
to the Pit or injury to his said leasehold premises or the said busi-
ness. Refer it to the official referee to report — 1. What sum of
money is proper to be awarded to be paid by the Defts to the Pit
by way of compensation to him as lessee and occupier of the — Arms
598 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
aforesaid for the inconvenience and discomfort caused to liim as
such lessee and occupier by noise, vibration or steam arising or issuing
from the Defts' works and premises at — aforesaid down to the date
of the report. 2. What sum of money is proper to be awarded to
be paid by the Defts to the Pit by way of compensation for the
damage sustained by him as such lessee and occupier as aforesaid
by reason of the injury caused to the structure of the — Arms afore-
said by the Defts' operations and works down to the date of the
report. Operation of restraint suspended until first motion day in
next Easter Sittings with liberty to apply. — See Shelfer v. City of
London Electric Lighting Co., C. A. 18 Dec. 1894, B. 01074 ; [1895]
1 Ch. 287, C. A.
8. Fireworks.
Obdee that the Deft, his servants &c., be perpetually restrained
from letting ofi, or causing or permitting to ascend, from the P—
Gardens in the (bill) mentioned, any rockets, shells, fire balloons, or
other pyrotechnic devices or contrivances which, or the sparks from
which, may, or may be liable to, fall on the B — mill premises in the
said (bill) mentioned, and endanger the timber stored thereon, or
any part thereof.— ScAq^eM v. Reilly, M. E., 13 Jan. 1876, B. 42.
9. Noisy Entertainment — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, his servants &c., be restrained from playing
or permitting to be played any organ or other instrument on the
Deft's premises, at &c., adjoining the property of the Pit known as
&c., so as to cause a nuisance or injury to the Pit or his family or
other the inmates or occupiers of the Pits' said property. — Lampton
v. Mellish, Chitty, J., 20 July, 1894, B. 926 ; [1894] 3 Ch. 163.
For similar orders, see Walker v. Brewster, 5 Eq. 25 (where the form of the
order is discussed, and limited to any public exhibition, or other entertain-
ment, whereby a nuisance may be ocoasioned to the annoyance and injury
of the Pit) : Colbourn v. Hardy, V.-C. J., 29 Jan. 1869, A. 261 ; InchbaU v.
Robinson, 4 Ch. 388 ; Bostock v. North Staffordshire By. Co., 5 D. G. & S.
590 ; 3 Sm. & G. 283.
10. Dangerous Occupation — Testing Fire-arms.
Order that the Deft be perpetually restrained from firing at a
target in such a manner as to be a nuisance to the Pits or other
owners, lessees, or occupiers of the lands and hereditaments known
as the S. estate, and from using in such manner as to be a nuisance
any part of his premises as a place for proving or testing fire-arms
therein, and from using fire-arms therein in such manner as to be a
nuisance.— Darvall v. Dougall, V.-C. W., 20 July, 1871, A. 1990.
See also Banister v. Bigge, 34 Beav. 287, for an injunction to restrain the
use of a rifle-range for ball-practice, certified by the Secretary of State for
SECT. V.J Nuisance. 599
War, until it should have been rendered free from danger to Pit, his family
and workmen.
For the like order to restrain the use of land at Birmingham as a range
for trying and proving fire-arms, or the discharge of fire-arms thereon, to
the annoyance or injury of the patients in a hospital, see Cadbury v. Walter,
V.-C. H., 3 Feb. 1876, A. 171.
For an injunction restraining blasting operations by a railway oo. for the
construction of their line " in such manner as thereby to cast upon Pit's
house and buildings, or upon any part of his gardens or land there, or any
of the said pieces of land in his occupation, any stones, pieces of rock, or
other missiles or things," see Arnold v. Furness By. Co., V.-C. B., 23 April,
1874, A. 947 ; 22 W. R. 613.
For an injunction restraining a smoke nuisance by a railway oo., see
Smith Y. Midland By. Co., 25 W. R. 861 ; 37 L. T. 224 ; nuisance from gas
works, see A. 0. v. Gas Light, &c. Co., 7 Ch. D. 217.
For an inquiry as to damages in respect of nuisance from noise, vibration,
and obstruction of light (completed before bill filed), where a mandatory
injunction was refused, see V. Oort v. ClarJc, 16 W..R. 569 ; 18 L. T. 343.
For forms and notes upon the injury to property and health from river
pollution, see inf., "Nttisanob" (ii.).
NOTES.
The grounds of interference in the case of private nuisance are : — Nuisance,
(a) Material injury or imminent and inevitable risk to property or health : what risk
see A. 6. v. Nichol, 16 Ves. 338 ; Haines v. Taylor, 2 Ph. 209 ; 10 Beav. 75 ; *" P^Pef
Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co., 7 D. M. & G. 436 ; 7 H. L. C. 600 (injury to °'' '^^^"^l^-
the crops of a market gardener) ; Beardmore v. Tredwell, 3 Giff. 683 (injury
to trees from brick-kilns) ; Tipping v. St. Helen's Smelting Co., 1 Ch. 66
(injury to land by the smoke of copper works) ; St. Helen's Smelting Co. v.
Tipping, 11 H. L. 0. 642 ; Arnold v. Furness By. Co., 22 W. R. 613 (tipping
rock or rubbish on Pit's land) ; Hepburn v. Lordan, 2 H. & M. 345 (storing
inflammable materials, jute, near Pit's house) ; Crowder v. Tinkler, 19 Ves.
617 (powder mill) ; Bendelow v. Worthy Union, 57 L. J. Ch. 762 ; 57 L. T.
849; 36 W. R. 168 (small-pox hospital). And see also Crotote»-«< v. ^mer-
sham Burial Board, 4 Ex. D. 5 (allowing poisonous trees to project over
neighbour's land) ; and that there is no duty as between adjoining land-
owners to cut thistles, the natural growth of the soil, see Giles v. Walker,
24 Q. B. D. 657.
The injury to property {e.g., to vegetation from smoke and vapours) must
be actual, substantial, and visible — such as would entitle the Pit to recover
damages in an action ; and contingent, prospective, or remote damage
will not give the right to an injunction : Salvin v. Braneepath Coal Co.,
9 Ch. 705 ; Elmhirst v. Spencer, 2 Mac. & G. 45 ; Sholts Iron Co. v. Inglis,
7 App. Ca. 518, 534.
Mere speculative depreciation of property (e.g., by the erection of a
national school in the immediate neighbourhood) is not enough : Harrison
V. Good, 11 Eq. 338. And see White v. Cohen, 1 Drew. 312 ; Biddulph v.
St. George's Vestry, 3 D. J. & S. 493.
Circumstances of locality will be taken into consideration : Sturges v. Locality.
Bridgman, 11 Ch. D. 852, C. A. ; and although a man by " coming to the
nuisance " (of noxious vapours) in a manufacturing district does not lose
his right to relief, the injury to his property must be such as sensibly to
diminish its value ; and a fortiori a much stronger case of personal dis-
comfort will have to be shown by a Pit residing in a manufacturing district :
St. Helen's Smelting Co. v. Tipping, 11 H. L. C. 643 ; and see Salvin v.
Brancepeth Co., sup. ; and compare Bushmer v. Polsue, [1906] 1 Ch. 234,
C. A.
Where the Deft claims the right to do the act complained of, and refuses Temporary.
600 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
to give an undertaking, the Court infers that there will he a repetition of the
nuinance : Phillips v. Thomas, &i L. T. 793.
IE there is no exceptional risk, and the injury is accidental or occasional
only^ and precautions have been taken, there will be no injunction : Coohe v.
Fnihes, 5 Eq. 166 ; nor where a mere decision on the legal question will give
the Pit all the relief he is really entitled to : Jenkins v. Jaclcson, 40 Ch. D.
71.
And generally, if the nuisance is not continuous, but temporary and
occasional only, the Court will not interfere : Gaunt v. Fynney, 8 Ch. 8 ;
Swaine v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 4 D. J. & S. 211 ; A. 0. v. Cambridge Gas
Co., 4 Ch. 71 ; A. G. v. Sheffield Gas Co., 3 D. M. & G. 304 ; Cooper v.
Crabtree, 20 Ch. D. 589, C. A. ; Rust v. Victoria Graving Dock Co., 36 Ch. D.
113, C. A. ; Harrison v. Souihwark and Vauxhall Water Co., [1891] 2 Ch.
409 ; and an injunction may be granted notwithstanding that the nuisance
has ceased after the writ and before the trial : Dean of Chester v. Smelting
Corporation, 1901, W. N. 179. As to what constitutes continuous nuisance,
see Colwell v. St. Pancras Borough Council, [1904] 1 Ch. 707.
Interference (6) Material interfei;Bnce with the reasonable ordinary comfort of human
with ordinary existence : see Walter v. Selfe, 4 D. & S. 315 ; Crump v. Lambert, 3 Eq. 409 ;
comfort. Robinson v. Kilvert, 41 Ch. D. 88, C. A. ; Bellamy v. Wells, 39 W. R. 158 ;
63 L. T. 635.
To give a right of action (including summary relief by injunction) in
respect of nuisance or annoyance, it is not necessary to prove pecuniary loss,
or direct injury, or actual risk to health ; it is enough if the nuisance be
such as to interfere with the ordinary comfort or enjoyment of life and
property ; as, e.g., by causing a reasonable apprehension of risk from
infectious disease : Tod-Heatley v. Benham, 40 Ch. D. 80, C. A. ; Rex v.
White, 1 Burr. 333 ; Gaslcell v. Bayley, 30 L. T. 516 ; or if it (the nuisance)
be offensive to the senses : Rex v. Neil, 2 Car. & Pay. 485 ; and if such
annoyance is caused, reasonableness of user by the Deft is not per se a
defence : Beinhardt v. Mentasti, 42 Ch. D. 685 ; Sanders Clark v. Grosvenor
Mansions Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 373 ; A. G. v. Cole, [1901] 1 Ch. 205.
As to the meaning of the words " annoyance " and " grievance " in a
covenant against nuisance, see Tod-Heatley v. Benham, 40 Ch. D. 80, C. A. ;
and as to the operation of a covenant for quiet enjoyment as protection to
covenantee against nuisance by covenantor, see Robinson v. Kilvert, 41
Ch. D. 88, C. A. ; Sanderson v. Mayor of Berwick, 13 Q. B. D. 547, 551 ;
Dennett v. Atherton. L. R. 7 Q. B. 316, 326, 327 ; Williams v. Gabriel, [1906]
1 K. B. 155 ; Tebb v. Cave, [1900] 1 Ch. 642 (erection of buildings by land-
lord on adjoining land causing chimneys of tenant to smoke). But see
Davis V. Toum Properties, dec. Corporation, [1903] 1 Ch. 797, C. A. A Pit is
entitled to the enjoyment of pure air by night as well as by day : Knight v.
Gardner, 19 L. T. 673.
Instances. On this branch of the subject the following cases may be consulted :—
Brick-burning.— Walter v. Selfe, 4 D. & S. 313 ; Pollock v. Lester, 11 Ha.
275 ; iMSCombe v. Steer, 15 W. R. 1191 ; Roberts v. Clarke, 18 L. T. 49 ;
Bamford v. Turnley, 3 B. & S. 62 (overruling Hole v. Barlow, 4 C. B. N. S.
334, and deciding that brick-burning by which nuisance was occasioned was
not a reasonable use by Deft of his land) ; A. G. v. Tossell, V.-C. W., 2 Aug.,
19 Deo. 1867 (deciding that brick-burning within certain limits (180 yards)
is a nuisance, and that the remedy in penalties, given by the Public Health
Act, 1848, sect. 140, does not affect the right of the Pit to file an information
at the relation of the local board to put a stop to a pubUc nuisance) ; A. 0.
V. Huesey, Kay, J., 26 June, 1890.
And see Wanstead Local Board v. Hill, 13 C. B. N. S. 479, on the question
whether brick-making is an offensive trade within the Public Health Act,
1848 (11 & 12 V. c. 63), s. 64 (re-enacted by the Public Health Act, 1875,
s. 112).
Calcining. — Shotts Iron Co. v. Inglis, 7 App. Ca. 518.
Carpet beating.— Liisher v. Gibbs, Kay, J., 14 May, 1884, B. 719.
SECT.
v.] Nuisance. 601
Ctment Works.— Vmfrevilh v. Johnson, 10 Ch. 580 ; A. 0. v. Francis,
V.-C. H., 31 July, 1874, A. 1933 ; L. J., 9 Nov. 1874, A. 2932.
Chemical or gas works, noxious vapours and smohe. — Barlow v. Bailey,
1871, W. N. 95; Bankart v. Houghton, 27 Beav. 425 ; Salvin v. Brancepeih
Coal Co., 9 Ch. 705 ; Crump v. Lambert, 3 Eq. 409 ; Savile v. Kilner,
26 L. T. 277 ; Smith v. Midland By. Co., 25 W. R. 861 ; 37 L. T. 224 ;
A. G. V. Metropolitan By. Co., Kay, J., 13 Jan. 1882, ex relatione order not
drawn up (nauseous and offensive odours from the manufacture of gas).
Chimneys. — The non-eonsumption, so far as is practicable, of smoke in
any manufacturing or trade process, and the emission of black smoke in
such quantity as to be a nuisance from any chimney (not of a private
dwelling-house) are nuisances to bo summarily dealt with by the local
authority. See Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 V. c. 55), s. 91 (re-enact-
ing, with some alterations and additions. Nuisances Removal Act, 18 & 19
V. 0. 121, s. 8 ; and Sanitary Act, 1866 (29 & 30 V. c. 90), s. 19). And for
cases on these enactments, see Cooper v. Woolley, L. R. 2 Ex. 88 ; Barnes
V. Akroyd, L. R. 7 Q. B. 474 ; Norris v. Barnes, lb. 537 ; Gaskell v. Bayley,
30 L. T. 516 ; Barnes v. Eddleston, 1 Ex. D. 102 ; Weekes v. King, 53 L. T.
51 ; 15 Cox, C. C. 722.
Dangerous trade.— McMurray v. Cadwell, 1889, W. N. 216 ; 1890, W. N.
63 (manufacture of amorces ; injunction suspended for a fortnight to
enable appellant to apply to Home Office for leave to make protective
alterations).
Dangerous works on highway. — ^As to the duty of persons who undertake
such works, to take care that those who execute them do not negligently
cause injurv to the public, see Holliday v. National Telephone Co., [1899] 2
Q. B. 392, C. A.
Fried-fish shop.— Wood v. Miles, V.-C. H., 1 Dec. 1880, B. 2249 ; that
such a business is not per se an offensive trade within the Public Health
Act, 1875, s. 112, see Braintree Local Board v. Boyton, 52 L. T. 99.
Healing premises. — Robinson v. Kilvert, 41 Ch. D. 88, 97, C. A. ; Rein-
hardt v. Mentasti, 42 Ch. D. 685.
Hospital for infectious diseases. — Metropolitan Asylums v. Hill, 6 App. Ca.
193 ; Tod-Heatley v. Benham, 40 Ch. D. 80, C. A. ; Bendehw v. Worthy
Union, 57 L. J. Ch. 762 ; 57 L. T. 849 ; 36 W. R. 168 ; A. 6. v. Hanwell
Urban Council, [1900] 2 Ch. 337, C. A. ; [1900] 1 Ch. 51. A small-pox
hospital is not an " other noxious or offensive business " within sect. 112
of the Public Health Act, 1875, and under sect. 131 a local authority may
establish such a hospital outside their district without the consent, under
sect. 285, of the local authority of the district in which it is to be erected :
Withington District Local Board v. Manchester Corporation, [1893] 2 Ch. 19,
C. A. ; Dalton v. St. Mary Abbots, Kensington, 47 L. T. 349.
Malicious interference with servants. — Action held maintainable by em-
ployer against persons who, to his damage, maliciously conspire to induce
his servants to break their contract of service, and also conspire together to
injure him by preventing persons from entering into contracts with him :
Quinn v. Leatham, [1901] A. C. 495, and see Read v. Friendly Society of
Operative Stonemasons, [1902] 2 K. B. 88 ; Oiblan v. National, cfcc. Labourers'
Union, [1903] 2 K. B. 600, C. A. ; but as to trade disputes, see Trade
Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 47) ; Smithies v. National Association of
Operative Plasterers, [1909] 1 K. B. 310 ; Conway v. Wade, [1909] A. C. 506 ;
distinguishing Allen v. Flood, [1898] A. C. 1, and following Temperton v.
Russell, [1893] 1 Q. B. 715, C. A.
Manure works, and carting night soil. — Knight v. Gardner, 19 L. T. 673.
Noise and vibration. — Steam-hammer, &c. — Roskell v. Whitworth, 5 Ch.
459 ; Goose v. Bedford, 21 W. R. 449 ; Eaden v. Firth, 1 H. & M. 573 ;
Crump V. Lambert, 3 Eq. 409 ; Fenwick v. E. Lond. By., 20 Eq. 544 ;
Sturges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch. D. 852, C. A. (pestle and mortar) ; Webb v.
Backer, 1881, W. N. 158 (alteration of premises, hammering at night) ;
Harrison v. Souihwwrk and Vauxhall Water Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 409 (temporary
602 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
use of lift pumps) ; Lamhton v. Mellish, [1894] 3 Ch. 163 {noises caused
by acta of different individuals); Bushmer v. Polsue, [1907] A. C. 121
(printing machines in Pleet Street).
— Bell-ringing. — Sollau v. De Held, 2 Sim. N. S. 133; Hardman v.
Holberlon, V.-C. S., 30 June, 1866, A. 1373 (dissolved 5 Dec. 1866, A. 2502 •
see 1866, W. N. 379).
— Keeping horses on ground-floor of a London dwelling-house. — Ball v.
Ratj, 8 Ch. 467, Form 2, p. 595 ; Oullick v. Tremlett, 20 W. R. 358 ; Broder
V. Saillard, 2 Ch. D. 692.
Musical ^ instruments.— Christie v. Davey, [1893] 1 Ch. 316 (semble, con-
stant playing in dwelling-house not a nuisance ; seeus, if done to annoy
neighbour).
Noisy entertainments, collecting disorderly crowds. — Walker v. Brewster, 5
Eq. 25 ; Inchbald v. Robinson, 4 Ch. 388 ; Bostock v. N. Staff. By. Co., 5
D. & S. 590 ; 3 Sm. & G. 283 ; Crofts v. Hume, V.-C. B., 6 Mar. 1885, A. ;
Cox V. Baker, V.-C. B., 11 June, 1886 (noisy exhibition in Edgware Road) ;
Allen V. Vokes, 15, 31 Aug. 1888, ex relatione orders not drawn up ; 32 Sol.
Journ. 734 (noisy entertainments, swings, rifle gallery) ; Phillips v. Thomas,
62 L. T. 693 (noisy show in market square) ; Jenkins v. Jackson, 40 Ch. D.
71 (dancing in room over that of Pit) ; Bellamy v. Wells, 63 L. T. 635 (club
causing noise at night), sup. Form 5, p. 596 ; Barber v. Penley, [1893] 2
Ch. 447 (performance causing crowd to collect in street) ; Seaward v.
Paterson, [1897] 1 Ch. 545, C. A. ; Dewar v. City and Suburban Racecourse
Co., [1899] 2 I. R. 345 (racing on Sunday).
Use of garden as a skittle or bowling alley. — Barham v. Hodges, V.-C. H.,
2 July, 1876, A. 1391 ; 1876, W. K. 234.
Use of a rifle range so as to be a nuisance to adjoining houses.- — Banister v.
Bigge, 34 Beav. 287 ; Darvall v. Dougall, sup. Form 10, p. 598. See, how-
ever, Hawley v. Steele, 6 Ch. D. 521, that the reasonable use for military
purposes of land acquired by authority of Parliament, and vested for such
purposes in the War Secretary, will not be restrained.
Urinal. — Vernon v. St. James' Vestry, 16 Ch. D. 449 ; Sellors v. Mattock
Bath Local Board, 14 Q. B. D. 928 ; Chibnall v. Paul, 29 W..R. 536 (where
the Deft, by so disposing his premises as tacitly to invite the nuisance, was
held responsible) ; Pethick v. Corp. of Plymouth, 42 W. R. 246 (where an
injunction was refused to restrain an urban authority from placing a urinal
in a public park near the Pit's houses, and quwre whether under sect. 39 of
the Public Health Act, 1875, the decision of the urban authority is not
conclusive).
Vacant land. — The owner of a piece of land is under a duty at common law
to prevent it from being so used as to be a public nuisance, and this duty
may be enforced by injunction at the suit of the A. G. ; A. 0. v. Tod Heatley,
[1897] 1 Ch. 560, C. A.
Watching and besetting premises. — For a case in which a perpetual in-
junction was granted to restrain the defendants from watching or besetting
either the plaintiffs' works or the works of a sub-manufacturer for them
for any purpose except merely to obtain or communicate information, see
J. Lyons cfc Sons v. Wilkins, [1899] 1 Ch. 255, C. A. But see now (Trade)
Disputes Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 47), s. 2, repealing part of s. 7 of the
Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act (1875), and legalizing peaceful
picketing.
As to the right under s. 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property
Act, 1875, and 0. xvi, 1, of several members of an association of master
builders to combine in bringing an action against the officials of various
trade unions, see Walters v. Green, [1899] 2 Ch. 696.
Waterworks. — Injunction to restrain the laying of pipes, amounting to a
" constructing " of waterworks within sect. 52 of the Public Health Act,
1875 (38 & 39 V. o. 55), mthin the limits of supply of an established water
company, without previous notice to them : Huddersfield Corp. v. Savens-
thorpe Urban District Council, [1897] 2 Ch. 121, C. A.
SECT, v.] Nuisance. "^^
No legal right under the Prescription Act (as in the case of obstruction Aoquiee-
of light) can be acquired in respect of noise : Sander v. Manley, 1878, W. N. cence.
p. 181 ; but the right to an injunction against nuisance may, as in other
cases, be lost by acquiescence (e.g., by allowing expense to be incurred, or a
tradeto be carried on, without taking proceedings): Williamsv.E. of Jersey,
Cr. & Ph. 91 ; Gaunt v. Fynney, 8 Ch. 8 ; and see Turner v.Mirfleld, 34 Beav. 390.
But acquiescence in the erection of works which, though noxious in
themselves, produce but little injury at first, does not warrant their
development to the extent of causing great damage ; Bankart v. Houghton,
27 Beav. 425 ; 8t%i.rges v. Bridgman, 11 Ch. D. 852, C. A. ; and see Baxen-
dale V. McMurray, 2 Ch. 790.
The lessor or reversioner of property cannot, it seems, though his tenants Temporary
the actual occupiers might, maintain an action in respect of a merely tern- nuisance,
porary nuisance, e.g., from smoke or noise : Jones v. Chappell, 20 Eq. 539 ;
Simpson v. Savage, 1 C. B. N. S. 347 ; Mott v. Shoolbred, 20 Eq. 22 ; Cooper
V. Crabtree, 19 Ch. D. 193 ; Sandford v. Clarice, 21 Q. B. D. 398 ; but where,
from change of interest by letting the property since action brought, the
Pits have become reversioners, amendment by adding the new tenants as
co-Pits has been allowed : House Property Co. v. H. P. Horsenail Co., 29
Ch. D. 190.
In the case of apprehended nuisance. Pit seeking an injunction must Apprehended
prove imminent danger of a substantial kind, or that the injury, if it does nuisance,
come, will be irreparable : Fletcher v. Beaky, 28 Ch. D. 688 ; A. G. v. Man-
chester Corporation, [1893] 2 Ch. 87, where the principles on which the
Court proceeds in granting or refusing in injunctions quia timet against
nuisance are discussed.
Although persons entrusted with statutory powers are bound to exercise Exercise of
them so as not unnecessarily to create a nuisance (Geddis v. Bann Reservoir, statutory
8 App. Ca. 430 ; Canadian Pacific By. Co. v. ParJce, [1899] A. C. 535, P. C. ; powers.
Jordeson v. Sutton, djc. Gas Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 217, C. A. (Form 6, sup.
p. 555)), yet where the user of premises in a particular way is incidental
and necessary to that which the statute authorizes, such user cannot be
restrained on the ground of nuisance : L. B. tt- 8. C. By. v. Truman, 1 1
App. Ca. 45, where a railway co. were held justified in using land as a depot
for cattle as being incidental to the authorized use of their railway for
cattle traffic ; and see Harrison v. Southwarh and Vauxhall Water Co.,
[1891] 2 Ch. 409 ; East Fremantle Corporation v. Annois, [1902] A. C. 213 ;
Canadian Pacific Ey. v. Boy, [1902] A. C. 220 ; National Telephone Co. v.
Baker, [1893] 2 Ch. 186, where a tramway co. using electrical traction
under a provisional order of the Board of Trade were held to be protected
from liability for electrical disturbance caused thereby in the wires of a
telephone co. ; but persons authorized by statute to erect a small-pox
hospital could not do so in a place where a nuisance would be caused to the
neighbourhood : Met. Asylums v. Hill, 6 App. Ca. 193 ; and compare A. 0.
V. Nottingham Corporation, [1904] 1 Ch. 673 ; nor a vestry the like as to
a urinal : Vernon v. Vestry of St. James\ 16 Ch. D. 449, C. A. ; not a gas
00. in the erection of a gasometer : Jordeson v. Sutton, dkc. Gas Co., [1899]
2 Ch. 217, C. A. ; and see other oases, sup., and so the statutory powers
of a drainage board afford justification only for acts done with due care,
and not for negligent acts, as e.g., by deepening a river bed and failing
periodically to cleanse it : Bligh v. Bathangan River Drainage Board, [1898]
2 I. R. 206 ; and a tramway co. having power to construct " works and
conveniences " were liable for nuisance caused by stables erected by them :
Rapier v. London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 588, C. A. ; and see Ogston
V. Aberdeen District Tramways Co., [1897] A. C. Ill, H. L. (Sc), where a
tramway co. were held to have committed a nuisance by heaping up snow
in the .streets and scattering salt upon the track of the tramway ; and
see Canadian Pacific By. Co. v. Parke, [1899] A. C. 535, P. C. (injunction to
prevent user of the water in disregard of common law obligation to do no
damage to the land).
604
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Summary
proceedings.
Inquiry and
report.
Discovery of
documents.
Where an Act of Parliament contains a special provision for the pro-
tection of an individual, he may sue without joining the A. G., or showing
particular damage : Mayor of Devonport v. Plymouth Tram Co., 52 L T
161. ■ ■
Where a Metropolitan Borough erected a stand to enable members of
the Council to view' a procession, and the stand was a public nuisance
and obstructed the view of the main thoroughfare from the plaintiff's
house, she was entitled to recover as damages the amount which but for
the defendant's act she might have made by letting seats in her house to
view the procession : Campbell v. Mayor, &c., of Met. Borough ofPaddinaton
[1911] 1 K. B. 869. ^ '
The Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 V. c. 55), s. 91, defines nuisances
(see also Nuisances Removal Act, 1855 (18 & 19 V. c. 121), s. 8 ; Sanitary
Act, 1866 (29 & 30 V. o. 90), s. 19), which may be dealt with summarily by
the local authority in the manner provided by the Act (sects. 94 — 106). If
such summary proceedings would afford an inadequate remedy, proceedings
may be taken in the Superior Courts to enforce the abatement or pro-
hibition of any nuisance under the Act, or for the recovery of any
penalties, or for the punishment of persons offending against the Act
(sect. 107).
Actions cannot be brought by a local board in respect of a public nuisance
under the last-mentioned section, except with the sanction of the A. G., or
by some person who has suffered damage : Wallasey Local Board v. dracey,
36 Ch. D. 593 ; Tottenham Urban District Council v. Williamson S Sons,
[1896] 2 Q. B. 353, C. A. Without evidence of actual injury an action may
be maintained by the A. G., and injunction obtained, restraining illegal
acts tending to the injury of the public : A. 0. v. Shrewsbury, &c. Bridge
Co., 21 Ch. D. 754 ; e.g., to make a railway co. run their trains at the pace
of four miles per hour as reqiiired by statute, along a level crossing over a
highway : A. 0. v. L. N. W. By. Co., [1900] 1 Q. B. 78, C. A. ; following
A. G, V. Shrewsbury {Kingsland) Bridge Co., 21 Ch. D. 752.
The provisions of the Act relating to nuisances are to be in addition to,
" and not to abridge or affect any right, remedy, or proceeding under any
other provisions of the Act, or under any other Act, or at law or in equity " ;
but no person shall be punished for the same offence both under the Act
and under any other law or enactment (sect. 111).
A highway authority, when altering the level of a street pursuant to
sect. 98 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 V. c. 120), are
not bound to exercise at their own expense the power of altering the position
of underground pipes for the benefit of a water co. : Southwark and Vaux-
hall Water Co. v. Wandsworth District Board of Works, [1898] 2 Ch. 603,
C. A.
By the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 13, which is substituted for part of sect.
56 of the Jud. Act, 1873, questions may be referred for inquiry and report
to any official or special referee ; and, at the trial or hearing, the assistance
as assessors of persons specially qualified may be obtained under sect. 56.
For the exercise of this power in nuisance, ancient light, and mineral tres-
pass cases, see Broder v. Saillard, s^ip. p. 385 ; Carlwright v. Last, sup. p.
385 ; Craven v. Kaye, sup. p. 385 ; Bendelpw v. Wortley Union, 57 L. J.
Ch. 762, sup. p. 596. And see sup. Chap. XXVI., " Abbitrations."
A surveyor so appointed acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, and is not
subject to examination as a witness : Broder v. Saillard, 24 W. R. 456.
In cases of nuisance, unless it plainly appears that the conclusion of the
Court below upon the evidence was ^vrong, the Appeal Court is unwilling to
reopen the investigation by directing an issue or employing experts to
examine and report : Salvin v. North Brancepeth Co., 9 Ch. 705 ; and see
Inchbald v. Robinson, 4 Ch. 388.
In an action to restrain sewage nuisance, a general order as to docu-
ments in the possession of the Deft board was refused, but an order was
made limited to certain resolutions and correspondence with the local
SECT, v.] Nuisance. ^05
Government Board : Downing v. Falmouth United Sewerage Board, 37
Ch. D. 234, C. A.
As to the liability of a landlord for nuisance committed by his tenant, see Liability for
Jenkins v. Jackson, 40 Ch. D. 71 ; and that an action for an injunction to acts of others,
restrain the fouling of a stream cannot be maintained against exors in
respect of acts done by their testator more than six months before his
death, see Kirk v. Todd, 21 Ch. D. 484, C. A.
The acts ot two or more persons may, taken together, constitute such a
nuisance that the Court will restrain all from doing the acts constituting
the nuisance, although the annoyance occasioned by the act of any one of
them, if taken alone, would not amount to a nuisance : Lambton v. Mellish ;
Lambton v. Cox, [1894] 3 Ch. 163.
Where an inquiry as to damages was directed as well as an injunction, Coats,
the Pit has the general costs, but the costs of the inquiry were reserved, so
that the Judge might exercise control over them if unreasonably exagge-
rated : Slack v. Midland By. Co., 16 Ch. D. 81.
Where the nuisance had been abated before the hearing the Court refused
an injunction, but gave the Pit costs : Barber v. Penley, [1893] 2 Ch. 447 ;
but see Dean of Chester v. Smelting Corp., 1901, W. N. 179.
As to the form of the order, and that the Court will not thereby, as in
the case of breach of covenant, specify the particular acts to be restrained,
see Walker v. Brewster, 5 Eq. 25.
Eor a collection of oases relating to nuisances, see Chambers' Public
Health, &c. Act, Digest of Cases, 526 — 572 ; Kerr, 117 et seq. ; Joyce,
99 — 130 ; Garrett on Nuisances, passim.
(ll.) POLLUTION OF WATER.
1. Injunction restraining Pollution of River by Town Sewage.
Order that the Defts, the mayor &c., of the borougli of &c., their
servants &c., be restrained, from and after the second day after the
close of the parliamentary session for the year — , from causing or
permitting the sewage of the borough of L — or any part thereof to
flow or pass through their main sewer or any other outfaU into the
river A — in the information (statement of claim) mentioned, unless
and until the same shall be sufficiently purified and deodorised so
as not to be or create a nuisance, or become injurious to the public
health ; And it is ordered that the Defts, the said mayor &c., be
perpetually restrained from causing or permitting any new outfall
to be made for the conveyance of the sewage of the said borough or
any part thereof into the river A — , or any sewer or drain to be made
to communicate with their said main sewer, or any communication
to be made with such main sewer, or any of the Defts' other sewers
and drains whereby any sewage may be discharged or find its way
into the said river A — . — A. G. v. Leeds Corp., V.-C. J., 2 March,
1870, A. 527 ; L. J., 9 June, 1870, A. 1493 ; 5 Ch. 583.
For order restraining Defts from making any further connection of any
drain with either their H. or M. sewer until the hearing &c. ; that part of
the motion which sought an immediate injunction against causing any
sewage to pass down the H. and M. sewer into the river L. being directed
to stand over until the hearing, on an undertaking by Defts, by dredging
or other proper means, to keep the river L. free from all obstructions to
navigation caused by an increased deposit of sewage matter, with liberty
to apply especially in respect of any injury that might be apprehended
606 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
from unhealthy effluvia, see A. O. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 H. & M
298, V.-C. W., 5 June, 1863, A. 1031.
Tor injunction to restrain local board from " directing or authorizing "
the discharge of sewage from new houses in their district into a natural
watercourse, the lower portion of which was a sewer vested in the Metro-
politan Board of Works, see A. O. v. Actmi Local Board, 22 Nov. 1882 A
2196 ; 22 Ch. D. 221.
For injunction to restrain local board from discharging, or causing or
permitting to be discharged, sewage or other offensive matter into a brock
or watercourse so as to cause nuisance to the Pit (it being shown that it
was possible for the board to abate the nuisance by phvsical means), see
Charles v. Finchley Local Board, 23 Ch. D. 767 ; 8 May, 1883, A. 716.
As to whether the expression " permitting " can be rightly used in these
cases, see notes, inf. p. 609,
2. Similar Order.
Ordee tliat the Defts, the mayor &c., of H — , their servants &c.,
be restrained from causing or permitting to be made any new outfall
into the brook H — , or any new sewer communicating with any
outfall into such brook, or any drain or other communication with
any such sewer, whereby any sewage water may pass into the H —
brook ; And it is ordered that the Defts, their servants &c., be
(from and after the — day of — ) restrained from causing or per-
mitting the sewage of the borough of H — to flow or pass through
outfall sewer A — or outfall sewer B — in the (information and bill)
mentioned, or any new outfall into the said brook, unless and until
the same shall be sufficiently purified and deodorised. — A. G. v.
Halifax Corp., V.-C. J., 8 July, 1869, A. 2040 ; 17 W. E. 1088.
(See words after " deodorised " in A. G. v. Corp. of Leeds, sup..
Form 1.)
The form of this order has been often adopted in similar cases : see North
Staffordshire Sy. Co. v. Tunstall Local Board, 39 L. J. Ch. 131.
For an interlocutory injunction against opening any new drains by which
any additional matter may be brought down, and from executing any works
whereby the damage may be increased, see A. 0. v. Luton Board, V.-C. W.,
2 Jur. N. S. 180.
For order to restrain Defts from allowing any sewage to pass into the
, stream or otherwise, so as to become a nuisance, the operation of the order
being suspended, see A. G. v. Heath, V.-C. W., 25 Nov. 1867, A. 3087.
For order restraining a local board from allowing any fresh communi-
cations to be made with a sewer constructed by their predecessors in office,
which caused a nuisance to the inhabitants of the adjoining parish by
draining into a stream flowing through their parish, unless such drainage
should have been first purified from sewage matter, so as not to occasion
any pollution to the stream in its passage through such parish, see A. 0.
V. Richmond, 2 Eq. 306.
For injunction to restrain the corp. of Bradford from causing or per-
mitting any new outfall into the Bradford beck, or any new sewer com-
municating with any outfall into it, " whereby any sewage not efEectually
defecated shall pass into the river Aire so as to be a nuisance to the Pit,"
see Stansficld v. Corp. of Bradford, M. R., 5 March, 1875, B. 492,
For the like order restraining a local board from causing or permitting
any sewage, filth, or offensive matter, solid or liquid, to be discharged, or
to flow or pass into a brook — through any sewer, drain, or culvert within
the district — ^to the injury of, or which may be or become a nuisance to
SECT. V.J Nuisance. "0'
Pits, see BirmingJiam Canal Co. v. Burntan, V.-C. B., 25 Nov. 1872, B. 3032
(operation of order suspended for two months); and see >S. C, before
Kay, J., 63 L. T. 670.
For the like order, see Harrold v. Markham (Northampton case), V.-C. J.,
16 July, 1869, A. 2411 (operation suspended until 1st June, 1870).
For the like order on motion for decree, see Bidder v. Richards, V.-C. W.,
14 Jan. 1862, A. 109 (Croydon case).
For like injunction against the Governors of the County Lunatic Asylum
at Colney Hatch, see A. 0. v. The Colney Hatch Asylum, C. A., 22 Dec. 1868,
A. 3187 ; 4 Ch. 146.
For injunction to restrain Defts from permitting the drainage from
additional cottages or any buildings other than four old cottages to drain
into a brook, see Metropolitan Board of Works v. L. & N. W. Ey. Co., 14
Ch. D. 521 ; 17 Ch. D. 246, C. A.
For injunction in the terms of an agreement by which the Defts agreed
with Pit that they would not after the — day of — , " cause or permit the
drains of the district under their control, or any of them, to discharge, nor
shall they after that date discharge into the stream or watercourses flowing
into the Oak beck, as in the pleadings mentioned, or into the said Oak beck,
any sewage, sewage matters, or foul water whatsoever, or otherwise foul or
pollute the water of the Oak beck," with inquiry as to damages occasioned
to Pit in the operation of bleaching, and directions for payment of amount
ascertained, and costs of suit, see Wood v. Harrogate Commissioners, V.-C.
B., 3 June, 1874, B. 2497.
An inquiry, as in Heath v. Wallington, V.-C. W., 3 July, 1865, A. 1639,
how the sewage can be dealt with so as not to occasion a nuisance to Pit,
should not, it seems, be directed : see A. 0. v. Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum,
4 Ch. p. 162.
For judgment dismissing without costs action against vestry for pollution
of watercourse by sewage, on the Defts by their counsel undertaking not
to sanction the connection of any further houses with any drains running
into either of the watercourses in the pleadings mentioned, see A. G. v.
St. James, Clerkenwell, North, J., 21 July, 1891, A. 1077 ; [1891] 3 Ch. 527.
3. Injunction against " directing or authorizing " Discharge of
Sewage.
Order that the Defts, the mayor &c. of the borough of &c., as
the urban sanitary authority of the said borough, be restrained from
directing or authorizing any sewage or foul matter to flow or to
be discharged from sewers or drains vested in them as such sanitary
authority on to D^ Park in the pleadings mentioned. — See Brown
V. Dunstable Corp., Cozens-Hardy, J., 19 May, 1899, A. 2032 ; [1899]
2 Ch. 378.
4. Pollution of Stream by Manufacturing Works.
Order that the Defts, The S. Papermakiag Co. (Ld.), their servants
&c., be perpetually restrained from discharging from their works in
the Pit's (bill) mentioned into the river or stream in the said (bill)
also mentioned (so as to cause it to flow to the Pit's lands, messuages,
and mills therein also mentioned, in a state less pure than that in
which it flowed there previously to the establishment of the said
works, to the injury of the Pit), any such refuse or other matter
as was discharged by the Defts from their said works into the said
river or stream previously to the (filing of the said bill) or any
608
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
noxious fluid or other foul matters whatsoever. — Lingwood v. Stow-
market, &c. Co., V.-C. W., 15 Nov. 1865, B. 2220 ; 1 Eq. 77.
On motion to commit in this case inquiries were subsequently directed
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the pouring into the stream, at the
point where Deft's drain entered it, of a hquid of the same composition as
that analysed by Dr. S. on behalf of Pit, would be sufficient to cause the
pollution of water complained of at Pit's mill : 8. C, 24 Jan. 1868, B. 255.
For order to stay pollution of stream above or witliin the limits of Pit's
land, see Orossley v. Lightowhr, L. C, 2 May, 1867, A. 1259, 2 Ch. 478.
For declaration that the Deft's Act did not legalize the fouling of a stream
below a reservoir or store of water thereby authorized, and for injunction to
stay them from so storing and discharging the water as to foul the water of
the stream to the damage or injury of the owners and occupiers of Pit's
dye works, see Ghwes v. South Staffordshire Waterworks, 8 Ch. 125.
5. Inquiry as to Pollution from a given Date.
1. An inquiry whether the matters now passing into T — brook
from the M — mills cause any and what greater pollution, to the
injury of the Pit, than was caused to the then owner of S — mills
by the matters passing into the brook from M — mills immediately
before the — day of — . 2. An inquiry whether Pit is entitled to
any and what compensation in damages from Deft in respect of any
nuisance occasioned to Pit before the completion of Deft's recent
works by matters passing from the M — mills in excess of the matter
passing into the brook from the M — mills immediately before the
said — day of — . — Adjourn &c. — Cummins v. Herron, V.-C. W.,
10 Dec. 1872, A. 3130.
For leave to apply in case of any subsequent pollution of a canal by
sewage, Defts having, since information filed, diverted the sewage from the
canal, and inquiry as to damages, see A. 0. v. Basingstoke Corp., V.-C. H.,
31 May, 1876, A. 1462 ; 24 W. R. 817.
NOTES.
Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of restraining by summary order offences in respect of
river pollution was by the Rivers PoUuUon Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40
V. c. 75), ss. 10, 11, for the first time given to the county courts. But the
jurisdiction which has been largely exercised by the Court of Chancery (and
now by the Ch. Div) of restraining the pouring of sewage and other filth or
refuse into a river so as to create a nuisance, has not been materially
affected.
Procedure. Injunctions have been obtained on behalf of the public (by information),
see A. O.Y. Leeds Corp., 5 Ch. 583, sup. Form 1, p. 605.
■ — on behalf of the public, and also of a riparian owner (by information
and bill) : see A. G. v. Halifax Corp., 17 W. R. 1088 ; 39 L. J. Ch.
129; 21 L. T. 52, sup., Form 2, p. 606; A. 6. v. Birmingham
Council, 4 K. & J. 528 ; A. 0. v. Luton Board, 2 Jur. N. S. 180 ;
— or on behalf of the riparian owner alone (by bill) : Ooldsmid v. Tun-
hridge Wells Commrs, 1 Eq. 161 ; 1 Ch. 349 ; Spokes v. Banbury
Board, 35 L. J. Cli. 105 ; L. R. 1 Eq. 42 ; afBrmed 11 Jur. N. S.
1010 ; 13 L. T. 453 ; 14 W. R. 169 ; Crossley v. Lightowler, 3 Eq.
279 ; 2 Ch. 478 ; Baxendale v. McMurray, 2 Ch. 790 ; Holt v. Roch-
dale Corp., 18 W. R. 885 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 761 ; 10 Eq. 354 ; 25 L. T.
43 ; Bidder v. Croydon Local Board, 6 L. T. 778 ; Jones v. Llanrust,
U.D.C, [1911] 1 Ch. 393,
SECT, v.] Nuisance. 609
If the effect of drainage works has been to pollute the stream into which Duty of local
they fall, the fact that the local authority (or person) are using the best authority,
means in their power, or known to science, for purifj-ing and deodorising
the sewage or filth before passing it into the stream, has not saved them
from the operation of an injunction, although their efforts to neutralize
the evil have been taken into favourable consideration upon applications
to suspend the operation of the injunction, or even upon motion to commit
for breach of the injunction : A. 0. v. Birmingham Courml. 4 K. & J. r)2H ;
S. C, in a subsequent suit, 19 W. R. 561 ; A. G. v. Bradford Canal, 2 Eq. 71 ;
A. 0. V. Leeds Corp., 5 Oh. 583 ; Bidder v. Croydon Local Board, 6 L. T. 778.
In the absence of express power to create a nuisance, public bodies
executing drainage works for the benefit of their district were bound to
construct them so as not to create any nuisance nor to interfere with the
right of the riparian owner to the enjoyment of pure water : A. 0. v. Colneij
Ha(c^,4Ch.l46; ^.(?.v.H'aZ«/aa;Corp.,17W.R.1088; Ooldsmidv.Tunbridge
Wells Gommrs, 1 Eq. 161 ; 1 Ch. 349 ; Cator v. Lewisham IjocoI Board, 5 B. &
S. 115 ; Oeddis v. Bonn Reservoir, S App. Ca. 430 ; Bligh v. Bathangan Drain-
age Board, [1898] 2 I. R. 205; Jones v. Llanrwst U.D.G., sup.
And see Public Health Act, 1875, s. 17, to the effect that local authori-
ties are not authorized to send sewage or filthy water into any natural
stream or watercourse, or into any canal, pond, or lake, until such sewage
or filthy water is freed from all excrementitious or other foul or noxious
matter, such as would affect or deteriorate the purity or quality of the
water in such stream, &c.
Under this enactment a local board has been restrained from trans-
gressing their powers by discharging sewage into a stream so as to affect
the water at the point of outfall, altliough no case of actual nuisance had
been estabhshed : A. 0. v. Cockermouth Local Board, 18 Eq. 172; and S3e
Jones V. Llanrwst U.D.C., sup. ; but under the powers of ss. 15 and 16 the
local authority may discharge into a stream surface water conveyed by sur-
face sewers though it carriesdown sand and silt, such waternot being "sewage
or filthy water " within s. 17 : Durrani v. Branksome Urban District Council,
[1897] 2 Ch. 291, C. A. And see A. G. v. Shrewsbury, <i:c. Bridge Co., 21
Ch. D. 754, as to the right of action by A. G. on behalf of public to restrain
illegal acts tending to injury of public, without evidence of actual injury.
But if parliamentary powers to drain, &e. cannot be executed without
causing some nuisance, the Court lias declined to interfere {A. 0. v. Tlutmes
Conservators, 1 H. & M. 1), unless the works, though within the statutory
powers, occasion injury from their neghgent and unskilful construction :
A. 6. V. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 H. & M. 298. Where the nuisance
has not been caused or increased by any act on the part of the local board,
but has arisen merely from delay or neglect in providing a proper system
of drainage, the remedy is not by injunction indirectly, but by mandamus
directly compelling a performance of the statutory powers : Glossop v.
Heston Local Board, 12 Ch. D. 102, C. A. ; A. G. v. Dorking Guardians,
20 Ch. D. -595, C. A. ; Warwick and Birmingham Canal Navigation v.
Burman, 6S L. T. 670; A. G. v. Clerkenwdl Vestry, [1891] 3 Ch. 527;
and compare Foster v. Warblington U. D. C, [1906] 1 K. B. 649, C. A. ;
Mayor, of Hawthorn v. Kannulink, [1906] A. C. 105 ; and see Earl of Har-
rington V. Corporation of Derby, [1905] 1 Ch. 205.
And in view of the absolute right conferred on a householder by s. 21 of
the Public Health Act, 1875, to connect their drains with a sewer subject
only to the regulations duly prescribed by the local authority, see Ainley v.
Kirkheaton Local Board, 22 Ch. D. 211 ; Graham v. Wroughlon, [1901 ] 2 Ch.
451, C. A., tlie Court refused to restrain a local board from " permitting "
sewage to pass into a natural watercourse, where such an injunction might
compel tliem to stop up drains or sewers which had been made from houses
in their district : A. G. v. Acton Local Board, 22 Ch. D. 221 ; .4. 0. v.
Clerkenwell Vestry, sup. ; Broum v. Dunstable Corporalimi, [1899] 2 Ch.
378, where the Defts were simply restrained from "directing or authorizing"
VOL. I 2 R
610
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Extent of
prescriptive
right.
Injunction,
not damages,
proper relief.
any sewage or foul matter to flow or to be discharged from sewers vested
in them on to the Pit's lands ; secus, where the board had power physically
to stop the flow of sewage complained of : Charles v. Finchley Local
Board, 23 Ch. D. 767 ; but see this case observed upon in Brown v. Dun-
stable Corporation, sup.
As to the eiieot of the exception from s. 13 of the Public Health Act, 1875
(vesting sewers in the local authority), of " a sewer made by any person for
his own profit," see Sykes v. Sowerby District Council, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584,
C. A. ; Croysdale v. Sunhury-on-Thames District Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 515 ;
Vowles V. Calmer, 1895, W. N. 42 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 414 ; Minehead Local Board
V. Lutlrell, [1894]2Ch. 178; FerrandY. Hallas Land and Building Co., [1893]
2 Q. B. 135, C. A. ; Bonella v. Twickenham Board of Health ; Holmes v. The
Same, 24 Q. B. D. 63, C. A. ; Acton Local Board v. Batten, 28 Ch. D. 283.
The duty of a local board to keep their sewers so as not to be a nuisance
is not absolute, but they are bound to use all reasonable care and diUgence ;
Bateman v. Poplar Board of Works, 37 Ch. D. 272 ; and an injunction will
not be granted if they could not, with reasonable care, have discovered that
a drain was a sewer for wliioh they were responsible : S. C.
Considerations of expense and inconvenience to the local board, or the
interests of a large and increasing population, as contrasted with the health
and property of individual owners, have not been allowed to affect the
right to relief by injunction. A local board, in performing their statutory
duties, must do so without doing injury to their neighbours, or throwing
upon them any additional burden : A. O. v. Acton Local Board, 22 Ch. D.
222. And if, after all possible experiments, the town or district cannot
be drained without causing private injury, the local board must, it has
been stated, apply to Parliament for further powers, authorizing them
to take the land of the person injured, or to commit the nuisance : see
A. G. V. Colney Hatch, 4 Ch. 146 ; A. 0. v. Luton Board, 2 Jur. N. S. 180 ;
A. 0. V. Birmingham Council, 4 K. & J. 528 ; A. O. v. Metropolitan Board
of Works, 1 H. & M. 298 ; S^iohes v. Banbury Local Board, 1 Eq. 42.
But to induce the Court to interfere, on the ground of individual injury,
with the carrjdng out a great public undertaking, such as the drainage of
a town, there must be a case of serious and permanent damage, actual or
imminent : A. 0. v. Gee, 10 Eq. 131 ; Lillywhite v. Trimmer, 15 W. R. 763 ;
A. G. V. Sheffield Gas Co., 3 D. M. & G. 304 ; A. 0. v. Dorking Guardians,
20 Ch. D. 595, 607, C. A. ; Glossop v. Heston Local Board, 12 Ch. D. 102,
C. A. ; and see Earl of Bipon v. Hoharl, 3 My. & K. 179 ; and not merely
probable or apprehended : A. G. v. Kingston-on-Thames Corporalvm, 13
W. R. 888 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 596 ; 12 L. T. 665 ; A. G. v. Manchester Cor-
poration, [1893] 2 Ch. 87 ; but where the Defts insist upon a right to con-
tinue the injury in future an injunction may be granted, though no sub-
stantial damage is shown : A. G. v. Acton Local Board, 22 Ch. D. 222 ;
and where there is apprehension of such injury in future, although no
injunction is granted, an undertaking may be required from the public
authority against sanctioning future drainage : A. G, y. Clerkenwell
Vestry, [1891] 2 Ch. 537.
A prescriptive right to drain through a sewer does not confer a right to
pour in as much sewage as the sewer will hold, and an excessive user may be
restrained : Metropolitan Board of Works v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 17 Ch. D.
246, C. A. ; and see A. G. v. Acton Local Board, sup. ; Charles v. Finchley
Local Board, 23 Ch. D. 767.
But the right may extend to the discharge of trade and manufacturing
effluents into the public sewer : Eastwood v. Honley Urban Council, [1900]
1 Ch. 701 ; [1901] 1 Ch. 645, C. A. ; Peebles v. Oswaldtwistle Urban Council,
[1897] 1 Q. B. 384 {per Charles, J.).
Injunction, and not damages, is the proper relief in river pollution cases,
distinguished in this respect from ancient light oases, where damages repre-
sent the depreciation in value of the property affected : see Pennington \ .
lirinsop Coal Co., 5 Ch. D. 769.
SECT, v.] Nuisance. 611
And where the action is substantially for an injunction, the Court can
give damages in lieu ; Chapman v. AwMand Union, 23 Q. B. D. 94, C, A.
The remedy by injunction of private persons injured was not superseded Summary
by tlie right of prosecution, under direction of the Home Secretary, given relief,
by the Metropolitan Local Management Amendment Act, 1858 (21 & 22 V.
c. 104), s. 31 : A. G. v. Metropolitan Board of Works, 1 H. & M. 298.
And the riglit to obtain summary relief by injunction against a local
board is not affected by the absence of one month's notice before taking
proceedings, required by 25 & 26 V. c. 102, s. 106 (re-enacted in substance
by Public Health Act, 1875, s. 264) : A. 0. v. Hackney Local Board, 20
Eq. 626 ; Bateman v. Poplar Board of Works, 33 Ch. I). 630, 0. A. ; but
qucere whether damages for the past can be given in the absence of the notice :
Chapman v. Auckla'nxL Union, sup. ; unless the remedy sought is substan-
tially damages, and not an injunction : Flower v. Leyton Local Board, 5
Ch. D. 347 ; and still remains unaffected under the new procedure : Baker
V. Wisbech Corporation, 1877, W. N. 56 ; but see now the Public Authori-
ties Protection Act, 1893 ; Dan. 259.
And sect. 107 of the Public Health Act, 1876, empowering a local board to When A. G.
" cause any proceedings to be taken " for repression of nuisance does not necessary
enable them, in absence of special damage, to sue in respect of a public party,
nuisance without the A. G. : Wallasey Local Board v. Oracey, 36 Ch. D.
393 ; distinguisliing Nuneaton Local Board v. Oen. Sewage Co., 20 Eq. 127 ;
Tottenham Urban District Council v. Williamson <b Sons, [1896] 2 Q. B.
353, C. A. ; and parish council cannot in their own name, \vithout the A. G. ,
maintain an action to enforce a right of the inhabitants of the parish to the
use of a well or spring of water : Stoke Parish Council v. Price, [1899]
2 Ch. 277.
By the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 69, local authorities may, " with the
sanction of the A. G.," " take proceedings by indictment, bill in Chancery,
action, or otherwise, for the purpose of protecting any watercourse within
their jurisdiction from pollutions arising from sewage either within or with-
out their district " ; and the costs of such proceedings, including costs to
be awarded to Deft, " shall be deemed to be expenses properly incurred by
such authority in the execution of the Act."
Injunctions against a public body (restraining river pollution) do not run Injunction
with the land, so as to justify an action for a declaration that, as against the inoperative
parliamentary successors of the former Defts, Pits are entitled to the benefit against par-
of the former order (of which no breach was alleged) : A. 0. v. Birmingham liamentary
Drainage Board, 17 Ch. D. 685, C. A. ; A. 0. v. Guardians of Dorking, 20 successors.
Ch. D. 595, C. A.
The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876 (39 & 40 V. c. 75), by sect. 2 River
prohibits the putting, or causing, or knowingly permitting to be put, or to pollution,
fall into any stream, so as to pollute its waters, " any putrid solid matter."
As to the effect of the words " cause ... or knowingly permit to fall or
flow," see Butterworth v. West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board, [1909]
A. C. 45. By sect. 20 of the Act " solid matter " shall not include particles
of matter in suspension in water. By sect. 17, the Act " shall not apply
to or affect the lawful exercise of any rights of impounding or diverting
water." As to the effect of this section, see River Ribble Joint Committee
V. Halliwell, [1899] 2 Q. B. 385, C. A.
With respect to gas pollution, a penalty of £200 is imposed by 'the Public Pollution
Health Act, 1875, s. 68, for every offence of causing water to be fouled by by gas.
gas washings, or any act connected with the making or supplying of gas,
with the further penalty, after twenty-four hours' notice from the local
authority or person to whom the water belongs, of £20 for every day during
which the offence is committed, or during the continuance of the act
whereby the water is fouled.
"Circumstances and requirements of the locality" have been taken into Manufac-
consideration by the Courts in cases of nuisance in manufacturing districts ; turing
though not to the extent of exempting persons carrying on the trade or districts.
612 Injunctions. [cHAP. XXXI.
manufacture by which the nuisance is created from hability in respect of
substantial injury to property : see this question discussed in Salvin v
North Brancepeth Co., 9 Ch. 705; St. Helen's Co. v. Tipping, 11 H. L C*
642.
And see Crossley v. Lightowler, 2 Ch. 478, that the fact that a stream has
been fouled by others in the district (manufacturing) is no defence to a suit
to restrain the fouling by one ; as the riparian owner may take action
against each contributor singly : Blair v. Deakin, 57 L. T. 522.
The fact that the local authority complaining may have contributed to
the existence of the nuisance does not prevent proceedings by them under
18 & 19 V. c. 121, s. 12, in respect of a discharge of chemical matter into a
public sewer, the effect of which is to produce sulphuretted hydrogen gas •
St. Helen's Co. v. Si. Helen's Corp., 1 Ex. D. 196, C. A. •^ & & ■
rfSXn ^"granting injunctions against river pollution, the practice has been to
■■ gi'ant an immediate injunction restraining any new communications, but
as to existmg drains, to suspend the operation of the order for a longer or
shorter period, to enable the Defts to comply with the order by altering their
works.
In Spokes v. Banbury Local Board, 1 Eq. 42, the operation of the order was
suspended from 6th March to 1st July, 1865 : Ooldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells
Commrs., 1 Eq. 161 ; 1 Ch. 349 (from 24th November, 1866, to 31st Januaiy,
1868) ; A. a. V. Bradford Canal, 2 Eq. 71 (eight months) ; A. 0. v. Colney
Hatch Asylum, 4 Ch. 146 (five months) ; A. G. v. Halifax Corporation, 17
W. R. 1088 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 129 ; 21 L, T. 52 (8th July, 1869, to 1st June,
1870) ; A. G. v. Leeds Corporation, 5 Ch. 583 (2nd March, 1870, to end of
the Parliamentary Session of 1871) ; A. G. v. Birmingham Ccmncil, 19
W. R. 561 (9th o£ March, 1871, to 2nd seal day in Michaelmas Term) ;
Pennington v. Brinsop Coal Co., 5 Ch. D. 769 (three months) ; Jones v.
Llanrwst. U.D.C., [1911] 1 Ch. 393 (eighteen months).
Liberty to apply for a further suspension of the injunction is sometimes
reserved : see A. G. v. Colney Hatch, sup.
And if not reserved, further time is usually granted on the terms of pajdng
the costs of the application.
An application for the further suspension of an injunction should be made
to the Judge to whose Court the action is attached : Shelf er v. City of London
Electric Lighting Co., Meux's Brewery Co. v. The Same, [1895] 2 Ch. 388,
C. A.
Where the action was by one local authority against another in respect of
undue use of the Pits' sewer by the Defts, the Court, having regard to the
conduct of the Pits and the difficulty in which an injunction would place the
Defts, only made in prcesenli a declaration that the Defts were not entitled
to send sewage into the Pit's sewer without their consent, but gave liberty
to Pits to apply to the Judge at the end of twelve months for an injunction :
Islington Vestry v. Hornsey Urban Council, [1900] 1 Ch. 695, 707, C. A.
Sequestra- Non-compliance with the order, after reasonable time has been given to
tion. the Defts, has been punished as contempt of Court by sequestration :
Spokes V. Banbury Local Board, 1 Eq. 42 ; Heath v. WaUington, V.-C. W.,
17 Jan. 1867, A. 210 ; Ooldsmid v. Tunbridge Wells Commrs, M. R., 1 Aug.
1867, A. 2538.
In this case the order for sequestration, after having been suspended
during the progress of the Defts' works in order to prevent the nuisance,
was supplemented by an order declaring that the Defts were liable to make
good all damage occasioned to Pit's estate since the date of the injunction,
caused by the discharge or flow from the town, &c., into the brook or
stream, &c., of sewage or other offensive matter, with a direction that the
amount be ascertained, and paid by Defts to Pit : *S. C, 2 July, 1872, A.
3293 ; 1872, W. N. 163.
SECT. VT.J Trade Marks, Labels, and Names.
Section VI.— Teadb Marks, Labels, and Names.
For form of Undertaldng on Interlocutory Injunction, seo p. 507, ante.
1 . Order restraining Use of Trade Mark registered under the
Trade Marks Act, 1905 — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft be restrained until &o., from infringing the
Pit's trade marks registered in pursuance of the Trade Marks Act,
1905, or either of them, and from selling or oiiering for sale any
tea in, or from otherwise using, wrappers, having imprinted thereon
any imitation, or colourable imitation, of the Pit's trade marks, or
either of them.
2. Using Trade Marks as to Tools or Cutlery — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts W. &c., respectively (and every and each
of them) and the respective servants &c., of the said Defts (and of
every and each of them), be restrained from stamping, cutting, or
engraving, or causing or permitting to be stamped, cut, or engraved,
upon any tools or other articles manufactured for, or bought, pro-
cured, or sold by them, the words " Collins & Co., Hartford, Cast
Steel, Warranted," or any other words similar to, or only colourably
differing from such words, or any words or marks so contrived as to
represent, or lead to the belief, that the said tools or other articles
were the manufacture of the said Collins & Co. ; And from affixing
or causing to be affixed to any tools or other articles manufactured
for, or bought, procured, or sold by them, or otherwise using or
employing, or causing or permitting to be used or employed, any
labels containing the words &c. (as above), or any label or labels
similar to or only colourably difEering from the labels made or used
by the said co. as in the Pit's (bill) mentioned, or so contrived and
prepared as to represent, or lead to the belief, that the tools or other
articles manufactured or sold by the Defts were the manufacture
of the said co. ; And also from selling, exporting, consigning, or
otherwise disposing of any tools or other articles having or bearing
thereon any such words, marks, or labels, as in the said (bUl) men-
tioned, or any other words, marks, or labels, only colourably differing
from the said marks and labels of the said co. ; until &c. — Collins v.
Walker, V.-C. W., 21 July, 1857, A. 1702 ; The Collins Co. v. Brown ;
The Same v. Cowen, 3 K. & J. 423—428.
3. Infringing Trade Name and Registered Trade Mark —
" Chartreuse " and Inquiry as to Damages.
Order that the Deft, his servants and agents, be perpetually
restrained from selling or offering, or advertising for sale, under
the name of " Chartreuse " or under any other description of which
the name " Chartreuse " forms part, any liqueur which has not
613
614 Injunctiom. [chap. xxxi.
been or shall not be manufactured by the Pit G. or his assignor L..
at the Monastery of La Grande Chartreuse in France, and from
infringing the registered trade marks of the Pits or any of them, or
from enabling or otherwise encouraging other persons to improperly
use the said name of "Chartreuse," or to infringe such trade
marks or any of them ; And it is ordered that the Deft do forth-
with deliver up upon oath to the Pits and — all bottles, liqueur
labels, and circulars in their possession or power, having thereon
the name of " Chartreuse," and not being or referring to bottles or
liqueur manufactured by the Pit G. or his assignor L.— Deft to pay
costs of action.— GVezJer v. Ziemer, Kay, J., 3rd June, 1890, A. 757.
4. Similar Order.
Order that the Defts &c., be perpetually restrained from using
the word ". Chartreuse " in connection with the sale of Hqueurs other
"than the liqueurs manufactured by the Pits as the name of or as
descriptive of the liqueurs or without clearly distinguishing the
liqueurs so sold from the liqueurs manufactured by the Pits. And
it is ordered that the Defts &c., be also perpetually restrained from
selling or offering for sale in England any liqueurs or other liquors
not manufactured by the Pits in such a manner as to represent or
lead to the belief that the liqueur or other liquors manufactured or
imported by the Defts are the manufacture of the Pits. — An inquiry
what damages, if any, have been sustained by the Pits by reason of
the user in England by the Defts or any of them of the word
" Chartreuse " in connection with the sale of liqueur, other than that
manufactured by the Pits as the name of or as descriptive of the
liqueurs or without clearly distinguishing the liqueurs so sold from
the liqueurs manufactured by the Pits or by reason of the Defts or
some or one of them having sold or offered for sale in England
liqueurs or other liquors not manufactured by the Pits in such
manner as to represent or lead to the belief that the liqueurs manu-
factured or imported or sold by the Defts or some or one of them
are the manufacture of the Pits. — Rey v. Lecouturier, 11 Dec. 1907,.
B. 1156 ; affirmed H. L., [1910] A. C. 262.
5. Shipping Goods with Pits' Trade Marks.
Order that the Defts J. and N., and each of them, their servants
&c., be perpetually restrained from affixing or applying, or causing
to be affixed or applied, to any goods manufactured, sold, shipped, or
supplied by them any mark, and especially the figure of &c., so con-
trived as by colourable imitation, or otherwise, to represent the goods
manufactured, sold, shipped, or supplied by the Defts as being
standard Spanish stripes &c., or other woollen goods manufactured or
shipped by or for the Pits, and from selling, exporting, or shipping,
or causing or allowing to be shipped or exported, or otherwise
SECT. VI. J Trade Markfi, LaheU, and Names. 615
disposing of, any goods manufactured by or for tlie Def ts to wliicli any
such mark lias been or shall be affixed or applied. — Henderson v.
Jorss, V.-C. W., 21 June, 1861, A. 1814.
- For interim order restraining Deft from passing into the marlcot from
St. Katlierine's Doolis a ease containing boxes of German cigars bearing a
fraudulent imitation of Pit's trade mark and label, see Rivero v. Norris,
V.-C. G., 30 July, 1868, B. 2151 ; and made perpetual, S. C, 21 Feb. 1870,
B. 435.
6. Injunction against Use of Trade Mark— Account of Profits.
Order that the Defts be perpetually restrained from applying
the mark or title " Eureka " to any shirts manufactured by the
Defts, or to any shirts sold by them, unless such shirts be manufac-
tured by the Pit, and from selling or disposing of any shirts already
marked with the mark or title " Eureka," unless such mark shall
have been applied by the Pit, and with his sanction, and from
issuing any boxes or packages containing shirts upon or in which
the mark or title " Eureka " shall be applied to shirts not of the
Pit's manufacture, and from affixing or using any label, card, or
other mark containing the word " Eureka " to or with any shirts
not of the Pit's manufacture ; And it is ordered that an account
be taken of the profits made by the Defts in manufacturing and
selling, and in selling shirts under the mark or title of " Eureka,"
since the — day of — , the date of the (filing of the Pit's bill) ; Order
for payment of amount certified. — Ford v. Foster, L. J., 11 June,
1872, A. 1478 ; 7 Ch. 611.
For injunction restraining Deft from continuing to use, and from ex-
hibiting or using, the name of " The Pall Mall Guinea Coal Co.," in Pall
Mall, see Lee v. Haley, 5 Ch. 155.
For injunction to restrain the use of the words " Carriage Bazaar," and
" opposite Madame Tussaud's," for the purpose of describing Deft's shop
in Baker Street, on the ground that the title " Carriage Bazaar " had been
sufficiently appropriated by Pits in reference to their business in a part of
the Baker Street Bazaar, see Boidnois v. Peake, V.-C. G., 19 March, 1868,
A. 729 ; 1868, W. N. 95.
For injunction against using the word " Gleniield " in or upon any
labels, affixed to packets of starch manufactured by or for Deft, and from
in any other way representing, &c., that starch manufactured by or for
him is Glenfield starch, or starch manufactured by Pits, see Wotherspoon v.
Currie, L. R. 5 H. L. 508, 523.
Against the use of the words " United Service " in connection with soap.
Field V. Lewis, V.-C. W., 3 Aug. 1867, A. 2235.
For injunctions against using trade marks or names as to "Harvey's
Sauce," see Lazenby v. L., M. R., 17 March, 1858, B. 674 ; Lazenby v. White,
M. R., 18 Nov. 1870, B. 2901.
Against use of the word " Original," as applied to Reading Sauce, Cocks
V. Chandler, 11 Eq. 446 ; James v. J., M. R., 23 Feb. 1872, A. 550 ; 13 Eq.
421.
And against using labels containing any inscription intending or appear-
ing to designate pins manufactured by Defts as being made by T. & Co.,
or by Pits, Edelsten v. Vich, 11 Ha. 86.
For decree for account of the gains and profits made by Deft's sale of
616 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
wire having tallies or labels attached thereto with Fit's trade mark, or any
mark in imitation of, or only colourably differing from that of Pit, stamped
or impressed thereon ; and for an inj unction and delivery up of such tallies
or labels to be cancelled, see EdeUten v. E., 1 D. J. & S. 185, 189 ; affirmed
on appeal, lb. 204 ; and as to the form of the account, see Lever v. Goodwin,
36 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
For an order (by consent) that the Defts should deliver over to the Pits,
upon oath, all labels and cards having the word " Apollinaris " written upon
them, and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the Defts, &c. from selling
or advertising, or offering for sale, any mineral or other waters not being
the genuine Apolhnaris Water under the name of " Apollinaris Water," or
under any other name of which the word " Apollinaris " so forms part as to
be calculated to deceive the public, or from in any manner infringing or
interfering with the Pits' right to the exclusive sale in Great Britain of
ApoUinaris Water, and to the exclusive use of the word " Apolhnaris " for
describing the mineral water sold by them, see ApoUinaris Co. v. Edwards,
V.-C. B., 13 July, 1876, A. 1300.
For injunction restraining the use of the word "frigidomo " as trade
mark for any baize or other material intended to be used for horticultural
or similar purposes, and not manufactured by or for the Pits, or selected by
them, see Be Edgington, E. v. E., 61 L. T. 323.
For interim order restraining the Defts from selling, &c. any bottles of
brandy, not being brandy bottled by the Pits at their establishment at C,
&c. as the Pits' case brandy ; and appointing two persons on behalf of Pits
to inspect the Defts' premises, and any such cases and bottles, and to take
samples of the contents, see Hennessy v. Bohmann & Co., V.-C. M., 25 Jan.
1877, A. 152 ; 25 W. R. 14.
7. Imitation of Wrapper used hy Pits — Account.
Order that the Defts, their servants and agents, be restrained
from selling, ofiering for sale, or disposing of any soap not beiag
manufactured for or by the Pits in the wrapper, and of the form of
any one of the three exhibits admitted in this action to have been
issued by the Defts, and marked &c., or in any wrapper, or in any
form calculated or intended to pass ofi, or to enable others to pass
off, such soap as or for the goods of the Pits ; And it is ordered that
the following &c. : 1. An account of the profits made by the Defts
in selling or disposing of soap made by or for the Defts in any wrapper
such as that contained in the said exhibits marked &c., and in the
form of those exhibits.— Lever v. Goodwin, Chitty, J., 8 Dec. 1886,
B. 1475 ; afid. C. A., 25 May, 1887, B. 688 ; 36 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ;
following Edlesten v. E., 1 D. J. & S. 189 ; afEd. on appeal, ih. 204.
8. Injunction against representing Defts as heing Successors m
Business of the Pits, and from making up their Goods so
as to appear like those of the Pits.
Order that the Defts, their servants, workmen, agents, traveUers,
and represves respectively, be perpetually restrained from selling,
exporting, or shipping, or causing, or procuring, or allowing to be
sold, shipped, or exported, and from in any manner representmg,
or causing or procuring to be represented, any goods manufactured
SECT. VI.] Trade Marls, Labels, and Names. ^^'
or sold by the Deft co. as the manufacture or goods of the late A. B.,
or of the Pits, his trustees and successors in business, and also from
in any manner representing, or causing or procuring to be repre-
sented, or doing anything which shall lead to the belief that the
Deft CO. have been or are carrying on the business of the late A. B.,
or are the successors in business of the late A. B., and also from
affixing, or permitting or causing to be affixed, to any goods or
articles, manufactured or bought, or procured or sold, or shipped or
exported, by the Deft co., or otherwise using or employing, or per-
mitting to be used or employed, any labels, wrappers, or marks
similar to or only colourably differing from the labels, wrappers,
or marks used by the late A. B. and the Pits, his trustees and suc-
cessors in business, or so contrived and prepared as to represent or
lead to the belief that the goods or articles manufactured or sold, or
shipped or exported, by the Deft co., are the goods or manufacture
of the late A. B., or of the Pits, his trustees and successors in business,
and also from employing, using, or circulating, or causing to be
employed, used, or circulated, any business pamphlets, notices, or
advertisement similar to or only colourably differing from the
business pamphlets, notices, or advertisements of the late A. B. or
of the Pits as his trustees and successors in business, or which shall
in any manner represent or lead to the belief that the Deft co. have
been or are carrying on the business of the late A. B., or that they
are his successors in business. — Thorley's Cattle Food Co. v. Massam ;
Massam v. Thorley's Cattle Food Co., C. A., 27 April, 1880, B. 991 ;
S. C, 14 Ch. D. 781, C. A.
9. Injunction against Use of Trade Name without clearly dis-
tinguishing the Articles sold from the Plaintiff's Manufacture.
Order that the Defts, their servants and agents, be perpetually
restrained from using the words " Yorkshire Relish " as descriptive
of or in connection with any sauce or relish manufactured by them,
or sauce or relish (not being of the Pit's manufacture) sold or offered
for sale by them, without clearly distinguishing such sauce or relish
from the sauce or relish of the Pit. — See Powell v. Birmingham
Vinegar Brewery Co., Stirling J., 29 Oct. 1895, B. 3611 ; afid. by
C. A.
10. Use of Trade Name Fraudulently Adopted Restrained.
Order that the Defts &c., be perpetually restrained from trans-
ferring, selling, or dealing with any right to use the name " Pinet "
or any title or description including that name in connection with
the manufacture or sale of boots and shoes. And it is ordered that
the Defts &c., be perpetually restrained from using the name " Pinet "
or any such title or description as aforesaid in such connection
as aforesaid and from doing any other act or thing conferring or
hijimctions. [chap. xxxi.
purporting to confer either directly or indirectly upon any other
person or persons any right to use the said name or any such title or
description as aforesaid in such connection as aforesaid and from
selling or offering for sale any boots or shoes not of the Pit's manu-
facture under the name of " Pinet's " special boots and shoes or
Pinet's boots and shoes : F. Pinet & Cie v. Maison Louis Pinet, Ltd.,
North, J., 1 Dec. 1897, B. 4156; [1898] 1 Ch. 179.
11. Defendants restrained from carrying on Business vdthout clearly
distinguishing it from business of Plaintiff having same
Surname.
Order that the Defts G. S. W. & Co., Ld., their servants and
agents, be perpetually restrained from carrying on their business of
G. S. W. & Co., Limtd, without clearly distinguishing such business
from the business of the Pit, and from publishing advertisements
or issuing circulars in the name of G. S. W. & Co., Limtd, without
clearly distinguishing therein, their business from the business of
the Pit, and from otherwise representing in any way that their
business is the business or a branch of the business of the Pit. Defts
to pay Pit's costs. — Wolmershausen v. Wolmershausen & Co., Limited,
Chitty, J., May 13th, 1892, B. 614 ; 1892, W. N. 87.
For an interlocutory injunction to restrain Defts from issuing or publish-
ing any advertisements, &o., in any way stating or representing, or tending
to represent, that the Defts, or any of thorn, or their co., are the successors
or representatives of the Pits' co. (the Christy Minstrels), or are connected
with the Pits' co. otherwise than as performers employed thereby, or that
Pits, or either of them, ever have or has belonged to or had any connection
with the Deft's co., or have ceased to belong thereto, or to have any con-
nection therewith, see Montague v. Moore, V.-C. W., 1 Mar. 1865, B. 249.
Tor order restraining Deft from representing his business as that of Pit,
and from using any name, inscription, or device calculated or likely to
deceive and mislead the public into the belief that Deft's shop is that of
Pit, or to secure for Deft custom intended for Pit, see Cave v. Myers,
V.-C. G., 3 Dec. 1868, A. 2832.
For injunction restraining the use of the name " Radstock Colliery Pro-
prietors," &c., see Braliam v. Beachim, Fry, J., 12 Feb. 1878, A. 260 ; 7
Ch. D. 848.
12. Use of Title of Newspaper restrained — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, his agents, servants, and workmen, be
restrained until judgment in this action, or until further order,
from further issuing, printing, publishing, selling, advertising for
sale, or otherwise disposing of or causing or permitting to be
further issued, printed, published, sold, advertised for sale, or
otherwise disposed of, a paper or publication recently issued,
printed, and published, and now being issued, printed, and pub-
lished and sold by the Deft under the name or title of The Times,
and from printing or publishing, or causing or permitting to be
SECT. VI. J Trade Markfi, Laheh, and Names. 619
printed or published, or coatinuing to print or publish, or to
cause or permit to be printed or published, any newspaper or pub-
lication in the nature or form of a newspaper of whatever date,
with or under the name or title of The limes, and from using or
causing or permitting to be used the said name or title of The Times,
with or without any merely colourable variation thereof, by way of
name or title, to any nevrapaper or such other publication as afore-
said, and from doing any other act or thing in invasion or infringe-
ment of the Pit's right and interest in the said name or title of
The Times. — Deft to pay Pit's costs of appeal. — Walter v. Head,
C. A., 29 July, 1881, B. 1531.
For injunction against publishing a newspaper under the name or style
of " Penny Bell's life, or Sporting News," or any name or style in which
" Bell's Life " shall form part, or in any way occur, see Clement v. Maddick,
1 Giff. 101.
For injunction restraining publication of the " Real John Bull " or the
" Old Real John Bull," as and for a continuation of Pit's newspaper called
the " Real John Bull," see Edmonds v. Benbow, V.-C. of E., 20 Feb. 1821,
A. 572.
For injunction restraining on terms publication of the " London Daily
Journal," at suit of the owner of " London Journal," who had purchased
that paper from the Deft with a restrictive covenant, see Ingram v. Stiff,
5 Jur. N. S. 947.
Restraining pubhcation of the " Wonderful Magazine, New Series Im-
proved," as a continuation of Pit's " Wonderful Magazine," Hogg v. Kirby,
8 Ves. 215
For injunction against publishing, &c., a book by the name of " The
Children's Birthday Scripture Text Book," or any other title containing as
part thereof the words " Birthday Text," or any book or publication so
printed, bound, arranged, or contrived as by colourable imitation or other-
wise to represent or lead the public to believe that such book, &c., was or is
the same as the book called the " Birthday Scripture Text Book," pub-
lished and sold by the Pits, see Mack v. Petter, M. R., 29 July, 1872, B.
2325 ; 24 Eq. 431.
For an interlocutory injunction restraining Deft from carrying on, &c.
the " Temple Bar " magazine ; but the order to be without prejudice to
the publication of the said magazine until the hearing of the cause, so as
the name of " Bentley " does not appear either in the title-page or in any
other part of the said publication, or in any advertisement of the said publi-
cation, and without prejudice to the right (if any) of the Pit to damages
or profits in respect of any publication of the work, see Ainsworth v. Bentley,
V.-C. W., 16 Mar. 1866, A. 519 ; 14 W. R. 630.
13. Inquiry as to Damages in Trade Mark Action — Common Form.
An inquiry what damages, if any, the Pit has sustained by reason
of the Deft's infringement of the Pit's said trade mark.
NOTES.
TEADE MARKS ACT, 1905.
By the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Registration Act, 1883 (46
& 47 V. c. 57), the Trade Marks Registration Acts of 1875, 1876 and 1877,
are by sect. 113 repealed, with the usual saving clause ; and by sect. 73
620 Injunctions. [chap. XXXI.
of the Trade Marks Act, 1905 (5 Edw. 7, c. 15), practically the whole of the
Act of 1883 so far as it relates to trade marks is repealed; but by sect. 6 of
the Act of 1905, the validity of the original entry of any trade mark upon
the registers existing at the date of the commencement of that Act shall be
determined (subject to the provisions of sects. 36 & 41 thereof) in accord-
ance with the statutes in force at the date of such entry. By sects. 12
et seq. of the Act of 1905, provision is made for the registration of trade
marks (as to which see inf., Chap. LII., " Patents").
In the case of a trade mark which is capable of registration, and which
has not been registered, no action for an injunction or damages for in-
fringement will lie : Ooodfellow v. Prince, 35 Ch. D. 9, C. A. (a decision on
sect. 77 of the Act of 1883, and see now sect. 42 of the Act of 1905) ; but the
Act in no way interferes with the exercise by a Court of Equity of its
established jurisdiction in respect of an actionable infringement or unfair
use of a trade mark or name : see Mitchell v. Henry, 15 Ch. D. 181, C. A. ;
and see Jay v. Lcdler, 40 Ch. D. 649 ; Hart v. Coiley, 44 Ch. D. 193 ; and
see sect. 45 of the Act of 1905 : Be Joseph Crosfield & Sons, [1910] 1 Ch.
p. 129.
INFRINGEMENT OF TBADB MAEK — EIGHT TO INJUNCTION.
Principle. The principle on which Courts of Equity have interfered to protect the
use of a trade mark is, that when one man has established a trade in an
article, for which he has been the first to appropriate some particular — ^it
may be fanciful or geographical — name {M' Andrew v. Bassett, 4 D. J. &
S. 380), or some particular mark or label under which the article has acquired
reputation, another man will not be allowed to sell a similar article under
the same or a closely resembling title, so as to deceive the public into the
belief that they are buying from the man who has first acquired reputation
for his goods under the particular title, i.e., one man will not be allowed to
pass off his goods as those of another : see Perry v. Truefitt, 6 Beav. 73 ;
Millinc/ton v. Fox, 3 My. & Cr. 338 ; Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, 18
Ch. D. 395, C. A. ; 8 App. Ca. 15, 29 ; Turton v. T., 42 Ch. D. 128, c' A. ;
Payton v. Snelling, [1901] A. C. 308, H. L. ; as by the use of a name which
has become in the trade the designation of the goods sold by a particular
trader, although in its primary meaning the name so taken is merely a
true description of the goods : Reddaway v. Banham, [1896] A. C. 199,
H. L. (the " Camel's Hair Belting " case) ; Birmingham Vinegar Brewery
Co. V. Powell, [1897] A. C. 710, H. L. (the " Yorkshire Relish " case) ;
Saxlehner v. Apollinaris Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 893 ; and even though the repu-
tation of the name has been acquired by the exertions or enterprise of the
rival trader as an importer and vendor on behalf of the Pit : Saxlehner v.
Apollinaris Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 893. But u, name which has acquired repu-
tation in the market may be used by a subsequent manufacturer for the
purpose of showing that his goods are manufactured on the same principle,
provided he announces the goods as of his own manufacture, and does not
lead the public to believe that they have been made by the original inventor
of the name, or his successors in trade : Singer Co. v. Loog, sup. ; Massam
V. Thorky's Cattle Food Co., 14 Ch. D. 748, C. A. ; Singer Co. v. Wilson,
2 Ch. D. 434, C. A. ; and see Edelsten v. Vick, 11 Ha. 71 ; Hirst v. Denham,
14 Eq. 542 ; Young v. Macrae, 9 Jur. N. S. 322 ; Liebig, d-c. Co. v. Hanbury,
17 L. T. 298 ; and provided also that the name has not acquired a secondary
or special meaning, within the principle of Beddaway v. Banham, sup. ;
and a word wliich is merely descriptive of the articles sold may be used by
any trader, provided he does not lead the public to think that the articles
so described are the manufacture of another trader : Be Leonard and Ellis'
T. M., 26 Ch. D. 288, C. A. ; Cellular Clothing Co. v. Maxlon and Murray,
[1899] A. C. 326, H. L. (Sc.) ; Parsons v. Gillespie, [1898] A. C. 239, P. C.
(the "Flaked Oatmeal" case). Atrade mark may be registered in connection
with vegetables and other natural products of the earth : Major Bros. v.
SECT. VI.] Trade Marks, Labels, and Names. 621
Franklin, [1908] 1 K. B. 712 ; British Vacuum, &c. Co. v. New Vacuum,
d>c. Co., [1907] 2 Ch. 312.
Mere length of adverse user wA\ not make a mark puhlici jvris, when such
user was originally fraudulent and is still calculated to deceive : Re Heaton's
T. M., 27 Ch. D. 570 ; and as to inadmissibility to registration of marks
calculated to deceive, v. inf. Chap. LII., " Patents."
In order to obtain protection, there must have been exclusive pubhc user of Public user,
the trade mark or name, though not necessarily for any long period : Kerr,
329; but by the Patents, &c., Act, 1888, s. 17, application for registration of
a trade mark was declared equivalent to public use of the trade mark. And
a similar result is nqw effected by sect. 3 of the Act of 1905, which includes
among Trade Marks capable of registration marks " proposed to be used "
as well as marks used, and by sect. 16 of the Act of 1905 the date of the
application for registration shall be deemed to be the date of registration.
By sect. 39 the registration of a person as proprietor of a trade mark shall
(subject as therein mentioned), if valid, give to such person the exclusive
right to the use of such trade mark. By sect. 41, in all legal proceedings
relating to a registered trade mark, the original registration of such trade
mark shall after the expiration of seven years from the date of such original
registration (or seven years from the passing of the Act, whichever shall
last happen) be taken to be valid in all respects unless, inter alia, such
original registration was obtained by fraud. A salesman on commission
may have by virSue of " dealing with or offering for sale " a property in
the goods in connection with which he used his trade mark sufficient for
the purposes of sect. 3 of the Act of 1905 : Major Bros. v. Franklin, [1908]
I K. B. 712. The fact that a proposed trade mark is capable of being
registered as a design does not prevent it from being registered as a trade
mark : Be United States Playing Card Co., [1908] 1 Ch. 197.
Although similarity of colour will not be taken into consideration in Similarity
deciding questions of piracy of trade marks (Nuttall v. Vining, 28 W. R. of colour.
300), the fact that colour was not protected by the Act of 1875, was im-
portant upon the question of registration : Be Worthington^s T. M., 14
Ch. D. 8 ; and v. inf. Chap. LII., " Patents " ; and the understanding
of the trade and evidence of experts must be taken into consideration upon
questions of infringement : see Mitchell v. Henry, 15 Ch. D. 181, C. A.
The exclusive right (when established) to the use of a particular name or Remedy,
mark in connection with a particular class of goods will, as property, be
protected by injunction : Hall v. Barrows, 4 D. J. & S. 150 ; Ainsworth v.
Walmsley, 1 Eq. 508 ; Anglo-Swiss Milk Co. v. Metcalf, 31 Ch. D. 454 ; and
the injury to the owner's trade by the wilful and fraudulent adoption of
his name or mark, or by such a description by the Deft of his goods as to
induce the belief that they are goods manufactured by the Pit, will also
be compensated by relief in damages or an account of profits : Ford v.
Foster, 7 Ch. 611 ; Edelsten v. E., 1 D. J. & S. 185 ; Lee v. Haley, 5 Ch.
155 ; Seixo v. Provezende, 1 Ch. 192 ; Burgess v. B., 3 D. M. & G. 896 ; and
for a general discussion of the principles on which relief is granted in these
cases, see Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson, 2 Ch. D. 434 ; 3 App. Ca.
376 ; Goodfellow v. Prince, 35 Ch. D. 9, C. A.
It is material (especially on motion for interlocutory injunction : Bromie Actual decep-
V. Freeman, 12 W. R. 305), but not essential {Johnston v. Orr-Ewing, 7 App. tiou not
Ca. 219), that the public has been actually deceived ; it is sufficient if it essential if
be shown that the particular name or mark has been adopted with an 'calculated to
intention to deceive, or that the use of it is calculated to deceive uncautious "8°^'^".
purchasers : Johnston v. Orr-Ewing, sup. ; Singer Co. v. Loog, 18 Ch. D.
395 ; 413, S. C, 8 App. Ca. 15 ; Cope v. Evans, 18 Eq. 138 ; Wotherspoon
V. Currie, L. R. 6 H. L. 508 ; Hirst v. Denham, 14 Eq. 542 ; Woollam v.
Batcliff, 1 H. & M. 259 ; Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Wilson, sup. ;
Bradbury v. Beeton, 18 W. R. 33 ; Wilkinson v. Griffith, 8 Rep. Pat. Ca.
370 ; as the principle is that a man is responsible for the reasonable con-
sequences of his action : Hendriks v. Montague, 17 Ch. D. 638, C. A. ; but
622
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
if a substantial and material part of another's trade mark has been appro-
priated, the appropriator is bound to take such precautions as vnW avoid
Onus of the reasonable probability of deception, and the onus lies on him to show
proof. that purchasers will not be deceived : Orr-Mwing v. Johnston, 13 Ch. D.
434, C. A. ; S. C, 8 App. Ca. 15.
Honesty of The fact that the name used is the name of the place at which the goods
intention. are manufactured or sold will not avail as a defence if the user has been
adopted under circumstances calculated to deceive : Wotherspoon v. Currie,
L. R. 5 H. L. 508 ; Thompson v. Montgomery, 41 Ch. D. 35 ; and original
honesty of intention does not protect continued user if such user is found to
deceive or is calculated to deceive : Mitchell v. Henry, 15 Ch. D. 181, C. A. ;
Orr-Ewing v. Johnston, 13 Ch. D. 434, C. A. ; 8. C, 7 App. Ca. 219 ; Singer
Co. V. Wilson, 3 App. Ca. 376.
And the use, for the sale of a man's goods, of bottles, &c., indelibly
stamped with the name of a manufacturer of similar goods, will be restrained,
even though the man so using such bottles places on them his own label ;
Rose V. Loftus, 47 L. J. Ch. 576 ; 38 L. T. 409 ; and see Jay v. Ladler, 40
Ch. D. 649, that an injunction will be granted to restrain a tradesman from
advertising his goods as those of another, though it has not been proved
that any one has been deceived.
Passing oft. And although there is no actual assumption by the Deft of any mark or
name, or individual thing in which the Pit has a monopoly, yet if he uses
such a combination as to constitute a " fraudulent dress " calculated to
deceive purchasers {e.g., by selling soap in wrappers or packets closely re-
sembling those in wliioh the soap of the Pit is sold), an injunction \vill go
to prevent him from passing off his goods as those of the Pit : Lever v.
Goodwin, 36 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; and see Lever v. Beding field, 80 L. T. 100,
C. A. ; but the useful part of an article as distinguished from an ornamental
addition cannot be regarded as part of the get-up of the article. The
word "get-up" implies something extraneous to the article: W. Edge
d; Sons, Ld. V. W. Niceolls <b Sons, Ld., [1911] 1 Ch. 5.
But in Farina v. Silverlock, 6 D. M. & G. 214, the possible use for a
legitimate purpose of spurious trade labels manufactured by Deft was held
ground for dissolving the injunction, with liberty to Pit to bring an
action.
And see Delondre v. Shaw, 2 Sim. 237, that fraud " will not be intended
where none is alleged."
The fact that one person has been deceived is not conclusive as to mis-
representation : Coles V. Civil Service Assoc, 13 Ch. D. 512.
And in the absence of any attempt by the Deft to pass off his system as
the Pit's, and of evidence of actual damage, the Court ought not to inter-
fere by way of interlocutory injunction to prevent the circulation of mis-
leading advertisements : Tallerman v. Dowsing Radiant Heat Co., [1900] 1
Ch. 1, C. A. ; explaining Frankes v. Weaver, 10 Beav. 297 ; 8 L. T. 0. S.
510 ; and Batty v. Hill, 1 H. & M. 264.
Where there has been delay by Pit, clearer proof of fraudulent intent
and of actual injury will be required : Rodgers v. R., 22 W. R. 887 ; 31 L. T.
285 ; but see Fullwood v. F., Q Ch. D. 176, that the right, being a legal
right, capable of being enforced by action of deceit, mere delay short of the
statutory period will not afiect the right to an injunction.
Past user, discontinued long before action, of infringing machines
found not to work well, is not evidence of intention to infringe again :
Proctor V. Bayly, 42 Ch. D. 390, C. A. ; distinguisliing Millington v. Fox,
3 My. & Cr. 338 ; Oeary v. Newton, 1 D. G. & S. 9.
Enabling And in order to establish the right to relief, it is not necessary to show
others to that the Deft has made a false representation to the immediate purchaser
deceive. (gj;. g^_^ retail dealers to whom the goods have been supplied) ; it is suffi-
cient that he has enabled such purchaser to deceive the ultimate customer :
Singer Co. v. Loog, 18 Ch. D. 395, 413, C. A. ; S. C, 8 App. Ca. 15 ; Lever
V. Goodwin, 36 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; Orr-Ewing v. Johnston, 13 Ch. D. 434, 453,
Misleading
advertise-
ments.
Delay.
SECT. VI. J Trade Marks, Laheh, and Names. 023
C. A. ; <S. C, 7 App. Ca. 219 ; Cmidy v. Taylor, 56 L. T. 891 ; Edekten v.
jB., 1 D. J. & S. 185 ; Sykes v. S., 3 B. & C. 541 ; and accordingly he must
account for profits made by his sale of the articles calculated to deceive,
irrespectively of whether the actual purchasers were deceived : Lever v.
Qoodmn, sup.
Where a trade mark or name had been used in ignorance of the right of User in
the first appropriator, an injunction was granted, but not an account of ignorance,
profits or compensation in damages, except in respect of user by Deft after
knowledge of Pit's prior right : Edelsten v. E., 1 D. J. &. S 185 ; Moet v.
Cmiston, 33 Beav. 578 (reversing in tliis respect Gartier v. Carlisle, 31 Beav.
292) ; Slazenger v. Spalding, [1910] 1 Ch. 257, and compare Werner Motors
V. Oamage, [1904] 1 Ch. 264 ; but see Saxlehner v. Apollinaris Co., [1897]
1 Ch. 893.
Though a trade mark or name has been used in ignorance of the right of
the first appropriator, an injunction may be granted : Millington v. Fox, 3
My. & C. 358 ; Welch v. Knott, 4 K. & J. 747 ; Reddaway v. Bentham Hemp
Spinning Co., 9 Rep. Pat. Ca. 503 ; it not being necessary to aver or prove
fraud in order to obtain protection for a trade mark : Singer, <&c. Co. v.
Wilson, 3 App. Ca. 376, 391 ; and however honest or inadvertent the original
use of another's mark may have been, the continued use after complaint
made is sufiioient proof of fraudulent intention : Orr-Ewing <fe Co. v.
Johnston, 13 Ch. D. 434, C. A. ; 7 App. Ca. 219. If the Deft's goods are
ex fa^ie calculated to deceive, evidence to prove the intention to deceive
is inadmissible as being unnecessary : Saxlehner v. Apollinaris Co., [1897]
1 Ch. 893 ; where an account of profits was directed, as a necessary con-
sequence, in the form allowed in Lever v. Qoodmn, 36 Ch. D. 1 ; 4 Rep.
Pat. Ca. 492 (Form 7, p. 616), although there was no evidence that the Deft's
goods had been actually mistaken for the Pit's : S. 0.
By the Act of 1883, s. 65, now substituted by the Trade Marks Act, Goods of
1905, s. 8, a trade mark must be registered for particular goods or classes different
of goods, and the registration of a mark for one class will not entitle the classes,
proprietor to restrain the use of the mark in connection with goods in a
different class : Hart v. Colley, 44 Ch. D. 193 ; where, however, an injunc-
tion was granted to restrain the Deft from passing off his goods as those
of the Pit.
MISBEPRESENTATIONS BY PLAINTIFF.
Misrepresentations on his label have been held to disentitle a Pit to relief
against infringers : see, on this question. Leather Cloth Co. v. American
Leather Cloth Co., 11 H. L. C. 523 ; Flavel v. Harrison, 10 Hare, 467 ;
Edelsten v. Vick, 11 Hare, 78; Pidding v. Howe, 8 Sim. 477; Perry v.
Truefltt, 6 Beav. 66 ; Morgan v. M'Adam, 36 L. .T. Ch. 228 ; Lamplough
V. Balmer, 1867, W. N. 293 (unauthorized use of words "Patent" or
" Royal Letters Patent ") ; Cheavin v. Walker, 5 Ch. D, 850 ; Newman v.
Pinto, 57 L. T. 31.
But the misrepresentation may be condoned by long usage and repu-
tation in the trade ; e.g., the use of the word " patent " to describe articles
known under that title by trade usage, or articles for which the patent has
expired : Marshall v. Ross, 8 Eq. 651.
And see this question discussed in Ford v. Foster, 7 Ch. 611, where that
which is merely a collateral misrepresentation is distinguished fxom false
representation in the mark or fraud in the trade itself, which, if systematic
and intentional, would disentitle Pit to relief : Lee v. Haley, 5 Ch. 155 ;
Morgan v. M'Adam, sup.
The use of the words " trade mark " on goods in connection with an
unregistered mark does not necessarily imply registration so as to dis-
entitle the trader to rehef in an action to restrain the imitation of the get-
up of his goods : Sen Sen Co. v. Britten, [18fi9] 1 Ch. 692 ; and see Hubbuck
v. Brown, 1899, W. N. 250, commenting on Lewis y. Qoodbody, 67 L. T. 194.
62i
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
A trader was not entitled to relief merely because he had printed on his
label tho words " manufactured in Ireland by H. M. Royal Lstters Patent,"
these words having reference to patented machinery, and not necessarily
representing that the ingredients were patented : Cochrane v. Macnish &:
Son, [1896] A. C. 225, P. C.
Where the Pit failed to establish any title to reKef, and the substances
used by both parties were intended to be used to deceive the public, no
costs were given to the Deft : Kscourt v. Eccourt Hop Co., 10 Ch. 276 ;
Merchant Banking Co. v. Merchants' Joint Stock Co., 9 Ch. D. 560.
And now by the Trade Marks Act, 1905, sect. 11, it shall not be lawful
to register as a trade mark or part of a trade mark any matter the use of
which would by reason of its being calculated to deceive or otherwise be
disentitled to protection in a Court of Justice, or would be contrary to law
or morality, or any scandalous design.
PARTIES ENTITLE n TO SUE.
Part owner. A part-owner of trade marks can sue alone for injunction, erasure, and
his share of profits : Dent v. Turpin, 2 J. & H. 139.
Assignee. An assignee can sue before the assignment has been registered : Ihlee v.
Henshaw, 31 Ch. D. 323.
A mere assignment of the right to use a trade name " in gross," i.e., un-
connected with any business, is invalid : Thornehe v. Hill, [1894] 1 Ch.
569 ; Pinto v. Badman, 8 Rep. Pat. Ca. 181.
Secret recipe. A trade name does not exist " in gross," so as to give the purchasers from
the trustee of a bankrupt of his interest in a sauce, the secret of which they
did not acquire, any right to restrain the original inventor from manu-
facturing the sauce, of which he alone knows the recipe, under the original
title : Cotton v. Qillard, 44 L. J. Ch. 90.
And where the secret of a receipe has been acquired by a person without
unfair means, he will not be restrained from selUng the compound under
the original title, so long as he does not lead the pubUc to believe that his
preparation is the only genuine one : James v. J., 13 Bq. 421 ; or prepared
by the successors in business of the original discoverer : Massam v. Tliorley's
Cattle Food Co., 6 Ch. D. 574 ; 14 Ch. D. 748 ; but after the death of liis
employer, from whom he has learnt the secret, he has no exclusive right to
the use of the name : Hovenden v. Lloyd, 18 W. R. 1132.
Sale of Upon the question whether, on the sale of a business and goodwill, the
goodwill. trade marks will pass, see Shipuiright v. Clements, 19 W. R. 599 ; Hall v.
Barrmvs, 4 D. J. & S. 150 ; Bury v. Bedford, 4 D. J. & S. 352.
The mort.gagee of a business, and the right to use the trade name, who has
never used the name, cannot restrain purchasers of the business from the
mortgagor from using the name : Beazley v. Soars, 22 Ch. D. 660.
And by the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, s. 65, now substituted by the Trade
Marks Act, 1905, s. 8, a trade mark must be registered for particular goods
or classes of goods, and (by sect. 70; now s. 22 of the 1905 Act) when
registered, shall be assigned and transmitted only in connection with the
goodwill of the business concerned in such particular goods or classes of
goods, and shall be determinable with that goodwill.
And as to the right of the owner of a business, after sale or assignment
of the goodwill, to carry on the similar business, provided that he does not
represent that he is carrying on or continuing the identical business sold,
or from which he has retired, v. inf. Sect. X., " Partners."
A right to use a name in connection with the sale of watches was held to
be lost by a grant to watchmakers for seven years of the sole right to put
the name on the watches made by them and no resumption of the right for
many years after the expiration of the seven years : Thorneloe v. Hill, sup.
Right of An action for infringement of trade mark, accomit, and damages may be
exors to continued bv the exors of the proprietor after his death : Oakey & Sons v.
continue Dallon, 35 Cli. D. 700.
proceedings.
SECT. VI.] Trade Marks, Labels, and Names. 625
A foreign manufacturer may obtain an injunction for the infringe- Foreign
ment of his trade marks in this country, and an account : Collins Co. v. manufao-
Broum, 3 K. & J. 423 ; secus, persons who have merely obtained an turer.
exclusive right to sell the goods in England : Richards v. Butcher, 62
L. T. 867.
But the use of a trade mark affixed to goods imported, and not manu-
factured by Pit, who is not shown to have an exclusive contract for their
supply, will not be restrained by interlocutory injunction : Hirsch v, Jonas,
45 L. J. Ch. 364 ; 3 Ch. D. 584 ; 35 L. T. 228.
COUNTY COURT JUEISDIOTION.
The County Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action for an
injunction to restrain the infringement of a registered trade mark : Bow
V. Hart, [1905] 1 K. B. 592, C. A.
ACCOUNT — DAMAGES — INSPECTION.
As to the account of profits, v. sup. pp. 621, 623.
With respect to the account and damages, special damage must be Special
proved ; it will not be held that goods sold by the Deft would, in the damages,
absence of such user, have been sold by Pit : Leather Cloth Co. v. Hirsch-
feld, 1 Eq. 299 ; and the inquiry is " What damage, if any," &c. ; not,
as in patent cases, " What damage," &c. : see Davenport v. Sylands, 1 Eq.
308 ; followed in Fritz v. Hobson., 14 Ch. D. 542.
Discovery as to sales by Deft, and production of liis books, will not be Biscovery
granted until the Pit has made his election between damages and an account
of profits : Fennessy v. Clark, 37 Ch. D. 184, C. A. ; and v. sup. Chap. VII.,
p. 89.
Inspection by the Judge of the article complained of {e.g., a rival omnibus) Inspection,
under 0. l, 4, must be supplemented by, and not substituted for, evidence :
London General Omnibus Co. v. Lavell, [1901] 1 Ch. 135, C. A. ; but com-
pare Bourne v. Swan tfc Edgar, [1903] 1 Ch. 211.
COSTS.
The duty of an innocent consignee of goods bearing a spurious label, Imiocent
and the steps he should take to avoid liability to costs in a suit by consignee,
the injured owner, are discussed in Upmann v. Ellcan, 12 Eq. 140 ;
7 Ch. 130. And see Burgess v. Hills, 26 Beav. 244 ; Hunt v. Maniere,
34 Beav. 157.
Such a consignee, being a wrongdoer, must pay the costs of the action,
though he disclaims all intention of selling, and ofi:ers all the relief asked
immediately on being served with the writ : Upmann v. Forester, 24 Ch.
D. 231 ; Fennessy v. Day, 55 L. T. 161 ; and see Adair v. Young, 12 Ch. D.
13, C. A. ; Neilson v. Belts, L. R. 5 H. L. 1 ; Cooper v. Whittingham, 15
Ch. D. 501.
Innocent consignees of goods bearing a spurious label or trade mark are
entitled to a lien on the goods for their charges in priority to any claim of
Pits (the owners of the trade mark) for their costs : Moet v. Pickering, 8
Ch. D. 372, C. A. (reversing 6 Ch. D. 770) ; and see Ponsardin v. Peto, 33
Beav. 642.
A retail dealer innocently purchasing and selling a small quantity of Innocent
counterfeit goods will not necessarily be ordered to pay the costs of an retailer,
action for infringement : American Tobacco Co. v. Quest, [1892] 1 Ch.
630.
By sect. 46 of the Trade Marks Act, 1905, in any legal proceedings in Certificate of
which the validity of the registration of a registered trade mark comes into proprietor-
question, and is decided in favour of the proprietor of such trade mark, ^^^P-
VOL. I. 2 S
626
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
the Court may certify the same, and if it so certifies, then in any subsequent
legal proceedings in which such validity comes into question, the pro-
prietor of the said trade mark on obtaining a final judgment or order in
his favour shall have his full costs, charges, and expenses, as between
solicitor and client unless in such subsequent proceedings the Court certifies
that he ought not to have the same.
Distinction
between trade
mark and
trade name.
Patronymic.
Cases of
injunctions
granted.
TEADE NAME.
As to the distinction between trade mark and trade name, see Ooodfdhw
V. Prince, 35 Ch. D. 9, C. A. ; Borthmch v. Evening Post, 37 Ch. D. 449,
C. A. ; and that the owner of a publication claiming an injunction to restrain
the issue of another publication with a similar name, must show pro-
bability not only of the public being deceived, but of injury to himself from
such deception, see Borthwick v. Evening Post, sup. ; and see Walter v.
Emmot, 54 L. J. Ch. 1059 ; 53 L. T. 437. And as to the right of a non-
trading association to restrain the use of a particular fancy term, see Society
of Accountants, &c. v. Ooodway, [1907] 1 Ch. 489.
The right of a man to use his own name in trade cannot be interfered
with merely because the public may probably be misled by reason of its
similarity to, or identity with, the name of another trader engaged in the
same business : Titrton r. T., 42 Ch. D. 128, C. A. ; Tussaud v. T., 44 Ch.
D. 678 ; and see Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Dunlop Motor Co., [1907]
A. C. 430 ; Warwick Tyre Co. v. New Motor, &c. Co., [1910] 1 Ch. 248 ;
but a man will not be permitted to lend his name to a new no. for the pur-
pose of carrying on a business similar to an old-estabhshed business carried
on under the same name : Tussaud v. T., sup. ; and see Re Brinsmead <b
Sons, [1897] 1 Ch. 45 ; lb. 406, C. A. ; Jameson v. Dublin Distillers Co.,
[1900] 1 Ir. R. 43 ; Cash v. C, 1902, W. N. 32, C. A. ; Hawker v. Stourfidd
Park Hotel, 1900, W. N. 51 ; and where a person had assumed the name
of another for the mere purpose of using the name in trade to pass off his
goods as the other's manufacture, he was restrained absolutely from using
the name in connection with the sale or manufacture of such goods : P.
Pinet <Ss Cie. v. Maison Louis Pinet, Ld., [1898] 1 Ch, 179, N. ; and whether
a man can for valuable consideration, or otherwise, confer on others the
right to use his name for a business which he has never carried on, and in
which he has no interest, quaere : lb. ; and see Burgess v. B., 3 D. M. & G.
896 ; Bendle v. J. Edgcumbe, Rendle & Co., 63 L. T. 94.
That there cannot be copyright in a name, v. inf. p. 662.
As to the right of a tradesman to use a name, although he is aware that
a neighbouring tradesman intends to use that name, see Coles v. Civil
Service Assoc, 13 Ch. D. 512 ; and that the assumption of the patronymic
name of another family will not be restrained unless it has been exclusively
used in connection with a particular business, see Du Boulay v. D., L. R.
2 P. C. 430.
Cases in which an injunction against the use of particular names has
been granted are : — M' Andrew v. Bassett, 4 D. J. & S. 380 (Anatolia
Liquorice) ; Seixo v. Provezende, 1 Ch. 192 (Crown Seixo Port) ; Braham v.
Bustard, 1 H. & M. 447 (Excelsior Soap) ; Cocks v. Chandler, 11 Eq. 446
(" Original " Reading Sauce) ; Wotherspoon v. Currie, L. R. 5 H. L. 508
(Glenfield Starch) ; Lee v. Haley, 6 Ch. 155 (Pall Mall Guinea Coal Co.) ;
Radde v. Norman, 14 Eq. 348 (" Leopoldshall ") ; Hirst v. Denham, 14 Eq.
542 (Turin, Sefton, &c.. Cloths) ; Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84 (Day & Martin's
Blacking) ; Stephens v. Peel, V.-C. W., 21 Mar. 1867, B. 621 (" Stephen's
Writing Fund" changed by Deft into " Steelpen's Writing Fluid");
Kinahan v. Bolton, 15 Ir. Ch. 75 (LL Whiskey) ; Schweizer v. Atkins, 16
W. R. 1080 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 847 ; 19 L. T. 6 (Cocoatina) ; Apollinaris Co. v.
Norrish, 33 L. T. 242 (London Apollinaris Water) ; Siegert v. Findlater,
7 Ch. D. 801 (Angostura Bitters) ; BraJiam v. Beachim, 7 Ch. D. 848 (the
Radstock Colliery Proprietors) ; Orillon v. Ouenin, 1877, W. N. 14 (Tamar
SECT. VI.] Trade Marks, Labels, and Names. 627
Indien Lozenges) ; Mod v. Olybcmw, M. R., 19 Jan. 1878, B. 86 (selling
champagne in bottles with corks or labels bearing the brand or letters
M. & 0.) ; Bernhardt v. SpaMing, 49 L. J. Ch. 57 ; 28 W. R. 300 (Family
Salve) ; Tussaiid y. Tussaud, 44 Ch. D. 678 (Louis Tuasaud & Co.) ; Borth-
wick V. Evening Post, 37 Ch. D. 447, C. A. (" Evening Post " Newspaper) ;
Massam v. Thorley's Cattle Food Co., 14 Ch. D. 748, C. A. (" Thorley's
Food for Cattle"); Thompson v. Montgomery, 41 Ch. D. 35 ("Stone"
Ale) ; Sanitas Co. v. Condy, 56 L. T. 621 (" Sanitas," " Condi-Sanitas ") ;
Edgington v. E., 61 L. T. 323 (" Frigidomo ") ; Blair v. Stock, 51 L. T. 12
(" Strathmore " Whiskey) ; Jameson v. Dublin Distillers Co., [1900] 1 Ir.
R. 43 (" Jamesons " whiskey sold without prefix to name of seller) ; Society
of Accountants, etc. v. Ooodway,[\9(yT\ 1 Ch. 489 ("Incorporated Account-
ants ") ; Rey v. Lecouturier, [1910] A. C. 262 (Chartreuse), Form 4, p. 614,
ante ; Walter v. Ashton, [1902] 2 Ch. 282 (" Times " Cycles) ; Warwick
Tyre Co. v. New Motor, cfcc. Co., [1910] 1 Ch. 248 (Warwick), and see form
of order, S. C. at p. 257.
Refused : — Raggett v. Findlater, 17 Bq. 29 (Nourishing Stout) ; Liehig, Injunctions
ikc. Co. V. Hanhury, 17 L. T. 298 (liebig's Extract of Meat) ; Batty v. Hill, refused.
1 H. & M. 264 (Prize Medal Pickles) ; Cope v. Evans, 18 Eq. 138 (Prairie
Cigar Brand) ; Ainsworth v. Walmsley, 1 Eq. 518 ; Blackwell v. Crabb, 36
L. J. Ch. 504 (Piecalillie) ; Bradbury v. Bedon, 18 W. R. 33 (" Punch-and-
Judy ") ; Singer Co. v. Wilson, 2 Ch. D. 434 ; 3 App. Ca. 376 (Singer Sewing
Machines) ; Hirsch v. Jonas, 45 L. J. Ch. 364 ; 3 Ch. D. 584 ; Lea v. Millar,
M. R., 26 July, 1876, B. 1507 (Worcestershire Sauce) ; Linoleum Co. v.
Nairn, 7 Cli. I). 834 (Linoleum) ; Kdhj v. Byles, 13 Ch. D. 682 (Post Office
Bradford Director}') ; Coles v. Civil Service Supply, 19 Ch. D. 512 (" Civil
Service Boot Supply ") ; Singer Co. v. Loog, 18 Ch. D. 395, C. A. ; 8 App.
Ca. 15 ("Singer" Sewing Machine); Street v. Union Bank of Spain, 30
Ch. D. 156 (Telegraphic cypher address, " Street, London ") ; Symington v.
Footman, Pretty cfc Co., 56 L. T. 606 (" Guaranteed Corset ") ; Re Leonard
and Ellis, 26 Ch. D. 288, C. A. (" Valvoline ") ; Native Ghiano Co. v. Sewage
Manure Co., 8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 125 ("Native Guano"); Pirie v. Ooodall,
[1892] 1 Ch. 35, C. A. (" Parchment Bank ") ; Grand Hotel Co. of Caledonian
Springs v. Wilson, [1904] A. C. 103 ; Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Dunlop
Motor Co., [1907] A. C. 430 (" Dunlop " Motor Co.).
And for instances of names and words which have been held incapable of Names
registration as being " calculated to deceive," v.-inf. Chap. LII., "' Patents." incapable of
A trader will not be permitted unfairly to revive a disused name which registration,
has in the meantime become associated solely with the goods of another :
Daniel and Arter v. Whitehouse, [1898] 1 Ch. 685.
A former partner or assistant will be restrained from using the name of Former
the firm with which he has been connected so as to mislead the public into partner or
the belief that his shop is the shop of his former employers or partners : assistant.
Hookham v. Pottage, 8 Ch. 91 ; Olenny v. Smith, 2 Dr. & Sm. 476 ; Condy
V. Mitchell, 26 W! R. 269 ; 37 L. T. 766 ; Dence v. Mason, 41 L. T. 573 ;
but so long as he does not attempt to mislead the public into the belief
that articles sold by liim are in reality manufactured by the Pit, a former
partner will not, after dissolution, be restrained from selling articles under
the name and labels used by the firm before dissolution : Condy v. Mitchell,
26 W. R. 269 ; Dence v. Mason, 1878, W. N. 42.
An injunction cannot be granted where there is no attempt to interfere Incon-
with trade, and no legal injury done, but simply inconvenience caused, vcnienco
e.g., to restrain the use of a, cypher address for telegrams which had been irrespective
long used by Pits : Street v. Union Bank of Spain, 30 Ch. D. 156, citing °^ trade.
Day V. Brownrigg, 10 Ch. D. 294, C. A.
The use of a particular name as applied to a house or property will not be
protected : Day v. Brownrigg, 10 Ch. D. 294, C. A.
By the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 8, no oo. shall be
registered under a name identical mth that by which a subsisting co. is
already registered, or so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated
628
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
to deceive ; and an application for registration under a name so similar
to that of another co. (though unregistered) as to be calculated to deceive
will be restrained: Hendriks {Universal lAfe Assce. Soc.) v. MoTvtagu
(Universe, Life Assce. Association, Ld.), 17 Ch. D. 638, C. A.
Injunctions against the use by a oo. of a name in colourable imitation of,
or so much of a name as was identical with that of Pit co. have been —
Granted in — The Accident Insur. Co. Ld. v. The Accident, Disease and
General Insur. Corp. Ld. 54 L. J. Ch. 104 ; 51 L. T. 597 ; and see
Guardian Fire and Life Assce. Co. v. Guardian and General Insur. Co.
Ld., 50 L. J. Ch. 253 ; 43 L. T. 791 ; Army and Navy Co-operative
Soc, Ld. v. Army, Navy and Civil Service Soc. of India, Ld., 8 Rep.
Pat. Cas. 426 (erasure of name stamped on corks ordered) ; North
Cheshire and Manchester Brewery Co. v. Manchester Brewery Co.,
[1899] A. C. 83 ; H. L. affirming C. A., [1898] 1 Ch. 539 ; National
Folding Box and Paper Co. v. National Folding Box Co. Ld., sup. ;
Panhard et Le.vassor v. Levassor, &c. Co., 70 L. J. Ch. 738 ; 1901,
W. N. 153 (injunction against signatories to memorandum of co.).
Refused in — Colonial Life Assce. Co. v. Home and Colonial Assce. Co.,
33 Beav. 548 ; London Assce. v. London and Westminster Assce.
Corp. Ld., 32 L. J. Ch. 664 ; The Merchant Banking Co. of London
V. The Merchants' Joint Stock Batik, 9 Ch. D. 560 ; Australian Mort-
gage Land and Finance Co. v. Australian and New Zealand Mortgage
Co., 1880, W. N. 6 ; Saunders v. Sun Life Assce. Co. of Canada,
[1894] 1 Ch. 537 (on undertaking by the Canadian co. not to use
any abbreviation of their corporate name without the addition of
the words " of Canada ") ; Aerators Limited v. ToUitt, [1902] 2 Ch.
319 ; British Vacuum, &c. Co. v. New Vacuum, dkc. Co., [1907]
2 Ch. 312.
Foreign co.
Geographical
term.
Whether the one name is so nearly resembling another as to be calcu-
lated to deceive is a question for the judge and not for a witness : North
Cheshire and Manchester Brewery Co. v. Manchester Brewery Co., sup.
The addition of the words " co., limited " is not sufficient to entitle a
Deft to appropriate a trade name which has been used by Pit : Hohy v.
Grosvenor Library Co., Ld.,^8 W. R. 386.
A CO. may acquire the exclusive right to a trade name which it has used
separately from its corporate name in contravention of sects. 41 and 42 of
the Companies Act, 1862 : Randall v. British and American Shoe Co., [1902]
2 Ch. 354.
A foreign co. trading in this country is entitled to restrain the use of a
name so similar as to be calculated to deceive its customers : National
Folding Box and Paper Co. v. National Folding Box Co. Ld., 43 W. R.
156; Societe' Anonyme, &c. Panhard v. Panhard, Ac. Co. [1901] 2 Ch.
513.
As to the right at common law of a manufacturer to the use of a
geographical term, see Rugby GenienI Co. v. Rugby & Newbold Cement Co.,
8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 241 ; ;Sf. C, 9 lb. 46.
DESTRUCTION OF FRAUDULENT MARKS.
By the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 V. o. 28), s. 2, every person
who forges any trade mark, or falsely applies to goods any trade mark or
any mark so nearly resembhng a trade mark as to be calculated to deceive, or
applies any false trade description to goods, or makes or disposes of dies,
&c., for forging trade marks ; and (subject to certain exceptions) every
person who sells, &c., goods to which any forged or false mark or false
description is applied, is guilty of an offence; and by sect. 12 provision
is made for the seizure and forfeiture of goods or things by means of or in
SECT. VII.] Infringement of Letters Patent. o^^
relation to which an offence has been committed, and any goods or things
forfeited may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the Court of summary
jurisdiction by wliioh the same are forfeited directs ; and the Court may,
out of any proceeds realized by disposition, award to any innocent party
any loss he may have innocently sustained in dealing with such goods.
independently of the statute. Courts of Equity have long exercised juris-
diction to order the delivery up and destruction of counterfeit labels :
Edelsten v. Vick, 11 Ha. 86 ; Farina v. Silverlock, 4 K. & J. 650 ; and of
articles made in infringement of a patent : Belts v. De Vitre, 34 L. J. Ch.
289 ; Tangye v. Sioit, 14 W. R. 386 ; and by analogy to order the destruction
of bank-notes of a foreign State made in this country for insurgents, and
cancellation of the plates : Emperor of Austria v. Day, L. J., 12 June, 1861,
A. 1243 ; 3 D. P. & J. 217.
Section VII. — Infringement of Letters Patent.
Por form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against Infringement of Letters Patent.
Order that the Defts, their servants, agents, and workmen, be re-
strained during the continuance of the letters patent. No. &c., from
manufacturing, selling, letting on hire, supplying or using any in-
candescent electric lamps, manufactured according to or in the
manner described in the specification, filed in pursuance of such
letters patent, or according to or in any manner only colourably
differing from the same, and generally from infringing the rights of
the Pits in respect of such letters patent. — Edison and Swan United
Electric Co. v. Holland, C. A., 18 Feb. 1889, A. 443 ; 41 Ch. D. 28,
C.A.
2. Injunction against Infringement of Letters Patent — Mechanical
Equivalents.
Order that the Defts, their servants, agents, and workmen, be
restrained during the continuance of the letters patent. No. &c.,
from using or permitting to be used the invention described in the
specification and drawings. No. &c., filed by the Pit, or any part or
parts of the same invention, and from using and permitting to be
used in the manufacture of iron and steel forgings any appliances
or means, being the same as the appliances or means now or lately
used by the Defts as mentioned in the said particulars of breaches,
or which, as to any part or parts thereof, are arranged or constructed
according to the said invention, or any part thereof, or differ there-
from only colourably, and by the substitution of mere mechanical
equivalents. — Siddell v. Vickers, Kekewich, J., 21 Dec. 1887, B.
2863, P.; 39 Ch. D. 93, C. A. ; 15 App. Ca. 496.
630 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
3. Judgment in Patent Action — Injunction — Account of Gains and
Profits — Discovery, Delivery up, or Destruction.
Order that the Deft, his servants &c., be restrained during the
continuance of the said letters patent granted to N., dated &c.,
from using or exercising, or causing or permitting to be used or
exercised, the invention described in the hereinbefore-mentioned
specification and drawings of the said N., and from selling, letting
for hire, or making any profitable use, or permitting the sale, letting
for hire, or profitable use of any roller or runner skates not made by
the Pit or his licensees, and having applied thereto rollers or runners
in manner described, and for the purposes mentioned in the said
specification, or fitted with any apparatus for causing the skate to
run in a curved line in the manner described in the said specification
and drawings, or differing therefrom only colourably, and by the
substitution of mere mechanical equivalents ; And it is ordered that
the following account be taken, namely, 1. An account of all roller
skates being the same as the skates sold by the Deft to G. as in the
pleadings mentioned, or otherwise made in infringement of the said
letters patent, which have been manufactured, or sold, or let for hire,
by or by the order, or for the use or profit of the Deft, and also of the
gains and profits made by the Deft by reason of such manufactme,
sale, or letting for hire ; And it is ordered that the Deft do within
(seven) days after the service upon him of the Master's certificate of
the result of such account, pay to the Pit the amount of such gains
and profits ; And it is ordered that the Deft do forthwith upon oath
deliver up to the Pit, or break up, or otherwise render unfit for use
all roller skates or parts of roller skates so manufactured, or let for
hire, by or by the order or for the use of the Deft in infringement of
the said letters patent as aforesaid, which are in the possession,
custody, or power of the Deft or his servants or agents. — Deft to
pay to the Pit costs of suit. — Pliinpton v. Malcolmson, M. E., 28 Jan.
1876, B. 381.
For inquiry as to damages, see pout, p. 650.
i. Perpetual Injunction against Threats of Legal Proceedings.
Order that the Defts, their servants and agents, be perpetually
restrained from making or continuing threats of legal proceedings
or liability by circulars, advertisements, or otherwise, in respect
of the alleged infringement by the Pits of the several letters patent,
No. &c. — Driffield, &c. Co. v. Waterloo, &c. Co., Bacon, V.-C,
10 Feb. 1886, A. 194 ; 31 Ch. D. 638.
For like order (interim) see Kensington and Knighlshridge Electric Co.
Ld. V. The Lane-Fox Electrical Co., Ld., Stirling, J., 24 April, 1891, A. 613,
[1891] 2 Ch. 573.
SECT. VII.] Infringement of Letters Patent 631
NOTES.
INFfilNGBMBNT — RIGHT TO INJUNCTION.
An interlocutory injunction will be granted where the patent is old, and Interlocutory
there has been long and undisturbed enjoyment, and evidence of actual injunction,
public user ; or where its validity has been established elsewhere, and the
Court sees no reason to doubt the result ; or where the conduct of tlie Deft
has been such that as against him there is no reason to doubt the validity
of the patent : Dudgeon v. Thomson, 22 W. R. 464 ; 30 L. T. 244, and
see 3 App. Ca. 34 ; Plimpton v. Makolm^on, 20 Eq. 37.
In support of these propositions, see also Hill v. Thompson, 3 Mer. 622 ;
Bacon v. Jones, Collard v. Allison, 4 My. & Cr. 433, 487 ; Stevens v. Keating,
2 Ph. 335 ; Bridson v. M' Alpine. 8 Beav. 229 : Bridson v. Benecke, 12 Beav.
I ; Newall v. Wilson, 2 D. M. & G. 282 ; Plimpton v. Spiller, 4 Ch. D. 286.
For further information as to injunctions in patent cases see Frost's Patent
Law and Practice, 3rd ed.. Vol. I.
Length of enjo3rment is material : Davenport v. Richard, 3 L. T. 503 ; Length of
Betts V. Menzies, 3 Jur. N. S. 357 ; and although the mere fact that a patent enjoyment,
is recent does not prevent an interlocutory or even an ex parte injunction
(Gardner v. Broadbent, 2 Jur. N. S. 1041 ; Clarh v. Fergusson, 1 Giff. 184),
there must, in a case of a patent of no great age, be at least a fair prima
facie case of validity : Renard v. Levinstein, 10 L. T. 177. Actual public
user of the patent must also bo shown : Plimpton v. Malcolmson,
20 Eq. 37.
An injunction may be obtained to restrain a threatened, as distinguished Threatened
from an actual, infringement of a patent : Frearson v. Loe, 9 Ch. D. 48 ; infringe-
and where Deft accepts an order from the Pit's agent in the ordinary course ^^i^t-
of business, it must be assumed against him that he will accept similar
orders again if offered : Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Neal, [1899] 1
Ch. 807.
As a matter of pleading, the absence of an express averment of the Novelty,
novelty of the invention did not prevent an injunction from being granted :
Amory v. Brovm, 8 Eq. 663. But the legal title of Pit, the novelty of the
invention, and the validity of the patent, must be clearly and accurately
set forth in the affidavits : Whitton v. Jennings, 1 Dr. & Sm. 110 ; Gardner
V. Broadbent, 2 Jur. N. S. 1041 ; Sturz v. De la Rue, 5 Russ. 329 ; and there
must also be clear evidence of the alleged infringement : Hill v. Thompson,
3 Mer. 624 ; Mayer v. Spence, 1 J. & H. 87 ; Renard v. Levinstein, 10 L. T.
94, 177 ; Betts v. Willmott, 6 Ch. 239 ; and where it was not shown which
of the Pit's three patents had been infringed, and one of the three had
subsequently expired, damages only were given : Saccharin Corp. v.
Quincey, [1900] 2 Ch. 246. And as to the liability of the Pit, who is owner
of several patents, to indicate the precise patents in respect of which he
alleges infringement, see Saccharin Corp. v. Wild, [1903] 1 Ch. 410.
A patent for mere use of a known contrivance without additional in-
genuity is bad ; secus, if the new use involves a practical difficulty which
the patentee has been the first to overcome : Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester,
9 Rep. Pat. Ca. 516, 524 ; and see Tweedah v. Ashworth, 9 Rep. Pat. Ca.
121 ; Williams v. Nye, 7 Rep. Pat. Ca. 62 ; Harwood v. G. N. Ry. Co.,
11 H. L. C. 654.
And to entitle a patentee to maintain his patent, he must make some
addition, not only to knowledge, but to previously-known invention. An
invention is not the same thing as a discovery, and the mere discovery
that a known machine can produce certain results is not a patentable
invention : Lane-Fox v. Kensington, dhe. Electric Light Co., [1892] 3 Ch.
424, C. A. ; and see Nettlefolds v. Reynolds, 9 Rep. Pat. Ca. 270 ; Wilson
V. Union Oil Mills Co., lb. 57.
Utility in patent law does ncit msan abstract, or comparative, or com- UtiHty.
petitive, or commercial utility, and an invention which offers the pubUc
632 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
a useful choice is patentable ; and as to the degree of utility necessary,
see Welsbach Incandescent, the. Co. v. New Incandescent, dhc. Co., [1900]
1 Ch. 843.
It is not a correct test of utility that an invented product at the time of
the patent was likely to be in commercial demand, or capable of profitable
manufacture : ;S. C, 12 App. Ca. 710.
And for cases of patents held bad for want of utihty or invention, see
Winby v. Manchester Steam Tram Co., 8 Rep. Pat. Ca. 61 ; Tucker v. Kaye,
lb. 58 ; Nuttal v. Hargreaves, lb. 273 ; Embossed Metal Plate Co. v. Saupe
& Busche, lb. 355.
Dieferent Where a patent is obtained for a new process for arriving at a known
process. result, it is no infringement to arrive at the same result by a different
process, and the patentee can only claim to work out his process by means
of materials known at the date of the patent : Badische, dkc. Fabrik v.
Levinstein, 24 Ch. D. 156 ; but see 8. C, 29 Ch. D. 366, C. A. ; 12 App.
Ca. 710.
Combination. The sale of articles to be used in producing a patented article (the
elements of which afterwards enter into the combination for which the
patent has been obtained) will not be restrained as an infringement :
Townsend v. Haworth, 12 Ch. D. 831, n. ; and see Sykes v. Howarfk, lb.
826 ; Dunlop, <bc. Go. v. David Moseley <fc Sons, [1904] 1 Ch. 612, C. A. ;
and compare Sirdar Rubber Co. v. Wallingtan, [1905] 1 Ch. 451.
Articles 'Jhe importation and sale in this country of articles made abroad according
made abroad, to a process patented here will be restrained by injunction : Elmslie v.
Boursier, 9 Eq. 217 ; Von Heyden v. Neustadt, 14 Ch. D. 230 ; and see
Wright v. Hitchcock, L. R. 5 Ex. 37 ; Walton v. Lavater, 8 C. B. N. S. 162 ;
Beits V. Willmott, 6 Ch. 239 ; although the patent is chemical, and the
imported article has been the subject of chemical change : Saccharin
Corp. V. Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, [1901] 1 Ch. 414 ; and possession,
though innocent, for purpose of sale, is an infringement, and exposing for
sale is a " using and vending " of the invention : British Motor Syndicate
V. Taylor, [1901] 1 Ch. 122, C. A. ; [1900] 1 Ch. 577. So also the user in
this country, by sending to an English port for shipment to foreign customers,
and not for consumption in England, bottles covered with capsules made
abroad in imitation of the patented process : Neilson v. Belts, L. R. 5
H. L. 1 ; 3 Ch. 429 ; but there is no vending so as to constitute infringe-
ment where the contract for sale is completed by delivery of the goods to
a foreign post office, the post office being the agent of the buyer and not
of the vendor : Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Basle Chemical Works,
Bindschedler, [1898] A. C. 200, H. L., affu-ming C. A., [1897] 2 Ch. 322 ;
and the delivery of a patented article at a foreign port to an English
importer is not an " exercise " of the invention within the realm : Saccharin
Corp. V. Reitmeyer, [1900] 2 Ch. 659 ; Badische Anilin, tbc. v. Hickson,
[1906] A. C. 419.
To the same effect, see Caldwell v. Vanvlissengen, 9 Ha. 415.
User for User of a patented article for purposes of experiment by, and instruction
experiment, "f pupils is an infringement : United Telephone Co. v. Sharpies, 29 Ch. D.
164 ; and an injunction was granted against the master of a ship exclusively
fitted up with pumps which were an infringement of a patent : Adair v.
Young, 12 Ch. D. 13, C. A. ; so, also, the mere possession of an infringing
machine, dismantled by removing the infringing elements, which, however,
were kept stored, was held to be an infringement : United Telephone Co.
V. Olobe Telegraph Co., 20 Ch. D. 766 ; but though the importation from
abroad of a foreign infringement may be restrained, the mere acting as
Custom House agents for persons importing the foreign infringement in
order to export it is not an infringement : Nobel's Explosive Co. v. Jones,
Scott & Co., 17 Ch. D. 721, C. A. ; 8 App. Ca. 1.
Where the experimental use of infringing machines had been abandoned
three years bpfore action brought, and no intention to resume the user was
ehown, an injunction was refused : Proctor v. Bayley, 42 Ch. D. 390.
SECT. VII.] Infringement of Letters Patent. 633
Repair of an article amounting to a reconstruction of it may constitute Repair,
an infringement of a patent : Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Neal, [1899]
1 Ch. 807 ; and compare Sirdar Rubber Go. v. Wallington, [1905] I Ch. 451.
Pits were not estopped from complaining of the infringement of their Act done at
patent by the fact that the act complained of had been done by the Defts unauthorized
at the request, suo motu, of the Pit's agent : Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. ^^3^^^\
V. Neai. [1899] 1 Ch. 807, distinguishing Kelly v. Batchelor, 10 Rep. Pat. °' ^s ■
Ca. 289, on the ground that in that case the Pits had authorized their
agent to direct the Deft to construct an article infringing their patent.
And as to the distinction between merely selling an article to others to
be used for the purpose of infringing a patent, and employing a person as
the agent of the seller to use the article, and that the one is not, and the
other may be, an infringement, see Sykes v. Howarth, 12 Ch. D. 826:
The sale of goods piratically made during the term may be restrained Injunction
after its expiration : Crossley v. Beverley, 1 R. & M. 166, n. after expira-
The right of the Crown to make use of patented inventions does not tionot patent,
enable private contractors for the sale to the Crown for the public service ]^'S^* °
of goods made under the patent, to use the patented process without ^™^°'
licence or payment of royalties, or protect them against claims in respect
of the infringement of the patent : Dixon v. The London Small Arms Co.,
1 App. Ca. 632 (reversing 1 Q. B. D. 384, and restoring L. R. 10 Q. B. 130) ;
and see Feather v. Beg., 6 B. & S. 257.
COUNTY OOUET JURISDICTION.
The right or privilege granted by letters patent is a " franchise " within
sect. 56 of the County Courts Act, 1888, and an injunction to restrain the
infringement of a patent is therefore excluded from the jurisdiction of the
County Court : Beg. v. Judge of Halifax County Court, [1891] 2 Q. B.
263. As to trade marks, see Bow v. Hart, [1905] 1 K. B. 592, ante,
p. 625.
PAETIES.
An injunction to restrain infringement may be obtained by an exclusive Licensee,
licensee of a patent : Benard v. Levinstein, 2 H. & M. 628 ; but an exclusive
licence, limited to a specified district, not being equivalent to a grant of the
whole letters patent, does not entitle the licensee to sue in his own name
without joining the patentee : Heap v. Hartley, 42 Ch. D. 461. A licence
to manufacture abroad under a foreign patent does not entitle the licensee
to sell in this country in violation of the licensor's English patent : Societe,
tbc. de Olaces v. Tilghmann's Sand Blast Co., 25 Ch. D 1, C. A.
One of several co-owners of a patent can sue for an injunction and Co-owners,
account : Sheehan v. G. E. By. Co., 16 Ch. D. 59 ; and a mortgagor without
making the mortgagees parties : Van Gelder v. Sowerby Bridge Co., 44 Ch.
D. 374, C. A.
The general rule that a co-owner of a patent is entitled to work it for his
own benefit, applies where the co-owner of one moiety is mortgagee of the
other moiety : Steers v. Bogers, [1892] 2 Ch. 13, C. A. ; [1893] A. C. 232 ;
and extends to the case of a secret process so as to entitle one of several co-
owners to make use of his knowledge of it : Heyl-Dia v. Edmunds, [1899]
W. N. 222 ; 81 L. T. 579 ; 48 W. R. 167.
A mere agent to introduce, sell, and grant licences for the use of a foreign Agent,
patent in this country is not entitled to take proceedings to restrain
infringement and obtain damages: Adams w. North British By.,2Q L. T. 367.
By the Patents and Designs Act, 1907 (7 Edw. VII., o. 29), s. 43, if a Legal
person claiming to be inventor dies without making an application for a personal
patent for the invention, application may be made by, and a patent for representa-
the invention granted to, his legal representative, on his making a de- tive.
claration that he believes the deceased person he represents to be the true
and first inventor of the invention.
634 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Right to be The maker of a machine alleged to be an infringement of a patent has
added as no right to be added as Deft to an action against the purchaser : Moser
I'eft. V. Marsden, [1892] 1 Ch. 487, C. A.
NOVELTY — PUBLICATION.
Prior user of a patent within the colonies is not user " within the realm "
sufficient to invalidate the title of a patentee as true and first inventor :
Rolls V. Isaacs, 19 Ch. D. 268.
He who imports a novel invention into this country is true and first
inventor within 21 Jac. I., c. 3 : Re Avery's Patent, 36 Ch. D. 307, C. A. ;
Plimpton V. Malcolmson, 3 Ch. D. 531 ; Plimpton v. Spiller, 6 Ch. D. 412,
C. A. ; Nickels v. Ross, 8 C. B. 679, 723 ; and a patent for a communication
from abroad will not be invalidated for want of novelty by prior publica-
tion ; and the process cannot be infringed, unless there has been actual
publication of the information in a book publicly circulated in this country.
The sending over to the English Patent Office library a single copy of a
foreign scientific work, and of a book of illustrations describing and con-
taining a drawing of the invention afterwards here patented, was held not
to make the foreign invention " part of the pubhc possession, and part of
the public knowledge," so as to amount to prior publication : Plimpton
V. Malcolmson, 3 Ch. D. 531 ; Plimpton v. Spiller, 6 Ch. D. 412, C. A. ;
nor the simple fact that a treatise containing a description of the invention
was to be found in the inner library of the British Museum : Otto v. Steel,
31 Ch. D. 241 ; and see Stead v. Williams, Stead v. Anderson, 2 Web. Pat.
Ca. 126, 147 : affirmed 6 Ch. D. 412, C. A. ; Re Lamenaude's Patent, Ih.
169 ; Househill Co. v. Neilson, 1 Web. Pat. Ca. 673 ; secus, where the speci-
fication in a foreign language is to be found in a free public library, such
as that of the Patent Office, unless it is proved that the existence of it was
not known : Harris v. Rothwdl, 35 Ch. D. 416, 435, C. A. ; or where the
foreign work had been sent over to a bookseller in this country for the pur-
pose of being sold : Lang v. Oisborne, 31 Beav. 135 (and see observations
of M. R. on this case, 3 Ch. D. 561, 562) ; or a witness had seen in a German
journal in a public library a description of an invention which he, though
ignorant of German, could make out from plates and technical words :
United Telephone Co. v. Harrison, 21 Ch. D. 720 ; or the invention had
been published in foreign periodicals sold in the United Kingdom before
the date of the patent : Pickard v. Prescott, [1892] A. C. 263 ; and a report
to a public office by referees specially appointed under Act of Parliament
is public property : Patterson v. Gas Light and Coke Co., 3 App. Ca. 239 ;
and where there is such pubUoation the patent is avoided, though it is not
shown that the invention has been put in use : S. C. But the patentee
of an invention communicated from abroad is bound to tell the public all
he knows ; while, on the other hand, insufficiency of specification will
avoid the patent : Wegmann v. Corcoran, 13 Ch. D. 65, C. A. And the
sufficiency or insufficiency of a specification is not a crucial test of whether
there is pubhcation of an invention by it : King, Brown & Co. v. Anglo-
American Brush Co., 9 Rep. Pat. Cas. 313. For further information see
Frost's Patent Law and Practice, 4th ed., Vol. I., Chap. IV.
PATENT FOB COMBINATION.
A new combination, application, or arrangement of materials or principles,
in themselves old, so as to produce a new result, may be the subject of a
valid patent : Cannington v. Nutiall, L. R. 5 H. L. 205 ; Murray v. Clayton,
7 Ch. 577 ; Foxwell v. Bostock, 12 W. R. 725 ; 4 De G. J. & S. 298 ; 10
L. T. 144 ; Lister v. Leather, 8 E. & B. 1004, 1031 ; Wright v. Hitchcock,
L. R. 5 Ex. 37 ; Harrison v. Andersion Foundry Co., 1 App. Ca. 574 ;
Boyd V. Horrocks, 9 Rep. Pat. Cas. 77 ; Wenham Oas Co. v. Champion
Gas Lamp Co., 8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 313 ; 9 Rep. Pat. Cas. 49 ; and see Otto v.
SECT. VII.] Infringement of Letters Patent. 635
Linford, 46 L. T. 35. Seem, a combination of two prior inventions which
any person of ordinary knowledge would be able to effect by only placing
the two inventions side by side : Sazhy v. Gloucester Waggon Co., 7 Q. B. D.
305 ; and see Longbottom v. Shaw, 8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 333. According to
the latest authorities, a patent for a combination of several improvements
or materials will not be infringed by a new combination of some only of
those improvements or materials : Glark v. Adie, 10 Ch. 667 ; 2 App. Ca.
315 ; Murray v. Clayton^ 10 Ch. 675, n. ; and see Dudgeon v. Thomson,
3 App. Ca. 34 ; Miller v. Clyde Bridge Co., 9 Rep. Pat. Cas. 470 ; or by the
use of any particular part which is not novel : Parkes v. Stevens, 5 Ch.
36 ; 8 Eq. 358 ; and see Thorn v. Worthing Binh Co., 6 Ch. D. 415 ; but
may be by a combination of mechanical equivalents with additions and
omissions, if the substance of the patented invention is taken : Proctor
V. Bennis, 36 Ch. D. 740, C. A. ; and see Miller v. Clyde Bridge Steel Co.,
8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 198 ; Automatic Weighing Co. v. Nat. Exhibition Assoc,
8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 345 ; 9 lb. 41. Where a combination is claimed it is not
essential that the specification should show how far novelty is claimed
for particular parts : S. C. ; and see Ehrlich v. Ihlee, 1888, W. N. 50 ;
Morgan v. Windover, 1887, W. N. 143 ; 1888, W. N. 80. As to subject-
matter generally, see Frost's Patent Law and Practice, 4th ed.. Vol. I,
Chap. m.
SUFFIOIENOr OP SPECIFICATION.
A specification is insufficient if a skilled mechanic would not, without Insufficiency,
performing a series of experiments, be able to construct the patented
machine from the description : Wegtnann v. Corcoran, 13 Ch. D. 65, C. A. ;
Lane-Fox v. Kensington, dkc. Electric Light Co., [1892] 3 Ch. 424, C. A. ;
King, Brown dk Co. v. Anglo-American Brush Corp., 9 Rep. Pat. Cas.
313, H. L. ; or if one of the materials to be used is described by a generic
term comprising others, most of which would be unsuitable : Wegmann
V. Corcoran, sujp. ; and see Badische, &c. v. Levinstein, 29 Ch. D. 366,
C. A. ; 12 App. Ca. 710 ; or if the manner in which the patented process
is to be performed is not sufficiently described : Bailey v. Boberton, 3 App.
Ca. 1055 ; Gadd v. Mayor of Manchester, 9 Rep. Pat. Cas. 526 ; or if it
fails to point out the distinction between the patented invention and one
previously patented, although under a patent unknown to the Pit : Eades
V. Starbruch Waggon Co., 1881, W. N. 160. It is sufficient if the complete Sufficiency,
specification describes something which, though not specifically referred
to, is within the general description contained in the provisional speci-
fication : Siddell v. Vichers, 39 Ch. D. 92, C. A. ; and see United Telephone
Co. V. Harrison, 21 Ch. D. 720 ; and a patent for colouring matters for
dyeing and printing by a chemical process was upheld, notwithstanding
a failure to discriminate between isomeric substances, only one of which
would produce a useful result : Badische, the. Fabrik v. Levinstein, 12 App.
Ca. 710 ; and a patent for improvements in machinery to be driven in a
manner described " or by any other suitable driving motion," was held to
be valid, the particular source from which the motive power was obtained
not being essential : Marsden v. Moser, 73 L. T. 667, H. L. The rule Discon-
that the patentee miist not withhold information did not entitle liim to formity.
put into his final specification an invention of which he was ignorant when
he filed his provisional specification : Edison and Swan Electric Light Co.
V. Woodhouse, 32 Ch. D. 520. The effect of want of conformity between
provisional and final specification is now regulated by s. 42 of the
Patents and Designs Act, 1907 : see inf. Chap. LIL, " Patents," and
Frost's Patent Law and Prac, 4th ed.. Vol. L, pp. 184-192.
THREATS AGAINST ALLEGED INFEINGEES.
Formerly, a patentee was not liable in damages for issuing circulars
threatening legal proceedings against infringers and purchasers from them,
636
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
7Edw,
c. 29.
which he did not follow up by action for infringements, provided he issued
the circulars hand fide in assertion of his supposed legal rights ; though he
might have been liable to be restrained from continuing to issue the circulars,
if, knowing that his patent was invalid, or that it had not been infringed, he
continued to do so : Halsey v. Brotherhood, 15 Ch. D. 514 ; and see Axmann
v. Lund, 18 Eq. 330 ; Rollins v. Hincks, 13 Eq. 355 (there considered) ;
and generally the Pit in an action to restrain threats was bound to prove
that the statements complained of were false, and made maid fide : Burnett
V. Tak, 45 L. T. 743 ; Incandescent Oas Light Co. v. New Incandescent 6as
Light Go., 76 L. T. 47 ; and see Wren v. Weild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 730 ; House-
hold V. Fairburn, 51 L. T. 498.
VII., Now by the Patents and Designs Act, 1907 (7 Edw. VII., c. 29), s. 36 (in
substitution for s. 32 of the Patents Act, 1883), "where any person claiming to
be the patentee of an invention, by circulars, advertisements, or otherwise,
threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or Kability in respect
of any alleged infringements of the patent, any person or persons aggrieved
thereby may bring an action against him, and may obtain an injunction
against the continuance of such threats, and may recover such damage
(if any) as may have been sustained thereby, if the alleged infringement to
which the threats related was not in fact an infringement of any legal
rights of the person making such threats ; provided that this section shall
not apply if the person making such threats with due diligence commences
and prosecutes an action for infringement of his patent." The words " or
otherwise " are not to be construed as ejusdem generis with circulars and
advertisements : Skinner v. Shew, [1893] 1 Ch. 413, C. A. Upon the subject
of actions under the section, see Erost's Patent Law and Practice, 4th ed..
Vol. I., Chap. VIII.
Threat, In order to bring a case within the section, the threat must be in reference
what is. to an act done by the person threatened ; not a mere general warning bond
fide given against piracy : Challender v. Boyle, 36 Ch. D. 425, C. A. (per
Bowen, L. J.) ; Vngar v. Sugg, 8 Rep. Pat. Ca. 385 ; 9 76. 113 ; and as to
the meaning of the expression general warning, see Johnson v. Edge, [1892]
2 Ch. 1, 9, 13, C. A. A letter saying that proceedings will be instituted has
been held to be a threat : Driffield v. E. Riding Linseed Cake Co., 31 Ch. D.
638 ; Combined Weighing, <i:c. Co. v. Automatic Weighing, &c. Co., 42 Ch. D.
665 ; whether addressed to the infringer himself, or to a third person, and
though written in answer to inquiries : Skinner v. Perry, 9 Rep. Pat. Cas.
406 ; 10 lb. 1 ; Skinner v. Shew, [1893] 1 Ch. 413, C. A. ; and see Barrett
V. Day, 43 Ch. D. 435, 444 ; Day v. Foster, 7 R. P. C. 54 ; or a printed
notice to the effect that the patentee's rights were being infringed, and
that all parties were warned not to infringe : Johnson v. Edge, [1892] 2
Ch. 1, C. A. ; and so a letter written to third persons who had given an order
to the Pit, stating that the matter would lead to a great deal of difBculty
and unpleasantness, and that they must not be surprised if the Deft co.
applied for an injunction against the Pit : Douglass v. Pintsch's Patent
Lighting Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 176.
Evidence The person appljdng for an injunction ought to make out a primA facie
of Pit. case, that the matter to which the threats related was not in fact an in-
fringement : Challender v. Royle, sup. ; Barney v. United Telephone Co.,
28 Oh. D. 394 ; but as to an interim injunction, see Walker v. Clarke,
56 L. J. Ch. 239. A letter vratten by the solicitors of a co. to the Pit
stating that the co. declined to continue negotiations for a contract with
him as to the use of his camera because of the Deft's threats, was held to
be admissible to show that the negotiations were discontinued because of
the Deft's threats : Skinner ct: Co. v. Shew dk Co., [1894] 2 Ch. 581. The
proper measure of damages in such a case is the profit which the Pit would
have derived from the proposed contract if it had been carried out : iS. C.
Deft's The Deft is not bound to assert his rights by defence or counter-claim, but
remedy. is entitled to bring a separate action for infringement ; but if he does so,
arrangements ought to be made for a stay of the one action to abide the
SECT. VII.] Infringement of Letters Patent. 637
result of tlie trial in the other : Combined Weighing, die. Co. v. Autormtic
Weighing, &c. Co., 42 Ch. D. 665.
The fact that the Deft acted bond fide, or on a privileged occasion, is no
defence : Skinner v. Shew, sup. ; and see Johnson v. Edge, [1892] 2 Ch. 1, 6,
C. A.
If in opposition to a motion for injunction a case of alleged infringement
is raised, an injunction will not be granted, although the Deft declines to
take legal proceedings : Barney v. United Telephone Co., sup.
That an interim injunction will not be granted, unless some right is
shown by the Pit, however much the balance of convenience may be in
favour of granting it, see Soci&e, Sc. de Olaces v. Tilghmann's Sand Blast
Co., 25 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; but the balance of convenience and inconvenience
will not be disregarded : Walker v. Clarke, 56 L. J. Ch. 239.
In an action under the section the validity of the Deft's patent may be
called in question : Challender v. Boyle, sup. ; and see Kurtz v. Spence, .36
Ch. D. 770, C. A.
Persons who are simply entitled in equity to an assignment of a patent
upon certain terms are not persons having " legal rights " within the mean-
ing of the section : Kensington and Knightsbridge Electric Co. v. Lane-Fox
Electrical Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 573 ; but exclusive licensees with option 6f pur-
chase who have threatened legal proceedings are entitled to protection under
the proviso in sect. 32 : Incandescent Gaslight Co. v. New Incandescent
Light Co., 76 L. T. 47.
The proviso has been held to be satisfied if the action for infringement is Proviso,
honestly brought with reasonable diligence against any of the persons who
have been threatened : Challender v. Royle, sup. ; and see Dunlop Pneu-
matic Tyre Co. v. New Seddon, <fcc. Co. Ld., 76 L. T. 405, C. A. ; Craig v.
Dowding, 1908, W. N. 22, if the infringement is of the same character as
that in respect of which the threats were made : Combined Weighing, <i;c.
Co. V. Automatic Weighing, dbc. Co., sup. ; but the proviso does not apply
where the threats are made by persons entitled in equity only, and the
action is brought by the legal owner : Kensington, dsc. Co. v. Lane-Fox,
c&c. Co., sup.
An action against an exclusive licensee of the Pit's patent, as well as of a
subsequent patent belonging to another patentee, for a declaration that
articles sold under that patent were an infringement of the Pit's, and to
restrain the sale without payment of royalties to the Pit, is an action for
infringement within the section : Ba/rrett v. Day, 43 Ch. D. 435.
If the proviso takes effect the case is relegated to the old law, and the
statutory right of action is taken away : Challender v. Boyle, sup. ; Com-
bined Weighing, <t:c. Co. v. Automatic Weighing, dsc. Co., sup., in which case
the threats action was, under the circumstances, dismissed without costs ;
Incandescent Gas Light Co. v. New Incandescent Gas Light Co., 76 L. T. 47.
As to what is " due diligence " within the meaning of the proviso, see
Combined Weighing, djc. Co. v. Automatic Weighing, d-c. Co., sup. ; Barrett
V. Day, sup. ; Colley v. Hart, 44 Ch. D. 179 ; Johnson v. Edge, [1892] 2 Ch. 1,
C. A. ; and see Engels v. Hubert Unchangeable, d;c., 1902, W. N. 32. In
order to satisfy the proviso it is not necessary that the infringement action
should be prosecuted up to judgment ; the protection will not be lost by
reason of the action being discontinued on its being discovered that there
is no cause of action : Colley v. Hart, sup. The Deft in the threats action
is entitled to wait for a reasonable time for the delivery of the statement
of claim with a view to raising the question of infringement inexpensively
by means of a counter-claim : 76.
In a cross action for infringement, leave to amend specification by way Amendment
of disclaimer may be granted, notwithstanding that the threats action is of specifica-
not concluded : Be Hall, 21 Q. B. D. 137. As to evidence sufficient to ti°"-
justify committal for breach of order restraining issue of threats, see Dick
V. Haslam, 8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 196.
638 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Section VIII. — Various Directions in Actions relating
TO Infringement op Letters Patent.
1. Order jor Trial of Issues— Particulars of Breaches and, Objections
— Inspection.
Order that the following questions of fact be tried on the — day
of — , before &c., by a special jury of the county of M., that is to
say, 1. Whether the invention m the pleadings mentioned was the
working or making of any manner of new manufacture, which others
at the time of makmg the letters patent of the — day of — in the
pleadings mentioned did not use (within this realm). 2. Whether
the grantees of the said letters patent were the true and first inventors
of the said new manufacture. 3. Whether the specification particu-
larly described and ascertained the nature of the invention for which
the said letters patent were granted, and the manner in which the
same is to be performed. 4. Whether the said Deft J. has infringed
the said letters patent — And it is ordered that the Pits do, on or
before &c., deliver to the solr of the Deft J. particulars in writing of
the breaches complained of ; And it is ordered that the Deft J. do
on or before the — day of — (or within ten days after the receipt of
such particulars) deliver to the Pit's solr particulars in writing of any
objections (to the validity of the said letters patent), on which he
means to rely at the trial hereby directed ; And it is ordered that
the Pits and the Deft J. by their solrs and scientific witnesses be at
liberty from time to time, upon giving three days' notice of their
intention so to do, mutually to inspect the machines heretofore used
by the Pits and the said Deft in the manufacture of chenille ; And
it is ordered that the same machines be put to work upon such in-
spection ; And it is ordered that the Pits and the said Deft, by their
said witnesses and solrs, be at liberty to take samples of the chenille
made or to be made upon the said machines, and be at liberty upon
the like notice to inspect the machines, or exhibits marked Y and
Z 1, produced by the said Deft, and referred to as exhibits to the
aflidavits of &o., and to put the last-mentioned machines to work,
and to take samples of the product thereof. — Davenport v. Jepson,
V.-C. W., 20 Dec. 1862, A. 2399 ; 1 N. R. 307.
In Simpson v. Hottiday, V.-C. W., 28 March, 1863, B. 2487, the words
" within this realm " were inserted in the first issue as above.
Per forms of application for inspection, see D. C. F. 949 tt seq.
2. Another Form of Issues — where Part disclaimed.
1. Whether the invention, the subject of the letters patent of the
— day of — (as altered by disclaimer or memorandum of alteration),
was or was not at the date of the said letters patent new as to the
public use thereof by others within this realm. 2. Whether the Pit
was the true and first inventor of the said invention. 3. Whether
SECT, vm.] Infringement of Letters Patent, 639
tlie specification of tlie said letters patent in the pleadings mentioned
(as altered by the disclaimer or memorandum of alteration) does or
does not particularly describe the nature of the said invention, and
in what manner the same is to be performed, pursuant to the proviso
in that behalf contained in the said letters patent. L Whether the
Defts have or have not infringed the said letters patent in or by any
or either and which of the apparatus manufactured by them as in
their answer filed in this cause mentioned, or in any other manner. —
Cunningham v. Colling, V.-C. W., 13 June, 1864, A. 1240. (In this
case the issues were inserted in a schedule to the order.)
3. Another Form.
1. Whether J. and F., the grantees of the letters patent in the
pleadings mentioned, and numbered &c., were the first and true
inventors of the alleged invention or improvements for which the
said letters patent were granted.
2. Whether the undisclaimed portions of the said alleged invention
were used in the United Kingdom at the date of the said letters
patent.
3. Whether the Defts, or any or either and which of them, have
infringed the said letters patent. — Batley v. Kynock, V.-C. B., 31 July,
1874, A. 2680.
In Simpson v. Holliday, sup. p. 638, and Eenard v. Levinstein, V.-C. W.,
1864 (see 11 L. T. 766), this additional issue was directed :■ —
" Whether the said invention was, at the date of the said letters patent,
and whether the same is now, of public utility."
And in Morgan v. Fuller, V.-C. W., 18 Jan. 1866, B. 100, the terms were
" whether the alleged invention was a useful invention."
And as to the form of issues in a patent suit, see Spencer v. Jack, 3 D. J.
& S. 346 ; Curtis v. Plait, 11 L. T. 250 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 852 ; L. R. 1 H. L.
337 ; Morgan v. Fuller, 2 Eq. 296 (where Deft was refused leave to add
a totally new issue of fact not raised by his answer and particulars, and
inspection, and putting the machinery in motion, were directed) : S. C,
sup. ; Penn v. Bibhy, V.-C. W., 20 July, 1865 ; S. C, on motion for a new
trial, 2 Ch. 128 ; Needham v. Oxley, 8 L. T. 532 ; 2 N. R. 232.
4. Questions of Fact for Trial before the Court without a Jury, in a
Suit relating to a Patent communicated from Abroad.
1. Was N.the first importer into (his) Majesty's realm of the inven-
tion for which the letters patent of the — , 1865, were granted ?
2. Was the invention new within (his) Majesty's realm at the date
of the letters patent ?
3. Did the specification particularly ascertain and describe the
nature of the invention, and in what manner the same was to be
performed ?
4. Has the Deft wrongfully, and in contravention of the said letters
patent, used the said invention ? — Plimpton v. Malcolmson, M. R.,
24 June, 1875, B. 1152.
640 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
5. Order for Trial of a Representative Case for the Purpose of
determining the Question of Validity.
And the Pit F. by his counsel undertaking to be bound by the
result of the trial hereinafter directed, and the several above-named
Defts by their respective counsel admitting that the letters patent in
the pleadings mentioned are duly vested in the Pit, and consenting
to be bound by the result of the trial hereinafter directed, and that
the said trial shall be conducted by B., G., B., and W., four of the
above-named Defts, on behalf of and as representing all the Defts in
the said (actions) Order that by consent of all the said several Defts
in the above-mentioned (actions), the said Defts B., G., B., and W.,
be the Defts in the said trial ; And it is ordered that the said Defts,
B., G., B., and W., do on or before the — day of ■ — , pursuant to the
statute, deliver to the Pit their objections to the validity of the said
patents ; And it is ordered that the following questions be tried
before his Lordship without a jury, that is to say : Whether the
patent in the pleadings mentioned, dated &c., is a valid patent ;
And the Pit is to proceed to such trial on such day &c. — Adjourn
the consideration of the costs of the several applications to the
Judge and to his Lordship until after the said trial ; And it is ordered
that all further proceedings in the above-mentioned (actions) be
stayed until after the said trial. — Foxwell v. Webster, and eighty
other titles, L. C, 7 Dec. 1863, A. 2391 ; 4 D. J. & S. 77. Adapted
to comply with 0. xxxvi, 3.
TRIAL OF QtrESTIONS Or FACT.
Jury. A Deft was not entitled, under the Chancery Amendment Act, 1858 (21 &
22 V. 0. 27), as of right, to have issues of fact in a patent case tried by a
jury; but the Court would not, in doubtful oases, where there was a question
really to be tried, or where charges against the Deft not raised by the plead-
ings were opened at the hearing, refuse an apphoation for a jury : Daven-
port V. Goldberg, 2 H. & M. 282 ; Bovill v. Hitchcock, 3 Ch. 417 ; Tangye
V. Stott, 14 W. R. 128.
And see Eaden v. Firth, 1 H. & M. 573 ; RosMl v. Whitworlh, 5 Ch. 549 ;
Henderson v. Runcorn Soap Co., 19 L. T. 277.
Judge The practice in Equity, in the absence of special circumstances, hasbeen
without jury, to try the ordinary issues in a patent suit before the Court without a jury :
Patent Marine Inventions Co. v. Ghadhurn, 16 Eq. 447.
And sec Young v. Fernie, 1 D. J. & S. 353 ; Fernie v. Young, L. R. 1
H. L. 63. ' , ,
Judgment A judgment establishing the validity of a patent does not conclude a
where an Deft in subsequent proceedings from contesting the novelty of the in-
eatoppel. vention : Bovill v. Ooodier (2), 2 Eq. 195 ; but he will be restramed m the
meantime from infringement.
And see Newall v. Elliot, 1 H. & C. 797.
Test action. In the case of numerous suits for infringement of the same patent, the
suits have been consolidated, and trial directed in a selected suit for the
purpose of determining, as between the Pit and the several Defts, the
validity of the patent : Foxwell v. Waster, 4 D. J. & S. 77, sup.. Form 5;
and see Bovill v. Grate, 1 Eq. 388.
And V. sup. Chap, XXll., " Issues."
SECT. viii.J Infringement of Letters Patent. G41
6. Order for Delivery of further Particulars of Breaches.
Order that the Pits do within — days from the date of this order
deliver to Messrs. — , solrs for the Defts, further and better particulars
in writing of the breaches alleged to have been committed by the
Defts upon which the Defts intend to rely on the trial of the questions
directed to be tried by the said order dated &c., specifying by re-
ference to the pages and the lines the parts of the Pits' specification
in respect of which such alleged breaches have been committed ; •
And it is ordered that the time within which the Defts are to deliver
to the Pits' solrs particulars in writing of the objections to the letters
patent in the Pits' bill mentioned be enlarged until the twenty-first
day after the delivery of such further and better particulars. — Costs
of application to be costs in the (action). — Lamb v. The Nottingham
Manufacturers' Co., Ld., M. R., 14 March, 1874, B. 776.
For a similar form of order, see Wren v. Weild, L. R. 4 Q. B. 213.
It was held not to be a sufficient compliance with an order for delivery
of further particulars of objections after giving the names and addresses
of three persons, to say, " and by other persons in Birmingham and London
respectively " : S. C, 29 Aug. 1876, A. 1783 ; 20 S. J. 860.
For order giving Deft liberty to deliver further particulars of prior user
and publication, on which he intended to rely on the new trial of issues in
a patent suit, see Bovill v. Goodier, 36 L. J. Ch. 360.
For liberty on payment of costs of application to re-amend the parti-
culars of objection by inserting further specified instances of alleged prior
user, see Penn v. Bibby, V.-C. W., 1 Eq. 548.
For liberty, on pajTnent of all costs thereby occasioned, to amend parti-
culars of objection, and adduce new evidence in support, upon special
application by Deft during the trial of a patent suit after Pit's case was
closed, see Renard v. Levinstein, V.-C. W., 13 W. R. 229 ; but see Moss v.
Malings, 33 Ch. D. 603.
For further order that insufficient objections be struck out, and further
and better particulars be delivered, see Morgan v. Fuller, V.-C. W., 28
April, 1866, B. 928 ; 2 Eq. 297.
For order that either side be at hberty to apply in Chambers to settle
the particulars of objections to the patent on which Deft meant to rely
on the trial, and also of particulars of breaches complained of by Pit in
case the parties differed, see Simpson v. Holliday, V.-C. W., 28 May, 1863,
B. 2487.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 791.
7. Order for Delivery of further and better Particulars of Objections
0. LiiiA, 14 et seq.
Order that the Defts do, on or before &c., deliver to the Pit
further and better particulars in writing, striking out all particulars
which are relied on merely to prove the state of knowledge in and
before the years 1874 and 1877, and giving further and better par-
ticulars of the alleged anticipation on which they rely, specifying
where in particular the anticipation is to be found ; And it is ordered
that the Pit do deliver his reply in this action within fourteen days
after the delivery to him of such further and better particulars.—'
VOL. I. 2 T
642 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Holliday v. Heppenstall, C. A., 27 Marcli, 1889, A. 719; S. C,
41 Ch. D. 109.
For form of order under 0. miA, 18, see Crosihwaite Fire Bar Syndicate
V. Senior, [1909] 1 Ch. 801.
8. Another Form.
Order that the Defts do within seven days after service of this
order, deliver to the Pits further and better particulars in writing
of paragraph 5 of the Deft's particulars of objections, showing how
and in what respects the specification filed in pursuance of the
letters patent does not sufficiently describe and ascertain the nature
of the alleged invention, and in what manner the same is to be per-
formed, by reference, when necessary, to the subject-matter of the
said specification. — Crompton v. Anglo-American, &c. Electric Co.,
Kay, J., 14 Jan. 1887, A. 27 ; S. C, 35 Ch. D. 283.
9. To strike out Objections in default of Delivery of better
Particulars.
The Judge being of opinion that the particulars of objections
delivered by the Defts with their defence are insufficient ; It is
ordered that the Defts, the E. Co., do, on or before &c., deliver to
the Pits further and better particulars, in writing, of their objections,
by supplying ia every case in which they have not already done so,
the number of the page and paragraph in each specification and
publication mentioned in the said particulars of objections, and in
default of such delivery. And it is ordered that the Defts' objections,
so far as they relate to such specifications and publications, be
struck out.
10. Order giving leave to Amend Particulars of Objection unless Pits
within specified Time elect to discontinue Action.
Order that the Pits do, on or before &c., elect whether they will
discontinue this action, and if the Pit co. shall elect to discontinue
this action and shall give notice thereof to the Defts within the time
aforesaid. It is ordered that it be referred to the taxiag master to
tax the costs of the Defts of this action up to and including the date
of the delivery of the particulars of objection, and to tax the costs
of the Pits of this action subsequently to the said — to the date of
this order ; Directions for set-off and payment ; And if the Pits shall
not give notice to the Defts of their discontinuance of this action
within the time aforesaid, it is ordered that the Defts be at liberty
to amend their particulars of objections as set forth in the copy of
the proposed amended particulars of objections already delivered to
the Pits, and signed by the registrar. — Defts to pay to the Pits
their costs of this application to be taxed &c. — ^Liberty to apply. —
SECT. viii.J Infringement of Letters Patent. 643
The Edison Tekphone Co. v. The India Rubber, &c. Co., V.-C. B.,
11 Maxell, 1881, A. 673 ; 17 Ch. D. 137 ; following Baird v. MouWa
Earth Closet Co., Ld., M. R., 3 Feb. 1876, A. 231 ; 17 Ch. D. 139. n.
For similar order, see Ehrlich v. Ihlee, 66 L. T. 819, 821. For form of
application, see D. 0. F. 791. That the substitution of 0. LniA, 22, for
sect. 29, sub-sect. 6 of the Patents Act, 1883, has not rendered any change
necessary in this form of Order, see Atkinson v. Britton, 1909, W. N. 102.
PABTICTJLAES OP BREACHES AND OBJECTIONS.
As to the delivery of particulars of breaches and of objections to the
validity of the patent by the Pit and Deft respectively, see now O. miA, 13
et seq., which (by virtue of sect. 98, sub-sect. 1 (6), of the Patents and
Designs Act, 1907) is substituted for sect. 29 of the Patents Act, 1883.
The principle is that, on the one hand, the Deft shall have full, fair, and
distinct notice of the case to be made against him : Needham v. Oxley, 1
H. & M. 248 ; Batley v. Kynoch, 19 Eq. 229 ; Consella v. Levinstein, 8 Rep.
Pat. Cas. 473 ; and, on the other, that the Pit may not be surprised by
production on the trial of evidence of prior user or publication of which
he has had no notice : Curtis v. Platl, 8 L. T. 657 ; Daw v. Eley, 1 Eq. 38 ;
and see Curtis v. Piatt, 35 L. J. Ch. 852, 868 ; 8. C, L. R. 1 H. L. 337 ;
Talhot V. La Roche, 15 C. B. 310 ; Ledgard v. Bull, 11 App. Ca. 648 ; United
Telephone Co. v. Smith, 61 L. T. 617 ; 38 W. R. 70.
Where the answer admitted a sale by Deft to a person not named in the
particulars of breach, Pit was allowed to give evidence relating to the trans-
actions with such third person : Sykes v. Howarth, 12 Ch. D. 826, 830.
Where issues had been refused, and pleadings closed, the Deft was not
required to deliver particulars of objection : Bovill v. Goodier, 1 Eq. 35 ;
and, notwithstanding the statutory provisions for particulars, either party
is, in a proper case, entitled to discovery by interrogatories : Birch v.
Mather, 22 Ch. D. 629.
If the Deft's objection is grounded on nonconformity between the pro- Noncon-
visional and complete specifications, he must state wherein the difference formity.
consists : Anglo-American Briish Light Co. v. Crompton, 34 Ch. D. 152,
C. A. ; and see sup. p. 642, Form 9.
As to particulars of prior user and of previous publication, see now Prior user or
O. LiHA, 18, and see Crosthwaite Fire Bar Syndicate v. Senior, [1909] 1 Ch. publication.
801 {g. V. for form of Order for further particulars) : Minerals Separation
V. Ore Concentration Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 745, C. A.
After a patent suit has been set down for hearing, leave has been given
to Deft to file an affidavit of alleged prior user discovered since the closing
of the evidence. Pit having one week within which to file evidence in reply :
Wilson V. Gann, 23 W. R. 546.
Under notice of objection by Deft that the invention is not new, he can
at the trial show that one of two inventions described in the specification
is not new, and therefore that the patent is bad : Cfregg v. Silber, 2 Q. B. D.
493, C. A.
Where want of novelty is set up, particulars need not be given of pub-
lications relied on simply as proving the state of general public knowledge,
but specifications of previous patents must not be simply referred to ; the
nature of the anticipations relied on must be stated, and the places in the
specifications (though not necessarily by page or line) where they are to be
found : Holliday v. Heppenstall, 41 Ch. D. 109, C. A. ; Form 7, sup. ; and
see Fowler v. Gard, 3 Rep. Pat. Cas. 247 ; Sidebottom v. Fielden, 8 Rep.
Pat. Cas. 266 ; Siemen v. Earo, lb. 376 ; Nettlefold v. Reynolds, lb. 410 ;
65 L. T. 699.
Where the Deft relies on common knowledge, as distinguished from
anticipation, it should be distinctly pleaded : Phillips v. Ivel Cycle Co
62 L. T. 392.
644
Injunction''^.
[chap. XXXI.
Threats.
Amendment.
Severance.
Certificate
of reason-
ableness.
In an action for threats of an indefinite character, an order on the Pits
for delivery of particulars of objections vi'as made conditionally upon
discovery of the patents relied on being first given by the Defts : Union
Electrical, dhc. Co. v. Electrical Storage Co., 38 Ch. D. 325, C. A.
An application at the trial after the Pit's cross-examination for post-
ponement and leave to amend particulars of objections, on the ground that
new facts had been discovered showing want of novelty, no affidavit being
tendered, but leave sought to recall the Pit, was refused : Moss v. Malings,
33 Ch. D. 603 ; distinguishing Benard v. Levinstein, 13 W. R. 229 ; II
L. T. 555.
Where Deft, after a day fixed for the hearing, applies for leave to amend
his particulars of objection, the Court will place the Pit in the same position
as to discontinuing the action, or disclaiming a part of his invention, as
if the amended particulars had been those originally delivered : See
Edison Telephone Co. v. India Rubber Co., 17 Ch. D. 137 ; Bhrlich v.
Ihlee, 56 L. T. 819 ; and the same practice has been followed in an action
for infringement of a registered design : Morris, Wilson & Co. v. Coventry
Machinist Co., [1891] 3 Ch. 418 ; but the Court has an absolute and un-
fettered discretion in the matter : Woolley v. Broad, 9 Rep. Pat. Cas. 429.
Where one Deft severed, and delivered particulars den3dng validity of
the patent, and his co-Deft merely denied infringement, the patent proving
invalid, the action was dismissed as against both Defts : Smith v. Cropper,
10 App. Ca. 249 ; reversing Cropper v. Smith, 26 Ch. D. 700, C. A.
As to certificate of reasonableness of pariiiculars with a view to costs,
V. inf. pp. 650, 652, 653. For forms of particulars of breaches and objec-
tions, see D. C. F. 789, 790; Frost, 4th ed.. Vol. II, Appx.
11. Order for Inspection of Deft's Process hy Experts.
Order that I. and C. of &c., be at liberty at all seasonable times,
and as often as requisite, on giving three days' notice to the Defts, to
enter into the business premises of the Defts, where the process of
decorating or printing tin and metal plates is carried on by the Defts,
as stated in the Pit's statement of claim, and mentioned in the said
affidavits or some of them, and to inspect and examine there the
whole of the process by which such printed and decorated tin and
metal plates are manufactured by the Defts, and to take, on paying
the reasonable charges of the Defts for the same, samples of such
plates, and upon and during such inspection to make such observa-
tions as may be necessary and expedient for the purpose of obtaining
full information and evidence of the mode by which such plates are
manufactured by the Detts.— Flower v. Lloyd, C. A., 5 July, 1876,
A.' 1254.
The above direction, that the inspection should be "at all seasonable
times," was disapproved of, and it was said that the number of times when
inspection is to be made should be named in the order : per Jessel, M. R.,
at Chambers, Heathfield v. Braby, 15 May, 1879, A. 1051.
In the order as drawn up, the words "under the obligation of con-
fidence," used by their Lordships, were not inserted, and on mentioning
the matter to the Court their Lordsliips stated that all they meant was
that the inspectors were not to communicate to the Pits any special or
secret process which Defts might be using, but were to be at liberty to
report to the solrs whether the process used was or was not in their opinion
an infringement of Pit's patents, and state whether it was the ordinary
process of lithography or not which Defts used.
SECT. VIII.] Infringement of Letters Patent. 645
For the like order for Pit to be at liberty personally, and also by his solrs
and two scientific witnesses to be named before inspection, not exceeding
three times in all, upon giving three days' notice, to inspect the works of
the Defts whilst the processes therein used are in actual operation, see
Henderson v. Runcorn, &c. Co., V.-C. W., 19 Dec. 1867, A. 3050.
For order, upon interlocutory motion for inspection, and directing Deft
to verify by affidavit the several kinds of machines which he had sold or
exposed for sale since (the date of Pits' last disclaimer), and to produce at
his solor's office one of each class for inspection by Pits' solr, and by two
of his scientific witnesses, see Singer Co. v. Wilson, V.-C. W., 23 March,
1865, B. 900 ; 13 W. R. 560 ; 5 N. R. 505 ; 12 L. T. 140.
For order that Pits deliver to the solrs of the Defts a statement in writing
of the particulars of the alleged breaches by the Defts, and that Defts
within twenty-one days after delivery of such statement deliver to the
solrs of the Pits a statement in writing of any objections on which the Defts
respectively mean to rely at the trial directed, &c., and refusing any in-
spection of the Defts' manufactory as asked in Pits' notice of motion, see
Batley v. Kynock, V.-C. B., 12 Nov. 1874, A. 3157.
12. Order for Inspeclion of Process of Working — 7 Edw. VII. c. 29,
s. M.
Order that A. B. and one other independent person appointed by
him, and C. D., one of the Deft's solrs, be at liberty at such times and
as often as in the opinion of the said A. B. be requisite, on giving
three days' notice to the Pits, to enter into some business premises
to be selected by the Pits where the process or mode of working
referred to in the specification mentioned in the statement of claim
can be seen at work, and to inspect and examine there the whole of
the machinery fitted in such mill, and to take such samples of the
finished and unfinished products of the working of such machinery
as in the opinion of the said A. B. may be necessary for the purposes
of this action ; And it is ordered that such machinery be put to
regular work upon such inspection. — Costs costs in action. — Germ
Milling Co. v. Robinson, Kay, J., 17 Dec. 1885, A. 1818.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 951.
INSPECTION AND DISCOVERY.
By the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, s. 34, " in an action for infringe-
ment of a patent, the Court or a Judge may, on the application of either
party, make an order for an injunction, inspection, or account, and impose
such terms and give such directions respecting the same and the pro-
ceedings thereon as the Court or a Judge may see fit." This section is in
substitution for the Patents, &c. Act, 1883, s. 30, which itself took the
place of 15 & 16 V. c. 83, s. 42, a section which vested in the Courts of
Common Law a jurisdiction which had previously existed in Equity
exclusively. See, on the interpretation of this section at law, Holland v.
Fox ; Vidi v. Smith, 3 El. & Bl. 969, 977 ; Patent Type Co. v. Lloyd, 5
H. & N. 192.
The established rule in Equity has been, that where a Pit is unable to Inspection,
obtain clear and satisfactory evidence of infringement, the Court, upon a
fnir primd facie case being made out, will order Deft to permit an inspection
to be made of his premises and machinery, by proper persons named on
646
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Samples
and process.
behalf of Pit : Davenport v. Jepson, 1 N. R. 308 ; Bennitt v. Whitehmtse,
28 Beav. 121 ; Singer Machine Co. v. Wilson, 13 W. R. 560.
But the Court must be satisfied that there is really a case to be tried at
the hearing, and that the inspection is essential for the proof of the Pit's
case : Batley v. Kynock, L. R. 19 Eq. 90 ; Piggoit v. Anglo-Am. Tel. Co.,
19 L. T. 46.
Inspection and delivery of samples for purposes of analysis have been
ordered on interlocutory motion, notwithstanding laches which would have
barred the right to an interlocutory injunction : Patent Type Co. v. Walter,
Joh. 727 ; though the order was refused at law : Patent Type Co. v. Lloyd,
5 H. & N. 192.
Where the Pits obtained an order against the Defts for inspection of
process and samples, the Defts were entitled to like order against the
Pits, so that they might be in a position at the hearing to describe the
process actually carried on under the patent : Germ Milling Co. v. Robinson,
55 L. J. Ch. 287 ; 65 L. T. 282.
By 0. L, 3, power is given to the Court or a Judge, upon the application
of any party to an action, and upon such terms as may seem just, to make
any order for inspection, and " to authorize any samples to be taken, or
any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may seem
necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or
evidence." The costs of inspection may be allowed even though made
by arrangement between the parties and without an order of the Court :
Ashworth v. English Card Clothing Co., [1904] 1 Ch. 702.
The Court has no power to order inspection of articles not in the Deft's
possession, though intended to be produced at the hearing in support of
an allegation of prior user : Garrard v. Edge, 50 L. J. Ch. 397 ; 60 L. T.
537 ; 37 W. R. 501 ; 8idebottom v. Fidden, 8 Rep. Pat. Ca. 266.
Where Deft alleged that his process was secret, he was bound to answer
whether he used the materials mentioned in the specification, and whether
he used any additional materials, but not to disclose the proportions in
which he used the specified materials, or what the additional materials
were : Benard v. Levinstein, 3 N. R. 665.
Deft in a patent suit will not be compelled before decree to give discovery
not material to the question to be tried at the hearing : De la Rue v.
Dickinson, 3 K. & J. 388 ; Wenham Co. v. Champion Oas Lamp Co., 63
L. T. 827 ; 8 Rep. Pat. Ca. 22 ; 9 Rep. Pat. Ca. 49 ; or prematurely, or
involving inquiry into evidence : Delta Meial Co. v. Maxim Nordenfelt
„ „„^„ Co., 8 Rep. Pat. Ca. 169 ; but the ordinary rules of discovery being appli-
before decree, gable to patent actions, the Pit is entitled to interrogate as to names and
addresses of persons alleged by the particulars of objections to have used
the invention at places named : Birch v. Mather, 22 Ch. D. 629.
Where such information is material to establish the Pit's case at the
hearing, the Deft may be required to set out the names and addresses of
all persons, whether in England or abroad, from whom he had received
money for the use of articles alleged to be made in infringement of the
patent : Crossley v. Stewart, 1 N. R. 426 ; Howe v. M'Keman, 30 Beav.
As to the right of a Deft to discovery of the names and addresses of
persons alleged to have been induced to purchase the goods of the Deft as
and for the goods of the Pit, see Humphries v. Taylor Drug Co., 39 Ch. D.
693. ^,
And see Murray v. Clayton, L. R. 15 Eq. 115, inf. Form 18, as to the
extent of the discovery required from a Deft after decree for injunction
with inquiry as to damages.
An answer as to documents which claimed privilege but did not dis-
criminate between communications between Pit and his solr as such, and
between him and the solr in his capacity of patent agent, was held insuffi-
cient : Moseley v. Victoria Rubber Co., 56 L. T. 482.
Karnes and
addresses
After decree.
Claim of
privilege.
SEOT. vin.] Infringement of Letters Patent. 647
13. Order to amend Specification of Patent hy way of Disclaimer
in a pending action or on Petition for Bevocation of Patent —
7 Edw. VII. c. 29, s. 22.
The Pits by their Counsel undertaking forthwith to give notice of
discontinuance in other pending actions for infringement, and
also not to sue any member of the public as distinguished from the
trade for infringement in respect of any razor purchased or acquired
by him prior to the 26th November, 1909. — Order that the speci-
fication of the Pits be amended as follows : on page 2, by altering
line 36 to read, " This invention relates to the class of razors " ;
on page 4, by striking out lines 51 to 57 (both inclusive) ; on
page 5, by striking out claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 15 and
consequently renumbering the remainder ; by striking out the
words "adapted to be" in line 15; and by inserting "safety"
before "razor" in lines 27 and 32. — And it is ordered that no
action be brought by the Pits for any infringement in respect of any
razors made in or imported into England prior to the 26th November,
1909, unless the Pits estabhsh to the satisfaction of the Court that
the original claim of the patentee was framed in good faith and
with reasonable skill and knowledge. — Gillette Safety Razor v. Luna
Safely Razor, Parker, J., 21 June, 1910, A. 542; [1910], 2 Ch. 373.
See also p. 2321 "Eevocation."
14. Idke order — Amended Specification not to he receivable as
Evidence.
Order that the specification on which the Pit's letters patent
of the — day of &c., numbered &c., in the pleadings mentioned, was
granted be amended by way of disclaimer by etc. , but the specification
as amended is not receivable in evidence in this action. — Costs of
motion costs in action. — ^Adapted from Bray v. Gardner, Stirling, J.,
16 Dec. 1886, A. 1811.
15. Like order — Specification as amended to be used in Evidence.
Order that the specification of the Pits filed in pursuance of their
letters patent numbered &c., be amended by way of disclaimer, by
&c., and that the said specification when so amended as aforesaid
be used in evidence on the hearing of this action, the Pits by their
counsel waiving all claim for damages or relief in respect of infringe-
ments prior to the amendment of the said specification. — Liberty
to Deft within fourteen days after notice of the amendments made
in the said specification to amend their defence and particulars of
objection. — Pits to pay costs of action up to this date on the lower
scale. — ^Adapted from Gaulard v. Lindsay, C. A., 1 Feb. 1888, A. 155.
DISCLAIMEK PENDING ACTION.
The proviso in sect. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, 1623 (21 Jac. 1, o. 3),
exempting new inventions from the operation of the Act, includes defective
648 hijunctions, [chap. xxxi.
letters patent capable o£ amendment by disclaimer : Pech S Co. v. Hindes
67 L. .1. Q. B. 272.
After disclaimer, under 15 & 16 V. c. 83, s. 39, the Court would not
entertain the question of enforcing an interdict previously granted, in-
fringement of the patent as altered being matter for a new action : Dudgeon
Y. Thomscm, 3 App. Ca. 34, 39.
By the Patents Act, 1907, s. 22 (in substitution for sect. 19 of the Act of
1883), it is provided that in any action for infringement of a patent or
proceedings before a Court for revocation of a patent the Court may by
order allow the patentee to amend his specification by way of disclaimer
in such manner and subject to such terms as to costs, advertisements, or
otherwise as the Court may think fit,
The following decisions on the repealed Act will still apply to the pro-
visions of the substituted sections of the new Act.
Sect. 19 of the Act of 1883 (sect. 22 of the Act of 1907) does not affect
the jurisdiction of the Master of the Rolls to allow an amendment in a
specification filed under sects. 27 and 28 of 15 & 16 V. c. 83 : Be Oare's
Patent, 26 Ch. D. 105.
An action for infringement after judgment is not " pending " within
sect. 18 of the Act of 1883 (providing for amendment of specification)
(sect. 21 of the Act of 1907), and therefore in such a case that section is ap-
plicable, and an application may be made to the comptroller to amend the
specification by way of disclaimer : Cropper v. Smith, 28 Ch. D. 148.
Where an application for leave to amend was made under sect. 18 of the
Act of 1883 (sect. 21 of the Act of 1907), the subsequent presentation
of a petition for revocation before the comptroller had given his decision
did not debar him from giving leave to amend : Woolfe v. Automatic, <fcc.
Co., [1903] 1 Ch. 18, C. A. Sub-sect. 10 of sect. 18 of the Act of 1883
(sect. 21 (8) of the Act of 1907) is not limited to Utigation pending between
the same parties at the time when the application to amend is made :
Brooks V. Lycett's, <fcc.. Go. [1904] 1 Ch. 512.
The fact that an action for threats under sect. 32 (sect. 36 of the Act of
1907) was not concluded, did not prevent the Court from exercising the
powers of sect. 19 in a cross action for infringement : Se Hall, 21 Q. B. D.
137 ; and see now 51 & 52 V. c. 50, s. 5.
The word " disclaimer " in sect. 19 must be read strictly and not as
including correction or explanation : Be Owen's Patent, [1899] 1 Ch. 157.
The granting or refusing leave to amend a specification by way of dis-
claimer under sect. 19 is still a matter for the judicial discretion of the Coiui;,
and Moser v. Marsden, 13 Rep. Pat. Ca. 24, and Dedey v. Perkes, [1896]
A. C. 496, have in no way interfered with this discretion : Be Dellioick's
Patent, [1896] 2 Ch. 705. See also Be Oeipel, [1904] 1 Ch. 239, C. A.
The discretion will not be interfered with by the Court of Appeal, unless
clearly exercised on a wrong principle : Yates v. Armstrong, Be Armstrong's
Patent, 77 L. T. 267, C. A.
Where a specification has been amended under the Act, the amended
claim is substituted for all purposes for the original claim, and no argument
against the validity of the patent can be founded upon an alleged dis-
crepancy between them : Marsden v. Moser, 73 L. T. 667, H. L. ; Stepney
Share Motor Wheel Co., Ld. v. Hall, [1911] 1 Ch. 514.
In exercising the powers of sect. 19, now sect. 22 of the 1907 Act, the
Court imposed the condition that the amended specification should not be
receivable in evidence in the action : Bray v. Gardner, 34 Ch. D. 668, C. A.
(see Form 14, sup.) ; but in particular cases less stringent terms may be
required : S. C. Thus where the action had not proceeded beyond writ,
the terms were that the Pits should pay Defts' party and party costs up
to and consequent on disclaimer : Fusee Vesta Co. v. Bryant & May, 34
Ch. D. 458 ; and f o^v a like order at a later stage of an action, see Haslam
Foundry v. Ooodfellow,Zl Ch. D. 118 ; and in Oaulard Y.LiruIsay, 38 Ch. D.
38, C. A. (see Form 15, sup.), leave was granted to give the amended
SECT. VIII.] Infringement of Letters Patent.
specification in evidence at the trial on terms of the Pits paying all costs
down to leave given, and waiving damages for previous infrmgements ; and
see Lang v. WMtcross Co., 62 L. T. 119. The Judge in Chambers has full
discretion as to terms of amendment : 76.
Generally as to disclaimer, see Frost, 4th ed., Vol. II, Chap. 111.
16. Order for Delivery wp on Oath of Infringing Articles— Costs.
Order that the Defts do within fourteen days after service of this
judgment, make and file a full and sufficient affidavit (to be made by
their clerk or secretary) stating what t5rres and parts of tyres are in
their possession or power made in infringement of the said letters
patent ; and it is ordered that the Defts do, within four days after
the filing of the said affidavit, deliver up to the Pits, the tyres and
parts of tyres that shall by such affidavit appear to be in their
possession or power. — Liberty to apply as to payment of what shall
be found due upon taking the said inquiry, and as to the costs
thereof, and otherwise generally. — See The Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre
Co., Id., and the Pneumatic Tyre Co., Ld. v. J. E. Hopkinson & Co.,
Ld., Eomer, J., 30 Jan. 1897, A. 567.
17. Inquiry as to Articles in Left's Possession, and Direction for
their Destruction.
Order that the following inquiry be made: 1. An inquiry whether
the Defts or any of them have in their possession or power any or
what articles manufactured in violation of Pit's patent ; and it is
ordered that all articles which shall be certified to have been so
manufactured, and to be in the possession of the Defts or any of
them, be destroyed in the presence of C. the Pit's manager, and K.
the Deft's manager, and the respective solrs of the Pit and Defts. —
Betts V. De Vitre, V.-C. W., 25 Jan. 1865, A. 119.
18. Order for Discovery by Defts of the Names and Addresses of their
Customers, after Judgment for perpetual Injunction, in aid of
Inquiry as to Damages.
Order that the Defts do withia four days after service of this
order make and file an affidavit or affidavits stating the number of
brick-cutting machines made or caused to be made by them since &c.,
the date of the Pit's letters patent mentioned &c., and the names
and addresses of the persons to whom the same respectively have
been sold, or for whom the same have been purchased (and the names
of the agents concerned in the transactions), and the number of the
machines now in course of construction, and of the licences granted
by the said Defts or either of them, to any persons to make or use
the said machines, with the names and addresses of the said persons
to whom such licences have been granted, and the number of licences
granted by the Defts, or either of them, to any persons to use the
649
^^50 Injunct'ionfi. [chap. xxxi.
said macliines, together with their names and addresses, and the
places where the said machines are respectively licensed to be used,
and the amount of royalties received and to be received by or for the
use of the said Defts, or either of them, for the granting of such
licences in respect t\&cwi.— Murray v. Clayton, V.-C.,B.in Chambers,
16 July, 1872, B. 1998 (varied by V.-C. in Court, 16 Nov. 1872,
B. 2947, by striking out the words " and the names of the agents
concerned in the transactions " : L. E. 15 Eq. 115).
For form of application, see D.- C. P. 793.
19. Inquiry as to Damages—Common Form.
An inquiry what damages have been sustained by the Pits by
reason of the said infringement by the Defts of the Pits' said patent.—
American Braided Wire Co. v. Thomson, C. A., 2 Feb. 1888, A. 200 ;
44 Ch. D. 274, C. A.
For an account of gains and profits, see ante, p. 630.
20. Certificate {embodied in Judgment) thai Validity of Patent was
in Qmstion at the IriaU-Patents, &c. Act, 1907, s. 35.
And this Court certifies that upon the trial of this action the validity
of the Pit's letters patent. No. — , dated &c., came into question.
21. Like Certificate as to Proof of Particulars of Breaches or that
Particulars of Objections were Reasonable and Proper —
Patents, &c., 0. liiia, 22.
And this Court certifies that [in the trial of this action the Pit
proved the particulars of breaches delivered by him] or [the particulars
of objections delivered by the Deft were reasonable and proper.]
NOTES.
HBABING OF ACTION.
In camerA. As to the procedure on hearing in camerd where the Deft denies infringe-
ment, but objects to state in open Court the process he actually adopts,
on the ground that it is the subject of a valuable secret, of the benefit of
which he would be deprived by disclosure, see Badische, &c. Fabrik v.
Levinstein, 24 Ch. D. 156.
Scientific Where there is contradictory evidence on a scientific point, the Court is
assurance. at liberty to obtain independent scientific assistance to give advice upon
which the judgment may be founded : S. C.
Parties. An objection for want of parties ought not to be postponed to the hearing
when no impediment exists to raising it earlier : Sheehan v. 0. E. Ry. Co. ,
16 Ch. D. 69.
As to the position of third parties in an action for infringement of patent,
see Edison v. Swan United Electric Co., 41 Ch. D. 28, C. A.
Declaration On dismissing action, the Court declined to insert a declaration of in-
of infringe- fringement " if the patent were valid " : Blakey v. Latham, 1888, W. N. 126.
ment. ^g ^q giving certificate as to validity of patent being called in question ,
Certificates, and as to reasonableness of particulars of breaches and objection, v. pp.
652, 653.
SECT. VIII. J Infringement of Letters Patent. 651
ACCOUNT 01' PKGFITS OE DAMAGES.
It is now conclusively settled that a patentee is not entitled, since 21
& 22 V. 0. 27, both to an account of profits (which amounts to a condonation
of the infringement) and an inquiry as to damages, but must elect which
he will take : De Vitre v. Betts, L. R. 6 H. L. 319 ; Neilson v. Belts, L. R.
5 H. L. 1 ; Needham v. Oxley, 11 W. R. 852 ; 2 N. R. 388 ; 8 L. T. 604 ;
United Horse Shoe Co. v. Stewart, 13 App. Ca. 401 ; Watson v. HolUday,
30 W. R. 747 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 543 ; 31 W. R. 536 ; 48 L. T. 545 ; Siddell v.
Vickers, 9 Rep. Pat. Cas. 153, 161 (g. v., as to the difficulty of working
out an account of profits).
In aid of the account, an order may be made on Defts for production Account,
and inspection of their books : Saxby v. Easterbrook, L. R. 7 Ex. 207 ;
and the names and addresses of customers must be disclosed : Saccharin
Corp. V. Chemicals and Drugs Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 556.
The account under a patent being incident to the right to an injunction
against future infringement might be lost by its expiration or by delay :
Smith y. L. d; S. W. Ry., Kay, 408 ; Price's Patent Co. v. Bauwen's Pat.
Co., 4 K. & J. 727 ; Baily v. Taylor, 1 R. & M. 73.
As to the principles to be adopted in the assessment of damages and ascer- Damages,
tainment of pecuniary loss sustained, see Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Puncture
Proof, Sc. Co.. 16 Rep. Pat. Cas. 209 ; British Motor Syndicate, Ld. v.
Taylor, [1900] 1 Ch. 577.
After judgment restraining infringement, with inquiry as to damages,
there is no power to direct a trial by jury on the question of damages :
American Braided Wire Co. v. Thompson, 5 Rep. Pat. Cas. 538.
Where sales have been made by the Defts, and the Pits have reduced
their prices in consequence of such competition, the measure of damages
to the Pits is the amount of profits which would have been made by them
if all the sales had been made by them at original prices, after making
allowance for the increased sales attributable to the connection and exertions
of the Defts, and to the reduction in prices : American Braided Wire Co. v.
Thomson, 44 Ch. D. 274, C. A. ; distinguishing United Horse Shoe Co. v.
Stewart, 13 App. Ca. 401, where the reduction of prices was due to the com-
petition of others besides the Defts, and therefore the Pits were not entitled
to additional damages in respect of the reduction.
Defts are not entitled to set ofi the value of infringing articles delivered
up after judgment, nor sums recovered in previous actions by Pits from
manufacturers from whom the Defts bought : United Telephone Co. v.
Walker, 56 L. T. 508.
Where Deft admitted some infringements and denied others, on the Pit
moving for judgment on admissions the inquiry was confined to damages
arising from the admitted infringements : United Telephone Co. v. Donohoe,
31 Ch. D. 399, C. A.
By the Patents Act, 1907, s. 17, sub-s. 3, it any proceeding is taken in
respect of an infringement of patent committed after a failure to pay any
fee within the prescribed time, and before enlargement thereof, the Court
may refuse to give any damages in respect of such infringement ; and by
sect. 23 where an amendment by way of disclaimer, correction, or expla-
nation has been allowed, no damages shall be given in respect of the use
of the invention before the disclaimer, correction, or explanation, unless
the patentee satisfies the Court that his original claim was framed in good
faith, and with reasonable skill and knowledge.
And though the expiration of the patent during the litigation will not Expiration
deprive the Pit of his relief in damages or by account (Davenport v. Rylands, of patent.
1 Eq. 302 ; Fox v. Dellestable, 15 W. R. 194), the Court- refused to entertain
a bill for the mere purpose of damages where it was filed so immediately
before the patent expired that no interlocutory injunction could have been
obtained s Betts v. Oallais, 10 Eq. 392. Where an inquiry as to damages
had been ordered against a Deft who had unsuccessfully alleged prior user
652
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Form of
inquiry.
Discovery
ill aid.
at the trial, but who, subsequent to the order had discovered further
instances of prior user, and had thereby succeeded in revoking the Pits'
patent, the Deft was estopped from alleging such revocation in mitigation
of damages.
For the distinction between the form of inquiry in a patent suit, " What
damages the Pit has sustained," and in a trade mark case, " What damages,
if any, the Pit has sustained," see Davenport v. Bylands, L. R. 1 Eq. 302 ;
Form 13, p. 619, and Form 19, p. 650, sup. ; and as to the measure of
damages, Penn v. Jack, 5 Eq. 81.
In aid of the inquiry as to damages the Deft must give full discovery, and
set out the names and addresses of the persons to whom machines, made in
infringement of the patent, have been sold ; but not the names of agents
where there is nothing to show that any agents have been employed :
Murray v. Clayton, 15 Eq. 115, sup. Form 18, p. 649.
Joint owners. Where a patentee assigns to two persons in moieties, each assignee can
work the patent without being liable to account to the other for profit ;
and this, though one of the assignees be mortgagee of the other's moiety :
Steers v. Sogers, [1893] A. C. 232 ; H. L. affirming C. A., [1892] 2 Ch. 13 ;
and approving Mathers v. Oreen, L. R. 1 Ch. 29 ; 34 Beav. 170.
As to the right of a licensee to repudiate his licence, see Bidges v. MulUner,
10 Rep. Pat. Gas. 21, following Crossley v. Dixon, 10 H. L. C. 293.
In taking the account against a licensee of all articles made by him
under his licence, he is not to adduce documentary evidence for the purpose
of showing that the patent was bad for want of novelty : Adie v. Clarke,
24 W. R. 1007 ; affd. 2 App. Ca. 423 ; Crossley v. Dixon, 10 H. L. C. 293 ;
Noton V. Brookes, 7 H. & N. 499 ; though he is not, it seems, after his
licence has expired, estopped from disputing the validity of the patent :
Dangerfield v. Jones, 13 L. T. 142.
The right of a patentee to an account of profits is not a demand " in the
nature of unliquidated damages arising otherwise than by reason of con-
tract," witliin the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 31 (see now 46 & 47 V. c. 52,
s. 37, sub-s. 1), so as to be incapable of being proved in the bankruptcy of
the infringer : Watson v. Holliday, 20 Ch. D. 780.
The Palatine Court of Lancaster has now jurisdiction to give damages
in lieu of injunction : see Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c.
23), s. 3.
Licensee.
Bankruptcy
of infringer.
Palatine
Court.
COSTS.
Certiecate. Rules as to certifying the costs of particulars of objections and of
breaches are now contained in O. lida, 22. And sect. 29 of the Act of
1883, is repealed by sect. 98, sub-sect. 1 (6) of the Act of 1907. • By sect. 35
of the Act of 1907, re-enacting sect. 31 of the Act of 1883, the Court or a
Judge in an action for infringement may certify that the vahdity of the
patent came in question, and if the Court or a Judge so certifies, then in
any subsequent action {i.e., commenced after certificate granted : Saccharin
Corp. V. Anglo-Continental Chemical Works, [1901] 1 Ch. 414) for infringe-
ment the Pit in that action, on obtaining a final order or judgment in his
favour, shall have his full costs, charges, and expenses as between solr and
client, unless the Court or Judge trying the action certifies that he ought
not to have the same.
As to the meaning of " full costs " (under Copyright Act, 1842, s. 26),
see Avery v. Wood, [1891] 3 Ch. 115, C. A.
Sect. 31 of the Act of 1883 was substituted for sect. 43 of 15 & 16 V.
c. 83, which, however, required that the Judge should certify "on the
record," and under that section the certificate was endorsed on a copy of
the pleadings, and was signed by the Judge, but now the certificates under
0. LiiiA, 22, and sect. 35 of the Act of 1907 are embodied in the judgment
or order of the Court : v. sup. p. 650, Forms 20 and 21.
Under sect. 43 of 15 & 16 V. 83, it was held that, notwithstanding the
provision entitling the Pit to costs, the decree or order should contain an
SECT. viii.J Infringement of Letters Patent. 653
express direction for taxation of the costs as between solr and client : see
Uster V. Leather, 4 K. & J. 425 ; Hill v. Evans, 4 D. P. & J. 288, 309 ;
Needham v. Oxley, 11 W. R. 852 (and see, under tiie Act of 1883, United
Telephone Co. v. Patterson, 60 L. T. 315) ; and that to obtain the certificate
of the Judge the vahdity of the patent must have been actually contested,
and the result must not merely be in favour of Pit on verdict taken by
consent : Stacker v. Badgers, 1 C. & K. 99 ; and see (heaves v. E. C. Sy.
Co., 1 Ell. & E. 961 ; Bomll v. Hadley, 17 C. B. N. S. 435 ; nor, on the other
hand, in favour of Deft on election by Pit to be non-suited : Honihall v.
Bloomer, 10 Ex. 538 ; and without the certificate no costs in respect of
his particulars of objection could be allowed : 8. C. But this rule was held
inapplicable to the case of Pit dismissing his own bill before the hearing :
Batley v. Kynoch, 20 Eq. 632 ; and see Parnell v. Mart, Liddell dk Co., 29
Ch. D. 325, C. A., where it was held that the Court had power to allow
costs of witnesses brought up to support particulars of objections, but not
called because the Pits had virtually been non-suited.
And after the validity of the patent has once been established, and certi-
ficate given, a patentee is entitled to full costs in any subsequent proceedings
to protect his rights, although the validitv of his patent is not disputed :
Davenport v. Bylands, 35 L. J. Ch. 204 ; 1 Eq. 302.
The certificate under sect. 31 of the Act of 1883 (for which sect. 35 of the
Act of 1907 is substituted) was not a judgment or order appealable under
sect. 19 of Jud. Act, 1873 : Haslam Foundry v. Hall, 20 Q. B. D. 491, C. A.
And the certificate under sect. 31 could not be granted where the patent
had been declared invalid : Acetylene, (Ssc. Co. v. United Alkali Co., [1902]
1 Ch. 494.
The following decisions on sect. 29 of the Act of 1883 will be applicable
to the substituted provisions of O. lhia, 22.
In the absence (however arising) of the certificate under sub-sect. 6, the
costs of particulars cannot be recovered under an order for payment of
the costs of the action : Middleton v. Bradley, [1895] 2 Ch. 716. The
certificate under sect. 29, sub-sect. 6, will not be granted unless the Court
is satisfied, upon knowledge derived from the trial of the action, that the
particulars are reasonable and proper : Oerm Milling Co. v. Bdbinsan, 55
L. T. 282 ; and where the Pit's case breaks down at the opening, so that
it is not necessary to go into the Deft's case, the Court will not go into the
particulars merely for the purpose of certifying, and the Deft, for whom
judgment is given with costs, will not get the costs of them : Longbattom
V. Sham, 43 Ch. D. 46 ; and see Oddy v. Smith, 5 Rep. Pat. Cas. 503 ;
Mandleberg v. Morley, 1895, W. N., p. 9 ; 72 L. T. 106 ; 43 W. R. 266 ;
64 L. J. Ch. 245 ; Wilcox and Oibbs v. Janes, [1897] 2 Ch. 71 ; Acetylene,
&c. Co. V. United Alkali Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 495. Where the question of
invalidity of patent not having been gone into, no certificate is given as
to particulars of objections to validity, and the costs thereof are conse-
quently disallowed, the Pit is not entitled to set off, as against costs
payable by him, costs incurred in consequence of the particulars ; and
the taxing master cannot, under O. lxv, 27 (20, 21), enter into the
question whether the particulars were improper : Oarrard v. Edge, 44
Ch. D. 224, C. A.
Where judgment for the Pits is given in default of appearance by the
Defts, the Court has jurisdiction under sect. 29, to certify that the Pits'
particulars of breaches were reasonable and proper : Pneumatic Tyre Co.
v. J. Parr S Co., 1906, W. N. 88 (13) ; 75 L. T. 488.
The Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to grant a certificate under the
section : Cole v. Saqui, 40 Ch. D. 132, C. A. ; q. v. for observations as to the
effect of the section in throwing an unnecessary duty upon the Court.
As to the allowance of remuneration to scientific witnesses, and the Allowances,
expense of preparing a model, as proper items of cost in a patent suit, see
Batley v. Kynack, 20 Eq. 632 ; and see Smith v. Buller, 19 Eq. 473 (dis-
allowing as " luxuries " drawings of exhibits, for the purpose of being
654
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
General
costs.
Estoppel.
attached to the margin of the briefs) ; and Automatic Weighing Co. v.
Knight, 1888, W. N. 250 (that only one scientific witness need be called if
able to give sufficient evidence) ; and v. sup. Chap. XVII., " Costs,"
p. 298.
Where the Pit failed in establishing validity, but succeeded on infringe-
ment, he paid the general costs, but had a set-off for costs occasioned by
the issue of infringement : Badische Anilin v. Levinstein, 29 Ch. D. 366,
C. A.
Where particulars of objections for want of novelty included specifi-
cations of prior patents, which in the result proved useful in assisting the
Court to decide that the patent, though novel, was bad for disconformity,
the Court certified that the particulars were " reasonable and proper
without regard to the general costs of the action " : Gastner Kellner Alkali
Co. V. Commercial Development Corp., [1899] 1 Ch. 803, C. A.
Where the Deft denied infringement, which issue was decided against
him, but judgment went for him on the ground of want of novelty, he was
not entitled to the costs of the issue of infringement : Phillips v. Ivel Cycle
Co., 62 L. T. 392 ; Binnington v. Hill, 8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 326 ; and similarly
where infringement was not found, but validity of patent was : Tweedale
V. Ashworth, 8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 49. Where Deft on being served with the
writ offered to give an undertaking which the Pit ought to have accepted,
the Court deprived him of costs other than costs down to the date of the
offer, and of the day's appearance : Jenkins v. Hope, [1896] 1 Ch. 278.
As to the allowance of costs on the higher scale where scientific witnesses
are necessarily called, see Ellington v. Clark, 58 L. T. 40, 818 ; Wenham
Gas Co. V. Champion Gas Lamp Co., 8 Rep. Pat. Cas. 313 ; and sup.,
Chap. XVII., pp. 246, 298.
Where the validity of the patent has been upheld by the Court, the Deft
is estopped from again denying it in a subsequent action, even though he
alleges that anticipations have been since discovered: Shoe Machinery
Co. V. Cutlan, [1896] 1 Ch. 667.
Section IX.— Infringement of Copyright.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Judgment for perpetual Injunction against Infringement
of Copyright.
Order that the Deft, his workmen &c., be perpetually restrained
from publishing, printing, selling, delivering or otherwise disposing
of, or causing or (knowingly) permitting to be published, printed,
sold, delivered or otherwise disposed of, any copies or copy of his book
in the Pit's (bill) mentioned, called " The Imperial Directory of
London for 1866," containing the divisions headed—" Streets "—
" Official "—" Parliamentary "—" Court "—&c., or any or either
of them, or any part of them respectively. — Deft to pay Pit's costs
of (action) to be taxed— all further proceedings except for executing
the decree to be stayed.— See Kelly v. 3Iorris, V.-C. W., 8 March, 1866 ,
A. 779; lEq. 697.
SECT. IX.] Infringement of Copyright. 655
2. Injunction against Infringement of Copyright, without
specifying Pirated Parts — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, his servants &c., be restrained from further
printing, publishing, selling, or otherwise disposing of any copy or
copies of a book called " A New and Comprehensive Gazetteer,"
containing any article or articles, passage or passages, copied, taken,
or colourably altered from a book called " The Topographical
Dictionary of England," published by the Pits ; until &c. — See
Lewis V. Fullarton, M. R., 16 July, 1839 ; S. C, 2 Beav. 6.
For the like order against publishing a book containing specified parts
taken from Pit's work, or any passages, copied, taken, or colourably altered
therefrom, see Jarrold v. Houlston, 3 K. & J. 722.
3. Injunction staying Infringement, and Specifying Pirated
Parts — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, their workmen &c., be restrained from pub-
lishing, selling, or advertising for sale the work called &c., in the
(bin) mentioned, or any words containing the extracts in the ■ —
paragraph of the (bill) mentioned, or any of them, and from parting
with the possession of any copies of the said work now in their
possession or under their control ; until &c. — See Smith v. Chatto,
V.-C. H., 18 Dec. 1874, B. 3463 ; 23 W. R. 290.
4. Injunction against Printers and Publishers of Pirated
Directory — Account of Copies sold and unsold — Delivery
up of the latter — Payment of Net Projits of the former.
Order that the Defts, their manager, canvassers, agents, clerks,
compositors, printers, workmen, and servants, be perpetually re-
strained from further printing, publishing, selhng, delivering, or
otherwise disposing of the book called " The Architect's &c. Direc-
tory," alleged to be copied and pirated by the Deft W., as in the
(bill) mentioned, or any copy or copies thereof, and any future
edition thereof, and from copying or pirating from any edition of
any of the Pit's Directories in the (bill) mentioned, and every part
thereof respectively, and any copy thereof and extract therefrom
respectively, and (from copying, &c., from) the Deft's Directory and
every part thereof so alleged to have been copied and pirated as
aforesaid, and (from) the copy and manuscript from which the same
was printed, and (from) every copy thereof and extract therefrom,
in the preparation of, or for the purpose of assisting in the prepara-
tion of, any future edition of the Deft's said Directory, or any other
Directory ; And it is ordered that the following, &c. 1. An account
of the number of copies of the Defts' Directory so printed, and of the
number thereof so published by the Deft W. as aforesaid, which the
Defts or any other person &c. by their or any of their order, or for
656 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
their or any of their use, have sold or disposed of ; and the number of
copies now remaining on hand unsold, or undisposed of. 2. An
account of all and every sum or sums of money received by the Defts,
and each of them, or by any other person &c. upon or by the sale of
such copies as have been sold or disposed of as aforesaid, and also
in respect of the extra lines and advertisements contained in the
Defts' said Directory, and of the profits made by the Defts arising
out of their printing and publishing their (said) Directory ; And it
is ordered that the Defts do pay to the Pit what upon taking the said
accounts shall be certified to be the net profit arising from the printing
and publication of the Defts' (said) Directory ; And it is ordered
that all copies of the Defts' (said) Directory which remain imsold and
are in the possession or power of the Defts or any or either of them,
and all printed sheets forming or intended to form part of the same,
be delivered up by the Defts to the Pit for destruction. — Liberty to
apply ._Xe% V. Hodge, V.-C. J., 11 Jan. 1870, A. 121.
5. Injunction against using Blocks for Advertising —
Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts A., B., C, and D. {other than the printers),
their servants and agents, be restrained, until judgment &c., from
printing, selling, or publishing any copy or copies of so much of the
Pit's book in the writ mentioned as consists of headings (not forming
part of the advertisements therein), so or in such a way as to infringe
the Pit's copyright in such headings, and also from displaying or
using for the purpose of obtaining advertisements for any work other
than the Pit's said work so much of the copies of the Defts' book
already printed as consists of such headings as aforesaid, and from
using blocks or materials obtained by the Defts A. and B., or either
of them, while in the employment of the Pit, and for the purposes
of his said work, or any copies thereof for the purposes of any
work other than the said work of the Pit. But this order is
not to extend to prevent the Defts, or any of them, making legitimate
use of the Pit's work, or any part thereof, for the purposes of obtain-
ing advertisements or otherwise, [nor to prevent the Defts or any
of them from publishing any copy of any blocks at the request or
by direction of the owners thereof] ; And the Defts M., Son & Co., Ld.
{the printers), by their counsel, undertaking not to infringe the Pit's
copyright in the headings of the Pit's work, and for that purpose to
destroy the translations of all such headings ; The Defts M., Son & Co.
to be at liberty to deliver the specimen copies with the headings
destroyed as aforesaid to the Defts, or any of them, to be held by them
subject to the terms of this order. — Costs to be costs in the action.—
See Lamb v. Evans, Chitty, J., 12 Aug. 1892, B. 1181 ; (1892) 3 Ch.
462 ; afiirmed by C. A., 23 Nov. 1892, B. 1553 ; (1893) 1 Ch. 218,
C. A., when the words in square brackets were added.
SECT. IX.] Infringement of Copyright. 657
6. Another Form of Delivery up.
And if on taking the said account it shall appear that there are any
such net profits, Order that the Defts do within fourteen days after
the date of the Master's certificate, deliver to the Pits all copies of
the said book which remain unsold and are in the possession or power
of the Defts or any of them, and all printed sheets and illustrations
forming or intended to form part of the same ; but if on taking the
said accounts it shall appear that there are no such net profits,
it is ordered that the Defts do within fourteen days after the date of
the said Master's certificate, deliver to the Pits for destruction, the
copies remaining unsold of the said book, and all printed sheets and
illustrations forming or intended to form the original drawings and
blocks used for the illustration of the said book, and all blocks
and plates in their possession or power taken from the original
drawings or any of them. — Defts to pay Pits' costs. — Hole v. Bradbury,
Fry, J., 28 July, 1879, A. 1673 ; 12 Ch. D. 886.
7. Injunction against assigning Benefit of Piihlishing
Agreement — Interlocutory.
The Deft H. A. M. by his counsel undertaking until judgment or
further order not, without the consent of the Judge, to sell except in
the ordinary course of business any of the books, and not, without
the consent of the Judge, to sell or part with any of the plates, blocks
and other property in his possession or under his control under or by
virtue of the three agreements in the said writ mentioned, and also
not to sell or assign, or purport to sell or assign, without the Pit's
consent, the benefits, rights, or interests arising under or by virtue
of such agreements. This Court doth order that the Deft co., their
servants and agents, be restrained until judgment or further order
from selUng or parting with, or purporting to sell, without the consent
of the Pit, any of the property or assets in the possession or under the
control of the Deft co. under or by virtue or in pursuance of the said
three several agreements in writing made between the Pit of the one
part and the Deft co. of the other part, which agreements are con-
tained in letters dated &c., with reference to the printing and publica-
tion of a novel called " The Angel of the Eevolution," the second of
which is dated &c., with reference to the printing and publication of
a novel called " Olga Eomanofi " or " The Syren of the Skies," and
the third of which is dated &c., with reference to the printing and
publication of a novel called " The Outlaws of the Air," and from
selling or assigning, or purporting to sell or assign, without the
like consent, the benefits, rights, and interests alleged by the Deft co.
to be now vested in them under the same three agreements or any
of them. — Costs to be costs in action. — Liberty to apply. — See
Griffiths V. Tower Publishing Co., Stirling. J., 30 Oct. 1896, A. 4145 ;
(1897) 1 Ch. 21.
VOL. I. 2 u
658 Injunctions. [chap. XXXI.
For injunction against publishing the play " Never too Late to Mend,"
without first omitting all scenes and passages identical with or only colour-
ably differing from scenes and passages in the Pit's play of " Gold," with
leave to Pit to bring an action as to Deft's alleged infringement of his novel
founded on " Gold," from which novel. Deft a.lleged, he has adapted his
play, see Beade v. Lacy, 1 J. & H. 524.
For injunction against publishing a dramatised version of " Lady Audley's
Secret " and " Aurora Floyd," see TinsUy v. Lacy, 1 H. & M. 747.
And against publishing separately articles written by Pit for a periodical
which Defts had purchased, Pit having reserved his copyright, see Mayhew
V. Maxwell, IJ. & H. 312.
For injunction against publication in a provincial newspaper of articles
taken verbatim from a magazine, see Maxwell v. Somerton, 22 W. R. 313.
For injunctions against publishing an abridgment of " Cook's Voyages,"
see Nicol v. Kearsley, L. C, 16 Aug., 1784, B. 461 ; the " Edinburgh
Review," Longman v. Murray, L. C, 6 May, 1807, B. 510 ; the report of
the Privy Council's inquiry into the conduct of the P. of W., A. 0. v.
Blagdon, L. C, 11 March, 1808, A. 269.
For order for injunction to stay Defts from printing, publishing, and
selling, or causing, or being in any way concerned in printing, &c., or
exposing for sale, or otherwise disposing of, any copy or copies of a third
or any subsequent edition of the Pit's book called " The Practice of Photo-
graphy, &c." ; and that the Defts deliver up to the Pit the unsold copies
of the work, and pay the sum agreed on as the profits of the copies sold,
and his costs of suit to be taxed, see Delfe v. DekmwUe, V.-C. W., 5 Aug.
1857, A. 1709 ; S. C, 3 K. & J. 581.
For similar order for the delivery up, and destruction by the Clerk of
Record and Writs, of pirated copies, see Prince Albert v. Strange, 2 D. & S.
717.
For injunction to restrain the Defts from printing, publishing, selling, or
otherwise disposing of, and from offering or exposing for sale, a bird's-eye
view or plan of Paris and its fortifications ; and the Defts to deliver up
to the Pits all unsold copies of the said view or plan now in their possession
or power, with inquiry as to damages, and Defts to pay costs, see Stannard
V. Harrison, V.-C. B., 19 Nov., 1870, B. 2882 ; 19 W. B. 811 ; 24 L. T. 570.
For the principle upon wliich in a suit to stay piracy of parts of the Pit's
work by the subsequent author of a book on the same subject damages
should be assessed, see Pihe v. Nicholas, 5 Cli. 260, n. (though on appeal
the order was reversed).
For injunctions to restrain an infringement of copyright in a popular
song, see Chappell v. Sheard ; C. v. Davidson, 8 D. M. & G. 1 ; 2 K. & J.
117, 123.
8. Injunction against Infringement of Copyright in
Annotated Edition.
Order that the Defts, their servants and agents, be restrained from
issuing books containing those portions of the characters of the play
intituled " As you like it," complained of in the particulars in the
judgment mentioned ; And it is ordered that the Defts do cancel
such portions of existing books ; And it is ordered that the following
inquiry be taken (at the risk of the Pit) : 1. An inquiry what damages
have been sustained by reason of the sale of books containing the
said portions.— See Moffait and Paige v. Gill, 24 April, 1902, B. 399 ;
86 L. T. 465.
SECT. IX. ] Infringement of Copynght. 659
9. Injunction against Piracy of original Notes in an English
Edition of an American Work — Interlocutory.
Oedee that the Defts, The Newsagents &c. Co., their servants &c.,
be restrained from publishing, selling, exposing for sale, or dis-
tributing within the British dominions any copies or copy of No. 26
of the serial work described in (par. — of the bill) as " The Boy's
Companion and British Traveller," or any part thereof containing
any notes, alterations or other matter contained in the work registered
in the book of registry of the Stationers' Co. under the title " Artemus
Ward, his Book, with Notes and Preface by the Editor of the Biglow
Papers, London : J. C. Hotten &c.," not being part of the author's
work intituled " Artemus Ward, his Book, with many Comic Illustra-
tions," published in America, but the production of the Pit or of his
skill or labour, or any other numbers or number in continuation
thereof, or any other works or work containing any such matters or
matter as aforesaid ; until &c. ; And it is ordered that the Deft W.,
his servants &c., be in like manner restrained from delivering up to
the Defts, The Newsagents &c. Co., or any persons or person whom-
soever, except under the order of this Court, any copies or copy of
the same No. 26 of the said serial work, so printed and published by
the said Defts respectively as aforesaid, now remaining in the posses-
sion or power of the said Deft W. as the printer thereof, or otherwise,
until kc— Hotten v. The Newsagents, &c. Co., V.-C. W., 16 Nov. 1865,
A. 2070.
10. Injunction against Fullishing in this Country a Book
printed in America.
Order that the Defts, their servants and agents, be perpetually
restrained from importing into, printing, publishing, selling, deliver-
ing, or otherwise disposing of in this country, any copy or copies of,
or causing or permitting to be imported into, published, sold, or
otherwise disposed of in this country, any copy or copies of the books
called " The A B C of Animals " and " The A B C of Nature," or
either of them, or any copy or copies of any book or books containing
any plate or plates, illustration or illustrations, letterpress or descrip-
tions, passage or passages, copied, taken, or colourably altered from
the Pit's books called " The Alphabet of Animals " and " The Globe
Alphabet," or either of them ; And it is ordered that the Defts do
forthwith return to America all copies of the said books in their
possession or power, and within one month from the date of this
order file an affidavit in this action stating that they have done so ;
And it is ordered that the following inquiry be made, namely, 1.
An inquiry what profits have been made and realized by the
Defts by the sale of the said books, " The A B C of Animals"
and " The A B C of Nature," or either of them, with liberty to apply
in Chambers after result of such inquiiy. — Defts to pay costs of
660 Injunctions. [chap. XXXI.
action up to and including judgment. — Warne v. Lawrence, Kay, J.,
18 March, 1886, B. 475.
11. Injunction against Infringement in a Play of Copyright
in a Novel — Objeetionable Passages Cancelled.
Order that the Deft, his servants and agents, be perpetually
restrained from printing or otherwise multiplying copies of his play
called " Little Lord Fauntleroy," containing any passages copied,
taken, or colourably altered from the Pits' book entitled " Little
Lord Fauntleroy," so as to infringe the Pits' copyright in the novel
or tale called " Little Lord Fauntleroy," of which the Pits are the
registered proprietors ; and it is ordered that the Defts do state on
oath how many copies of the said play exist, and extract and deliver
up to the Pits to be cancelled all passages in such copies of the said
play taken or extracted from, or colourably altered from the said
novel or tale, and produce all the copies of his said play to the Pits
or their solrs so as to satisfy them that the objectionable passages
have been extracted and delivered up. — Warne v. Seebohm, Stirling, J.,
10 May, 1888, B. 598 ; 39 Ch. D. 73.
12. Copyright of Designs — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft his servants &c., be restrained until after
&c., from selling the design in the (bUl) mentioned, and from
applying the same, or any colourable imitation thereof, to any
substance or article of manufacture, and in particular from manu-
facturing ornamental sweetmeats made so as to resemble those of the
Pit ; and from selling or offering or exposing for sale any substance
or article of manufacture to which the said design has been applied ;
and in particular the ornamental sweetmeats manufactured by the
Deft &c., as in the (bill) mentioned, or any ornamental sweetmeats
made so as to resemble those of the Pit. — Sparagnapane v. Coombs,
V.-C. J., 19 March, 1869, B. 596.
For an injunction under 25 & 26 V. o. 68 (Copyright in Pine Arts Act,
1862) to restrain publication of an engraving from a photograph of the
Bishop of Oxford, see Mowbray v. Tilt, V.-C. W., 6 June, 1867, B. 212.
For order continuing injunction granted under the Copyright of Designs
Act (5 & 6 V. c. 100), and for delivery up of articles specified, and taxation
and payment of costs, and staying all proceedings, except in case of a
breach of the injunction, see McBae v. Holdsworth, 2 D. & S. 499.
For inquiry whether the copper-plate published by the Deft, entitled &c.,
was of the same size and scale, and had the same marginal notes and
directions or instructions, and was in all respects the same as the first plate
published by the Pit, entitled &c., save an affected variation in the historical
and geographical anecdotes in the margin &c., see Jeffery v. Bowles, L. C,
17 March, 1770 ; 1 Dick. 429.
For like order, see Trusler v. Cummings, L. C. 11 May, 1775, B. 284;
1 Dick. 429, note.
13. Restraining Sale of Photographs.
Order that the Deft A. B., trading as &c., his agents and servants,
and every of them, be perpetually restrained from selling or offering
SECT. ix.J Infrim/emeni of Copyright. 661
for sale, or exposing by way of advertisement or otherwise, a certain
photograph of the Pit got up as a Christmas card, and from selling
or exposing for sale or otherwise dealing with such photograph. —
Pollard V. Moll, North, J., 20 Dec. 1888, B. 1561 ; 40 Ch. D. 345
(worn. Pollard v. Photographic Company).
NOTES.
INFEINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT BIGHT TO INJUKCTIOH.
Referencemustnowbemadetotho Copyright Act, 1911 (1 and2Geo.V.,
0. 46), which, so far as regards the United Kingdom, comes into operation
on the 1st July, 1912, and almost entirely repeats and largely re-enacts
former Acts. The new Act having been passed after this work had gone
to press, the notes relating to the old Acts are retained.
In deciding questions of alleged infringement of copyright (where extracts Tests of
have admittedly been made from the Pit's work), the Court will have regard infringement,
to the quantity and value of the matter taken and republished without the
exercise of independent thought and labour, and to the prejudice to the
sale of the original work by the appropriation, even with acknowledgment
and without any dishonest intention, and republication in a cheaper form
of the results of the Pit's labour : Scott v. Stanford, 3 Eq. 718 ; Jarrold v.
Houhton, 3 K. & J. 716 (laying down the tests of the animus furandi) ;
Folsom V. Marsh, 2 Story, Eq. Jur. s. 943, n. ; Kerr, 297.
The question will be whether there has been " a legitimate use of the
Pit's publication in the fair exercise of a mental operation deserving the
character of an original work " : Wilkins v. Aihin, 17 Ves. 422.
Or, again, " Has such mental labour been bestowed upon what has been
taken — has it been subjected to such revision and correction as to produce
an original result ? " Spiers v. Brown, 6 W. R. 352 (French Dictionary case).
See also Hotten v. Arthur, 1 H. & M. 603 ; Jarrold v. Heywood, 1 8 W. R.
279 ; Whittingham v. Wooler, 2 Sw. 428 ; Mawman v. Tegg, 2 Russ. 385 ;
Bramwell v. HalcomJb, 3 My. & Or. 737 ; Ager v. P. cfc 0. Co., 26 Ch. D. 637,
642 (Standard Telegram Code case).
The law of dramatic copyright is governed by the same principles ; and
to constitute infringement, material and substantial parts of the play
must have been taken : Chatterton v. Cave, L. R. 10 C. P. 572 ; 2 C. P. D.
43, C. A. ; 3 App. Cas. 483 ; Wame v. Seebohm, 39 C. D. 73.
Only such dramatic pieces as are capable of being printed and published
are protected by the Copyright Acts, Tate v. Fulhrook, [1908] 1 K. B.
(C. A.) 821 ; Karno v. Pathe Frere, 99 L. T. 114.
As to the extent to which scenic effects and stage business will be pro-
tected as forming an integral part of a dramatic piece, see Tate v. Ful-
brooh, ubi sup.
Information on matters of common knowledge open to all who seek to Common
obtain it {e.g., addresses for a directory or distances for a road-book) must knowledge,
be obtained at the compiler's own expense, as the result of his own inde-
pendent labour ; " and the only use that he can legitimately make of a
previous publication is to verify his own calculations and results when
obtained " : Kelly v. Morris, 1 Eq. 697 (" London Directory " case), sup.
Form 1 ; Morris v. Ashbee, 7 Eq. 34 ; Cox v. Land and Water Co., 9 Eq.
324 ; Letvis v. Fullarton, 2 Beav. 6, sup. Form 2, p. 655 ; Nisbet <fc Co.
V. Oolf Agency, 23 T. L. R. 370; Weatherby <fc Sons v. International
House Agency, [1910] 2 Ch. 297.
The use which a rival author may make of a former work on the same
subject as a guide to the same common sources of information is discussed
and explained in Pike v. Nicholas ; Morris v. Wright, 5 Ch. 251, 279 (to
some extent modifying the unquaUfied strictness with which the use of the
previous work by a subsequent author or compiler was limited in Kelly v.
Morris, sup.) ; and see MoffaU v. Gill, 84 L. T. 452 ; 49 W. R. 438.
662
Injunctions,
[chap. XXXI.
Identity of
object.
Title o£ work,
Rights of
assignee.
Foreign
piracies.
As stated in Hogg v. Scott, 18 Eq. 438, " the true principle is that the Deft
is not at liberty to use or avail himself of the labour which the Pit has been
at for the purpose of producing his work — that is, in fact, merely to take
away the result of another man's labour, or, in other words, his property."
Identity of object and " intent " in the original and copy is a material
element when portions of the one have been bodily transferred to the other :
Bradbury v. Hotten, L. R. 8 Ex. 1.
For the application of these principles to the case of inserting in a sub-
sequent work, for the purpose of increasing its value, extracts from works
in which copyright exists, see Smith v. Chatto, 23 W. R. 290 (" Thaokera-
yana "). And see TinsUy v. Lacy, 1 H. & M. 747 ; Pike v. Nicholas, 17
W. R. 842 ; Campbdl v. Scott, 11 Sim. 31 ; Warne & Co. v. Seebohm, 39
Ch. D. 73.
The fraudulent adoption of a title which is original may be restrained by
injunction : Weldon v. Dichs, 10 Ch. D. 247 ; Metzler v. Wood, 8 Ch. D.
606, G. A. ; seciis, if the title is a mere hackneyed phrase, long in common
use : Dicks v. Yates, 18 Ch. D. 76, C. A. ; and that in general there can be
no copyright in the title or name of a work, see 76. 89, 93 ; though an
exclusive right may be capable of establishment on the principles applicable
to trade marks or names : see Schove v. Schmincke, 33 Ch. D. 546.
The assignee for a term of a copyright will not be restrained from selling
after the expiration of the term copies printed by him dtiring it : Howiit v.
Hall, 10 W. R. 381 ; 6 L. T. 348 ; and the assignor is similarly entitled, in
the absence of special contract to the contrary, to sell copies printed by
him before the assignment : Taylor v. Pillow, 7 Eq. 418 ; but where an
agreement between author and publisher is personal to the latter, the benefit
of it cannot be assigned : Hole v. Bradbury, 12 Ch. D. 886 ; Griffiths v.
Tower Publishing Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 21, Form 7, swp. p. 657.
For the distinction, under 5 & 6 V. c. 45, s. 17, between " importing for
sale " and " selling knowingly " foreign piracies of copyright, see Cooper v.
Whittingham, 15 Ch. D. 501 ; and that persons responsible for the publi-
cation of a printed work do not ipsofacto " cause " it to be " printed " within
sect. 15 of the Act, see Kelly v. Oavin and Lloyds, [1902] 1 Ch. (C. A.) 631.
Quantity of
pirated
matter.
Discovery.
PEOCEDTJEE.
According to modern practice, the Court takes upon itself the duty of
going through the two works, and of determining by comparison what is
the quantity of pirated matter : see Pike v. Nicholas, 17 W. R. 842 ;
Jarrold v. Houlston, 3 K. & J. 708 ; Spiers v. Brown, 6 W. R. 352 ; Murray
V. Bogue, 1 Dr. 368 ; Chatterton v. Cave, 2 C. P. D. 42 ; 3 App. Ca. 483.
The practice has been to allege generally in the bill or affidavit that the
Deft's work contains several passages which have been pirated from
the Pit's work, without specifying the particular passages ; and when
the injunction is moved for, marked copies of the two books are usually
produced for the use of the Court : Sweet v. Maugham, 11 Sim. 51.
In this comparison the principle that " if Deft will take Pit's corn and
mix it with his own, the whole shall be taken to be Pit's," will, it seems, be
applied : Stevens v. Wildy, 19 L. J. Ch. 190.
And a Deft must bear all the mischief and loss which the separation (of
what belongs to him from what belongs to Pit) may occasion : Mawman
V. Tegg, 2 Russ. 391.
The Deft in cases of alleged piracy must give full discovery as to the original
sources from which he asserts that he has derived his information : Kelly v.
Wyman, 17 W. R. 399 ; and his original MS. is important evidence on the
question of bona fides : Hotten v. Arthur, 1 H. & M. 603 ; Spiers v. Brown, sup.
Until the Deft's work lias been published, and there is evidence of the
actual contents, an injunction will not be granted upon evidence by the
Pit of the mode employed by the Deft in preparing his work : Morris v.
Wright, 5 Ch. 279.
SECT. IX.] Infringement of Copyrigld. 663
Where the injunction would operate harshly, the Court will not suspend Injunction,
publication altogether until the hearing of the cause, but grant the in-
junction in a modified form : Ainsworth v. BentUy, 14 W. R. 630.
But after injunction granted. Deft will not be allowed, without Pit's
consent, to continue the sale of copies of a book already published, even
on terms of keeping an account : Sweet v. Maugham, 11 Sim. 51.
On the question whether, independently of sect. 23 of the Copyright Act, Delivery up.
1842, there is jurisdiction to order delivery up of pirated copies for destruc-
tion to the Pit, though he may not have been the registered proprietor of
the invaded work, when such copies were published, see Hole v. Bradbury,
12 Ch. D. 886, 901 ; Isaacs v. Fiddemann, 49 L. J. Ch. 412 ; 42 L. T. 395,
and see Act of 1911, s. 7.
That the rights of an assignee for the purpose of making copies of a Assignee,
painting are limited by the terms of the contract, see Lucas v. Cooke, 13
Ch. D. 872 ; Tuch v. Priester, 19 Q. B. D. 629, C. A.
The right to an account is incident to the perpetual injunction at the
hearing : Parroit v. Palmer, 3 M. & K. 632 ; Baily v. Taylor, 1 R. & M. 73.
In Pihe v. Nicholas, 5 Ch. 260, n., it is stated that in cases of literary
piracy the Deft must account for every copy of his work sold, as if it had
been a copy of Pit's, and pay Pit the profit which he would have received
from the sale of so many additional copies ; and see Muddoch v. Blackwood,
[1898] 1 Ch. 58, where Pit was held entitled to delivery up of the copies
in the Deft's possession and damages representing the actual amount of
the proceeds of the copies sold, and not merely of the profit on sale. But
see Colbum v. Simms, 2 Ha. 560 ; Delfe v. Delamoite, 3 K. & J. 581 ; from
which it appears that the Pit whose copyright has been infringed is not
entitled to more than an account of the neb profits of the actual sales.
For the purposes of the account. Pit may require Deft to set out the
number of pirated copies sold by him, and may continue the suit until
such discovery is given : Stevens v. Brett, 12 W. R. 572 ; 10 L. T. 231.
Printers who knowingly print a piracy for publication are tort feasors
jointly with their customers, and jointly liable in damages to those whose
copyright is infringed : Lamb v. Evans, 1895, W. N. 156 (2).
KBGISTBATION AND TITLE TO SUE.
That copyright exists by statute only, see Reade v. Conquest, 9 C. B. N. S. Registration
768 ; Jeffreys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. C. 833 ; Caird v. Sime, 12 App. Ca. 326, condition
343 ; Monckton v. Gramophone Co., 1910, W. N. 277. precedent
Registration is, by 5 & 6 V. o. 45, s. 24 (repealed by the Act of 1911), *° ^"''■
made a condition precedent to any legal proceedings in respect of
infringement of copyright : Liverpool General Brokers Assoc, v. Commercial
Press Telegram Bureaux, [1897] 2 Q. B. 1 (not following dictum of Cockburn,
C. J., in Wood v. Boosey, L. R. 2 Q. B. 340) ; but not to the existence of
the copyright : Goubaud v. Wallace, 25 W. R. 604 ; 36 L. T. 704 ; if
efieeted on the same day as, but before the issue of, the writ, it is suffi-
cient : Warne v. Laurence, 34 W. R. 452 ; 54 L. T. 171.
Registration effected at the time of commencing the action, though
subsequent to the date of the piracy, gives Pit the right to delivery up of the
pirated copies : Isaacs v. Fiddeman, 49 L. J. Ch. 412 ; 42 L. T. 395.
Registration in the name of a person wjio is a mere agent or nominee of Registration
the proprietor of the copyright, and not a trustee for him, is bad ; and •" name of
joinder of the unregistered proprietor as co-Pit will not render an action proprietor,
for infringement of the cop3rright maintainable : Petty v. Taylor, [1897]
1 Ch. 465 ; following London Printing and Publishing Alliance v. Cox, [1891]
3 Ch. 291.
Registration of the first number of a magazine is sufficient for protection Magazine,
of a serial published therein in successive numbers, without registering every
subsequent number : Henderson v. Maxwell, 4 Ch. D. 163 ; Bradbury v.
664
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Paintings,
etc.
Penalties.
Date of 6rst
publication.
Series of con'
tributions.
Concurrent
remedies.
Sharp, 1891, W. N. 143 (where a perpetual injunction was granted); but
registration must follow, and not precede publication : 5.Ch. D. 892.
In the case of copyright in paintings, drawings, and photographs, no
action shall be sustainable, nor any penalty be recoverable in respect of
anything done before registration : Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 (25 &
26 V. c. 68), s. 4 ; but the importation of copies after registration in
pursuance of an order given before registration is an infringement of copy-
right : Millar and Lang v. Polah, [1908] 1 Ch. 433 ; and independently of the
statute there may be a right to an injunction and damages : see Tuch v.
Priester, 19 Q. B. D. 629, C. A. Publication of a copy of an unpublished
picture not registered under the Kne Arts Copyright Act, 1862, is an
actionable infringement of the owner's common law right of property in the
picture : Mansell v. Valley Printing Co., [1908] 2 Ch. (C.A.) 441, applied in
Bowden Bros. v. Amalgamated Piciwials Ld., [1911] 1 Ch. 386 (photographs).
Registration of a painting is only primdfacie evidence of proprietorship, and
may be rebutted bythetermsof the assignment of the copyright bytheowner
to the person who has made the registration : Lmas v. Cooke, 13 Ch. D. 872.
Under the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862, it is not necessary that any
agreement in writing should be made or entered on the register where regis-
tration is in the name of the person for or on behalf of whom a drawing is
made or executed for a good or valuable consideration : Petty v. Taylor,
[1897] 1 Ch. 465.
An author whose copyright is infringed in any manner mentioned in
sect. 6 of the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862, is entitled to recover separate
penalties against every infringer, whether principal or agent, master or
servant : Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 73 ;
Hildesheimer v. Faulkners, [1901] 2 Ch. 552 ; following Exp. Beal, L. R.
3 Q. B. 387 ; and see Ellis v. Marshall <Si Son, 64 L. J. Q. B. 757.
Penalties for infringement under the Copyright Act, 1862, are not neces-
sarily cumulative or in addition to damages : Green v. Todd, [1899] 1 I. R.
47. The minimum penalty is not necessarily a farthing for each copy
pirated, if the aggregate sum would be excessive : Baschet v. London
Illustrated Standard Co., sup. ; Hildesheimer v. Faulkners, sup. ; NichoUs v.
Parker, 18 Times Rep. 460.
An alteration in a drawing which may be damaging to the plaintiff's
reputation as an artist is a breach of sect. 7, clause 4 of the Fine Arts Copy-
right Act, 1862, and the plaintiff can bring an action under sect. 8 to recover a
penalty for the breach, and is also entitled to an injunction to restrain future
breaches: Carlton Illustrators v. Coleman & Co., Ld., [1911] 1 K. B. 771.
The provisions of 5 & 6 V. o. 45, ss. 3, 13, 24, as to registration must be
strictly complied with to enable proceedingsf orinfringetnent of copyright to
be maintained. A wrong statement of the date of first publication is fatal
to the suit : Page v. Wisden, 17 W. R. 483 ; 20 L. T. 435 ; Low v. Boutledge,
1 Ch. 42 ; 3 H. L. 100 ; and not only the year and month, but also the
actual day of first publication must be entered : CoUingridge v. Emmott, 57
L. T. 864 ; and where there are several editions, in the nature of reprints,
the time of publication of the first must be given : Thomas v. Turner, 33
Ch. D. 292, C. A. ; and see Hayward v. Lely, 56 L. T. 418 ; Mathieson v.
Harrod, 7 Eq. 270 ; Wood v. Boosey, L. R. 2 Q. B. 340 ; and the name and
address of the first pubUsher : Coote v. Judd, 23 Ch. D. 727.
Where an author registers a series of contributions to a periodical, stating
as the date of first publication the date when the first part was published in
the periodical, the registration under s. 19 of the Copyright Act, 1842 (5 & 6
V. 0. 45), protects each contribution of the series subsequently published :
Johnson v. Nevmes, [18941 3 Ch. 663.
A proprietor of copyright in a book who has a remedy for infringement by
a " special action on the case " under s. 15 of the Copyright Act, 1842, may,
if he thinks fit, sue the offender under s. 23 either in detinue or in trover or
both combined, and all the remedies under both sections may be pursued
by action in the Chancery Division: Muddockr. Blaclcwood,\l%9%']\ Ch. 58.
SECT. IX.] Infringement of Copyright. 665
More registration of the title of an intended work does not give copyright Registration
in the title before pubUcation, so as to entitle the person registering to of title,
restrain the use of the title by another : Maxwell v. Hogg, 2 Ch. 307 ; and
see Dicks v. Yates, 18 Ch. D. 76, 88, C. A.
There is nothing in 5 & C V. o. 45 (s. 18, or elsewhere), to prevent joint Joint owner-
ownership in the proprietors of several newspapers of copyright in an article : ship.
Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Middlesbrough Trade Assoc, 40 Ch. D. 425, C. A.
Although the registered owners of a copyright take as tenants in
common, yet any one or more may sue a stranger for infringement of
the entire copyright : Lauri v. Renad, [1892] 3 Ch. 402.
The terms necessary under sect. 18 of 5 & 6 V. c. 45, for the vesting of Employment,
copyright need not be in writing, but from the fact of employment and
payment it may be inferred that the copyright was to belong to the em-
ployer : Lamb v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 225, 227, C. A. ; Sweet v. Benning, 16
C. B. 484 ; Lawrence v. AJlato, [1904] A. C. 17.
An assignment of copyright must be in writing : Leyland v. Stewart, Assignment.
4 Ch. D. 419 ; and see Act of 1911, s. 5 (2).
An agreement in writing to assign the copyright of a book before it is in
existence constitutes an assignment within the meaning of sect. 2 of the
Copyright Act, 1842 : Ward Loch & Co. v. Long, [1906] 2 Ch. 550. As to
what constitutes an assignment, see also Re Jude^s Musical Compositions,
[1907] 1 Ch. 651, C. A.
As to what is a sufficient notice of objection to registration of copyright
under sect. 16, see Hole v. Bradbury, 12 Ch. D. 886 ; Hayward v. Lely, 56
L. T. 418.
In the case of copyright in a design the oopjrright runs from registration ; Copyright in
and before delivery on sale of any articles to which the design is applied, the design,
proprietor must furnish to the comptroller the prescribed number of repre-
sentations or specimens, and mark the goods in the prescribed form, so as
to show that the design is registered : 7 Edw. 7, c. 29, ss. 53, 54.
An incorrect entry in the register as to the place and date of the first Dramatic
representation of a dramatic piece does not take away the author's title, piece,
but merely deprives him of the right to rely on the entry as primd facie
evidence of title : Hardacre v. Armstrong, 21 T. L. R. 189.
Dramatic compositions are " published " by public representation :
Boucicault v. Chatterton, 5 Ch. D. 267.
The part owner of a dramatic entertainment cannot grant a licence for its
representation without the consent of the other owners : Powell v. Head, 12
Ch. D. 686.
INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
Under the International Copyright Acts, 7 & 8 V. c. 12, and 15 & 16
V. c. 12 (both repealed by the Act of 1911, and see s. 29), a British
subject first publishing in a country with which there is no inter-
national copyright treaty is not entitled to copyright in this country:
Boucicault v. Delafield, 1 H. & M. 597. But an alien (citizen of a country
with which there is no copyright treaty), resident here at the time of print-
ing and publication in this country, is entitled to cop5rright and protection
from infringement : Low v. Boutledge, 1 Ch. 42 ; 3 H. L. 100 ; and, per
LL. Cairns and Westbury, publication, and not residence, in the United
Kingdom gives the right to protection. And see Jefferys v. Boosey. 4
H. L. C. 815 ; Ollerdorff^. Black, 4 D. & S. 209.
Copyright is divisible so as to be claimed for such portion of a work as is
first published in this country : Low v. Ward, 6 Eq. 415.
Sect. 10 of the International Copyright Act, 1844 (7 & 8 V. c. 12), does not
form a complete code as to the importation of copies printed abroad ; and
under ss. 3 and 10 of that Act, and ss. 15 and 17 of the Copyright Act, 1842
(5 & 6 V. c. 45), where the owner of copyright could, if his book had been
first published here, have restrained the importation of copies, the owner of
British international copyright in a book first published in a foreign country
666
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Effect of Act
of 1886 and
Berhe Con-
vention.
Paintings,
etc.
Music.
Dramatio
is in like manner entitled to restrain the importation of copies printed
there by the owner of the copyright in that country : Pitt Pitts v. George dk
Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 866, C. A.
As to the effect of the International Copyright Act, 1886 (49 & 50 V. c. 33,
repealed by the Act of 1911), s. 6, and that the proviso in that section pro-
tecting " rights or interests arising from or in connection " with works pro-
duced before the date of an order in council with respect to a foreign country,
operates in favour of a person who has before such date purchased and per-
formed a foreign piece of nmsic,aee Moulv. Qrmnings, [1891] 2 Q. B. 443,0. A.
And that proprietors of a trade mark have an interest in advertising it,
which may be "subsisting and valuable" within the meaning of, and
protected by, the proviso, see Schaner v. Field, [1893] 1 Ch. 35.
The Act of 1886 cannot be construed so as to revive or create anew a right
which had expired before the passing of the Act, or so as to confer a new
right on the former owner of an expired right, without any fresh act done by
him : Lauri v. Eenad, [1892] 3 Ch. 402. Sect. 6 of the Act is retrospective,
and applies to works produced before Dec. 6th, 1887, when the Order in
Council of Nov. 28th, 1887, came into operation, and before or after the
passing of the Act : Hanfstaengl Art Co. v. Holloway, [1893] 2 Q. B. 1.
The joint effect of s. 2, sub-s. 3, of the International Copyright Act, 1886,
and Art. 2 of the Berne Convention, is that an author suing in England in
respect of an infringement of foreign copyright must prove that he is
entitled to protection in the country of origin of the work, but, that right
once established, his remedy depends entirely on the EngUsh law : Baschet
V. London Illustrated Standard Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 73.
But the author having complied with the formalities and conditions of
the country of origin need not comply with the formalities and conditions
required by BngUsh law : Sarpy v. Holland, [1908] 2 Ch. 198, C. A.
Having regard to s. 4 of the International Copyright Act, 1886, and to
the terms of the Order in Council of Nov. 28th, 1887, adopting the Berne
Convention of Sept. 5th, 1887, registration under the Fine Arts Copyright
Act, 1862, is not necessary to entitle the owner of the English copyright in
a foreign painting to sue for infringement: Hanfstaengl v. American
Tobacco Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 347, C. A. ; approving Hanfstaengl Art Publish-
ing Co. V. Holloway, [1893] 2 Q. B. 1 ; and disapproving Fishburn v.
Hollingshead, [1891] 2 Ch. 371.
The Imperial Pine Arts Copyright Act, 1862, extends to the whole of the
United Kingdom, but not to any part of the British Dominions outside the
United Kingdom : Graves v. Gorrie, [1903] A. C. 496.
The word " published " in s. 11 of the International Copyright Act, 1886,
is applicable to a painting, and the country where it is first published is the
country of origin mentioned in Art. 2 of the Berne Convention, so that com-
pliance with the law of that country confers the right to sue for infringement
in this country : Hanfstaengl v. American Tobacco Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 347,
C. A.
As to musical copjnight, see Sarpy v. Holland, [1908] 2 Ch. 198, C. A.,
and inf., p. 669.
The adapter of a play who introduces into his version material alterations
is the " author of a dramatic piece " within the Dramatic Copyright Act
(3 & 4 W. IV. 0. 15), but if he has assigned the provincial rights therein, he
cannot, without the concurrence of his assignee, maintain an action against
an infringer of those rights : Tree v. Bowkett, 74 L. T. 77. The Act of 1911
repeals the Act of 1833.
In the case of a foreign dramatic work the translation required in order
to give the author or his assignee the benefit of 15 & 16 V. c. 12, must be of
the whole work, without alteration or omission, and not a mere imitation
and adaptation for the English stage : Wood v. CliaH, 10 Eq. 193 {Frou-
Frou case). And see the Amendment Act, 38 V. c. 12 ; but in order to
obtain protection, the translation need not be absolutely literal, it is suffi-
cient if it is substantially a translation : Lavri v. Renad, sup.
SECT. IX.] Infringement of Copyright. 66/
An English Court has no jurisdiction, at the instance of the English
proprietor of the performing right of a musical dramatic work of an English
author, to restrain a threatened infringement by a British subject in any
foreign country comprised in the International Copyright Union : " Morocco
Bound " Syndicate, Ld. v. Harris, [1895] 1 Ch. 534.
Under the Dramatic Copyright Act, 1833, s. 1, and Art. 2 of the Berne
Convention, the English proprietor enjoys in any country of the Union the
rights wliich the law of that country gives to natives of that country ; and,
therefore, proceedings by him to restrain an infringement in that country
by a British subject must be taken in the Courts and according to the law of
that country : " Morocco Bound " Syndicate v. Harris, [1895] 1 Ch. 534.
SUMMABY OF CASES AS TO INFRINGEMENT.
Upon the subject of copyright the following cases may be consulted : —
Abridgment. — Fair abridgment has been held no piracy : Dodsley v. Kin-
nersley, Amb. 403 ; but there must be the fair exercise of a mental operation
deserving the character of an original work : Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422 ;
and see Kerr, 298 ; Oyles v. Wilcox, 2 Atk. 143 ; Bell v. Walker, 1 Bro. C. C.
451 ; Nicol v. Kearsley, L. C, 16 Aug. 1784, B. 461 (injunction against
publishing an " Abridgment of Cook's Voyages ").
Advertisement. — ^May be the subject of copyright : Maple & Co. v. Junior
Army, &c. Stores, 21 Ch. D. 369, C. A. ; not following Cobbett v. Woodward,
14 Eq. 407 ; and that there may be copyright generally in a mass of adver-
tisements as arranged, though not in any single advertisement as against the
advertiser, see Lanib v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 218, C. A,
Blocks. — Where electro blocks of drawings are supplied for personal use by
the customers in illustrated catalogues, the vendors are entitled to an in-
junction to restrain third persons from using the blocks for printing draw-
ings which they publish. Semble, no such injunction would go against the
customer, although he had no written licence under sect. 15 of the Copyright
Act. 1842 : Cooper v. Stephens, [1895] 1 Ch. 567. See also Ma/rshall v. Bull,
85L.T.77,C.A.
Calendar. — Longman v. Winchester, 16 Ves. 269 ; Matthewson v. Stockdale,
12 Ves. 270.
Catalogue. — ^A catalogue or bookseller's list will be protected so far as it is
not a mere dry list of names, but contains original descriptive matter :
Hotten V. Arthur, 1 H. & M. 603 (catalogue of historical and antiquarian
books with notes and anecdotes) ; Grace v. Newman, 19 Eq. 623 (catalogue
of monumental designs) ; Weatherby v. International Horse Agency, [1910]
2 Ch. 297 (list of brood mares contained in a stud book) ; Maple v. Junior
Army and Navy Stores, 21 Ch. D. 369, C. A. (illustrated catalogue of furni-
ture, without letterpress, for which copyright could be claimed) ; overruling
Cobbett V. Woodwa/rd, 14 Eq. 407 (illustrated furnishing guide); see also
Davis V. Benjamin, [1906] 2 Ch. 491 ; Hayward v. Lely, 56 L. T. 418 (des-
cription of articles as " patented " after patent had expired, held not to
take away copyright in other part of catalogue). A catalogue contain-
ing many false statements, so as to be in the opinion of the Court a dishonest
book, will not be protected : Slingshy v. Bradford Trolley Co., 1906,
W. N. 51.
ChaH or plan.See Hollinrake v. Truswell, [1893] 2 Ch. 377 ; [1894]
3 Ch. 420, C. A.
Child's puzzle. — ^An envelope printed outside with directions, and con-
taining a card perforated so as to cast a shadow, is not a literary work :
Cable V. Marks, 31 W. R. 227 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 107 ; 47 L. T. 432 ; and see
Davis S Co. v. Consmith, 54 L. J. Ch. 419 (face of barometer with special
letterpress held not a " book separately published ").
Designs. — Cop5rright in designs is now regulated by the Patents and
Designs Act, 1907 (7 Edw. VII. c. 29), ss. 49-61 ; see inf. Chap. LII.,
and Frost on Patents.
Dictionary. — Spiers v. Brown, 6 W. R. 352 ; and see Kerr, 297.
668 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Directory. — Kelly v. Morris, 1 Eq. 697 ; Morris v. AsKbee, 7 Eq. 34 ;
Morris v. Wright, 5 Ch. 279 ; Kelly v. Hodge, sup. Form 4, p. 655 ; and that
there is no right to the exclusive use of the title " Post OflSce Directory,"
see Kelly v. Byles, 13 Ch. D. 682, C. A. ; and v. sup. p. 661.
In a trades directory the headings are the subject of copyright, though the
letterpress consist only of advertisements : Lamb v. Evans, [1892] 3 Ch. 462.
Dramatised novel. — The fact that a novel when pubhshed has been drama-
tised by the author does not prevent any one else from also independently
dramatising it : Schlesinger v. Bedford, 63 L. T. 763 ; 1893, W. N. 57,
C. A. ; Toole v. Young, L. R. 9 Q. B. 523 ; questioning dicta in Reade v.
Conquest, 9 C. B. N. S. 755 ; 11 C. B. N. S. 479 ; and Tinsley v. Lacy, 1
H. & M. 747.
But although there is no infringement of the copyright of a novel in
merely dramatising it, and representing the dramatised version (Reade v.
Lacy, 1 J. & H. 524), the printing and publication of such dramatised
version, even though not for the purposes of sale, is an infringement which
will be restrained by injunction : Tinsley v. Lacy, 1 H. & M. 747 ; as also
any multiplication of copies of the dramatised version for acting purposes :
Warne v. Seebohm, 39 Ch. D. 73 ; Form 11, sup. p. 660.
And where an author pubhshes his drama first and his novel afterwards, a
drama taken by another person from the novel only may be an infringement
of the author's drama : Schlesinger v. Turner, 63 L. T. 764.
Drawing. — A drawing devoid of artistic merit, e.g., a hand holding a
pencil for guidance of illiterate voters, was held not entitled to protection
against anything but an exact reproduction : Kenrich v. Lawrence, 25
Q. B. D. 99.
Registration of a book under the Copyright Act, 1842, in the name of the
author of the letterpress, does not confer any protection in respect of
drawings which are introduced into the book as illustrations, and the art
cop3Tight in which is vested in other persons : Petty v. Taylor, [1897]
1 Oh. 465 ; distinguishing Qrace v. Newman, L. R. 19 Eq. 623.
As to what alteration is sufficient to constitute an alteration in a draw-
ing within sect. 7, clause 4 of the Fine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26
Vict. c. 68), and that to bring a case within this clause it is not necessary
that the sale or publication of the altered work should be fraudulent, see
Carlton Illustrators v. Coleman cfc Co., Ld., [1911] 1 K. B. 771.
Electro blocks. — See swp. " Blocks."
Encyclopcedia.—Mawman v. Tegg, 2 Russ. 385. Republication of articles
in a separate form by the proprietor of an encyolopsedia or periodical may be
restrained by the author who has reserved his copyright : 5 & 6 V. o. 45,
s. 18 ; and see Bishop of Hereford v. Griffin, 16 Sim. 190. As to reservation
of copyright by the author, see Lawrence v. Aflalo, [1904] A. C. 17.
Engravings.— To obtain the protection of the Engraving Copyright Act,
1734 (8 G. II. c. 13), by which (sect. 1) the name of the proprietor must be
engraved on each plate, and printed on every print, it is sufficient to give
the name of the firm under which the proprietors trade : Rock v. Lazarus, 15
Eq. 104 ; and see Graves v. Ashford, L. R. 2 C. P. 410; and Act of 1911, s. 6.
Engravings published as part of a book and registered for the purpose ot
copyright as a book are protected by the copyright of the book itself :
Marshall v. Bull, (1901) 85 L. T. 77, C. A. See also Cooper v. Stephens,
[1895] 1 Ch. 567. , ^ . ^ ,
The engraving, and not the original painting, must have been piratefll :
lAicas V. Cooke, 13 Ch. D. 872 ; and see Dichs v. Brooks, 15 Ch. D. 22, C. A.
(that a chromo-printed pattern for wool-work, though made by the aid of
the engraving, is not a copy or piratical imitation of the engraving within
7 G. III. c. 38, and 17 G. III. c. 57).
In an action for infringement of copyright in a picture production of an
engraving which was an exact copy of the original picture was admitted as
evidence to prove the infringement : Lucas v. Williams, [1892] 2 Q. B. 113,
C. A.
SECT. IX.] Infringement of Copyright. 669
The seller of pirated copies of an engraving is liable, though ignorant of
the piracy : Oambart v. Sumner, 5 H. & N. 5.
Immoral Publications and Engravings. — No copyright exists therein :
Stockdale v. Onwhyn, 5 B. & C. 173 ; Walcot v. Walker, 7 Ves. 1 ; Fores v.
Johnes, 4 Esp. 97. Where an action in respect of infringement of copyright
failed on the ground of the indecency of the work, and the indecency had
been repeated in the infringements, the action was dismissed without costs :
Baschet v. London Illustrated Standard Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 73.
Law Reports. — Head-notes of cases will be protected : Sweet v. Benning,
16 0. B. 459. And see Saunders v. Smith, 3 My. & Cr. 729 ; Lamb v. Evans,
[1893] 1 Oh. 218, C. A.
Lectures. — Republication of a lecture delivered to students (though in
shorthand character, Nicols v. Pitman, 26 Ch. D. 374) will be restrained,
such delivery not amounting to publication to all the world : Caird v. Sime,
12 App. Ca. 326 ; Nicols v. Pitman, sup. ; Abernethy v. Hutchinson,
1 H. & M. 28 ; Kerr, 434 ; and v. inf. Public Speech.
Letters. — The jurisdiction to restrain the publication of letters has been
rested on the ground that such publication is a breach of contract or con-
fidence, and a fortiori will the jurisdiction be exercised when it is intended
to make the letters a source of profit, for then there is also a violation of the
exclusive copyright of the writer.
Although at common law the writer of a letter and his 1. p. r. are entitled
to prevent its publication, the copyright in a letter published after the death
of the writer is vested by the Copyright Act, 1842, in the proprietor of the
letter itself, i.e. of the paper and the writing upon it : MacMillan cfc Co. v.
Dent, [1907] 1 Ch. 107 ; see Si\io Philip v. Pennell,{\^(i'T\ 2 Ch. 577, and see
Copinger, Copyright, 46 et seq. ; Kerr, 432, and see now Act of 1911, s. 17 (2).
Literary Composition. — A printed announcement of the horses selected as
probable winners of races in the ensuing week is not a literary composition
capable of protection under the Copyright Acts : Chilton v. Progress
Printing and Publishing Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 29, C. A.
The Court will not define in general terms what amounts to a literary
composition, S. C.
Magazine or Periodical. — The republication in a separate form by the
proprietors of a periodical of articles written for the periodical will be
restrained under 5 & 6 V. c. 45, s. 18, when the author's copyright has been
reserved : Mayhew v. Maxwell, 1 J. & H. 312 ; see also Lawrence v. Aflalo,
[1904] A. C. 17 ; and, when not so reserved, publication in a separate form by
the author : Henderson v. Maxwell, 4 Ch. D. 163. But there is nothing in
the section to prevent a joint ownersMp of the proprietors of several news-
papers in the copyright of one article : Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Middlesbrough
Tradesmen's Co., 40 Ch. D. 425, C. A.
And in Smith v. Johnson, 4 Giff. 632, the republication in supplemental
parts of a magazine (not being reprints) of tales contributed thereto was
restrained as an infringement of the author's copyright.
To entitle the proprietor of the book or periodical publication to sue,
actual payment to the author of the pirated article or contribution must be
shown : Collingridge v. Emmott, 57 L. T. 864 ; Walter v. Howe, 17 Ch. D. 708.
Map. — A map must be registered under 5 & 6 V. c. 45, before a suit can
be maintained in respect of infringement of the copyright therein : Siannard
V. Lee, 6 Ch. 346 ; not so a bird's-eye view or pictorial plan : Stannard v.
Harrison, 19 W. R. 811 ; nor a cardboard pattern sleeve containing upon it
scales, figures and descriptive words adapting it to sleeves of any dimen-
sions : Hollinrake v. Truswell, [1894] 3 Ch. 420, C. A.
Musical Composition. — Copyright and right of representation in musical
compositions are regulated by 3 & 4 W. IV. c. 15, ss. 1, 2 ; 5 & 6 V. c. 45,
ss. 20, 21, 22 ; 45 & 46 V. c. 40 (Copyright (Musical Compositions) Act, 1882),
and 51 & 52 V. o. 17 (Copyright (Musical Compositions) Act, 1888), which
amends and partially repeals the prior Acts, qua penalties, damages, and
costs ; but see Boosey v. Fairlie, 7 Ch. D. 301 , that the additional entry of a
Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
date applicable to the independent pianoforte arrangement, and deposit of
that work, does not invalidate the registration, nor affect the sole right of
performing the unpublished opera, for which protection was claimed by
registration.
To bring a musical composition within the provisions of the Dramatic
Copyright Act, 1833, it must have the characteristics of a dramatic piece,
and whether it has such characteristics must be determined in each case by
the nature of the composition itself : Fuller v. Blackpool Winter Gardens and
Pavilion Co., [1895] 2 Q. B. 429, C. A.
A song that does not require for its representation either dramatic eficct
or scenery is not a dramatic piece, although it is intended to be sung in
appropriate costume on the stage of music-halls : S. 0. To entitle the
owner of the right of public representation to sue for penalties, the right
must have been reserved by notice printed on every published copy, as
provided by the Copyright (Musical Compositions) Act, 1882 : 8.0.
An assumption of the name and description of a popular song, in the
melody of which there is no copyright, may be restrained bv injunction :
Chappdl V. Sheard ; O. v. Davidson, 2 K. & J. 117, 123 ; and see 8. C, 8
D. M. & G. 1, where the injunction was continued only on the terms of an
undertaking to bring an action and be answerable in damages.
Publication of a musical composition or dramatic piece as a book, before
public performance or representation, does not deprive the author or his
assignee of the exclusive right of performance or representation : Chappell v.
Boosey, 21 Ch. D. 232.
For purposes of registration, a pianoforte arrangement of the full score is a
separate and distinct work from the opera itself : Wood v. Boosey, L. R. 2
Q. B. 340 ; 3 Q. B. 223 ; Boosey v. Fairlie, 7 Ch. D. 301 ; 4 App. Ca. 711 ;
though such an arrangement, without authority, would, it seems, be a
piracy ; see L. R. 3 Q. B. 228 ; D'Almaine v. Boosey 1 Y. & C. 288.
As to the effect of the International Copyright Act, 1886 (49 & 50 V. c. 33),
s. 6, V. Moul V. Greenings, [1891] 2 Q. B. 443, C. A., et sup. p. 665.
Perforated rolls of paper, used in a mechanical wind instrument (known
as the ^olian) and causing musical sounds by the passage of air through
the slots, are not " copies " or " sheets of music " within the Copyright Act,
1842 ; nor is the addition to them of directions as to the time and expression
taken from the published music of the songs played of itself an infringement
of the copyright in such songs : Boosey v. Whight, [1899] 1 Ch. 836 ; [1900]
1 Ch. 122, C. A. See also Male v. Connor, [1909] 1 K. B. 515 ; Newmark v.
The National Phonograph Co., 23 T. L. R. 439 ; and the provisions as to
mechanical instruments. Act of 1911, s. 19.
Newspapers. — ^A newspaper must be registered as a book under 5 & 6 V.
c. 45, s. 24 ; Walter v. Howe, 17 Ch. D. 708 (not following Cox v. Land
and Water Co., 9 Eq. 324) ; and although registration gives no exclusive
right to the title, such right may be acquired by user and reputation :
Licensed Victuallers' Co. v. Bingham, 38 Ch. D. 139 ; Kelly v. Hutton,
3 Ch. 703.
The proprietor can sue in respect of his copyright, though neither his name
nor the title of the paper is registered : Cate v. Devon and Exeter Newspaper
Co., 40 Ch. D. 500.
Probable injury to Pit, as well as conduct of Deft calculated to deceive the
public, must, however, be shown : Borthwick v. Evening Post, 37 Ch. D. 449,
C. A.
The form of expression in which news is conveyed is subject of copyright.
A practice of newspapers to copy from other newspapers is no defence to an
action for infringement of copyright : Walter v. 8teinlcopff, [1892] 3 Ch. 489 ;
see 8pringfield v. Thame, 89 L. T. 242 (copjrright of news in sub-editor).
And see the question of newspaper copvright discussed in Exp. Foss, 2
D. & J. 230 ; Piatt v. Walter, 17 L. T. 157.'
Under the head of property in the title of a newspaper oi trade name, see
Clement v. Maddick, 1 Giff. 101 ; and other cases cited s«p. p. 626.
SECT. IX.] Infringement of Go'pyrigld. 671
The author of a contribution to a periodical who has not parted with his
copyright to the proprietor of the periodical may sue an infringer before
pubh'shing his contribution in a separate form : Johnson v. Newnes, [1894]
3 Ch. 663.
A coloured plate headed " Supplement " to a periodical registered as a
newspaper, and referred to as " our illustration for this week," though not
physically attached to the newspaper, is part of the newspaper as regards
copyright : Comyns v. Hyde, 1895, W. N. 9 ; 72 L. T. 250.
As to place of publication of a newspaper, and as to what constitutes a
" sporting paper," see Mcfarlane v. Hitlton, [1899] 1 Ch. 884.
Photograph. — ^A photographer, on grounds of breach of implied contract
and confidence, was restrained from selling or exhibiting copies of a negative
taken for a customer : Pollard v. Photographic Co., 40 Ch. D. 345 ;
McCoch V. Crow, 5 P. 670, Ct. of Sess. As to who is to be deemed the
" author " of a photograph within 25 & 26 V. c. 68, s. 1, see Nottage v.
Jackson, 11 Q. B. D. 627, C. A. ; Wooderson v. Raphael, 1887, W. N. 209 ;
Melville v. Mirror of Life Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 531.
A " castle " album, i.e., an album with pictorial border containing views
of castles, is not entitled to copyright, nor could the name be protected as a
trade name : Schove v. Schminclce, 33 Ch. D. 546.
Where a photograph is taken gratuitously with the permission of the
sitter on the terms of her receiving complimentary copies, such mere
permission does not make the photograph " executed for or on behalf of any
other person for a valuable consideration " within the Copyright Act, 1862,
s. 1, or prevent the photographer from being the author of the photograph :
Ellis V. Marshall, 64 L. J. Q. B. 757. As to what does constitute valuable
consideration within the meaning of sect. 1 of the Copyright Act, 1862, see
Boucas V. Cooke, [1903] 2 K. B. 227, C. A. ; Siachemann v. Paton, [1906]
1 Ch. 774 ; and see Oreen v. Todd, [1899] 1 1. R. 47.
A drawing on a larger scale of an original photograph reproduced as a
full-page illustration in an illustrated newspaper is a " copy " of the photo-
graph within the Copyright (Works of Art) Act, 1862 (25 & 26 V. c. 68),
entitling the author to an injunction and penalties and damages : Bolton v.
Aldin,6SL.3. Q. B. 120.
Picture. — The representation of a picture by a tableau vivant, formed by
grouping in the same way as the figures in the picture living persons in
similar dresses and attitudes is not an infringement of copyright in the
picture : Hanfstaengl v. Empire Palace, [1894] 2 Ch. 1, C. A.
Sketches published in a newspaper taken from tableaux vivants of the
kind last mentioned were held, having regard to the variations between the
original pictures and the sketches, not to constitute an infringement of the
copyright within the Act : Hanfstaengl v. Baines ct- Co., [1895] A. C. 20,
H. L. {q.v. as to the meaning of the terms " copy," " reproduction," and
" colourable imitation " of an original picture " or of the design thereof "
used in the Pine Arts Copyright Act, 1862 (25 & 26 V. c. 68), ss. 1, 6 ) ;
and see Hanfstaengl v. Smith, [1905] 1 Ch. 519 ; Frost v. Olive Series Puhlish-
ing Co., 24 T. L. R. 649.
Public Speech. — There may be copyright in a report of a speech delivered
in public, and where the words of the speaker are taken down in shorthand,
and the notes afterwards transcribed by the reporter and published in a
newspaper, the reporter is the " author " of the report within the meaning
of the Copyright Act, 1842, and entitled to the copyright in the report, :
Walter V. Lane, [1900] A. C. 539, H. L., reversing [1899] 2 Ch. 749, C. A ;
and see Act of 1911, s. 20.
Sculpture. — Casts of fruit and leaves, being new and original, are a
" subject being matter of invention in sculpture " within the meaning of
54 G. III., c. 56, and entitled thereunder to protection : Caproni v. Alberli,
40 W. R. 235 : 64 L. T. 452. So, too, toy soldiers : Britain v. Hanks,
86 L. T. 765. The Act of 1911 repeals the Act of 1814.
Sheet of Letterpress, — An elaborately painted Christmas card opening
^''2 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
bookwise held entitled to copyiight under 5 & 6 V. c. 45, s. 2 : Hildesheimer
V. Dunn, 1891, W. N. 66 ; 64 L. T. 452.
Advertisement consisting of a sheet of illustrations with no letters except
the name of the advertising firm and the names and prices of the articles is
a sheet of letterpress " and therefore a " book " within sect. 2 of Copyright
Act, 1842 : Davis v. Benjamin, [1906] 2 Ch. 491.
Tableaux Vivnnts. — See Picture.
Telegraphic CocZe.— For private circulation, protected : Ager v. P. dh 0.
Navig. Co., 26 Ch. D. 637.
Topographical Dictionary.— Lems v. Fullartm, 2 Beav. 6.
Travelling Handbooks and Itineraries.— Murray v. Bogue, 1 Dr. 353
( HandbookforSwitzerland"); Corw v. Zear«Ze«, 4 Esp. 168 ("Patterson's
Roadbook ").
Unpublished Information Confidentially Communicated.— See post, p. 674.
Section X. — ^Publication of Letters, Documents, and
Confidential Communications.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against Printing and Publication of Private
Correspondence. — Interlocutory.
Order ttat the Defts, their servants &c., be restrained from
printing or publishiag any letters written or sent by the Pit to any
correspondents or correspondent or other persons or person, or any
copies of or extracts from such letters of the Pit ; until &,c.— Bishop
of Exeter v. Shutte, V.-C. W., 7 Aug. 1862, A. 1832.
2. Injunction against Publishing Letters. — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, his servants and agents, be restrained until
judgment in this action or until further order from publishing, print-
ing, circulating, or divulging or parting with, otherwise than to the
Pit, or by deposit in Court, and from allowing to be printed, circulated
or published, any correspondence, letters, or other documents re-
ceived by the Deft from the Pit, or the efiect thereof, or copies
thereof, or extracts therefrom, and from informing any person or
persons of their or any of their contents, save only that the Deft may
communicate such letters to any solr bond fide employed by him for
the purpose of litigation with the Pit. — Deft to pay costs of motion. —
Moon V. Boothman, Kay, J., 3rd June, 1890, B. 725.
For injunction against publication of Pope's letters to Swift, see Pope v.
Curll, 5 June, 1741, 2 Atk. 342 ; and see Thompson v. Stanhope, Amb. 737
(L. Chesterfield's Letters).
3. Injunction against opening Letters of another Firm, or supplying
the Orders therein contained. — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, their agents &c., be restrained from re-
ceiving, retaining, or opening any letters or letter addressed " C.
Schiele," or " Schule " and Co. &c., or otherwise addressed to the
Pit Christian Schiele, or to the Pit's said firm of C. Schiele and Co.,
as in the (bill) mentioned, and from taking advantage or making
SECT. X.] Publication of Letter's and JDocuments. 673
use of the communications or information, and from supplying the
orders or any of them contained in any such letters, and from in any
manner availing themselves of or using the contents of any such
letters ; until kc.—Schiele v. Bmlcell, V.-C. S., 29 May, 1863, B. 1169 ;
S. C, 11 W. R. 796.
For a similar order, after dissolution of partnership and sale by Deft of
the business to Pit, with the goodwill and the right to use the trade name
and trade marks of the firm, see Witt v. Corcoran, V.-C. B., inf. Sect. XIII.,
Form 8.
For an undertaking by the Defts until the hearing not to open, except in
the presence of the Pit or his agents, any letter addressed to him at No. 190,
R. St., unless it should appear either on the outside or by some other indi-
cation than the address No. 190, R. St., that the same was intended for the
Defts, see Stapleton v. For. Vin. Assoc, V.-C. W., 13 June, 1864, B. 1526 ;
12 W. R. 976.
For an order for return of books, documents and extracts which had come
in Deft's possession in the course of a confidential employment, and re-
straining him from taking and retaining any copies and extracts, and from
communicating the particulars or the contents thereof or any of the informa-
tion therein contained, see Evitt v. Price, I Sim. 483.
4. Injunction against Surreptitious Communication.
Order that the Defts, their servants and agents, be perpetually
restrained from obtaining or copying from the sheets of letterpress,
tapes or other documents of the Pits any information about horse-
racing meetings collected by or on behalf of the Pits for the purpose
of transmission to their subscribers, and from communicating the
information so obtained or copied to the subscribers of the Deft
Syndicate or any other persons. The Deft Syndicate to pay the
Pits' costs of action, to be taxed. — See The Exchange Telegraph
Co. Ld. V. The Central News, Ld., Stirling, J., 19 May, 1879, A. 2205,
[1897] 2 Ch. 48.
NOTES.
The receiver's right of property in letters is at most joint with that of the Letters,
writer : see Pope v. Gurll, 2 Atk. 342 ; and is qualified by the right of the
latter to restrain their publication without his consent, on the ground of
breach of contract or of confidence ; and also, where the publication is
intended for purposes of profit, on the ground of infringement of the ex-
clusive copjrright of the writer therein, see Copinger, Copyright, 46;
Kerr, 432 ; Story, Eq. Jur., ss. 944^947.
For the application and qualification of this rule, see Macmillan v. Dent,
[1907] 1 Ch. 107, C. A. ; Philip v. Pennell, [19071 2 Ch. 477 ; Lytton v.
Deven, A* L. J. Ch. 293 ; Hopkinson v. L. BurgUey, 2 Ch. 447 ; Howard v.
Ounn, 32 Beav. 462 ; Oec. v. Pritchard, 2 Swan. 403 ; Thompson v. Stanhope,
Amb. 739 ; Oliver v. 0., 10 W. R. 18 ; Bishop of Exeter v. Shutte, sup.
Form 1 (and see 7 Sol. Journ. 485), in which case an injunction was obtained
restraining the alleged threatened publication in " Life and Times of the
Bishop of Exeter," of private correspondence of the Bishop, extending over
forty years, which had been placed in the Deft's hands as material for his
work. The bill, it seems, was on the 23rd April, 1863, dismissed, on the
denial of the Deft that he ever intended to publish the letters unless the
Bishop's consent had been obtained, but without costs : ante, p. 669.
VOL. I. 2 X
674 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Confidential The Court, on tha ground of implied contract, will restrain tlie publication
information, of information obtained in a confidential capacity : Evitt v. Price, 1 Sim.
483 ; Lamb v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 218 ; ex. gr., by a manager surreptitiously
copying from the order book a list of names and addresses of his employer's
customers : Bdbh v. Qreen, [1895] 2 Q. B. 315, C. A. ; or derived from pro-
duction of documents : Williams v. P. Wales Co., 23 Beav. 338 ; or the
communication of information compiled by an apprentice during bis term
of service with a firm of engine makers : Merryweather v. Moore, [1892] 2 Ch.
518 ; secus, where no confidential relation exists, as in the case of foreign
correspondents of an English telegraph co., and no contract can be implied :
Renter's Tel. Co. v. Byron, 43 L. J. Ch. 661, 663 ; but see Lamb v. Evans,
[1893] 1 Ch. 226, 231, C. A.
And where the Deft has surreptitiously obtained access to the Pit's
accounts, books, and other documents, he will be restrained from printing
or otherwise copying, and from distributing or parting with any copies, or
otherwise in any way publishing such accounts, &c. : Tipping v. Clarke, 2
Ha. 383 ; Marshall v. Watson, 25 Beav. 501 ; and also from making any use
of trade secrets, the knowledge of which has been surreptitiously acquired :
Morison v. Moat, 9 Ha. 241 ; Merryweather v. Moore, [1892] 2 Ch. 518 ; or
from communicating in breach of contract information confidentially im-
parted by a news agency to their subscribers : Exchange Telegraph, Id. v.
Central News, [1897] 2 Ch. 48 ; and the news agency in such a case has a
right of property at common law in the information : Exchange Telegraph
Co. V. Gregory & Co., [1896] 1 Q. B. 147, C. A.
A person will also be restrained from opening letters addressed to, and
thus obtaining orders or custom intended for, another : Edginton y. E.,11
L. T. 299 ; Schiele v. Brahell, 11 W. R. 796, sup. Form 3 ; and canvassers
employed under contract to obtain advertisements for a directory wore
restrained from using for the purposes of another publication materials
obtained by them as such canvassers : Lamb v. Evans, [1892] 3 Ch. 462
(where see form of interlocutory injunction) ; B.C., [1893] 1 Ch. 218, C. A. ;
and see Louis v. Smellie, 1895, W. N. 115 ; 73 L. T. 226 ; and compare the
case of the electro blocks supplied for personal use : Cooper v. Stephens,
[1895] 1 Ch. 567, ante, p. 667 ; and see Marshall v. Bull, 85 L. T. 77.
The Postmaster General will not be restrained from delivering business
letters, directed to Pit at the address of his former employers, otherwise
than at his present place of business (in the same street and under a very
similar firm) : Stapleton v. Foreign Vin. Assoc, 12 W. R. 976 ; 11 L. T. 77.
Photographs. In Pollard v. The Photographic Co., 40 Ch. D. 345, v. sup. Form 13, p. 661,
a photographer was restrained from selling or exhibiting or dealing with
copies of a photograph of the Pit, which he had taken for her in the way of
his business ; and see supra, p. 671, " Photograph."
Etchings. And see P. Albert v. Strange, 1 Mac. & G. 25 ; 2 D. & S. 652 ; Phillips,
Copyright, 7, where publication of a catalogue of private etchings, not
intended by the author for publication, was restrained.
Section XI. — Libel.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against Libelling Pit's Trade by Circular containing
erroneous Quotation from a Judgment.
Order that the Defts be perpetually restrained from issuing or
distributing, or permitting to be issued or distributed, the circular
which at the date of the issue of the writ in this action was being
SECT. XI.] Libel. ^^^^
distributed by them at the International Exhibition of Navigation
and Commerce, at Liverpool, purporting to contain a quotation
from the judgment of Mr. Justice North, in Hayward v. //., 1885,
H. 566, or any other circular or advertisement containing an unfair
report of the said judgment to the prejudice of the Pit. — Hayivard v.
H., North, J., 22 Nov. 1886, A. 1614 ; S. C, 34 Ch. D. 198.
2. Injunction against Slander and Libel on the Pits' Trade by
Spurious Experiments.
Oeder that the Deft, his agents, servants, travellers, and represves,
be perpetually restrained from representing or stating in any way,
either verbally or in writing, and in particular by circular or spurious
experiment or otherwise, that the Pit co.'s process does not contain
meat or extract of meat, or any other ingredient stated by the Pit
00. to be contained therein, or otherwise slandering or libelling the
Pit CO. in their trade, or otherwise representing, or suggesting, or
doing anything calculated to represent or suggest, that the Pit co.'s
preparation is spurious or not genuine. — Liberty to apply. — Coleiimn
& Co. V. Pearson, Chitty, J., 25 Jan. 1889, A. 91.
Pits carefully eliminated albumen from their preparation. Deft furnished
his travellers with tannic acid, which is a test for albumen, and instructed
them to pour it into the Pits' preparation, and represent the absence of any
resulting precipitation as a proof of the absence of meat.
3. Injunction against Wrongful Assertion of Title or Slander on
Owner's Title.
Oeder that the Deft his servants and agents be perpetually re-
strained from alleging, asserting, stating, or representing that he has
any estate, right, title, interest, claim or demand in, to or upon the
estate known asC. B., in the county of — , in the statement of claim
mentioned, and the zinc blende and lead mines therein, and the plant
and machinery thereon, or any of them, or anypart or parts thereof, or
that the Pit's title thereto, or to any part or parts thereof, is defective,
or that the Pit cannot sell, dispose of or deal with the said estate,
property, mines, plant and machinery, or any part or parts thereof,
or make any valid or binding contract for the sale or lease, or make
any valid and effective conveyance, grant, or lease of the same, or
any part or parts thereof, or of any interest or estate therein, or
easement thereon, or is not entitled to receive the purchase-money
or other consideration money of or for any such contract, con-
veyance, grant or lease, without the consent or concurrence of the
Deft, or in any other way claiming any estate and interest in the
said property, or any part or parts thereof. — Deft to pay Pit's costs
to be taxed. — See Jenks v. Ditton, Kekewich, J., 3 July, 1897 A
3000.
676
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
NOTES.
When Though it was formerly settled that the Court had no iurisdiction to
injunction restrain publication of a libel, or of any letter, advertisement or other
granted. document wh»ch was injurious to the property, either in money or reputa-
tion, of another (see Prudential Co. v. Knolt, 10 Oh. 142, overruling Dixon
V. Holdin, 7 Eq. 493 ; Springhead Co. v. Riley, 6 Eq. 551), the effect of the
Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), is to enlarge the jurisdiction so that injunctions to
restrain libellous statements injurious to property or trade, as well as
damages, may now be granted without the necessity of proving actual
damage, and without the finding of a jury where the action has been tried
by a Judge alone : Thomas v. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 864 ; Thorley, &c. Co. v.
Massam, 14 Ch. D. 763, C. A. ; Hill v. Ha/rt-Davies, 21 Ch. D. 798 (and see
Thorley, &c. Co. v. Massam, 6 Ch. D. 582 ; Saxby v. Easterbrooh, 3 C. P. D.
339) ; and there is jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction :
Bonnard v. Ferryman, [1891] 2 Ch. 269, C. A. ; 39 W. R. 506 ; Collard v.
Marshall, [1892] 1 Ch. 571, C. A. ; Monson v. Tussauds, [1894] 1 Q. B. 671,
C. A., where the judgment in Bonnard v. Ferryman, was treated by Lopes
and Davey, L. JJ. (diss. Lord Halsbury), as laying down an absolute rule
of practice as to the circumstances under which an interlocutory injunction
against libel ought to be granted : but such an order will not be made
except under very special circumstances : Bonnard v. Ferryman, sup. ;
Plumhly V. Ferryman, 1891, W. N. 64 ; as where any jury would say the
matter complained of was libellous, and if they found otherwise their
verdict would be set aside as unreasonable : 8. C. ; Liverpool Household
Assoc. V. Smith, 37 Ch. D. 170, C. A. ; Qimrtz Hill Co. v. Beall, 20 Ch. D.
501, C. A. ; or the truth of the libel is the material issue : Flumbly v. Ferry-
man, 1891, W. N. 64; especially where a claim of privilege is set up :
S. C. ; but see Funch v. Boyd, 16 L. R. Ir. 476 ; nor where the statements,
however injurious, are not shown to have been made mala fide or in breach
of any contract : Societe Anonyme des Glaces v. Tilghman, 25 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ;
nor where injury to person or property is not shown, even though the libels
are calculated to cause extreme annoyance, are wholly unjiistifiable, and
of a gross character, and the Pits have previously obtained a verdict
against Def ts for substantial damages in respect of similar libels : Salomons
v. Knight, [1891] 2 Ch. 294, C. A. ; and an interlocutory injunction in a
case of libel, as by exhibiting an effigy of the Pit in the " Chamber of
Horrors " at Madame Tussaud's, was discharged, where it appeared (by
further evidence on appeal) that there would be a question at the trial
whether the Pit had consented to the exhibition : Monson v. Tussauds, sup.
Oral as well as written statements, if slanderous and calculated to injure
the business of another, will be restrained : Hermann Loog v. Bean, 26
Ch. D. 306.
And that the Court is reluctant to grant an injunction restraining the
publication of future libels, as involving the trial of the question of libel or
no libel in a very unsatisfactory way on motion to commit, see Liverpool
Household Assoc, v. Smith, sup., where also adoubt was intimated whether,
in Hill V. Hart-Davies, sup., the Court was right in granting an inter-
locutory injunction witli the words " or any other circular or letter contain-
ing false or inaccurate representations as to the credit or financial condition
of the said society."
Special An action will not lie for a false statement disparaging a trader's goods
damage. where no special damage is proved, and where an action will not lie for
defamation an injunction will not be granted : White v. Mellin, [1895] A. C.
154 H. L. (commenting on Western Counties Manure Co. v. Lawes Chemical
Manure Co., L. R. 9 Ex. 218, and approving Evans v. Harlow, 5 Q. B. 624) ;
Concaris v. Duncan, 1909, W. N. 51 (as to evidence of damage necessary to
obtain relief) ; and qucere, whether an action will lie in any case for dis-
paraging a trader's goods merely by stating that some other trader's goods
are better, either generally or in this or that respect : S. C.
SECT. XII.] Comments on Pending Proceedings. 677
Where the injury proved was trifling, and the action not brought until
three months after the Pit knew of the publication of the libel, the Court
gave only SI. damages : Hayward v. H., 34 Ch. D. 198 ; and a circular
containing an erroneous statement of a judgment in an action, viz., that the
Deft had been ordered to undertake not to represent his firm to bo that of
the Pits, whereas in fact such undertaking had been voluntarily given, was
held to be a libel injurious to Deft's trade : 8. C.
Upon the question whether words could be deemed libellous as imputing Imputing
insolvency, see Capital and Counties Sank v. Henly, 7 App. Cas. 741 ; insolvency.
Nevill V. Fine. Art and General Ins. Co., [1897] A. C. 68, H. L. ; [1895]
2 Q. B. 156, C. A.
And that a corporation cannot sue for libel affecting personal reputation
only, and not property, see Corporation of Manchester v. Williams, [1891]
IQ. B. 94.
Upon the question of privilege, see Allbutt v. General Council of Medical Privilege.
Education, 23 Q. B. D. 400, C. A. (publication of minutes of the Deft
Council) ; Davis v. Shepstone, 11 App. Ca. 187 (reports of statements made
to proprietors of newspapers) ; Proctor v. Webster, 16 Q. B. D. 112 (letters
to lords of Privy Council) ; Hill v. Hart-Davies, 21 Ch. D. 798 (circular to
members of friendly society) ; Nevill v. Fine Art and General Ins. Co. , sup.
(circular notifjdng that agent had ceased to act for co.) ; Waller v. Loch,
7 Q. B. D. 619, C. A. (report of Secretary of Charity Organization Society) ;
Macdougall v. Knight, 14 App. Ca. 194 ; 17 Q. B. D. 636, C. A. (reports of
proceedings in Courts of Justice) ; Munster v. Lamb, 1 1 Q. B. D. 588, C. A.
(protection of advocate absolute) ; Hayward v. H., 34 Ch. D. 198 (privilege
not lost unless communication shown to be untrue to the knowledge of the
person making it) ; Jenowre v. DeZmegre, [1891] A. C. 73 P. C.) (the occasion
rebuts the inference of mala fides of Deft, so that the onus probandi is cast
on the Pit).
An action will lie in this country in respect of a libel or other act com- Libel com-
mitted outside the jurisdiction if the act is wrongful both in this country P"'**^*? °}^^ °^
and in the country where it was committed, but it is not necessary that the junsdiction.
act should be the subject of civil proceedings in the foreign country ;
Machado v. Fontes, [1897] 2 Q. B. 231, C. A., applying the rule enunciated
in Phillips v. Eyre, L. R. 6 Q. B. 1, and The M. Moxham, 1 P. D. 107 ;
and see Carr v. Fracis Times & Co., [1902] A. C. 176.
Upon the question of liability for the publication of a libel, see Odgers on
Libel, 150 et seq. ; 454 et seq. ; Vizitelly v. Mudie's Select Library, [1900] 1
Ch. 270, C. A.
An action of libel, even if involving injury to trade, is determined by the Death of
death of the Pit, unless it is in the nature of an action of slander of title, plaintiff.
e.g., alleges publication impugning Pit's right to use his trade mark :
Hatchard v. Mege, 18 Q. B. D. 771.
Section XII. — Comments on Pending Proceedings.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction restraining the Delivery of a Sermon with Special
Reference to Pending Proceedings. — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft be restrained from preaching or delivering
any sermon or address with special or other reference to the trial of
this cause, and from publishing or distributing, or being in any way-
instrumental in publishing or distributing, the printed handbill or
678 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
placard being the exhibit &c., or any like handbill or placard or
notice, and from otherwise prejudicing and interfering with the
trial of this cause, or the persons to be examined as witnesses at the
hearing thereof. — Mackett v. Herne Bay Commrs., V.-C. B., 24 June,
1876, B. 1026 ; S. C, 24 W. R. 845.
For an order that the printers and publishers of the " S. Independent " do,
within three weeks, publish in three successive papers apologies for their
offence (in publishing the bill and depositions taken in a suit still pending,
and commenting thereon in a manner calculated to prejudice the case of the
Deft) in as legible a type and conspicuous a manner as the extracts and
articles complained of ; and do also pay the costs of the motion ; otherwise
that they stand committed for contempt, see General Exchange Bank v.
Horner, M. R., 12 Nov. 1868, A. 2668.
2. The Like with Reference to Recent Proceedings. — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft be restrained until after &c. from preaching
or delivering any sermon or address with special or other reference
to the Pit in connection with the recent trial of Reg. v. Carruthers,
and from publishing or distributing or being in any way instrumental
in publishing or distributing the printed handbills or placards
being exhibit — to the Pit's affidavit or any like handbUl or placard
or notice referring to the Pit in connection with the said trial. —
Carruthers v. Churchill, 12 July, 1895, A. 2709.
3. Order restraining Publication of Matter tending to prejudice
Trial of Action — Interlocutory.
Order that A. B., the printer and publisher of the C. D. news-
paper, his servants and agents, be restrained until &c., from printing
or publishing, or reprinting or republishing, or causing or permitting
to be written, printed, or published, or re-written, or reprinted, or
republished, an article or paragraph entitled " The Hassop Claimant
—After a Missing Will," or any copy of or extract from such
paragraph or article, or any statement therein, or to the like
effect ; And from writing, or printing, or publishing, or causing or
permitting to be written, or printed, or published, with or without
comment, any pleading or evidence in this action, or any defamatory
statement tending to prejudice the minds of the public or to prevent
a fair trial of this action. — Leslie v. Cave, Pearson, J., 14 May, 1885,
B. 548.
And for case in which an interlocutory injunction was granted to restrain
a threatened publication by the Deft of circulars abusive of the Pit, and
tending to prejudice the fair trial of the action, see Kitcat v. Sharp, 52 L. J.
Ch. 134 ; 48 L. T. 64 ; 31 W. R. 227.
NOTES.
The publication by persons interested of ex parte statements of pending
proceedings {Coleman v. W. Hartlepool By. Co., 8 W. R. 734 ; Brook v.
Evans, lb. 688), or of comments, in anticipation of a trial, calculated to
prejudice the public mind and obstruct the course of justice {Tichborne v.
SECT. XIII. j Partners. 679
Mostyn, 7 Eq. 55, n. ; Daw v. Eleij, lb. 49 ; Mackett v. Heme Bay Commrs.,
Form 1, sup. ; The Queen v. Payne and Cooper, [1896] 1 Q. B. 577 ; Rex v.
Pan'lce, [1903] 2 K. B. 432 ; as distinguished from a mere warning to the
trade of the existence of the action : Coates v. Chadwkk, [1894] 1 Ch. 347 ) ;
or, with or without comment, of the pleadings, evidence, petition, or any
ex parte statement in any pending cause or matter, will be restrained and
punished as a contempt of Court : Be Cheltenham and Swansea Can. Co.,
8 Eq. 580 ; Felhin v. Herbert, 12 W. E. 241 ; 30 L. J. Ch. 604 ; Kitcat v.
Sharp, 31 W. R. 227 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 134 ; and an apology must be made and
published as the condition of not committing (in the case of a newspaper)
the publishers and printers : General Exchange Bank v. Horner, 1868, W. N.
259 ; Robson v. Dodds, 17 W. R. 782 ; 20 L. T. 941 ; and as to contempt of
Court generally, v. sup.. Chap. XXVII., " Execution," pp. 454 et seq.
Section XIII. — Partners.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against acting as Partner. — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, his agents and servants, be restrained until
&c. from entering into any contract or contracts, and from accepting,
drawing, indorsing, or negotiating any bills or bill of exchange, notes
or note, or written securities or security, in the name of the partner-
ship firm of D. and B. ; And from contracting any debts or debt,
and buying and selling any goods, and from making or entering into
any verbal or written promise, agreement, or undertaking, and from
doing or causing to be done any acts or act, in the name or on the
credit of the said partnership firm, or whereby the said partnership
firm can, or may, in any manner become or be made liable to, or
for the payment of, any sums or sum of money, or for the performance
of any contract, promise or undertaking. — Dyson v. Benson, V.C.,
21 Oct. 1815, A. 1531.
For interlocutory order restraining Deft from introducing or employing
one of his sons as a clerk (in breach of the partnership contract) without the
consent of his partner, see Wainey v. Trist, V.-C. H., 6 April, 1876, B. 885 ;
45 L. J. Ch. 412.
2. Order in an Action for Dissolution of Partnership restraining
Deft from Drawing Cheques &c., in the Name of the Firm
until after the Trial. — Interlocutory.
And the Pit by his counsel undertaking not to draw, make, accept,
indorse, or negotiate any cheque, bill, note, warrant, or security in
the name or firm of the copartnership in the writ mentioned, except
so far as the Deft may do so under the terms of this order ; Order that
the Deft B. {the partner) be restrained until &c.,from drawing, making,
accepting, indorsing, or negotiating any cheque, bill, note, warrant,
^80 Injunctions. [oHAP. xxxi.
or security whatever in the name or firm of the copartnership, other-
wise than for or on account of the said copartnership, and from re-
ceiving, using, employing, or retaining any money, securities, or
property of the said copartnership for his own separate use, and
from placing, keeping, or permitting the moneys of the said co-
partnership to stand at any bank to or on the separate and private
account of the Deft, or on any account other than the joint account
of the said copartnership. — But this order is not to prevent either
party from drawing out of the net profits of the said partnership to
tlie extent of one half of such net profits or to the extent of £ — a
quarter each if the half of such profits shall exceed that sum. —
Lemann v. Berger, V.C. B., 24 Feb. 1876, B. 530 ; 34 L. T. 235.
3. Injunction on Dissolution of Partnership. — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft and his (servants and) agents be restramed
from intermeddling with the partnership assets, and from signing or
using the name or style of firm of H. and D., or from trading, or
dealing, in or under that name or style ; until &c. — Hoffman v.
Duncan, V.-C. W., 2 Nov. 1853, A. 7.
For order staying partner, during the partnership term, from carrying on
business with other persons in the name of the old firm, and publishing
notices of dissolution, see England v. Curling, 8 Beav. 130.
ITor order restraining a partner from applying any of the moneys and
effects of the partnership, otherwise than in the ordinary course of business,
and from obstructing or interfering with Pit in the exercise or enjoyment of
his rights under the partnership articles, see Hall v. H., 12 Beav. 414 ; 20
Beav. 139.
For declaration that the partnership between Pit and Deft extended to a
certain patented process, and that the same was partnership property, and
for injunction to restrain Deft from any interference with the sale thereof by
Pit, see Mellin v. Lersner, V.-C. J., 26 Feb. 1869, B. 723.
For injunction to stay Defts from removing Pit's name from the list of
members of the society known as " Lloyd's," and from excluding the Pit
from the use and enjoyment of the society's rooms, and from otherwise
interfering with the exercise of Pit's rights as a member, see Forwood v.
Goschen, M. R., 3 Nov. 1870, A. 2638.
For injunction to restrain Deft from carrying on business in the partner-
ship name at the partnership premises, Q. Street, of which he had renewed
the lease, and from employing the assets of the partnership in the Q. Street
business, see Clements v. Narris, M. R., 20 Feb. 1878, A. 414 ; 8 C!h. D. 129.
4. Injunction on Dissolution restraining carrying on Business or
soliciting Custom in the Name of the old Firm. — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, his partners, servants, workmen, and agents,
be restrained until judgment in this action from applying to any
person who was a customer of the Deft prior to &c., privately or by
letter, personally or by a traveller asking such customer to deal with
the Deft, or not to deal with the Pit, in varnish or polish of any
description, and from serving varnish or polish of any description to
SECT. XIII. J Partners. 681
or otherwise dealing in the same with any such customer. — Davis v.
Smaggasgale, North, J., 25 July, 1890, A. 1053 ; S. C, 1890, W. N.
158, 169.
5. Injunction against Soliciting old Customers after Sale of Goodwill.
Order that the Deft, his partners, servants, and agents, be
restrained from applying to any person who was a customer of the
firm of B. D. & Co. prior to the — day of — (date of agreement for sale
bij Deft to Pits of goodwill, do.), privately by letter or personally, or
by a traveller asking such customer to continue to deal with the
Deft, or not to deal with the Pits.— See Labouchere v. Dawson, M. R.
22 Jan. 1872, B. 232 ; 13 Eq. 322 ; approved by H. L. in Trego v.
Hunt, [1896] A. C. 7.— See next Form.
6. Declaration of right to Injunction restraining Solicitation of
Customers.
Declare that the appellants are entitled to an injunction restrain-
ing the respondent, his partners, servants and agents, from applying
privately, by letter, personally, or by a traveller, to any person who
was, prior to the dissolution of the partnership, a customer of the
firm of T. T. & Co., asking such customer to continue after the dis-
solution to deal with him, the respondent, or not to deal with the
appellants.— See Trego v. Hunt, H. L. 5 Dec. 1895 ; [1896] A. C. 7.
7. Injunction in conformity with the above Decision.
Order that the Deft, his servants and agents, be perpetually
restrained from applying to any person who was, prior to the dis-
solution of partnership, a customer of the firm of G. and B., printers,
publishers, and account book makers, lately carried on in co-partner-
ship between the Pit and Deft at — in the city of — , privately by
letter, personally, or by a traveller asking such person to continue
to deal with the Deft, or not to deal with the Pit ; — See Gillingham v.
Beddow, Cozens-Hardy, J., 11 May, 1900, A. 1864 ; [1900] 2 Ch. 242.
8. Injunction against the Use of Trade Name on Dissolution of
Partnership. — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft, his servants &c., be restrained until &c., from
resuming or carrying on the business of &c., either alone or in partner-
ship with his son B. C. the younger in the (bill) named, or any other
person or persons, under the firm or style of B. C. & Co., or B. C,
Son & Co., or under any other style or firm calculated to induce the
customers of the firm of B. C, W. & Co. in the (bill) named, or the
public generally, to believe that the Deft is carrying on the business
of the last-mentioned firm, and from thereby, or otherwise in any
manner holding out that the said Deft is carrying on the business
of — , in continuation of or in succession to the business carried on by
682 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
the said firm of B. C, W. & Co., and also from receiving or retaining,
or in any manner interferiag with, any letters or messages addressed
to or intended for the said firm of B. C, W. & Co., by whatever
description or style or manner such letters or messages may be re-
spectively addressed. — Witt v. Corcoran, V.-C. B., 13 June, 1873, B.
1637 ; -S. C, made perpetual 24 July, 1874, B. 220.
For injunction to restrain Deft from resuming or carrying on business in
a particular neighbourhood, either alone or in partnership, under a certain
style of firm of which he had sold the goodwill, or holding out that he
carried on such business in continuation of or in succession to the late firm,
see Churton v. Douglas, Joh. 198.
For injunction to restrain the Deft W. from using the Pit's patents, and
from carrying on busine.»s under the name of W. & Co., and from represent-
ing by advertisement and circulars that he had succeeded to the business of
engineer, &c., lately carried on by W. G. & S., at &c., and purchased by
Pits G. E. & Co., with directions for delivery up of all trade cards or circulars,
and any drawings or patterns, of the late firm W. & Co., and inquiry as to
damage, see GraveUy v. Winchester, V.-C. W., March, 1867, A. 700.
9. Injunction in absolute Terms against the Use of a Name adapted
for Fraudulent Purposes in Trade.
Order that the Defts Maison P. Ld., and the Deft P. W. S., the
liquidator thereof, be perpetually restrained from transferring, selling,
or dealing with any right to use the name " P — ," or any title or
description including that name, in connection with the manufacture
or sale of boots or shoes ; And it is ordered that the Defts Maison
L. P. Ld. be perpetually restraiaed from using the said name " P — "
or any such title or description as aforesaid in such connection as
aforesaid, and from doing any other act or thing conferring, or pur-
porting to confer, either directly or indirectly, upon any other person
or persons any right to use the said name, or any such title or descrip-
tion as aforesaid in such connection as aforesaid, and from selling or
ofiering for sale any boots or shoes not of the Pits' manufacture under
the name of " P— 's Special Boots and Shoes," or " P— 's Boots and
Shoes."— See F. Pinet & Cie v. Maison Louis Pinet, Ld., North, J.,
1 Dec. 1897, B. 4156 ; [1898], 1 Ch. 179.
10. Special Undertaking as to the Use of Name by Company.
The Defts by their counsel undertaking that in all circulars,
prospectuses, advertisements, application forms, policies, and other
documents and literature issued and used by the Defts in the United
Kingdom, in which the Defts' name shall appear, their name shall
always appear either in full without abbreviation, or, if abbreviated,
having the words " of Canada " or " Canadian " forming part thereof,
and so that the words " of Canada " or " Canadian " shall be clearly
and conspicuously printed or written as part of the name, and further
that in all manuals of instructions or other general directions issued
to the Defts' agents in the United Kingdom, there shall be contained
SECT. XIII. J Partners. 683
a direction that the attention of intending insurers and other persons
with whom they transact insurance business is to be called to the
fact that the co. represented by such agents is the Sun Life Assurance
Co. of Canada, and also a direction that such agents are not to issue
any circular, prospectus, advertisement, application form, policy, or
other document or literature other than such as are supplied or
approved by the Defts. — See Saunders v. Tlie Sun Life Assurance Go.
o/Cawot^o.— Stirling, J., 17 March, 1894, B. 503 ; [1894] 1 Ch. 537.
NOTES.
EIGHT TO INJUNCTION.
As a general rule, matters of internal regulation between partners (in- Internal
eluding COS. corporate or unincorporated) will not be interfered with by the management.
Court, unless the members or member of the firm to whom the management
of the business has been entrusted by the others are acting illegally, and in
breach of the trust reposed in them, or in violation of the partnership con-
tract : Lindl. 507, 508 ; and see inf. Chap. XLIX., " Partnership."
A partner will be restrained from depreciating the property : Marshall v. Depreciating
Watson, 25 Beav. 501 ; and, until sale, stipulated for in the agreement for goodwill,
dissolution, from doing any act whereby the value of the goodwill may be
prejudiced : Turner v. Major, 3 Giff. 442 ; and generally from acts incon-
sistent with the partnership agreement, or with the duties of a partner,
even though a dissolution is not prayed ; Wainey v. Trist, 45 L. J. Ch. 412 ;
Kerr, 446 ; Joyce, 522.
A partner withdrawing from a periodical so that the concern must be
wound up, will not be restrained from advertising the discontinuance, as
regards himself, of the publication : Bradbury v. Dickens, 27 Beav. 53.
Dissolution of partnership, and consequent sole possession of the premises Breach of
by one of two partners, was not a breach of a covenant in the lease to both covenant in
against parting with possession : Corporation of Bristol v. Westcott, 12 Ch. l6*se> as to
D. 461, C. A. partmgwith
An injunction will not be granted to restrain arbitration proceedings by "
co-partners which would be futile, and in no way binding on the applicant : Arbitration.
Farrar v. Cooper, 44 Ch. D. 323 ; Wood v. Lillies, 61 L. J. Ch. 158.
Temporary unsoundness of mind (as distinguished from lunacy found by Unsoundness
inquisition or permanent incapacity, see the Partnership Act, 1890, 53 & 54 of mind.
V. c. 39, s. 35) of a partner will not justify the others in excluding him from
the business : Anon., 2 K. & J. 441 ; but where an action is pending for the
dissolution of a partnersliip on the ground that the Deft partner is of un-
sound mind, the Court will grant an injunction to restrain the Deft from
interfering in the conduct of the partnership affairs so as to injure the busi-
ness and assets of the firm : J. v. 8., [1894] 3 Ch. 72. And see, as to the
rights of an insane partner not so found, Jones v. Lloyd, 18 Eq. 265.
The bankruptcy of a partner is a dissolution as to all the partners in the Bankruptcy,
absence of any agreement to the contrary, 53 & 54 V. c. 39, s. 33, and gives
the solvent partner the right to sell the partnership property to pay the
partnership debts : Fox v. Henhury, Cowp. 445 ; and see Lindl. 605. But
this right is personal, and cannot be assigned, and accordingly an injunc-
tion was granted at suit of a bankrupt partner's assignee to restrain a sale by
the solvent partner's execution creditor by assignment : Fraser v. Kershaw,
2 K. & J. 496.
As to the modification of the general law in case of limited partnerships,
see Limited Partnerships Act, 1907 (7 Edw. VII. c. 24).
NAME AND GOODWILL.
On a dissolution, an assignment of the goodwill and business carries, as Partnership
between the vendor and purchaser, the exclusive right to use of the business name.
684
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
name : Levy v. Walker, 10 Ch. D. 436 ; Chappell v. Griffith, 53 L. T. 459.
But a mere agreement by a partner to retire from a firm does not, in the
absence of express agreement as to goodwill, involve a right to continue to
use the retiring partner's name : Oray v. Smith, 43 Ch. D. 208, C. A. ; and
on the dissolution and sale of a partnership business, the purchaser may be
restrained from using the outgoing partner's name as part of the style of the
firm, unless the outgoing partner is dead or bankrupt : Scott v. Rowland, 20
W. R. 508 ; 26 L. T. 391 ; Banlcs v. Gibson, 34 Beav. 566 ; Jennings v. J.,
[1898] 1 Ch. 378 ; nor may a purchaser use the name so as to expose the
vendor to liability by holding him out as a person with whom trade
contracts are made : Thynne v. Shove, 45 Ch. D. 577 ; Chatteris v. Isaacson,
57 L. T. 177.
The surviving partner was restrained, during the period given to the
representative of the deceased partner for electing to continue the business,
from carrying on the business under any other firm or style than that
formerly used : Evans v. Hughes, 18 Jur. 691.
The question of the right of surviving partners to carry on the business
in the old name, and to restrain the exors from carrying on business under
the old name, until the right was established (at law), is discussed in Lindl.
483, 484, citing and commenting on Webster v. W., 3 Swan. 490 ; Leiois v.
Langdon, 7 Sim. 421 ; and see Kerr. 338, 451.
A partner was restrained from using the name of the firm in conned ion
with another business, although such business was so far beyond the scope
of that of the firm that he was not bound to account for the benefit obtained
by him from his connection with it : Aas v. Benham, [1891] 2 Ch. 244, C. A.
Canvassmg. The vendor of the goodwill of a business is not entitled to canvass the
customers of the old firm, and will be restrained by injunction (see Forms
5, 6, 7, sup.) from soliciting any person who was a customer of the old fimn
prior to the sale to continue to deal with the vendor, or not to deal with the
purchaser : Trego v. Hunt, [1896] A. C. 7, H. L. reversing C. A., [1895] 1 Ch.
462, approving Labouchere v. Dawson (L. R. 13 Eq. 322), and overruling
reasoning in Pearson v. P., 27 Ch. D. 145.
And the rule in Trego v. Hunt extends to prevent the vendor from
soliciting customers of the old firm although prior to such solicitation such
persons have of their own accord become customers of the vendor : Curl
Bros., Ld. V. Webster, [1904] 1 Ch. 685.
The same principal is applicable to the case where a person has been taken
into partnership on the terms that on the expiration of the partnership the
goodwill of the business shall belong solely to the other partner : S.C.; or
where an action for dissolution, on ground of misrepresentation, is compro-
mised on the terms of payment of a lump sum to the Pit, dissolution, and
that the Deft is to retain the " assets " : Jennings v. J., [1898] 1 Ch. 378.
Valuation of And so, in valuing the " effects and securities " of a business on the
goodwill. expiration of a partnership by the death of a partner, the arbitrator was to
consider the question of goodwill (if any), and to set a value upon it on the
footing that, if it were sold, the surviving partner would be at liberty to
carry on a rival business, but would not have the right to solicit customers
of the old firm prior to the death, or the right to carry on business under the
old firm name : In re David and Matthews, [1899] 1 Ch. 378 (q. v. for a con-
sideration of the law as to disposal of goodwill on dissolution of partnership
and as to surviving or continuing partner's right to set up a rival business).
Upon this principle, a partner who, upon a dissolution, has sold the
goodwill to his former partners, will be restrained from carrying on the
business, or assuming the trade name, on the footing of being the repre-
sentative or successor of the old firm : see sup.. Forms 3, 4 ; Churton v.
Douglas, Joh. 174 ; Labouchere v. Dawson, 13 Eq. 322 ; and for cases in
which a like principle has been applied to a retiring partner, see Hoohham v.
Pottage, 8 Ch. 91 ; Glenny v. Smith, 2 Dr. & Sm. 476.
But see Clark v. Leach, 1 D. J. & S. 409, 32 Beav. 14, that a clause in the
partnership articles which would give the dissolving partner the right to
S. XIV.] Compimies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 685
such an injunction will not be applicable where the partnership has been
continued at will after the expiration of the term.
On the possible distinction between voluntary and involuntary alienation
taken in these cases, see Walker v. Motiram, 19 Ch. D. 355 ; and see Bristol,
&c. Bread Go. v. Maggs, 44 Ch. D. 616, C. A.
In West London Syndicate, Id. v. Inland Revenue Commrs., [1898] 2 Q. B.
507, C. A., it was held by the majority of the C. A. that the goodwill attach-
ing to a leasehold hotel and business was not merely an enhancement of the
value of the leasehold premises, but was capable of being sold independently
thereof, and that stamp duty on an agreement for sale was payable on that
footing.
As to the right to the partnership name or style, as included in the
purchase of the goodwill, see Banks v. Oibson, 34 Beav. 566 ; Hall v. Barrows,
4 D. J. & S. 150 ; Johnson v. Helleley, 34 Beav. 63 ; TJiynne v. Shove, 45
Ch. D. 377 ; Burchell v. Wilde, [1900] 1 Ch. 551, C. A. ; provided the exer-
cise of the right by the outgoing partner will not expose his co-partners to
liabiMtv : Burchell v. Wilde, sup.
And'see also Page v. Ratcliffe, 76 L. T. 63, C. A. ; 74 L. T. 343, where the
description " property, stock, goods and effects then employed or used in
carrying on " a business was held to comprise the goodwill and consequent
right to use firm name ; and in Be Leas Hotel, [1902] 1 Ch. 332, the words
" all property and effects whatsoever " in a debenture were held to cover
goodwill.
Section XIV. — Companies, Coepoeations, and other
Public Bodies.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against jrreventing Access to Register of Mortgages
of Co.
Order that the Deft co., its of&cers and servants, be perpetually
restrained from interfering with or impeding the Pit, his solr or duly
appointed agent, in the exercise at all reasonable times of the Pit's
statutory right as a creditor of the said co. to take copies from the
register of mortgages kept under [sect. 93 of the Companies (Con-
solidation) Act, 1908], and from withholding such register from the
Pit or his solr or agent while exercising any of the Pit's statutory
rights. See Nelson v. Anglo-American Land Mortgage and Agency
Co., Ld., Stirling, J., 28 Nov. 1896, B. 4247 ; [1897] 1 Ch. 130.
2. Ry.Co. restrained from continuing in Possession of or entering
on Land — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, their [contractor], servants, &c., be re-
strained from continuing in possession of the piece of land thirdly
described in the indenture of lease in the Pit's bill mentioned, and
upon which the Defts have entered, or any part thereof ; and from
entering upon, taking or using the said piece of land, or any part
686 Injunctions. [chap, xxxi.
thereof, without the consent of the Pit first had and obtained ; until
kc.—Brogden v. Llynm Yal. Ry. Co., M. E., 22 Sept. 1859, A. 2708.
As to omission of word " contractor," see Cozen v. Hundred of Hoc Ry.
Co., Kent, p. 586, ante.
For an order that Deft co. (who had been put under an undertaking not
to interfere with Pit's property without proceeding under the L. C. C. Act)
give access to the Pit and his surveyors, upon giving notice, to view the
works of the Defts in the construction of their railway, being carried on close
to the house and premises of Pit, see Saul v. Met. Ry. Co., V.-C. W 7 Mar
1867, B. 456 ; ,Sf. C, 16 L. T. 169. ' '
By the decree in this case the co. were perpetually restrained from any
interference with Pit's house and premises until the provisions of the L. C. C.
Act should have been complied with : S. C, Nov. 1867, B. 2629 ; and see
Farmer v. Waterloo and City Ry. Co., Kekewich, J., 1 Feb. 1895, A. 163 ■
[1895J 1 Ch. 527.
For declaration of Pit's right to an injunction to restrain the railway co,
from running trains over his land or otherwise using the same for their
purposes without his consent ; but on Pit submitting in lieu of such in-
junction to have paid to him the present value of the land recovered by
him from the co. in ejectment, a decree for ascertaining the present value
of the land and mesne profits in respect of the user by the co. of the land
for six years before the suit, and for payment by the co. of the amount so
ascertained, within six months of the date of the certificate ; and upon
payment by the co. to Pit of the amount certified to be due to him. Pit to
convey the land to the co., and vacate the judgment in ejectment, see
Stretton v. Q. W. By., 20 July, 1870, B. 2115 ; S. C, 5 Ch. 751,
For injunction to restrain railway co. from using part of their railway on
the site of a diverted road until they had made a sufficient road for the use of
the public, see A. 0. v. Barry Docks and Ry. Co., 35 Ch. D. 573.
For injunction to restrain a local board from entering on the Pit's land
for the purpose of carrying a water main through it, see Lewis v. Weston-
super-Mare Local Board, 40 Ch. D. 55.
3. Injunction against Ry. Co. proceeding on Notice to Treat
— Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, &c., be restrained until &c., from proceeding
under the warrant in the (bill) mentioned issued to the sheriff of — ,
and from issuing or proceeding upon any other warrant to the sheriff
of the said county, directing him to summon a jury for the purpose of
settling, and from taking any other proceedings to assess, the amount
of compensation to be paid to the Pit for the purchase of his freehold
lands and hereditaments comprised in the notice to treat, dated &c. in
the (bill) mentioned ; and from taking any other proceedings for the
purpose of obtaining possession of the same lands and hereditaments
or any part thereof ; and to restrain the Defts, their servants &c., in
like manner from entering upon or taking possession of the Pit's said
freehold lands and hereditaments or any part thereof on the footing
of the said notice. — Lamb v. North London Ry., L. J., 3 May, 1869,
B. 1186 ; 4 Ch. 522.
For injunction to stay railway co. from proceeding under their compulsory
powers to take part of lands, after counter-notice to take the whole, subse-
quent notice of abandonment and seven years' delay, see Hedges v. Met. Ry.,
28 Beav. 109.
s. XIV.]- Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 687
For injunction to stay proceedings upon a notice to treat given by the co.
under their Act, the compulsory powers under which had since expired, and
from taking any step to assess the compensation, or to take possession of the
premises, until a proper notice should have been given by the oo. under their
existing Act, see Richmond v. N. L. By., 3 Ch. 679 ; 5 Eq. 352.
Tor injunction restraining a railway co. from entering on or continuing in
possession of land until the proper deposit should have been made, as pro-
vided by the L. C. C. Act, s. 85, and the Ry. Cos. Act, 1867, s. 36, see Field
V. Carnarvon, ct-c. Ey,, 5 Eq. 190.
For declaration that a railway ca were entitled under their contract with
the landowner to take his land for the purpose of diverting a footpath,
although their compulsory powers had expired, and order for payment of
the purchase-money with Pit's costs of suit, see Sangeley v. Midland By.,
3 Ch. 306.
4. Injunction against proceeding with Notice to treat for Whole
when only Part required — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, their solicitors and agents be restrained
until &c., from proceeding upon the notice to treat in the writ
mentioned. — See Aldis v. Corporation of London, Kekewich, J.,
12 May, 1899, A. 1915 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 169.
5. Railway Co. declared hound to take the Whole of two Houses,
Gardens, and Premises — Injunction against taking less.
Declare that the Defts are bound to purchase the whole of B.
lodge and gardens, and the whole of the premises in the occupation
of M., in the pleadings mentioned ; And order that the Defts and
their agents be perpetually restrained from summoning a jury or
taking any proceedings to acquire a title to any smaller portions of
the property. — Cole v. West End of London, dtc. Ry., M. R., 5 July,
1859, A. 2312 ; 27 Beav. 242 ; Alexander v. W. E. & L. Ry., M. R.,
26 Feb. 1862, A. 1013 ; and see King v. Wycombe Ry., 28 Beav. 104 ;
L. Grosvenor v. Hampstead, &c. Ry., 1 D. & J. 446 ; Salter v. Met.
Dist. Ry., 9 Eq. 432 ; St. Thomas's Hospital v. Charing Cross Ry., 1
J. & H. 400 ; 9 W. R. 411 ; Furniss v. Midland Ry., 6 Eq. 473 ;
Wild V. Woolwich Borough Council, [1910] 1 Ch. 35.
For the Hke order, unless or until the co. should either pay into Court,
under sect. 85 of the L. C. C. Act, 1845, the value of the whole to be
assessed, or have the whole value ascertained, see Giles v. L. C. <i- D. By., 9
W. R. 588.
For declaration that Defts were bound to take the whole, and Pit not
bound to sell a part, being able and willing to sell and make a title to the
whole, with inquiry as to Pit's title, see Marson v. L. C. d; D. By., V.-C. G.,
1 May, 1868, B. 1284, 6 Eq. 101.
The subsequent order in this case, after Pit's title had been found to be
good, was for the co. to take all necessary and proper steps, under the
L. C. C. Act, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount to be paid by them
to Pit as the value of the whole of the property ; payment to Pit of the
value within one month after it had been ascertained ; execution of con-
veyance and surrender by Pit ; declaration of Pit's lien in the meantime ;
and in case default be made by Defts in paying Pit the value of the property
688 Injunctions. [chap. Xxxi.
when so ascertained within the time appointed for the purpose, Pit to be at
liberty to apply to the Court with respect to the possession of the property,
or to the enforcing his lien : Marson v. L. O. & D. By., V.-C. J., 26 Feb. 1869*
B. 479, 7 Eq. 546 ; and see inf. Chap. LIV., " Lands Clauses Acts."
For refusal of the injunction, where the land required was a paddock
with a cow-house, loose box, and cottage, divided from the house and garden
by a turnpike road, see Steele v. Midland Ry., 1 Ch. 275 ; and see Falhner v.
Somerset, <i:c. By., 16 Eq. 458 ; in the case of a semi-detached house under
one roof, occupied by different tenants under separate leases, with separate
entrances, and no internal communication except between the common roof
and the ceilings of the top floors, see Harvie v. S. D. By., 23 W. R. 202 ; 32
li. T. 1.
6. Injunction against laying out new Street—Interlocutory.
Ordee that the Defts, their servants and agents, be restrained,
until judgment in this action or further order, from building or
erecting any buildings or erections on land adjoining or abutting
on Brick Kiln Lane, in the Urban District of Stourbridge, so as to
make or lay out such land as a new street less than 30 feet wide. —
A.G.v. Rufford & Co., Ld., North, J., for Eomer, J., 19 Jan. 1899,
A. 190.
For mandatory injunction in case of infringement of building line, see
A. 0. V. Wimbledon House Estate Co., [1904] 2 Ch. 34.
For injunction to restrain the Commrs of Sewers, acting under 57 G. III.
c. XXIX., from taking the whole of a house, they not having formally ad-
judged that possession of the whole was necessary for the purpose of
executing their powers, see Thomas v. Daw, 2 Ch. 1.
For injunction to restrain a municipal corporation acting under the same
Act from proceeding under their notice to treat to take part of a house,
see Tftompson v. Hammersmith Corporation, [1906] 1 Ch. 299.
As to circumstances in which a local authority is entitled to take the whole
of a house for the purpose of widening a street although only part is to be
thrown into the street, see Pescodv. Westminster Corporation, [1905] 2 Ch.
475 ; and that a landowner served with a notice to treat under the same Act
cannot accept it in part and repudiate it in part, see Wild v. Woolwich
Borough Council, [1910] 1 Ch. 35.
For order declaring that the adjudication of the Commrs under the same
Act was wrong and ultra vires, and perpetual injunction against their pro-
ceeding under the notice to treat, see Card v. Commrs of Sewers, 28 Ch. D.
486, C. A.
For injunction to restrain metropolitan vestry, acting under the same Act
from taking the whole of the buildings and site of an orphanage, the owners
wishing to sell the part of it required for the street widening, see Teuliere v.
Vestry of St. Mary Abbot, Kensington, 30 Ch. D. 642.
For injunction restraining a co. from lajdng out anew street in contraven-
tion of the byelaws made by a local authority under the Public Health Act,
1 875, although such byelaws prescribed a penalty for such contravention
recoverable by summary proceedings before the Justices, see A. O. v.
Ashhorne Becreation Ground Co., [1904] 1 Ch. 101, and see Denman & Co. v.
Westminster Corporation, [1906] 1 Ch. 464.
For injunction to restrain the Mayor, &c. of London from exceeding
their statutory powers by taking any further proceedings under the precept
and notice of trial served upon the Pit, and from taking possession of his
premises until the purchase and compensation money payable to him should
have been separately assessed, paid, and deposited according to the pro-
visions of the particular Acts, see Abrahams v. Corp. of London, V.-C. G.,
s. XIV.] Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 689
July, 1868, A. 2072, 6 Eq. 625 ; and from proceeding on their notice to
take the Pit's land for any purpose other than for that of their Act,
until the portion hond fide required by them for such purposes should
be ascertained, see Oalloway v. Corp. of London, 2 D. J. & S. 213 ; but
the difficulty was afterwards removed bv a subsequent Act of Parliament :
lb. 639 ; and see S. C, L. R. 1 H. L. 34.
For perpetual injunction to restrain a vestry from pulling down, after
insufBcient notice, under the Met. Loc. Man. Am. Act, 1862 (25 & 26 V.
c. 102), s. 75, a structure beyond the general line of buildings in a street, see
BruttonY. St. George's, &c. Vestry, 13 Eq. 339.
For injunction to restrain a. railway co. from erecting or building any
bridge over a road, so as to leave a less width than 45 feet, in accordance
with the deposited plans and sections, see A. 0. v. Tewkesbury and Malvern
By., 1 D. J. & S. 423 ; 4 Gift. 333.
For injunction to restrain a railway co. from making or maintaining a
bridge with less headway than 15 feet, or any bridge which, by reason of the
road thereunder being of too low a level, might cause the road to be flooded,
see A. G. v. Furness By. Co., 4n L. J. Ch. 776 ; 38 L. T. 555 ; 26 W. R. 350.
For injunction staying a railway co. from digging up, removing, or using,
for the purposes of their undertaking, a natural deposit of beach forming
a protection against inundations of the Severn, and within the survey and
management of the Pits as commrs of sewers for the district, see Grossman v.
Bristol & S. W. By., V.-C. W., 23 July, 1863, A. 1351, 11 W. R. 981.
For an injunction to restrain the use of a new portion of railway, forming
a communication over the main line between two branch lines of railway,
until notice of the co.'s intention had been given to the Board of Trade, as
required by 5 & 6 V. c. 55, s. 4, see A.G.y. G. W. By., 7 Ch. 767.
For an injunction against opening a railway for passenger traffic, after
an order of the Board of Trade directing the opening to be postponed on
the ground of certified incompleteness of works, until after the expiration
of the period for which the Board of Trade had directed or might direct
the opening to be postponed, see A. G. y. G. W. By. and Midi. By. Co.,
M. R., 4 Aug. 1876 ; 24 W. R. 1015.
For perpetual injunction to restrain a railway co. from selling or disposing
of a piece of superfluous land not required for the purposes of the railway,
except to the person, &c. entitled to the lands (if any) from which it was
originally severed, until they should have offered it for sale to Pits as the
owners of adjoining lands, see Coventry v. L. B. & 8. C. By., 5 Eq. 104.
For forms of inquiry as to damage in respect of works by a railway co.
injuriouslyaffecting a landowner,see LockwoodY. L. <t- N. W. By.,y.-C. G.,
20 July, 1868, B. 2622 ; S.C, 19 L. T. 68.
For the like inquiry what sum Pit was entitled to for compensation in
respect of his having been injuriously affected by a tunnel having been
driven by the co. under part of a passage lying between two of his houses
taken by the co., see Souch v. E. L. By., 22 W. R. 566.
7. Mandatory Injunction against worJcing a Railway in Breach of
Agreement with Landowner.
Declaee that there lias been a breach of the covenant contained
in the indenture dated &c. in the pleadings mentioned, inasmuch as
the Defts have not taken up and set down passengers at C — station
in the (bill) mentioned by as many trains, excluding express, mail,
and special trains, as they have done at other stations between Y —
and D — ; And Declare, that in this respect the said C — ■ station
ought to be on the same footing as the most favoured station between
Y — and D — ; And order that the Defts, their^servants &c., be
VOL. I. 2 Y
690 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
restrained from stopping a less number of trains in the twenty-
four hours of each day and night at C — station aforesaid, for the
purpose of setting down and taking up passengers than they may
from time to time stop at the most favoured station between Y —
and D — , excluding, however, express, special, or mail trains. —
Hood V. N. E. By., C. A., 2 March, 1870, A. 720 ; 5 Ch. 525.
For a similar mandatory order upon interlocutory application to stay
railway co. from permitting any trains for the accommodation of passengers,
and for the conveyance of goods, &c. to pass along the railway, witiout
stopping at a particular station, pursuant to an agreement with the land-
owner, entered into with promoters of a projected co. afterwards amalga-
mated with another ; but injunction not to take effect till a day fixed by the
order, see E. Lindsey v. 6. N. By., 10 Ha. 703. By a subsequent order this
injunction was discharged, and new injunction ordered in terms arranged :
V.-C. W., 19 Deo. 1854, B. 955.
And see Churchill v. Salisbury, &c. Ry. Co., 23 W. R. 894 (varying
V.-C. B., lb. 534 ; 32 L. T. 216), where the liability of a co., lessees of the
line from the co. which had made the agreement with the landowner, to
stop their trains at the particular station when made, but not to erect the
station, was recognized.
For an interlocutory order to stay the G. W. R. Co. from carrying pas-
sengers other than their own guards, servants, and officers, and the Post
Office guards, &c., between stations on their railway to whicli Swindon
station was intermediate, by any of their trains appointed to run at stated
times which might be lawfully required to stop at that station for any
shorter time than " a reasonable period of about ten minutes,' ' see Phillips v.
O. W. Ry. Co., V.-C. W., 8 Feb. 1872, B. 310.
This order, which was founded upon Rigby v. O. W. Ry. Co., 2 Ph. 44 ;
10 Jur. 488, 531, was reversed on appeal, on the ground that the injunction
extended the covenant between the refreshment contractor and the co. to
cases not thereby contemplated, e.g., to the day mail train carrying letters
by direction of the Postmaster General, and under his control as to the time
of stopping : see 7 Ch. 409.
8. Injunction against obstructing Trains run by another Co. under
Running Powers.
" Order that the Defts (their servants and agents) be perpetually
restrained from obstructing the trains of the Pit co. passing over the
junction, sidings, connections, and works described in the (bill) as
the substituted junction to or from the main line of the Defts, or
from in any way depriving the Pits of their full use (subject to the
usual and proper regulations for insuring the safe working thereof),
of the said substituted junction." — Midland Ry. v. Great Western
Ry., L.JJ., 28 April, 1873, B. 1222 ; S. C, 8 Ch. 841.
For injunction to stay a railway co. from obstructing a turnpike road, or
any road substituted for it, or rendering it less safe than when first interfered
with by them, see A. G. v. G. N. Ry., 4 D. & S. 86 ; A. G. v. Barry Docks
and Ry. Co., 35 Ch. D. 573.
For order staying Defts from using a joint station for the booking or
transit of passengers or goods destined for or coming from a certain railway,
see L. B. & 8. C. Ry.^y. L. ,i> S. W. Ry., 4 D. & J. 391.
For order restraining a railway co. from removing and selling a con-
tractor's plant and materials pending an arbitration, see Garrett v. Sal. & D.
By. Co., 2 Eq. 358.
s. XIV. J Companies, Corporations, a7id Public Bodies. 691
And for the converse case, refusing interference with the exercise by the
Defts of their right of using the contractors' plant and materials for the
completion of the works under a new contract, see Jennings v. Brighton, tSsc.
Board, 4 D. J. & S. 735, n.
9. Issue of Shares to pay Dividends restrained — Interlocutory.
Oedee that the Defts, their directors and servants, be restrained
until &c., from issuing any preference or other shares or stocks, or
any debenture stocks, for the purpose of paying, by means of such
preference or other shares or stocks, any dividends or interest to the
shareholders of the co. in respect of their shares or stock in the co.,
and in particular the dividends in the Pit's (bill) mentioned as having
been announced in the months of March and August last. — Hoole v.
The Great Western Ry. Co., V.-C. W., 21 Nov. 1867, A. 2581 ; 3
Ch. 262.
10. Payment of Dividends out of Capital restrained — ■
Interlocutory.
Oedee that the Defts, the M. Ry. Co. and their directors, the
Defts &c., be restrained from declaring or paying any dividends,
except so far as the profits and other income of the co. may be
applicable to such dividend, regard being had to the provisions of
the special Acts authorizing the several undertakings of the said co.,
and those of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 ; until
kc.—Bloxam v. The Metropolitan Ry. Co., V.-C. W., 31 Jan. 1868,
A. 173 ; 3 Ch. 337.
For like order to stay the same co. from declaring or paying any dividend
out of or in respect of a particular fund, see Salisbury v. The Metropolitan
By. Co., V.-C. J., 18 Feb. 1869, B. 355 ; S. C, 38 L. J. Ch. 249 ; 22 L. T.
839 ; 18 W. R. 839. And see Davison v. Gillies, 16 Ch. D. 347.
11. Injunction to restrain Defts from striking out Pit's Name
from Register of Members, and treating his Shares as for-
feited— Interlocutory.
Oedee that the Defts &c., be restrained from striking out or erasing
the name of the Pit from the register of the members of the Deft co.,
and from selling, re-alloting, or otherwise disposing of the Pit's shares
therein numbered &c., inclusive, in the said co., which by a resolution
of the directors of the Deft co., of the — day of — are purported to
be forfeited, or any of them, or otherwise acting upon the aforesaid
resolution until judgment in this action, or until further order. —
Goulton V. London, &c. Co., V.-C. M., 7th June, 1877, A. 1180.
For order restraining directors of a co. from excluding Pit (one of the
directors) from any meeting of the board of directors of the co., and from
holding any meetings of the board without notice to him, and from in any
way interfering with Pit in the discharge of his duties as a director, see
Kyshe v. Alturas Gold Co., 36 W. R. 496.
692 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
12. Injunction against applying Borough Fund to pay Costs of
Opposition in Parliament — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts be restrained, until judgment or further order,
from applying the borough fund or borough rate, or any other public
fund or rate under the control of the Defts, or any part or parts of such
funds or rates respectively, or any moneys produced or to be produced
by any such funds or rates, towards or to the payment of the costs or
expenses of opposing a certain bill being promoted by the Pit co. in
the present session of Parliament, intituled " An Act for conferring
further Powers upon the Swansea Gas Light Co.," or from charging
the said costs and expenses, or any part or parts thereof, upon the said
funds or rates, or any part or parts thereof, unless and until such
consent and sanction to the said opposition to the said bill and the
payment or charge of the costs and expenses thereof out of or upon
the said funds, rates, or moneys shall have been given as is required
by the Borough Funds Act, 1872. — See A. G. v. The Mayor, Aldermen,
and Burgesses of the Borough of Swansea, North, J., 1898, A. 1581 ;
[1898] 1 Ch. 602.
For an order restraining Improvement Commrs from applying rates in
promoting a bill in parliament, see A. G. v. West Hartlepool Improvement
Commrs, V.-C. J., 22 April, 1870, A. 916 ; 10 Eq. 152.
For the like order to restrain the Deft as one of and representing the
Commrs of ■ — , and the Commrs, &o., see A. O. v. Andrews, V.-C. of E.,
24 Jan. 1850, A. 408 ; affd. 2 Mac. & G. 225.
For like order against a board of health, their members, officers, and
agents, see A. 0. v. Peacock, M. R., 27 Ap. 1854, A. 808 ; interim order,
76. 745.
For like injunction, by consent perpetual, against vestry, and against
drawing cheques, with costs, see A. G. v. St. Leonards, V.-C. W., 3 Mar.
1858, Reg. Min. 236.
For injunction to stay borough commrs f romexpending rates in promoting
bill in Parliament, or drawing any cheques or orders for that purpose, see
A. G. V. Eastlahe, 11 Ha. 229.
And to stay railway co. applying its funds in application to Parliament
for powers to extend its business beyond the objects for which it was con-
stituted, on bill by a shareholder, see Simpson v. Denison, 10 Ha. 51.
And from applying funds in promoting a bill for a new line and issuing
shares, except under the existing Act, see Vance v. E. Lane. By., 3 K. & J.
50.
For injunction to restrain the Metropolitan Board of Works from pro-
moting or supporting a draft scheme under the Metropolitan Commons A ct,
1866 (29 & 30 V. u. 122), containing provisions inconsistent with those con-
tained in an agreement between themselves and the Pit, see Telford v. Met.
Bd. of Works, V.-C. B., 9 March, 1872, B. 549 ; S. C, 13 Eq. 574.
For injunction to stay the Crystal Palace Co. accepting a surrender of
shares in exchange for tickets of admission for Sunday, and from admitting
persons for money on Sunday, as contrary to their charter, see Bendall v.
Crystal Palace Co., 4 K. & J."'337.
For injunction to stay directors of joint stock co. from forfeiting, or
declaring to be forfeited. Pits' shares, on the ground of non-payment of calls
or non-execution of settlement deed, or selling or disposing of them as for-
feited, and from permitting co-Defts to execute, and such co-Defts from
executing, the settlement deed alleged to have been prepared on behalf of
s. XIV.] Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 693
Pits and other subscribers, till further order, see Norman v. Mitchell, 5
D. M. & G. 674 ; Johnson v. Lyttle's Iron Agency, 5 Oh. D. 687.
As to payments by oo. for proxy papers and stamps, see Peel v. London
and North Western By. Co., [19071 1 Ch. 5.
13. Improvement Commrs restrained from applying Corporate
Funds in building Offices in a Public Park.
Order that the Defts &c., be restrained from appropriating any
portions or portion of the S — Park &c., in the (bill) -mentioned as
sites, or as a site, for the erection of any town buildings, or of any
erection or building which shall not be needed for or incidental to
the maintenance or use of the said parks, or public walks, or pleasure
grounds ; but this injunction is not to extend to using parts of the
ground as sites for a public or free conservatory, museum, and library,
open for the use, convenience, and recreation of the persons frequent-
ing such public walks and pleasure grounds. — A. G. v. Sunderland
Corp., C. A., 26 March, 1876, A. 632 ; 2 Ch. D. 634.
For injunction to re.strain a water oo. from discontinuing supply of water,
if Pit undertakes to proceed before justices, under sect. 68 of the Waterwcrks
Clauses Act, 1847 (10 V. c. 17), see Hayward v. East London Waterworks Co.,
28 Ch. D. 138.
For declaration that supply of water for bath was compulsory on water-
works CO., &c., and injunction restraining taking of water contrary to
declaration, see Sheffield Waterworks Co. v. Bingham, 25 Ch. D. 443, 456.
For case in which an injunction was granted to restrain the Corp. of
Dublin from altering the name of Sackville Street to O'Connell Street,
against the wishes of a large majority of the householders, see Anderson v.
Corp. of Dublin, 15 L. R. Jr. Ch. 410.
14. Corporation restrained from avoiding Pit's Office of, and from
interfering with his Rights and Privileges as Alderman.
Order that the Defts &c.,be restrained from avoiding and declaring
void the office of alderman of the borough of S — , now held by the
Pit, and from acting in reference to such declaration according to
the. notice of intention in that behalf given by the Defts, and from
in any way interfering with the exercise by the Pit of his rights and
privileges as alderman. — Aslalt v. Southampton Corp., M. R., 8 Nov.
1880, A. 2166 ; 16 Ch. D. 143.
15. School Board restrained from holding Meeting to elect new
Member — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, their servants and agents, be restrained,
until after &c., from summoning or holding a meeting of the Methley
School Board for the purpose of purporting to elect a new member
of the said board in the place of the Pit. — See Richardson v. Methley
School Board, Kekewich, J., 30 June, 1893, B. 758 ; [1893] 3 Ch. 510.
694
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Doctrine of
ultra vires.
Attorney
General.
16. Injunction against Co. carrying Contract into effect mthout
obtaining Sanction of Shareholders — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, the C. T. Co., and the Defts W. J. C. W.,
W. S., W. P. P., and S. L. T., the directors thereof and each of them,
be restrained, until judgment or further order, from carrying out the
agreement between the Deft co. and the B. E. T. Co., Ld., being an
agreement for the sale of the undertaking and assets of the Deft co.
to the said B. E. T. Co., Ld., and from assigning or transferring, or
attempting to assign or transfer, the undertaking and assets of the
Deft CO., or any part thereof, to the said B. E. T. Co., Ld., in pur-
suance of the terms of the said agreement. — See Kaye v._ The
Croydon Tramways Co., Kekewich, J., 11 Jan. 1898, A. 52 ; [1898]
1 Ch. 358.
NOTES.
Companies and public bodies will be kept strictly within the limits of
their powers, and will be restrained from exceeding them, and from exer-
cising them otherwise than for the purposes of their Act, or than in manner
and to the extent thereby authorized : Webb v. Manck. By. Co., 4 M. & Cr.
116 ; Richmond v. N. L. By. Co., 3 Ch. 679 ; Lamb v. N. L. By. Co., i Ch.
522 ; L. Auckland v. Westm. L. Bd., 7 Ch. 597 ; A. 0. v. Cockermouth L. Bd.,
18 Eq. 172 ; Simpson v. Denison, 10 Ha. 51 ; Abrahams v. Corp. of London,
6 Eq. 625 ; Huddersfield Corp. v. Bavensthorpe Dist. Council, [1897] 2 Ch.
121, C. A. ; and see Kerr v. Preston Corp., 6 Ch. D. 463 ; Hedley v. Bates,
13 Ch. D. 498 ; Mann v. Edinburgh Tram. Co., 62 L. J. P. C. 74. But
anything which is fairly incidental to that which the statute authorizes will
be deemed to be authorized : A. 0. v. O. E. By. Co., 5 App. Ca. 473 ; L. cfc
N. W. Brj. Co. Y. Price, 11 Q. B. D. 485. But the Court \vill not (unless in
very special circumstances) interfere by way of injunction or declaration
where the legislature has pointed out a mode of procedure before a magis-
trate : Qrand Junction Waterworks Co. v. Hampton Urban District Council,
[1898] 2 Ch. 331, citing Kerr v. Preston Corp., 6 Ch. D. 463, and Stannard v.
Vestry of St. Qiles, Camberwell, 20 Ch. D. 190, v. inf. p. 798.
Semble, the doctrine of ultra vires does not apply to a chartered co. :
British South Africa Co. y. De Beers, [1910] 1 Ch. 354 (affirmed on another
point, [1910] 2 Ch. 502; 26 Times L. R. 891).
In order to constitute acquiescence in the unlawful exercise of statutory
powers, even where public works of magnitude and importance have been
completed, and their construction has extended over several years, there
must be actual knowledge, or means of knowledge, by the parties injured of
the fact that the works were not in accordance with the statute : Eerron v.
Bathmines Commrs, 27 L. R. Ir. 180 ; and see Woodhouse v. Nevyry Naviga-
tion Co., [1898] 1 1. R. 161, C. A., and a local authority, with whom the wants
of their district must be the paramount consideration, cannot be estopped or
precluded by laches or acquiescence from bringing an action to enforce the
rights of their constituents : Islington Vestry v. Hornscy Urban Council,
[1900] 1 Ch. 695, C. A.
In the case of a public body transgressing their statutory powers, the
A. G., on behalf of the public, even where private injury has been neither
proved nor alleged, may obtain an injunction : see A. G. v. Cockermouth
L. Bd., sup. ; Ware v. Begent's Canal Co., 3 D. & J. 212; A. O. Y.Shrewsbury
(Kingsland) Bridge Co., 21 Ch. D. 752 ; but the A. G. is not entitled as a
matter of right, on proving his case, to an injunction : A. 0. v. Birmingham
Tame, <*c. Drainage Board, [1910] 1 Ch. 48, C. A. ; and this relief will not
be granted at the instance of an individual, unless upon a case of threatened
s. xiv^.] Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 695
or actual injury to himself : Stockport, cfec. Co. v. Manchester Corp., 9
Jur. N. S. 266 ; 7 L. T. 545 ; 11 W. R. 156 ; and see Aslatt v. Corp. of
Southampton, 16 Ch. D. 143, 149, sup., Form 14 ; London Assoc, of Ship-
owners V, London and India Docks, [1892] 3 Oh. 242 ; Tottenham Dist.
Council V. Williamson, [1896] 2 Q. B. 353, C. A. ; and see Devonport Corp.
V. Tozer, [1902] 2 Ch. 182; [1903] 1 Ch. 759, C. A. ; A. G. v. Pontypridd
Water Works, [1908] 1 Ch. 389.
The High Court has jurisdiction to restrain guardians from applying the Jurisdiction,
poor rates improperly ; e.g., in relieving able-bodied men " on strike " ;
but this jurisdiction does not interfere with the power of the Local
Government Board under sect. 4 of the Poor Law Audit Act, 1848 (11 & 12
V. c. 91), to remit improper payments by guardians wliich have been
disallowed by the auditor : A. G. v. Merthyr Tydfil Union, [1900] 1 Ch. 516,
C. A. I q. V. as to form of declaration in such a case.
The Court will not (especially on behalf of an outside creditor : Mills v. Internal
Buenos Ayres Co., 5 Ch. 621) interfere in matters relating strictly to the management,
internal management of a co. : Macdougall v. Gardiner, 1 Ch. D. 13, revers-
ing 20 Eq. 383 ; Foss v. Harbottle, 2 Ha. 461 ; Mozley v. Alston, 1 Ph.
790 ; Inderwick v. Snell, 2 Mac. & G. 216 ; Bailey v. Birkenhead Co., 12
Beav. 433 ; Isle of Wight Ry. Co. v. Tahourdin, 25 Ch. D. 320, 333, C. A. ;
except, perhaps, in cases where from anarchy and interregnum the business
of the CO. cannot be carried on without the interference of the Court :
Feathersimie v. Cook, 21 W. R. 835 ; 16 Eq. 298 ; Trade Auxiliary Co. v.
Vickers, ib. 836 ; 16 Eq. 298. But acts by the directors or the majority,
wliieh are ultra vires, oppressive, or fraudulent as regards the minority will
be restrained : Clinch v. Financial Corp., 5 Eq. 450 ; Gregory v. Patchett, 33
Beav. 595 ; Cannon v. Trask, 20 Eq. 669 ; Fraser v. Whalley, 2 H. & M. 10 ;
Punt V. Symons, [1903] 2 Ch. 506 ; Alexander v. Automatic Tel. Co., [1900]
2 Ch. 58, C. A.
An interlocutory injunction against interference with the rights of share-
holders was refused on an undertaking by the co. not to divide certain shares
until after the trial of the action, otherwise than in accordance with the
memorandum and articles : Wall v. London Assets Corp., [1898] 2 Ch. 469,
C. A.
Generally, in proceedings on behalf of a corporate body to recover pro- When co.
perty from its directors or officers, or any other person, or to restrain acts proper Pit.
alleged to be ultra vires, the corporate body, and not an individual member
(even on behalf of the other members) is the proper Pit : Gray v. Lewis, 8
Ch. 1035 ; RussdlY. Wakefield W. W. Co., 20 Eq. 474 ; and see' Macdougall
V. Gardiner, sup.
But relief against acts ultra vires may be obtained by a single shareholder,
suing on behalf of himself and the other shareholders, or the particular class
having the same interest, when the majority will not allow the name of the
CO. to be used : Atwool v. Merryweather, 5 Eq. 464, n. ; Menier v. Hooper's
Tel. Co., 9 Ch. 350 ; Mascm v. Ha/rris, 11 Ch. D. 97 ; Hoole v. 0. W. Ry. Co.,
3 Ch. 262 (and see this question discussed in Russell v. Wakefield, tCc. Co.,
20 Eq. 474 ; Exeter, &c. Ry. Co. v. Buller, 5 Rail. Ca. 211 ; East Pant Du
Co. V. Merryweather, 2 H. & M. 254 ; Alexander v. Automatic Tel. Co., [1900]
2 Ch. 58, C. A.) ; unless the action is by a mere nominee having no legitimate
interest, and acting at the instance of a rival co. : Forrest v. Manch. Ry. Co. ,
3 D. P. & J. 126 ; Filder v. L. B. & S. C. Ry. Co., 1 H. & M. 489 ; Rohson
V. Dodds, 8 Eq. 301 (where the bill was ordered to be taken off the file) ;
Whitman v. Watkin, 78 L. T. 188.
A shareholder whose vote has been rejected may bring an action on behalf
of himself and all other shareholders who voted with him to restrain the
directors from rejecting the votes of himself and other shareholders in the
same interest : Pender v. Lushington, 6 Ch. D. 70 ; but as against the vote
of the majority, the minority, or an individual, will not be allowed to use
the name of the co. as Pit : see Silber Light Co. v. Silber, 12 Ch. D. 717 ; and
in such case the name of the co. will be struck out as Pit, with liberty to add
696
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Interest
of Pit.
Council
meetings.
Cases upon
exercise of
jurisdiction
by injunction,
it as Deft. But where the Pits substantially represented a majority,
although they had technically no right to use the co.'s name, they were
allowed the costs out of the assets : Imperial Hydropathic Co. v. Hampson,
23 Ch. D. 1, C. A. And as to the right of a director controlling a majority of
shares to use the name of the co. as Pit, see Marshall's Valve Co. v.
Manning tb Co., [1909] I Ch. 267. See also Automatic Self Cleaning Filter
Co. V. Cuninghame, [1906] 2 Ch. 34.
Authority given by a Californian Court was not sufficient to enable a
person to maintain an action in this country in the name of a co. : Barber v.
Mexican Land Co., 48 W. B. 235.
The small amount of his interest, or the purchase of shares with a view
to a suit, will not preclude the Pit from obtaining relief : Bloxam v. Met. By.
Co., 3 Ch. 337 ; Hare v. L. <k N. W. By. Co., 2 J. & H. 80.
A creditor whose debt is hon&fidedis^uteA. may be restrained from present-
ing a petition to wind up a co. not shown to be insolvent : Cadiz Waterworks
Co. V. Bamett, 19 Eq. 182 : Niger Merchants' Co. v. Capper, 25 W. R. 365 ;
18 Ch. D. 557, n. ; Cercle Bestaurant Castiglione Co.y. Lavery, 18 Ch. D. 555.
The illegality of the act sought to be restrained by a shareholder as ultra
vires must be shown by distinct averments : Mills v. Buenos Ayres Co., 5 Ch.
621.
A municipal borough will not be restrained from excluding any member of
the public, whether a burgess or otherwise, from the meetings of its council :
Mayor ofTenhy v. Mason, [1908] 1 Ch. 457.
In addition to the cases and forms above given, the following oases may
be consulted upon the exercise of jurisdiction by injunction against cos.
(and their directors) and public bodies.
Applications to Parliament: —
The application of funds or rates in promoting a bill in Parliament has
been restrained as an act not within the powers of the public body
or CO. : see A. 6. v. West Hartlepool Commrs, 10 Eq. 152 ; A. G. v.
Eastlake, 11 Ha. 205 ; Vance v. E. Lane. %., 3 K. & J. 50 ; Simpson v.
Denison, 10 Ha. 51 ; Maunsell v. Mid. 0. W. (Ireland) By. Co., 1 H. & M.
130 ; A. O. V. Norwich Corp., 16 Sim. 225 ; Munt v. Shrewsbury, &c. By., 13
Beav. 1 ; A. 0. v. Lambeth Vestry, 1888, W. N. 19 ; Caledonian By. Co. v.
Solway Junction By. Co., 4:&'L.T:.52&; 32W.R.164; LeithCouncilr. Leith
Harbour Commrs, [1899] A. C. 508, H. L. (opposition to bill for amalgama-
tion of districts) ; A. G. v. Swansea Corp., [1898] 1 Ch. 602 (opposition to
bill of gas company) ; sup. Form 12.
But not the appUcation of corporate funds in opposing a bill in Parliament
prejudicial to the interests and property of the Corp., or directly affecting
its " rights, privileges, and duties " : A. G. v. Wigan Corp., Kay, 268 ; 5
D. M. & G. 52 ; A. G. v. Brecon Corp., 10 Ch. D. 204 ; Bright v. North, 2
Ph. 216.
And the costs of a corporation opposing a bill for the confirmation of a
provisional order made by the Local Government Board were held costs
properly incurred under sects. 297 and 298 of the Pubhc Health Act, 1875 :
Brooks, Jenkins dk Co. v. Mayor of Torquay, [1902] 1 K. B. 601.
Although the existence of jurisdiction in personam to restrain directors
from improperly promoting or sohciting a bill in Parliament has not been
denied instances of its exercise are rare, if not unprecedented : Be L. C. <h
D. By. Arrangement Act, 5 Ch. 671 ; Steele v. North Met. By. Co., 2 Ch. 237 ;
Lane, &c. By. v. L. & N. W. By., 2 K. & J. 293 ; A. G. v. Manch., &c. By.
Co., 1 Rail. Ca. 436 ; Heathcote v. N. Staff. By., 2 Mac. & G. 100.
But a public body will be restrained from promoting or supporting before
the Inclosure Commrs a scheme (requiring Parliamentary sanction) where
Buoh scheme would defeat the provisions ofan antecedent agreement between
the public body and the Pit : Telford v. Met. Bd. of Works, 13 Eq. 547.
For the application of the distinction between restraining an appropiia-
tion of cirporate funds in promoting a bill in Parliament, and restraining
s. XIV.] Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies, 697
the CO. or its directors from introducing or soliciting such bill, see Mathias
V. Wilts dh Bucks Canal Co., 34 L. T. 346 (where, on an undertaking by the
CO. not to apply any of their funds in promoting the bill, the motion to
restrain the co. from presenting the bill in Parliament, pursuant to a
resolution passed at a Wharnoliffe meeting, was refused) ; 0. W. By. v.
Rushout, 5 D. & S. 290 ; Stevens v. S. Dev. Ry. Co., 13 Beav. 48 ; Winch v.
Birkenhead Ry., 5 D. & S. 580.
And to the same effect as to an application to a foreign legislature, see
Bill V. Sierra Nevada Co., 1 D. F. & J. 183.
Compulsory Powers : —
Compulsory powers for the purchase of land must be strictly followed, and
cannot be exercised for collateral purposes : Stockton & Darlington Ry. v.
Bromi, 9 H. L. C. 246 ; Dodd v. Salisbury, etc. Ry., 1 Giff. 1.58 ; Wehb v.
Manchester, &c. Ry., 4 M. & C. 116 ; James v. Lovel, 56 L. T. 739 ; 35 W. R.
626.
The certificate of the co.'s engineer, if given with reasonable show of
accuracy, will be accepted as to the quantity of land required for the under-
taking : Kemp v. S. E. Ry., 7 Ch. 364 ; Stockton <& Darlington Ry. v. Brown,
9 H. L. C. 254 ; see also Flower v. L. B. <fc S. C. Ry., 2 Dr. & Sm. 330.
An extension of compulsory powers will not be inferred, and cos. or public
bodies have been restrained :
— ^from entering on or continuing in possession of land until the proper
deposit has been made : Field v. Carnarvon, <fc. Ry. Co., 5 Eq. 190 ;
— ^from carrying a water main through the Pit's land where the proceed-
ings of the Deft local board were not founded on the report of a properly
constituted " surveyor " under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 16 : Lewis v.
Weston-super-Mare Local Bd., 40 Ch. D. 55 ;
— from erecting a hospital on land acquired for a different purpose : A. 0.
V. HanwelJ Urban Council, [1900] 2 Ch. 377, C. A. See also A. 6. v. Ponty-
pridd Urban District Council, [1905] 2 Ch. 441, for the principle applicable in
the case of land acquired by agreement ;
— ^from entering upon land held under a determinable agreement, the co.
having bought with notice of facts entitling the tenant in equity to an
extension of time : Birmingham, dc. Land Co. v. L. <& N. W. Ry. Co., 40
Ch. D. 268, C. A. ;
— or until a bond in conformity with the L. C. C. Act has been given :
Poynder v. 0. N. Ry., 2 Ph. 330 ; Dakin v. L. & N. W. Ry., 3 D. & S. 414 ;
— ^from summoning a jury to assess separately the value of one out of four
houses for which notice to treat has been given under 57 G. III. c. xxix. .
Bcc. Commrs v. London Commrs of Sewers, 14 Ch, D. 305 ;
— from taking the whole of an orphanage under the same Act when the
owners wished to sell only the part required for the street improvement :
Teuliere v. Kensington Vestry, 30 Ch. D. 642 ; and see under same Act,
Oard V. Commrs of Sewers, 28 Ch. D 486, C. A. ; Lynch v. Commrs of Sewers,
32 Ch. D. 72, C. A. ; Cordon v. Kensington Vestry, [1894] 2 Q. B. 742 ;
Gibbon v. Paddington Vestry, [1900] 2 Ch. 794 ; Thompson v. Hammersmith
Corp., [1906] 1 Ch. 299; Denman & Co. v. Westminster Corp., [1906] 1 Ch.
464 ; Oreen v. Hackney Corp., [1910] 2 Ch. 105 ;
— ^from diverting a river or road for the purpose merely of saving expense,
when the road or river presents no actual obstacle to construction of the
line : Pugh v. Golden Valley Ry. Co., 15 Ch. D. 330, C. A. ; 12 lb. 274
(following Reg. v. Wycombe Ry. Co., L. E. 2 Q. B. 310) ; and see Morris v.
Tottenham, dkc. Ry. Co., [1892] 2 Ch. 47 ;
— ^from taking proceedings under a notice to treat given under an Act the
compulsory powers of which had since expired, though power was given to
take the particular land under a subsequent Act obtained after the expira-
tion of the compulsory powers of the first : Richmond v. N. L. Ry., 3 Ch-
679 ; 5 Eq. 352 ; and see Lamb v. N. L. Ry., 4 Ch. 522, sup.. Form 3 ;
Bentley v. Rotherham L. Bd., 4 Ch. D. 588 :
698 ' Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
— from exercising their powers without proper precautions to prevent
injury to adjoining property : Biscoe v. G. E. By., 16 Eq. 636.
But an injunction will not in general be granted where there is a statutory
provision for compensation in respect of the act complained of : see Hill v.
Wallasey L. Bd., [1894] 1 Ch. 133, C. A. (under Public Health Act, 1875,
ss. 16, 54, 308).
And as to what is damage " by reason of the exercise of the powers " of
the Public Health Act, within the meaning of sect. 308, see Horton v. Colwyn
Bay, [1908] 1 K. B. (C. A.) 327.
And as to the exercise by cos. of their powers in a negligent, vexatious,
and careless way, and consequent liability, see RicJcet v. Met. Ey., L. R,
2 H. L. 175 ; Brine v. 6?. W. By., 10 W. R. 341 ; 2 B. & S. 402 ; 31 L. J.
Q. B. 101 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 410 ; 6 L. T. 50 ; Be St. James and Pall Mall, &c. Co.,
1904, W. N. 68 ; Boberts v. Charing Cross, Sc. By. Co., 1903, W. N. 13.
And that a public body which is guilty of misfeasance in carrying out its
duty, and not of non-feasance only, is Uable in damages to a person injured
thereby, see Dawson & Go. v. Bingley U. D. C, [1911] 2 K. B. 149.
A CO. who have given notice to treat within the period limited for com-
pulsory purchase will not be restrained from entering on the land at any
time before the expiration of tlieir powers of completing the line : Tiverton
and N. Devon By. Co. v. Loosemore, 9 App. Ca. 480 ; Kemp v. S. E. By. Co.,
7 Ch. 364 ; nor from taking, in excess of their powers, lands included in the
parliamentary plans, where no special damage to the Pit is shown : Finck v.
L. dh S. W. By. Co., 44 Ch. D. 330, C. A. ; nor from granting the right to
construct a tunnel under land compulsorily acquired : South Eastern By. Co.
V. Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers, [1901] 1 Ch. 12 ; nor from
taking land for the purposes of accommodation works which the co. is liable
and has power to make : Wilkinson v. Hull, tScc. By. Co., 20 Ch. D. 323,
C. A. ; nor from using sect. 85 of the Lands Clauses Act in aid of their
power of acquiring a perpetual right to run trains over the line of another
CO., until the capital had been subscribed in accordance with sect. 16 of the
Act, that section being held inapplicable in such a case : 0. W. By. Co. v.
Swindon, dbc. By. Co., 9 App. Ca. 787 {q. v. as to the question whether such
a statutory right is " land " within sects. 3 and 16) ; and see Be City and
South London By. Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 728.
For the apphcation of similar principles to public works authorized by the
Metropohs Loc. Man. Act, 1855 (18 & 19 V. c. 120), ss. 135, 225, and other
Acts, see Clothier v. Webster, 10 W. R. 624 ; 12 C. B. N. S. 790 ; 9 Jur. N. S.
231 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 316 ; Coe v. Wise, L. R. 1 Q. B. 711 ; Hammond v. St.
Pancras Vestry, L. R. 9 C. P. 316 ; Bateman v. Poplar District Bd., 37 Ch. D.
272 ; Mersey Docks, &c. v. Oibbs, L. R. 1 H. L. 93 ; Forbes v. Lee Conserv-
ancy, 4 Ex. D. 116 ; Abrahams v. Mayor of London, 6 Eq. 625 ; Kerr v.
Preston Corp., 6 Ch. D. 463 ; West Surrey Water Co. v. Guardians ofChertsey
Union, [1894] 3 Ch. 513 ; Marriott v. East Grinstead By. Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 70 ;
and see Public Health Act, 1875, s. 308 ; Sect. V., " Nuisance," sup.
Sect. 16 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, empowering a railway co.,
subject to the provisions of the special Act, to execute works and " from
time to time " to alter, repair or cQscontinue them and substitute others, is
not subject to a restriction in the special Act as to the time for the comple-
tion of the railway : Emsley v. North Eastern By. Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 418, C. A.
In the exercise by a corporation of powers given to them by Pariiament
for public improvements in the borough, a liberal interpretation will be
given to the clauses of the Act : see ^. G. v. Cambridge Corp., L. R. 6 H. L.
303 ; Galloway v. Mayor of London, L. R. 1 H. L. 34 ; and see Spencer v.
Met. B. of Works, 22 Ch. D. 142, C. A. ; Bolls v. School Board for London, 27
Ch. D. 639, 643.
The remedy of landowners whose property is injuriously affected by the
erection of buildings under the authority of the Metropolis Local Manage-
ment and Streets Improvement Acts, and similar Acts, is by claiming com-
pensation under the L. C. C. Act, s. 68, and not by injunction : Wigram v.
s. XIV.] Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 699
Fnjer, 36 Ch. D. 87 ; Glarh v. Lrnidon School Bd., 9 Ch. 120 ; D. Bedford v.
Dawson, 20 Eq. 363 ; Kirby v. School Board for Harrogate, [1896] 1 Ch. 437,
C. A. (school board purchasing with notice of restrictive covenant).
Land which is entitled to the benefit of a restrictive covenant is injuriously
affected within sect. 68 of the L. C. C. Act if tliat benefit is extinguished,
although no part of the land itself is taken : Long Eaton Recreation Grounds
Co. V. Midland Ry. Co., [1902] 2 K. B. 574 ; see also in Re Masters and O. W.
Rij., [1901] 2 K. B. 84 ; Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Ry. Go. v.
Anderson, [1898], 2 Ch. 394.
Sect. 15 of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845 f8 & 9 V. c. 26), as to limits of
deviation, has been held not to applv to a widening of an existing line of
railway : Finch v. L. & S. W. Ry. Co., 44 Ch. D. 330, C. A. ; nor to the
plans for a junction with an existing line : Cardiff Ry. Co. v. Taff Vale Ry. Co. ,
[1905] 2 Ch. 289.
Power by a special Act (incorporating the Railways Clauses Act) to cross
a street by an arch or tunnel does not exclude the right of the railway oo. to
use the surface of the soil for a station : A. 0. v. 0. E. Ry. Co., L. R. 6 H. L.
367 ; 7 Ch. 475 ; see also Warden of Dover v. L. 0. & D. Ry., 3 D. P. & J.
564 ; and such a right to tunnel is a " hereditament " within sects. 3, 85, of
the L. C, Act : Hill v. Midland Ry. Co., 21 Ch. D. 143 ; but a power to
" appropriate and use " subsoil does not justify tunnelling without giving
notice to treat : Farmer v. Waterloo and City Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 527.
A railway CO. having power to "underpin " were held entitled to construct
a concreted retaining wall for their railway : Stevens v. Met. Dist. Ry. Co.,
29 Ch. D. 60, C. A.
Sect. 32 of the Railway Clauses Act does not enable the oo. to take
temporary possession of land for the purpose of forming a railroad ; and
mere saving of expense does not constitute a necessity for taking within the
section : Morris v. Tottenham, ii;c. Ry. Co., [1892] 2 Ch. 47.
A riparian owner is not entitled to restrain a waterworks co. from taking
water from the stream above his land until they shall have proceeded to
treat for the purchase of his interest in the stream, his right being to com-
pensation only for damage by the division of water : Bush v. Trowbridge
W. W. Co., 10 Ch. 459 ; and see Stone v. Yeoml Corp., 1 C. P. D. 691 ; 2
C. P. D. 99, C. A.
Ferrand v. Bradford Corporation, 21 Beav. 415 (in which a co. was
restrained from diverting a stream until the value of Pit's interest therein
had been ascertained and secured), is not inconsistent with, and has not been
overruled by, Bush v. Trowbridge Co., sup. ; see 2 C. P. D. pp. 107, 115, 116,
C. A.
Although on land purchased for a park or public pleasure-grounds by a
corporation, under the Pubhc Health Act, 1848, the erection of buildings
for municipal offices will be restrained, the injunction will not be extended
to a free public library, museum, or conservatory : ^. G. v. Sunderland Corp.,
2 Ch. D. 634, C. A., sup.. Form 13, p. 693.
Dividends : —
Directors have been restrained :
— ^from paying dividends out of capital : Bloxam v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., Paying
3 Ch. 337, Form 10; Re Alexandra Palace Co., 21 Ch. D. 160; and see dividends out
Lee V. Neuchatel Asphalts Co., 41 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; Bolton v. Natal Land Co., of capitaL
[1892] 2 Ch. 124 ; i.e., out of " circulating " as distinguished from " fixed "
capital : Verner v. General and Commercial Investment Trust, [1894] 2 Ch.
239, C. A. ; and as to this distinction, see further, Wilmer v. McNamara tfc
Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 245 ; Re National Bank of Wales, [1899] 2 Ch. 629, C. A. ;
reported svb nom. Dovey v. Cory, [1901] A. C. 477 ; and see Bond v. Barrow
Hmmatite Steel Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 353 ; or by the unauthorized issue of
interest-bearing bonds : Wood v. Odessa Waterworks Co., 42 Ch. D. 636 ;
Guiness v. Land Corp. of Ireland, 22 Ch. D. 349 ; or out of borrowed
moneys : Macdougail v. Jersey Imp. Hotel Co., 2 H. & M. 528 ; or except
out of profits : Fawcett v. Laurie, 1 Dr. & Sm. 192 ; Davison v. Gillies,
700 Injunctions. [oHAi>. XXXI.
16 Ch. D. 347 ; Dent v. Lmidmi, Tram. Co., 16 Ch. D. 34 ; but not where
the complaint is grounded on an excessive valuation of assets, which
though erroneous might have been accepted at the time by reasonable
men : Re Peruvian Ouano Co., Exp. Kemp, [1894] 3 Ch. 690 ; and as to
ascertainment of " profits " and the proper mode of keeping the accounts of
a trading CO., see Irnhhock v. British Bk. of S. America, [1892] 2 Ch. 198 ;
Bolton V. Natal Land Co., [1892] 2 Ch. 134. (See also Companies Clauses
Act, 1845, Table A. (73), 8 & 9 V. o. 16, s. 121.)
— from issuing shares or stock in lieu of dividends (as a means of recoup-
ing the revenue ^ums improperly withdrawn for capital purposes), and from
declaring any dividend on those so already issued : Hoole v. 0. W. By. Co.,
3 Ch. 262, sup.. Form 9, p. 691.
— ^from allotting shares where the whole of the application money has not
been paid and received in cash : Hears v. Western Canada, &c. Co., [1905]
2 Ch. 353, C. A. As to the right of an allottee to rescind where the minimum
subscription is not reached, see Finance and Issue v. Canadian Produce
Corp., [1905] 1 Ch. 37.
— from payment of dividends on ordinary shares without regard to the
rights of preference stockholders to be paid in priority : Henry v. G. N. By.
Co., 1 D. & J. 606 ; Sturge v. E. Union By., 7 D. M. & G. 158 ; Matthews v.
0. N. By., 28 L. J. Ch. 375 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 284 ; 7 W. R. 233 ; and see Webb
V. Earle, 20 Eq. 556.
— from paying dividends to one class of shareholders without also pa'ying
the corresponding dividends to the other shareholders : Morgan v. O. E. By.
Co., 1 H. & M. 560 ; and see Oakbanh Oil Co. v. Crum, 8 App. Ca. 65.
— from applying moneys representing net profits earned by a oo. prior to
the date of its liquidation, otherwise than in payment of arrears of dividend
due at that date to the preference shareholders : Bishop v. Smyrna and
Carsaba By. Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 265.
• — ^from distributing a "windfall" as dividend without reference to the
other deaUngs for the year: Foster v. New Trinidad, dkc. Co., [1901] 1 Ch. 208.
As to power of water co. under the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, to make
up deficiencies in the prescribed rate of dividend out of surplus profits see
Company cfcc, of the Kent Waterworks y. Lamplough, [1904] A. C. 27.
But payment of a dividend actually declared will not be restrained :
Carlisle Y. S. E. By., 1 Mac. & G. 689 ; Fawcett v. Laurie, 1 Dr. & Sm. 192.
The payment of interest on debentures out of capital dtmng the oon-
Interest on struction of a co.'s works was allowed in Hinds v. Buenos Ayres Grand
debentures National Tramways Co., [1906] 2 Ch. 654, and such payment is now expressly
out of capital, authorized by sect. 91 of the Companies (Consohdated) Act, 1908.
As to the illegality of a purchase of its own shares by a co., see Trevor v.
Purchase Whitworth, 12 App. Ca. 409 ; In re Denver Hotel Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 495, C. A. ;
by CO. of its or acceptance of a surrender of shares partly paid : Bellerby v. Rowland
own shares. j,„^ Marwood's Steamship Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 265 ; and of issuing shares at a
discount, see Be Addlestone Linoleum Co., 37 Ch. D. 191, 206, C. A. ; In re
Alnwda and Tirito Co., 38 Ch. D. 415, C. A. ; Mosely v. Koffyfontein Mines,
[1904] 2 Ch. 108 ; Keatinge v. Paringa Mines, 1902, W. N. 15 ; Be Develop-
ment Co. of Central Asia, [1902] 1 Ch. 547 ; and compare Famatina
Development Corp. v. Bury, [1910] A. 0. 439 ; but not so as to preclude
the CO. from buying property at a fair price and paying for it in fully paid
up shares : Re Wragg, Ld., [1897] 1 Ch. 796, C. A. ; Ooregum, <fcc. Co. v. Boper,
[1892] A. C. 125 ; and that the holders of shares so issued are not thereby
relieved from liabihty, in a winding up, to calls for the amounts unpaid on
their shares for the adjustment of the rights of contributories inter se, as well
as for the payment of the co.'s debts and the costs of the winding up :
Weltm V. Sajfery, [1897] A. C. 299, H. L., affirming C. A., [1895] 1 Ch. 255 ;
and that an agreement to underwrite shares is not an agreement to issue
Pavmenta to at a discount, see Re Licensed Victuallers' Assoc, Exp. Audain, 42 Ch. D.
underwriters l, 0. A. ; and see Buckley, 215 ; and that the payment by a limited co.
and brokers, gf a reasonable amount of money to brokers by way of commission or
s. XIV.] Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 701
brokerage for placing shares is not an act ultra vires of the co. : Metropolitan
Coal Consumers Assoc, v. Scrimgeour, [1895] 2 Q. B. 604, C. A., distinguishing
Be Faure Electric Co., 40 Ch. D. 141. As to payment of commission and
brokerage, see the Companies (Consohdated) Act, 1908, s. 89, wliich appMes
as well to private as to pubUc companies : Dominion of Canada Oeneral Trad-
ing and Investment Syndicate v. Brigstocke, [1911] 2 K.B. 648, and as to the
inherent right of directors to set aside a reserve fund to meet contingencies,
see Fisher v. Black and White Publishing Co., [1901] 1 Ch. 174, C. A.
A provision may be validly made in articles of association authorizing Interest on
pajTuents on shares in advance of calls, and in such a case, although there payments
are no profits, interest on moneys paid by shareholders in advance of calls in advance
can legally be paid out of capital : Lock v. Queensland Investment and Land of calls.
Mortgage Co., [1896] A. C. 461, H. L. affirming C. A. ; [1896] 1 Ch. 397,
C. A. ; approving Dale v. Martin, 9 L. R. Jr. 498 ; 11 L. R. Ir. 371.
Delay by Pit is fatal to an interlocutory motion to restrain an alleged Delay and
illegal application of funds for dividend purposes : Salisbvry v. Metropolitan acquiescence.
Ry. Co., 18 W. R. 484 ; especially where there has been long acquiescence
ivlth the principle on which the accounts with reference to the dividend have
been taken : Yool v. O. W. By., 10 L. T. 74 ; and as to the efiect of acqui-
escence by shareholders, see London Financial Assoc, v. Kelk, 26 Ch. D. 107.
If such illegal appUcation has been already made, the order will be for Refunding.
the directors personally to refund the money improperly paid, with interest
at 4 p. 0., without prejudice to their right to recover back from the share-
holders to whom they have paid it the amount of dividend which they have
so improperly paid to them : Salisbury v. Metropolitan By., 18 W. R. 974 ;
Evans v. Coventry, 8 D. M. & G. 835.
And see National Funds Assur. Co., 10 Ch. D. 118 ; Flitcroft's case, 21 Summary
Ch. D. 519 ; Alexandra Palace Co., lb. 160 ; Be Denham & Co., 25 Ch. D. jurisdiction,
752 ; Be Oxford Ben. Building Society, 35 Ch. D. 502 ; Leeds Estate Building
Go. V. Shepherd, 36 Ch. D. 787, for the exercise of summary jurisdiction
under the Companies Act, 1862, ss. 101, 165 (which is replaced by the Com-
panies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 215), to direct repayment, with interest
at 5 p. c, by the directors, who were declared jointly and severally liable,
of dividends improperly declared and paid.
Illegal and unauthorized Contracts and Arrangements : —
Under this head railway cos. have been restrained :
— from promoting and guaranteeing a steam packet co. ; Colman v. E. C.
By. Co., 10 Beav. 1 ; and from carrying on marine traffic : Shrewsbury, dkc.
Co. V. L. & N. W. By., 16 Beav. 441 (see also Forrest v. Manchester, etc. Co.,
4 D. P. & J. 126 ; 30 Beav. 40).
■ — ^from carrying on the business of coal merchants : A. 0. v. O. N. By.
Co., 1 Dr. & Sm. 154.
So also a co. formed for fire and life insurance business is not entitled to
grant marine policies : Re Phoenix Life Co., 2 J. & H. 441.
But payments made ex. gratid for losses not covered by the policy will not
be restrained : Taunton v. Boyal Ins. Co., 2 H. & M. 135.
And as conducive to the objects of the undertaking, it is not ultra vires Conducive to
for an hotel co. to let off part of their building for temporary use as a objects of
Government office : Simpson v. West. Palace Hotel Co., 8 H. L. C.'712 ; 2 D. undertaking.
F. & J. 141 ; or for a railway co. to supply rolling stock to another co. under
a statutory agreement as to working, maintenance, and management of such
line : A. 0. v. 0. E. By. Co., 5 App. Ca. 473 ; or for directors of a building
society to make advances on speculative securities, and incur expenditure,
and do acts necessary for their realization : Sheffield and 8. Yorkshire B. B.
Soc. V. Aidewood, 4A Ch. D. 412 ; and that the doctrine of ultra vires ought
to be reasonably applied, see L. <Ss N. W. Ry. Co. v. Price, 11 Q. B. D. 485.
And the owner of land adjoining a railway has no equity to restrain the
CO. from putting up a screen so as to prevent his acquisition of prescriptive
rights : Bonner v. G. W. By. Co., 24 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
702 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Railway and other cos. have also been restrained :
■ — from using a line for traffic other than their own : L. B. & S. C. Ry. Co,
V. L. cfe S. W. Ry. Co., 4 D. & J. 362.
— from applying the funds of a oo. in making a line different from that
prescribed by their Act : Bagshaw v. E. Union Ry. Co. , 7 Ha. 1 14 ; 2 Mac. &
G. 389.
— ^in making part only of the line : Cohen v. Wilkinson, 12 Beav. 125 •
1 Mac. & G. 481.
— in making one only out of several lines authorized by their Act :
Hodgson v. E. Powis, 12 Beav. 392, 529 ; 1 D. M. & G. 6.
— ^in carrjdng out an agreement for the purpose of extending their
business by acquiring the trade of another co. : Simpson v. Benison, 10
Ha. 51.
— ^from entering into a contract fixing and regulating future traffic of a
proposed line so as to give to another oo. an interest in such traffic and
profits : Midland By. Co. v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., 2 Eq. 255 ; and see
Charlton v. Newcastle Ry. Co., 5 Jur. N. S. 1096 ; 7 W. R. 731.
(Secus, however, as to a bond fide traffic agreement between two coter-
minous railway systems : Hare v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., 2 J. & H. 80 ; and
see inf. " Traffic Agreement.")
— from acting on an agreement so far as it bound one co. to contribute
towards the promotion of a bill by another co., or to make traffic regulations
applicable to future extensions : Maunsell v. Mid. 6. W. (Ireland) Ry. Co.,
1 H. & M. 130.
— ^from appljang the funds of a co. in the prosecution of a suit in which
the CO. are not Pits : Kernaghan v. Williams, 6 Eq. 228.
- — in payment of a lump sum to promoters (solr and engineer) for obtaining
the Act of Parliament : Mann v. Edinburgh Tram. Co., 62 L. J. P. C. 74 ; or
— ^in payment of the costs of a prosecution for Ubel against a former
secretary of a committee of the co. : Pickering v. Stephenson, 14 Eq. 322 ;
Re Faure Electric Co., 40 Ch. D. 141 ; and see Studdert v. Orosvenor, 33
Ch. D. 528 (where the injunction was refused because the payment was
made and known to a general meeting before action brought) ; secus, where
the prosecution was carried on entirely in the co.'s interest : S. C.
— ^in making loans to the directors or officers of the co. : Bluck v. Mallalue,
27 Beav. 398.
— ^in a subscription to the Imperial Institute (in honour of the Queen's
jubilee) : Tomkinson v. S. E. Ry. Co., 35 Ch. D. 675.
And generally cos. cannot enter into contracts or apply any part of their
funds for purposes other than those contemplated or authorized by their Act:
Ashbury, &c. Co. v. Riche, L. R. 7 H. L. 653 (reversing L. R. 9 Ex. 224,
249) ; Salomons V. Laing, 12 Beav. 379 ; HatlersleyY. E. Shelburne, 10 W. R.
881 ; Pickering v. Stephenson, 14 Eq. 322 ; Re Faure Electric Co., 40 Ch. D.
141 ; Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Soc, 6 Q. B. D. 696, C. A. ; Baroness
Wenlockv. River DeeCo., 10 App. Ca. 354 ; or reasonably incidental thereto :
A. O.Y. 0. E. Ry. Co., 5 App. Ca. 473 ; L. <fc N. W. Ry. Co. v. Price, 11
Q. B. D. 485 ; Truman v. L. B. & S. C. Ry. Co., 11 App. Ca. 45 ; Sevenoaks,
<&c. Ry. Co. V. L. C. & D. Ry. Co., 11 Ch. D. 625 ; Hutton v. West Cork Ry.
Co., 23 Ch. D. 654, C. A. ; Re West of England Bank, Exp. Booker, 14 Ch. D.
31 ; and see Cullerne v. London and Suburban Building Soc, 28 Q. B. D. 485,
C. A. ; Warburton v. Huddersfield Industrial Soc, [1892] 1 Q. B. 213 ; how-
ever advantageous such proposed application may be considered by the co. :
Munt V. Shrewsbury, d-c. Ry. Co., 13 Beav. 1 ; E. C. Ry. Co. v. Hawkes. 5
H. L. C. 331 ; 1 D. M. & G. 737 ; Hope v. International Fin. Soc, 4 Ch. D. 227.
And see Shrewsbury, t&c. Co. v. L. <k N. W. Ry. Co., 6 H. L. 113 ; Scottish
N. E. Ry. Co. V. Stewart, 3 Macq. 382 ; A. 0. v. London County Council,
[1902] A. C. 165 (running of omnibuses by tramway authority) ; A. 0. v.
Mersey Ry. Co., 1907, A. C. 415 (running of omnibuses by railway co.) ;
A. G. V. Metropolitan, dkc Ry. Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 757, C". A. .: A. G. v.
Manchester Corp., [1906] 1 Ch. 643; A. G. v. West Gloucester Water
s. XIV.] Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 703
Co., [1909] 2 Ch. 338, C. A. ; A. 0. v. North Eastern By., [1906] 2 Ch. 675,
C. A. ; A. 6. V. Corp. of Leicester, [1910] 2 Ch. 359.
As to the incapacity of directors to make presents to themselves out of
the co.'s assets, see lie George Newman & Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 674, C. A. ;
Young v. The Naval, d;c. Co-operative Society of South Africa, [1905]
1 K. B. 687.
And as to the liabihty of a sjTidicate of promoters, and their duty
not to make a secret profit out of the co. when formed, see Re Olympia,
Ld., [1898] 2 Ch. 153, C. A. ; S. C, Gluchstein v. Barnes, [1 900] A. C. 240, H. L.
But the Court will not restrain as ultra vires the application by the
directors of a portion of the funds in gratuities or pensions to the servants
of the CO. for services rendered : Hampson v. Prices Pat. Candle Co.,
45 L. J. Ch. 437 ; 24 W. R. 754 ; 34 L. T. 711 ; Henderson v. Bank of
Australasia, 40 Ch. D. 170 ; see also Cyclists Touring Cluh v. Hophinson,
[1910] 1 Ch. 179 ; nor the application of the funds of a nursing association,
proprietors and publishers of a newspaper on nursing, in defending an action
of libel against the editor in respect of an article inserted in the newspaper
under the express instructions of the association : Breay v. Royal British
Nurses' Assoc, [1897] 2 Ch. 272, C. A. ; nor a railway co. from letting the
interiors of their arches for shops and other business purposes upon short
tenancies, reserving power to resume possession when the co. deem it neces-
sary for the purposes of the railway : Foster v. L. C. & D. Ry. Co., [1895] 1
Q. B. 711, C. A. (disapproving ratio decidendi of Malins, V.-C., in Norton v.
L. & N. W. Ry. Co., 9 Ch. D. 623) ; nor from letting a small portion of the
land (not immediately required for the purposes of the railway), at a low
rent, for the erection of a temporary chapel : Onslow v. Manchester, Sheffield
and Lincolnshire Ry. Co., 64 L. Ch. 355 ; 72 L. T. 256 ; nor from carrying
goods for a customer at lower rates than those charged to another customer :
Anderson v. Midland ify. Co., [1902] 1 Ch. 369 ; and as to deahngs by oo.
with property comprised in debentures, v. inf. Vol. III. p. 1967.
And that the Court will not interfere in questions relating to the re-
muneration of directors for past as well as future services, see Lambert v.
Northern Buenos Ayres Ry. Co., 18 W. R. 180 ; or for services during a
winding-up ; secus, as to past services before transfer of co.'s undertaking,
as not being reasonably incidental to the carrying on of business for co.'s
benefit : Button v. West Cork By. Co., 23 Ch. D. 654, C. A. ; Strovd v.
Royal Aquarium, 1903, W. N. 146 ; or to restrain the dismissal of an agent
whose management and agency were especially provided for by the articles
of association : Mair v. Himalaya Tea Co., 1 Eq. 411 ; or for the purpose
of forcing the co. to conduct their business according to the strictest rules,
where the irregularity complained of could be set right at any moment :
Southern Counties Deposit Bk. v. Rider, 73 L. T. 374 (in which case the relief
was refused on the further ground that no application to the Court had
been made until six months after the resolution).
An injunction will not be granted to enforce a contract embodied in the
co.'s articles, but not adopted by the co., that the Pit, a director, shall not
be removed : Browne v. La Trinidad, 37 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
A CO. has also been restrained :
• — from transferring its business and assets to another co. without maldng
provision for the claim of the Pit (as a policy-holder) : Kearns v. Leaf, 1 H.
& M. 681 ;
— from distributing assets in liquidation amongst shareholders without
setting aside money to provide for rent and liabilities under the co.'s lease :
Gooch V. London Banking Assoc, 32 Ch. D. 41, C. A. ;
— ^from applying assets to pay costs of a winding-up petition presented by
CO., but opposed by many shareholders, and of an appeal from dismissal of
such petition : Smith v. Duke of Manchester, 24 Ch. D. 61 1 ;
— from carrying into effect an agreement for the sale and transfer to a
person about to form a oo. of the business and assets of the co. : Bird v.
Bird's Patent, &c. Co., 9 Ch. 358.
704
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
Remedy by
winding-up
order.
Controlling
meetings.
— ^from parting with assets without setting aside a sum sufficient to meet
the claim of a dissentient, in a case where the articles improperly sought to
deprive dissentient shareholders of their rights under sect. 161 of the Com-
panies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 V. e. 89) (now substituted by the Companies
(Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 192) : Payne v. Cork Co.,
[1900] 1 Ch. 308 ; and see Bisgood v. Henderson's Transvaal Estates, [19081
1 Ch. 743, C. A. ;
— from discontinuing supply of water, notwithstanding the special remedy
given by the Waterworks Clauses Act, s. 68 : Haywa/rd v. E. London Water-
works Co., 28 Ch. D. 138 ;
— from " constructing " waterworks within the meaning of sect. 52 of the
Public Health Act, 1875, without giving previous notice to an estabhshed
water co. whose limits of supply were invaded : HuMersfield Corp. v. Ravens-
ihorpe M. D. C, [1897] 2 Ch. 121, 0. A. ; distinguishing Cleveland Water Co.
V. Redcar L. B., [1895] 1 Ch. 168 ;
As to restraining a burial board from using ground within 100 yards from
any dwelling house, see Qodden v. Hyihe Burial Board, [1906] 2 Ch. 270.
— ^from carrying out an underwriting agreement contrary to Companies
Act, 1900 (63 & 64 V. c. 48), s. 8 (now substituted by s. 89 of the 1908
Act) : Burrows v. Matabele Gold, &c. Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 23, C. A.
But a contract by a co. to sell its rolling stock to another co., and re-hire
it at a rent calculated to payofi the purchase-money, with interest, in a term
of years, at the expiration of which the rolling stock was to belong to the
hirers absolutely, was upheld as hond fide, though a loan ^lltra vires was
thereby circuitously effected : Yorkshire Waggon Co. v. Maclure, 21 Ch. D.
309, C. A.
Where a co. has ceased to carry on its proper business, and is carrying on
one ultra vires, a shareholder is not confined to the remedy by injunction,
but may obtain a winding-up order : Re Crown Bank, 44 Ch. T>. 634.
As to the distinction between the sale and transfer of business and assets
under the Companies Act, 1862, s. 161 (now substituted by s. 192 of the
1908 Act), to an existing co., and to a speculator proposing to form a co.,
see Bird v. Bird's Patent, dhc. Co., sup. ; Southall v. Brit. Mutual, dkc.
Soc, 6 Ch. 614 ; 11 Eq. 65.
Directors have also been restrained from issuing shares for the express
purpose of thereby controlling a general meeting : Eraser v. Wkalley, 2
H. & M. 10 ; Puntv. Symons, [1903] 2 Ch. 506 ; from wrongfully excluding
Pit from acting as director : Pulbrook v. Richmond Mining Co., 9 Ch. D.
610 ; Munster v. Cammell Co., 21 Ch. D. 183 ; Kyshe v. Alturas Gold Co.,
36 W. R. 496 ; and see Harben v. Phillips, 23 Ch. D. 14, 40, C. A. ; Sutton
v. English and Colonial, die. Co., [1902] 2 Ch. 502 ; from summoning the
general meeting at such a date as to deprive shareholders of their power of
voting : Cannon v. Trask, 20 Eq. 669 ; or upon an insufficient notice :
Alexander v. Simpson, 43 Ch. D. 139, C. A. ; secus, upon a notice
ambiguously worded so that it might possibly include matters ultra vires :
I. of Wight Ry. Co. v. Tahourdin, 25 Ch. D. 320, C. A. As to sufficiency
of notice, see Re North of England, d-c. Co., [1905] 2 Ch. 15, C. A. ;
Boschoek, d;c. Co. v. Fuke, [1906] 1 Ch. 148. But a very strong case
will be required to induce the Court to restrain shareholders from holding
a meeting : /. of Wight Ry. Co. v. Tahourdin, 25 Ch. D. 320, C. A.
Executors who were directors of a co. and held shares therein, and who
agreed with a purchaser of some of the shares that they would vote for the
re-election of the purchasers' nominees as directors, were restrained from
voting against the re-election of such nominees : Greenwell v. Porter, [1902]
1 Ch. 530.
As to restraining directors from calling a meeting without giving notice
to a co-director, quaere : Browne v. La Trinidad, 37 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; and in
Imperial Hydropathic Hotel v. Hampson, 23 Ch. D, 1, the Court refused to
grant an injunction to restrain a person from acting as director on the ground
that the co. had removed him.
s. xiv.j Gonipanies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 705
Where the chairman at a meeting refused to put to the meeting an amend-
ment properly moved by the Pit, a shareholder, the resolution was set
aside : Henderson v. Banh of Australasia, 45 Ch. D. 330, C. A.
But in the absence of fraud or mala fides, a resolution for voluntary
winding-up will not be impeached upon the ground that votes have been
improperly received: Wall v. London and Northern Assets Corp., No. 2,
[1899] 1 Ch. 550.
As to the sufficiency of the notice of an extraordinary general meeting,
and the necessity to disclose all facts requisite to enable the shareholder to
determine in his own interest whether or not he ought to attend the meeting,
e.g., the pecuniary interest of a doctor in the matter to be proposed, see
Kaye v. Croydon Trams Co., [1898] 1 Ch. 358 ; Tiessen v. Henderson, [1899]
1 Ch. 861 ; Hooper v. Kerr, 83 L. T. 729 ; Torhoch v. Lord Westbury, [1902]
2 Ch. 871. A general meeting convened by de facto directors will not be
invalidated by reason of the directors having been irregularly constituted :
Boschoelc, <i:c. Co. v. Fuhe, [1906] 1 Ch. 148.
As to the proper mode of ascertaining the number of votes given on a show
of hands, and in particular those of persons holding proxies, see Ernest v.
Loma Gold Mines, Ld., [1897] 1 Ch. 1, C. A. ; overruling Re Bidwell Bros.,
[1893] 1 Ch. 603. Proxies returned with blanks, which were filled up by
the secretary before the proxies are lodged with the co., are valid if properly
stampedunder the Stamp Act, 1891, s. 80 : B.C. As to the conclusiveness
of the chairman's declaration unless a poll is demanded, see Arnot v. United
African Lands, [1901] 1 Ch. 518, C. A. ; Re Hadleigh Castle Gold Mines,
[1900] 2 Ch. 419. But compare Re Caratal New Mines, [1902] 2 Ch. 498 ;
and as to chairman's power to direct manner of taking a poll, see McMillan
V. Le Roi Mining Co., [1906] 1 Ch. 331.
As to the right of the minority at a meeting to be heard before the chair-
man, with the sanction of a vote of the meeting, declares the discussion
closed, and puts the question to the vote, see Wall v. London and Northern
Assets Corp., [1898] 2 Ch. 469, C. A.
Directors of a co. cannot without express authority in the articles of
association postpone a general meeting wliich has been properly convened :
Smith V. Paringa Mines, [1906] 2 Ch. 193.
Directors have been restrained from using the corporate name and powers
for the purpose of dividing amongst the majority, to the exclusion of the
minority, consideration money received from an arrangement with another
CO.: Menier v. Hooper's Tel. Works, 9 Ch. 350; Mason v. Harris, 11
Ch. D. 97 ; and see Alexander v. Automatic Telephone Co., [1900] 2 Ch. 58,
C. A.
A corporation has also been restrained from applying the borough funds Misappro-
in buying a gold chain for the mayor : A. 6. v. Bailey Corp., 26 L. T. priation of
392 ; or to purposes not authorized by the Municipal Corporations or borough
some other Act : see A. O. v. Mayor of Newcastle, 23 Q. B. D. 492 ; or iiirida.
a payment of interest on the amount of an authorized contribution to the
purchase of a site for a college which was being carried on upon premises
rented for the purpose : A. 0. v. Corp. of Cardiff, [1904] 2 Ch. 337 ; secus,
payment of a sum voted to the mayor, but, in fact, applied for the purpose
of celebrating the marriage of the only son of the heir to the throne : 8. C.
(q.v., also that a payment made in form by way of addition to a mayor's
salary is not legal unless it is a bond fide increase of salary : 8. C.) ; A. 0.x.
Mayor of Norwich, 2 My. & Cr. 406 ; A. 0. v. Aspinall, ih. 613 ; and from
avoiding Pit's office of, and interfering with his rights and privileges as,
alderman: Aslatt v. Mayor, tfcc. of Southampton, 16 Ch. D. 143; see
Form 14, sup., p. 693 ; and the like in the case of a member of a school
board : Richardson v. Methley School Board, [1893] 3 Ch. 510 ; sup. Form 15 ;
and see Milwmrd v. Barry Urban District Council, [1904] 2 Ch. 481 ; and a
vestry were restrained from spending money out of the rates for the purpose
of inducing persons not to pay the charges of a water company for a fixed
bath : A. G. v, CamberweU Vestry, 1894, W. N. 163.
VOL, I. 2 Z
706 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
The London School Board were restrained from expending money arising
from the local rates upon any education other than elementary education :
Dyer v. London School Board, [1902] 2 Ch. 768.
As to the jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining execution for
local rates, see Ashworth v. HAden Bridge Local Board, 47 L. J. Ch. 195 ;
37 L. T. 426.
As to the incapacity of a corporation to enter into a contract fettering the
powers of their successors, see Ayr Harbour Trustees v. Oswald, 8 App. Ca.
623 ; Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commrs v. Southborough Local Board, 60
L. T. 172 ; Islington Vestry v. Hornsey District Council, 69 L. J. Ch. 324,
C. A. ; Re South Eastern By and Wiffin's Contract, [1907] 2 Ch. 366 ; but
compare Siourcliffe Estates Co. v. Bournemouth Corporation, [1910] 2 Ch.
12, C. A.
Upon the question of the capacities incident to corps, and cos., see
Pollock, Contr., 121 et seq. ; and as to the statutory status of a county
council as distinguished from the status of a corp. at common law, see
A. O. V. London County Council, [1901] 1 Ch. 781, C. A.
As to restraining a Trade Union from making levies to support parlia-
mentary representatives, see Osborne v. Amalgamated Society of Railway
Servants, [1910] A. C. 87, Form 2, p. 711, post.
And for cases in which injunctions have been granted or refused against
cos. and their directors in respect of various acts, see Lindl. on Companies,
Vol. I. p. 798, et seq.
Preference Shares: —
For injunction restraining the issue of preference shares, by the issue
of unallotted parts of the original share capital with a preferential dividend,
see muton v. Scarborough Cliff Hotel Co., 2 Dr. & Sm. 517 ; 4 D. J. & S. 672 ;
but this case was observed upon in British and American Trustee and Finance
Corp. V. Gouper, [1894] A. C. 399, H. L., and has since been distinctly over-
ruled in Andrews v. Gas Meter Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 361, C. A., where it was held
that a limited co., having no authority under its memorandum or articles of
association to create any preference between different classes of shares, may
by special resolution alter its articles so as to authorize the directors to issue
preference shares by way of increase of capital : see also Harrison v. Mexican
By. Co., 19 Eq. 358 ; Underwood v. London Music Hall Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 309.
As to the position of preference shareholders of an English co. which
carries on business in a, colony in reference to a tax imposed on colonial
assets, see Spiller v. Turner, [1897] 1 Ch. 911.
Superfluous Lands : —
Upon the Lands C. C. Act, 1845, directing (sect. 127) that within the
prescribed period, or, if no period be prescribed, within ten years after the
time limited for completion of the works, superfluous lands not required
for the purposes of the undertaking shall be sold, and in default shall vest
in the owners of the lands adjoining thereto ; and (sect. 128) giving,
" unless such lands be situate within a town, or be lands built upon or
used for building purposes," to the person then entitled to the lands from
which the superfluous land was originally severed, or to the adjoining
owners the right of pre-emption, the following cases have been decided : — •
Beauchamp v. 6. W. Ry. Co., 3 Ch. 745 (that land required for making
accommodation works which the co. would be compelled to make is not
superfluous land) ; Wilkinson v. Hull, <l-c. Docks Co., 20 Ch. D. 323.
Mulliner v. Midland Ry. Co., 11 Ch. D. 611 (that land under railway
arch is not superfluous) ; and see Ware v. L. B. d: S. C. Rij. Co., 31 W. R.
228 ; 52 L. J. Ch, 198 ; 47 L. T= 541.
Re Met. Dist. Ry. Co. and Cosh, 13 Ch. D. 607, C. A. (that land over a
tunnel is not superfluous) ; and see Midland By. Co. v. Wright, [1901] 1
Ch. 738.
Bird v. Eggleton, 29 Ch. D. 1012 (that a prohibition under Inolosure Act ,
against building, revived when land was sold as superfluous).
s, XIV.] Companies, Corporations, and Public Bodies. 707
Hooper v. Bourne, 5 App. Ca. 1 (that the burden of proving title to land
as superfluous rests on the claimant ; that the mere fact that the land is not
built upon is not conclusive ; that the fact of the land being in the neigh-
bourhood of a populous town raises a presumption that it will be wanted for
increased railway traffic).
Hobbs V. Midland By. Co., 20 Ch. D. 418 (that sale of land by one co. to
another is ultra vires, but is not conclusive proof of the land being super-
fluous) ; Dunhill v. North Eastern By. Co., [1896] 1 Ch. 121, C. A. (although
such sale is compulsory).
Belts V. G. E. By. Co., L. R. 8 Ex. 294 ; 3 Ex. D. 182 (that land acquired
and bond fide retained by a oo. with intention to use it for the purposes of
their Act does not become superfluous land if not actually so used at tho
expiration of ten years).
May V. G. W. By. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 26 ; 7 Q. B. 364 ; S. C, L. R. 7 H. L.
283 (that the right of adjoining owners to unsold land after ten years, under
sect. 127, which, from having been applied by the oo. to purposes other than
those of their undertaking, has become superfluous land, is not defeated
by an Act obtained by the co. after the expiration of the ten years enabling
them to retain such land) ; and see Moody v. Corbett, L. R. 1 Q. B. 510.
Norton v. L. * N. W. By. Co., 13 Ch. D. 268, C. A. (that a strip of land
between a hedge and disused fence, and occupied by the adjoining owner
as part of his land, had become superfluous and vested in tho owner, and
that his possession was sufficient to extinguish the oo.'s title under the
Statute of Limitations).
Smith V. S., L. R. 3 Ex. 282 (that the provisions as to superfluous lands do
not apply when the railway has been abandoned).
Blackmore v. L. dk 8. W. By. Co., L. R. 4 H. L. 610 (as to the meaning of
the word "adjoining"); see also Coventry y. L. B. & 8. C. By. (7o.,5Eq. 104.
Carrington v. Wycombe By. Co., 2 Ex. 825 ; 3 Ch. 377 (that lands outside
and not surrounded by the buildings of the actual town, though within the
borough boundary, are not within the words of exception, "within a town ").
Coventry v. L. B. ds 8. C. By. Co., sup. (that " lands used for building
purposes " mean lands sold as building land or let on building leases, and
actually laid out for building) ; see also L. & 8. W. By. Co. v. Blackmore,
L. R. 4 H. L. 610.
Tomlin v. Budd, 18 Eq. 368 (that the Metropolitan District Ry. Co. has
been relieved by the Metropolitan District Railway Act, 1868, from the
restrictions as to the sale of superfluous lands imposed by sects. 127, 128).
Be Higgins' and Hitchman''s Contract, 21 Ch. D. 95 (that superfluous lands
may be sold subject to a restrictive covenant not to erect a pubhc-house, if
such covenant be advantageous to the co.).
L. & 8. W. By. Co. v. Gomm, 20 Ch. D. 562, C. A. (that when land is sold
as superfluous no interest in it can be retained by the CO.).
Bay V. Wcdker, [1892] 2 Q. B. 88 (that a covenant by purchaser for resale
of part when required will not vitiate the sale of the rest).
Be Thachwray and Young's Contract, 40 Ch. D. 34, C. A. (qucere whether co.
can convey postponing payment of purchase-money and retaining interim
lien).
Traffic Agreement : —
A bo7id fide traffic agreement for diminishing competition between two
coterminous railway systems is not invalid : Hare v. L. tfe N. W. By. Co.,
2 J. & H. 80.
And the Court will restrain acts in violation thereof, even in the absence of
negative stipulation : Wolverhampton, <Ssc. By. Co. v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 16
Eq. 433 ; Midland By. Co. v. G. W. By. Co., 8 Ch. 843, sup. Form 8, p. 690.
And see Llanelly By. Co. v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 8 Ch. 942 ; L. R. 7 H. L.
550, to the same efEect, and negativing the claim of one of the contracting
parties to treat it as a terminable agreement, and to restrain the other from
availing themselves of it (by running over a,nd using the railways, &c.).
708 Injunctions, [chap. xxxi.
The earlier cases in which such agreements have been held invalid to the
cixtent of restraining the delegation of the powers and duties, or the aliena-
tion of the plant and property of the one co. to the other ( Winch v. Birlcen-
head By., 5 D. & S. 562 ; Charlton v. Newcastle, <i:c. By. Co., 5 Jur. N. S.
1096), seem to have proceeded upon the principle that it is the delegation of
powers which vitiates the agreement ; see Beman v. Bufford, 1 Sim. N. S.
550 ; Shrewsbury, iSsc. By. Co. v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 6 H. L. C. 113 • 4
D. M. & G. 115 ; 16 Beav. 441 ; Browne & Theobald, 292.
Under a power to " maintain " a railway and work it, reasonable improve-
ments, consistent with the purposes of the undertaking, are included :
Sevcnoahs By. Co. v. L. C. cfc D. By. Co., 11 Ch. D. 625.
Unpaid Vendor: —
An unpaid vendor is not entitled in the first instance to have his lien
enforced by an injunction restraining the co. from continuing in possession
or running trains over the land : Munns v. Isle of Wight By. Co., 5 Ch. 414 ;
Lycett V. Stafford & Uttoxeter By. Co., 13 Eq. 261 ; Latimer v. Aylesbury By.
Co., 9 Ch. D. 385 ; Marshall v. Scarb. <fc Whitby By. Co., 1889, W. N. 73 ;
but after unsuccessful attempts to sell, the injunction will be granted :
Williams v. Aylesbury <k Buchingham By. Co., L. C. for M. R., July, 1873,
B. 2380 ; and so too if it is clear that the land is unsaleable, and that an
attempt to sell would only cause useless expense : Allgood v. Merrybent,
<fcc. By. Co., 33 Ch. D. 571.
And as to vendor's lien generally, v. inf. Chap. L,, " SPECinc Per-
rOBMANCE."
Section XV. — Ecclesiastical Benefices and Nonconformist
Congregations.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against talcing Possession of Living — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft be restrained from performing divine service
in the church of St. M., in the town of S., in the (information)
mentioned, and from reading therein the articles and other matters
required to be read by a curate licensed to a church on taking posses-
sion thereof, and from doing or causing to be done any act, matter, or
thing, to put iiimself into possession of the curacy in the (information)
mentioned, under or by virtue of the election, nomination, and licence
in the (information) mentioned, or any of them ; until &c. — A. G. v.
E. Powis, V.-C. W., 23 Dec. 1853, A. 245 ; Kay, 186.
For order dissolving injunction, and ordering the trustees to present, and
the Bishop to institute, see Edenborough v. Archbp. of Canterbury, 2 Russ.
93, 112.
For injunction to stay the Bishop from admitting the Deft's clerk, see
Hydev. H., M. R., 11 July, 1710, A. 395 ; and from instituting and inducting
a co-Deft to a vicarage, see A. 0. v. Cuming, 2 Y. & C. C. 145.
For injunction to restrain the vestry of St. J., Clerken well, and the trustees
of the living from presenting or nominating M. to the Bishop for institution
or induction to the living or perpetual curacy, on the footing of an election
declared by the decree to be null and void, see Carter V, Cropley, 8 D, M. & G.
680 (reversing y.-C. K„ 5 W. R. 172).
SECT. XV.] Eoclesiastical Benefices, dfc. 709
For an injunction relating to presentation and staying proceedings in
actions of prohibition and replevin, see Hodgson v. Benison, L. C, 31 Jan,
1747, A. 310.
For an injunction until answer or further order to restrain Bishop of C.
and his substitutes and agents from sending out any instrument or mandate
or doing any act for the institution, &o. of the Deft, see Bolter v. Chapman,
1749, B. 321 ; Amb. 98.
2. Injunction to restrain Minority of Trustees of Methodist Chapel,
who had resigned, from excluding Preachers appointed by the
Majority.
Order that the Defts be restrained from taking possession of the
pulpit in the chapel at &c., vested in the trustees of the indenture
dated &c., and from excluding the preachers, or any of them, duly
appointed by the major part of the trustees acting in the trusts of
the said indenture to preach and officiate in the said chapel, from
preaching or officiating in the said chapel, and from in any manner
disturbing or interfering with the performance of divine worship
in the said chapel, and from in any manner meddling or interfering
with the trust premises.— ;Sto« v. Storey, V.-C. W., 18 July, 1860,
B. 1561.
For declaration that Defts, trustees of the French Protestant Church of
London, were not justified in removing the pastor, and injunction against
interfering with his due exercise of his office, see Daugars v. Rivaz, 28 Beav.
262.
For decree on motion, in a suit by the majority of the trustees of a non-
conforming chapel, for perpetual injunction to restrain a minister on pro-
bation and the minority of the trustees from disturbing the pastor, deacons,
and members in the performance of divine service in, or in the use of, the
chapel, and the minister from officiating as pastor, and from preaching, or
intermeddling with the service — with costs against the Defts, see Perry v.
Shipway, 1 GifE. 1, 11 ; 4 D. & J. 353.
For injunction to restrain two vicars who had affected to dismiss the Pit
from the office of schoolmaster from removing him from his office until after
holding a meeting of the three vicars, who had power to remove him for
specified causes, and the Pit had had an opportunity of being heard at such
meeting in his own defence, see Fisher v. Jackson, North, J., 7 March, 1891,
A. 316 ; [1891] 2 Ch. 84.
3. Injunction against Receipt of Pew Rents by displaced Minister
of Chapel.
Declare that the Deft, the Eev. 6., is not entitled to officiate or
preach in the chapel in the pleadings mentioned against the wish
of the majority of the trustees of the said chapel, and of the society
or congregation in the pleadings mentioned ; And order that the
Defts, the Rev. G., and P., be restrained from receiving or collecting,
or continuing or attempting to receive or collect, any of the rents
payable for pews or sittings in the said chapel. — Cooper v. Gordon,
V.-S. C, 28 May, 1869, A. 1400 ; 8 Eq. 249.
710
Injunctions.
[chap. XXXI.
For interlocutory order to restrain the Deft from acting as the agent or
manager of a voluntary society for disseminating the peculiar doctrines of
Swedenborg, and from selling any of the books of, and receiving any money
belonging to, the society; and from seUing, &c., from the house of the
society any spiritualistic books, periodicals, or other works whatsoever,
unless under the order or with the permission of the Pits ; but without
prejudice to any question as to the right (if any) of the Deft to recover
damages from Pits or any of them, the Pits undertaking to abide by any
order which the Court shall make as to damages, and to allow the Deft the
use for two months of the house and premises, and to allow him access to
the shop at all reasonable times for the purpose of enabling him to remove
his own stock and property, see Spurgin v. White, V.-C. S., 22 Dec. 1860,
B. 2536 ; 8. C, 7 Jur. N. S. 15 ; 2 Giff. 473 ; followed in ColUson v. Warren,
[1901] 1 Ch. 812, C. A.
For an injunction to restrain the trustees of a chapel from mortgaging
it for a small sum without apparent necessity, see Bigall v. Foster, 18
Jur. 39.
For a decree establisliing the right of a Baptist minister to possession of
a house, built under a trust to provide a ministerial residence, as against a
majority of the trustees who had let the house to a stranger, see Ward v.
Hipwell, 3 Gifi. 5i7 ; 8 Jur. N.S. 666.
For injunction restraining Deft from acting or purporting to act as parish
clerk in virtue or imder colour of his alleged appointment, and interfering
with the Pit in the execution of his office so long as the Pit should continue
parish clerk, and from receiving the fees, and for delivery over of all books
and keys (if any) wMch belonged to the parish clerk by virtue of his office,
and which were in the possession or under the control of the Deft, see
Lavrrence v. Edwards, [1891] 2 Ch. 72.
Right of
presentation.
Patron.
Parish clerk.
Parishioners.
Noncon-
formist con-
gregation.
Power of
dismissal.
NOTES.
Pending a suit to determine the validity of a presentation, the Bishop vrill
be restrained from taking any advantage of a lapse : Nicholson v. Knapp,
9 Sim. 326 ; Daly v. Archbp. of Dublin, Fl. & K. (Ir.) 263.
But the legal right of the patron to present, and the order giving effect
to that right against the Bishop, do not exclude the Bishop's right to
examine into the fitness of the presentee, and to reject him on sufficient
grounds : A. 0. v. Cuming, 2 Y. & C. C. 139, 155 ; and see Bp. of Exeter v.
Marshall, L. R. 3 H. L. 17 ; Whitehead, Church Law, 3rd ed. 250.
That the office of parish clerk is a temporal office, see Lawrence v. Edwards,
[1891] 2 Ch. 72.
Notwithstanding the previous decisions, that where the advowson of a
parish is vested in trustees for the benefit of the parishioners, an election
by ballot is invalid as not permitting a scrutiny (see Edenborough v. Archbp.
of Canterbury, 2 Russ. 93 ; Faulkner v. Elger, 4 B. & C. 449), the parishioners
in whom the right of determining how the election shall be carried out may,
if they think fit, adopt the modern system of ballot : Shaw v. Thompson,
3 Ch. D. 233 ; 34 L. T. 721 ; see Whitehead, p. 8.
The minister of a nonconformist congregation, being merely a tenant at
will of the trustees, has no equity to retain possession of the chapel, or to
officiate therein, against the express will of the majority : Perry v. Shipway,
sup. ; Cooper v. Gordon, 8 Eq. 249 ; Doe v. M'Kaeg, 10 B. & C. 721.
And the right of the governing body to prevent the use of the property
for a purpose hostile to the interests of the society, or the terms of the trust
deed, will be supported : Spurgin v. White, 2 Giff. 473 ; Ward v. Hipwell,
3 Giff. 547 ; A. 0. v. Munro, 2 D. & S. 122 ; A. G. v. Pearson, 3 Mer. 400 ;
and see A. G. v. Clapham, 4 D. M. & G. 626.
The power of dismissal vested in the majority must be exercised in a
regular way, and upon definite grounds, and an injunction against a minister
will not be granted at the instance of trustees who have dismissed him
SECT. XVI. J Clubs and Trade Unions. ^H
oppressively and improperly : Dean v. Bennett, 6 Ch. 489 ; 9 Eq. 625 ;
Daugars v. Rivaz, 28 Beav. 233.
And where a power of removal of a schoolmaster for certain specifiod
causes was vested in three vicars, and he was dismissed without an oppor-
tunity being given to him of being heard in his own defence at a properly-
constituted meeting of the vicars, an injunction was granted : Fisher v.
Jackson, [1891] 2 Ch. 84, and v. sup. p. 709.
The Charitable Trusts Act, 1853 (16 & 17 V. c. 137), s. 17, provides that no Charity Com-
suit or proceeding for obtaining any relief or direction concerning or relating ''i''^-
to any charity, or the estate, funds, property, or income thereof, shall be
commenced or taken without an authority previously obtained from the
Charity Commrs. The words " suit or proceeding " do not include an
action for the enforcement of any right not relating to the admon of the
trusts of the charity ; e.g., an action by a master of a school to restrain
the managers from dismissing him, and ejecting him from the school-house,
though the question was raised whether the managers were properly
appointed : Rendall v. Blair, 45 Ch. D. 139, C. A. ; Fisher v. Jackson, [1891]
2 Ch. 84. And as to the effect of the section, see Lewin, 1207.
As to the appointment of trustees of places of meeting for religious Trustees,
worship, and of ecclesiastical charities, and the statutory powers of the
Charity Commrs in reference thereto, v. inf. Chap. XLII., " Chaeities."
As to appointing new trustees, and the remedy when a congregation
departs from the doctrines on which a chapel was founded, see Nevcome v.
Flowers, 20 Beav. 461.
A congregation of Particular Baptists are entitled, without departing Form of
from any essential doctrine, to adopt the practice of " free " or of " strict " worship,
commmiion, see A. O. v. Gould, 28 Beav. 485 ; A. O. v. Etheridge, 11 W. R.
199 ; 32 L. J. Ch. 161 ; 8 L. T. 14.
But the original intention of the trust cannot be defeated by altering the
form of worship previously used in the (jhapel, and introducing preachers of
different doctrines and persuasion : Milligan v. Mitchell, 3 M. & Cr. 72 ;
8. O. (on motion to restrain the election of a minister not duly qualified
according to the tenets of the Kirk of Scotland), 1 My. & K. 446 ; Foley v.
Wcmlner, 2 J. & W. 245 ; A. G. v. Pearson, 3 Mer. 353 ; A. 0. v. Murdoch,
1 D. M. & G. 86 ; 7 Ha. 445 ; A. G. v. Anderson, 1888, W. N. 64 ; 57 L. J.
Ch. 543 ; and see Shore v. Wilson, 9 CI. & F. 355 (Lady Hewley's Charity) ;
and Lewin, 627 ; Free Church of Scotland v. Lord Overtoun, [1904] A. C.
515.
Section XVI. — Clubs and Trade Unions.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against interfering with Pit's enjoyment of his Clvh.
Order that the Defts and their servants, and the servants of the
B — S — Club, be perpetually restrained from interfering with the
enjoyment by the Pit, as a member of the said B — S — Club, of the
usage and benefit of the said club and the buildings and property
theTeoi.—Lahouchere v. Earl of Wharncliffe, M. K., 28 Nov. 1879,
B. 2281 ; S. C, 13 Ch. D. 346.
2. Injunction against Levying and Applying Trade Union
Funds.
Declare that rule 13, sect. 4, of the current rules of the Deft
society is invalid and is not binding upon the Pit and other members
712 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
of the Deft society ; And order that the Defts, their officers,
agents, and servants, be restrained from levying upon the Pit and
other members of the Deft society, and from applying the moneys
of the society for any of the purposes mentioned in the said rule 13,
sect. ^.—Osborne v. The A. S. R. S., C. A., 28 Nov. 1908, B. 356 ;
[1909] 1 Ch. 163 ; [1910] A. C. 87.
NOTES.
Clubs, not being associations for the purpose of making profit, are not
partnerships : Lindl. 13 ; and the Court will not interfere with the exercise
by the committee of their discretionary power of expelling members :
Dawkins v. Antrobus, 17 Ch. D. 615, C. A. ; Wood v. W., L. R. 9 Ex. 190 ;
Lambert v. Addison, 46 L. T. 20 ; Harrison v. Earl of Abergavenny, 1887,
W. N. 21 ; 57 L. T. 360 ; Andrews v. Salmon, 1888, W. N. 102 ; Lyttleton v.
Blackburn, 33 L. T. 641 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 219 ; Gardner v. Fremantle, 19 W. R.
256 ; unless such power has been exercised in a manner " contrary to
natural justice " [Baird v. Wells, 44 Ch. D. 661, 670), irregularly, corruptly,
maliciously, or not bond fide : see Labouohere v. Earl of Wharncliffe, 13 Ch. I).
346 ; Hopkinson r. Marq. Exeter, 5 Eq. 63 ; Fisher v. Keane, 11 Ch. D. 353 ;
Willis V. Wdls, [1892] 2 Q. B. 225.
The Court will restrain the expulsion of a member who refuses to pay
an increased subscription where there is no provision in the original rules
for the alteration thereof : Harington v. Sendall, [1903] 1 Ch. 921.
The foundation of the jurisdiction is the right of property vested in the
member of which he is deprived by the expulsion : Bigby v. Connol, 14
Ch. D. 482 ; Chamberlain's Wharf, Ld. v. Smith, [1900] 2 Ch. 605, C. A. ;
and that a member of a " proprietary club " has no such right, see Baird v.
Wells, 44 Ch. D. 661 ; and the jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of
a trade union within sect. 16 of the Trade Union Amendment Act, 1876
(39 & 40 V. c. 22) : Chamherlain' s Wharf v. Smith, sup. ; but whether
Chamberlain's Wharf v. Smith is not overruled by Howden v. Yorkshire
Miners Association, [1905] A. C. 256, qucere : see Steele v. South Wales Miners
Federation, [1907] 1 K. B. 370, per Phillimore, J. ; compare Cope v.
Crossingham, [1909] 2 Ch. (C. A.) 148 ; Osborne v. Amalgamated Soc. of By.
Servants, [1911] 1 Ch. 540; and see Trade Disputes Act, 1906, s. 4; and
that such an institution can be sued under its registered name, see Taff
Vale By. Co. v. Amalg. Soc. of Railway Servants, [1901] 1 K. B. 170, C. A.,
as reversed in H. L., [1901] A. C. 426 ; and see Amalgamated Soc. ofBailway
Servants v. Osborne, [1910] A. C. 87, and Wilson v. Amalgamated Society
of Engineers, [1911] 2 Ch. 324, as to compulsory levies for securing repre-
sentation parhamentary or municipal being ultra vires.
Section XVII. — Negotiating Securities.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction against negotiating Promissory Note — Interlocutory.
Oedeb that the Defts be restrained from parting with, out of the
custody of them, or any of them, or indorsing, assigning, or negotiating
the promissory note, dated &c., in the Pit's (bill and affidavit)
mentioned; until &c. — Smith v. Hahewell, L. C, 20 Oct. 1746, B. 468.
For order for injunction against joint stock bank accepting bills for less
than six months, see Bank of England v. Booth, 2 Ke. 496.
SECT. XVII. J Negotiating Securities. 713
2. Order staying Negotiation of Bills of Exchange — Deposit in
Court — Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts be restrained until after &c., from negotiating,
or dealing, or parting with the bills, drafts, and acceptances, signed
by the Pit, as in the writ issued in this action mentioned, except to
the Pit, and except as hereinafter directed ; And it is ordered that
the Defts do, on or before &c., deposit, upon oath, in a box, in the
presence of the solrs for the Pit, all the bills, drafts, and acceptances
signed by the Pit, as in the writ mentioned, other than the two bills
mentioned in the said affidavit of H. ; and such box is to be indorsed :
In the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, A. v. B., 19—,
A. — ; " Negotiable Instruments," And it is ordered that the
Defts do, within the time aforesaid, deposit such box so indorsed
in Court, as directed in the schedule hereto. — [Add Lodgment
Schedule.] — Adapted from Earl of Leioes v. Barnett, V.-C. M., 25 May,
1876, B. 1261 ; affirmed, C. A., 4 Aug. 1876.
NOTES.
An injunction will be granted to restrain the negotiation of bills of ex- Bill
change and other negotiable instruments, which have been fraudulently, fraudulently
illegally, or improperly obtained, and the instrument (if liable to be com- obtained,
pletely avoided : Brooking v. Maudsley, 38 Ch. D. 636) may also be ordered
to be delivered up to be cancelled : see Esdaile v. La Nauze, 1 Y. & C. 394 ;
Traill v. Baring, 4 D. J. & S. 318 ; 4 GifE. 485 ; Cooper v. Joel, 1 D. P. & J.
240 ; 27 Beav. 313. And see oases collected, Kerr, 536.
And that an action for a declaration that the Pits are not liable on an
instrument, and an injunction to restrain proceedings upon it, can only be
maintained when the Court would have jurisdiction to direct cancellation,
see Brooking v. Maudsley, sup.
Under the former procedure cases of this kind usually came before the
Court upon applications for an injunction to stay proceedings at law upon
the instrument. The jurisdiction of staying such proceedings by injunction
has been abolished by the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 24 (5), and any equitable
defence, on which an injunction against the prosecution of the action at law
might have been obtained, may be relied on by way of defence in whatever
Division of the High Court of Justice the action may have been brought.
Even under the old practice, where the defence was equally available at
law {Harrison v. Nettleship, 2 My. & K. 423 ; Simpson v. L. Howden, 3 M. &
C. 108 ; see also Stewart v. 0. W. By. Co., 2 D. J. & S. 319 j 2 Dr. & Sm.
438), especially by equitable plea under C. L. P. Act, 1854 (see Stiff y. East-
bourne L. Bd., 17 W. R. 428 (reversing V.-C. S., lb. 68) ; Waterlow v. Bacon,
2 Eq. 519), the Court of Chancery would not restrain the action at law,
except on terms of giving judgment at law, to be dealt with as the Court of
Chancery should direct : see Simons v. Cridland, 5 L. T. 523.
And see Thiedemann v. Ooldschmidt, 1 D. P. & J. 4, where (reversing V.-C.
S., 1 GifE. 142) an injunction to restrain indorsees for value, and without
notice of the forgery, of forged bills of exchange, from negotiating or pro-
ceeding at law upon them, was dissolved upon their undertaking to deliver
up the bills if judgment at law should be against them.
Injunctions have also been granted against proceedings^ — on a bill of Gambling
exchange given for a gambhng debt : L. Portarlington v. Soulby, 3 M. & K. debts.
104; — on a bond to secure a debt, the consideration for which was alleged to
have been in respect of gambling transactions, and was admitted to be
doubtful : L. Milltown v. Stewart, 3 M. & C. 18 ; 8 Sim. 371.
714
Injunctions,
[chap. XXXI.
Want of
years of
diacretion.
Foreign co.
To protect
instrument
as evidence.
Negotiation,
what.
But an injunction to restrain an action on an I. O. U. given for money
lent in Germany for playing at games, not at that time forbidden by tlie law
of that country, was refused : Quarrier v. Colston, 1 Ph. 147 ; and see
Wilkinson v. L'Eaugier, 2 Y. & C. 367 ; Joyce, 1202 ; Saxby v. Fnlton,
[1909] 2 K. B. 207, C. A.
Proceedings on a promissory note given by Pit without independent
advice, shortly after coming of age, and subsequently renewed by her, to
secure her step-father's debt, have also been restrained: Kempson v.
Ashbee, 10 Ch. 15 ; see also Espey v. Lake, 10 Ha. 260 ; Maitland v.
Backhouse, 16 Sim. 58.
A question as to the rightful possession in England of certificates of shares
in a foreign co. must be determined by English law, though the consequences
of such possession may depend on the foreign law : Williams v. Colonial
Bank, 38 Ch. D. 398, C. A.
The fact that evidence in support of the Pit's case may be lost is not a
sufficient ground for an injunction, as the proper remedy is by an action to
perpetuate testimony : Brooking v. Mavdsley, 38 Ch. D. 636.
An injunction against " negotiation " was held to be broken where the
Deft, by indorsing the bill to a transferee by deposit, converted him into
a " holder " within the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 V. c. 61), s. 1 :
Day V. Longhurst, 62 L. J. Ch. 334.
Section XVIII. — Transfers.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Injunction to restrain Transfer of Stock under the BanJc of
England Act, 1800 (39 & 40 G. 3, c. 36)— Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft be restrained from transferring any stock [or
the Cons.] standing in the name of above named testator A., or in
the name of the Deft as exor of the will of the testator, or any part
thereof, and from receiving the dividends and interest due or to accrue
due thereon ; And it is ordered that the Gov. & Co. of the Bank of
England be restrained from permitting the Deft to transfer such
stock [or the said Cons.], or receive such dividends and interest ;
until &c.
For like order as to any stock, with injunction against the Bank, see
White \. W^., V.-C.,4Feb.l828, B. 898. But the usual undertaking should
now be added.
As to title of notice of motion in such a case, see Ee Pike, 1902, W. N. 42.
2. Order restraining Transfer of Railway Stock or Shares —
Interlocutory.
Order that the L. & N. W. Ey. Co., the G. W. Ry. Co., the N. E.
Ry. Co., and the S. E. Ey. Co., be respectively restrained from
permitting B. &c., the surviving trustees and exors of N., or any of
them, to transfer the following bonds and debentures and sums of
stock or any part thereof without notice to the applicants &c., until '
SECT. XVIII.] Transfers, 715
further order, namely {describe the securities).— Re Loche and others,
V.-C. S., 11 Jan. 1870, B. ll.'j.
In this case, in which there was no question in dispute between any of the
parties, and no intention of filing any bill, the order was made upon motion
exp. on behalf of the mortgagees of reversionary interests in the stock and
shares of certain cos., without any affidavit of special facts : see 18 W. R.
275.
For an order exp. under 5 V. c. 5, s. 4, on the usual undertaking,
restraining payment of a Government annuity to a husband who refused to
carry out marriage articles for a settlement thereof on the mfe, see Mxp.
Waits, M. R., 31 Jan. 1871 : 19 W. R. 400.
For order restraining Defts parting with shares or using them for voting
until trial of an action, see Mann v. Patent Tram. Cable Coi-poration, 1886,
W. N. 66.
For order (for purpose of giving effect to right of shareholder whoso
shares were subject to a lien to a co. to transfer under sect. 15 of the Con-
veyancing Act, 1881) restraining the co. until trial or further order from
selling or transferring shares on the shareholder undertaking, on four days'
notice by the co., to pay to them the sum due on their transferring their lien
to his nominee, see Everitt v. Automatic Weighing Machine Co., [1892] 3 Ch.
506, North, J., 11 Aug. 1892, A. 1328.
For an exp. order in the Prob. Div. restraining a bank, at which property
pending an action in the Ch. Div. to set aside a will had been deposited,
from parting with the property pending the probate suit, see Meluish v.
Milton, 24 W. R. 679.
For injunction restraining respondent in divorce suit, after decree nisi and
before decree absolute, from selling or disposing of property comprised in a
post-nuptial settlement on her, see Noakes v.N.,i P. D. 60.
NOTES.
The jurisdiction in Courts of Equity (1) to restrain banks or cos. from
transferring or permitting a transfer of stock without making the banks,
&c., parties to the suit ; and (2) to grant the restraining order on summary
application (without action) is statutory —
1. By 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 36, Courts of Equity are empowered to order the
Bank of England and East India and South Sea Cos. to suffer a transfer of
stock, or to pay any accrued or accruing dividends thereon, belonging to
or standing in the name of any party to a suit, or to issue an injunction to
restrain them from suffering any transfer of such stock, or from paying any
dividends thereon, although the bank and cos. are not parties to the suit in
which the decree or order shall be made.
But this provision does not extend to cases where the bank, &c., claims
any interest in, or lien upon, the fund, or where discovery is sought from
them (sect. 2) ; and does not prohibit their being made parties : 2'cmy'e v.
Bank of England, 6 Ves. 770 ; though where the bank had been unnecessarily
made a party the bill was, as to them, dismissed with costs : Edridge v. E.,
3 Mad. 386 ; Perkins v. Bradley, 1 Ha. 232.
The injunction was obtained on notice to the Deft or on affidavit :
Hammond v. Maundrell, 6 Ves. 773, n. If after giving notice to tlie Bank
of (filing the bill) Pit does not move for an injunction. Deft may obtain an
order that the Bank permit the transfer, unless Pit should obtain an in-
junction within a limited time : Ross v. Shearer, 5 Mad. 458 ; 6 Mad. 1.
2. By 5 V. c. 5, s. 4 (repealed by 55 & 56 V. c. 19), the Court of Chancery
was enabled, on motion or petition, in a summary way, without bill filed,
to restrain the Bank of England or any other public co., whether incorporated
or not, from permitting the transfer of stock or shares, or from pa5dng any
dividends due or to become due thereon, and the order was to specify the
amount of the stock, or the particular shares to be affected thereby, and the
names in which the same may be standing.
^^6 Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
By sect. 5, the writ of distringas was to issue from the Court of Chancery :
but the practice is now regulated by O. xlvi, which abolishes (r. 2) the writ
of distringas, and in lieu thereof enables (rr. 4 — 7) any person claiming to be
interested in any stock (which includes shares, securities, and dividends
thereon) standing in the books of a co. (which includes the Governor, &c. of
the Bank of England, and any other public co. , whether incorporated or not),
to file and serve an affidavit (as in R. S. C, App. B. Form 27) and notice
(as in App. B. Form 22), service of which (r. 8) shall have the same force
and effect against the oo. as a writ of distringas would have had.
If (r. 10) whilst such notice is in force a request is made to the co. by the
persons in whose name the stock is standing for a transfer of the stock, or
payment of the dividends thereon, the oo. cannot, without the order of
the Court or a Judge, refuse to permit a transfer to be made, or withhold
payment of the dividends for more than eight days after the date of request.
In such case an interim injunction over the next motion day restraining
transfers of the stock or payment of the dividend, may be obtained, and
notice of the order must be served on the legal owners of the stock : BMke-
ley's Trusts, 23 Ch. D. 549.
The remedy of an equitable assignee or c. q. t. of shares whose equitable
interest the Court is not bound to recognize, is to apply for an order restrain-
ing the CO. from allowing a transfer to be made : see Soc. Gen. de Paris v.
Tramways Union Co., 14 Q. B. D. 424, 453, C. A. ; ;S. C, 12 App. Ca. 20 ;
Brereton v. Edwards, 21 Q. B. D. 488 ; and see ante. Chap. XXVIII.,
Sect. III., " Stop Okdees."
A legatee, by putting a distringas on shares, does not accept them so that
he cannot afterwards disclaim : Hohbs v. Wayet, 36 Ch. D. 256.
Section XIX. — Collecting and Dealing with Assets.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p.'507, ante.
Injunction against hanJcrupt Executor acting — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft be restrained until &o., from receiving or
collecting any part of the outstanding personal estate and effects
of &o., and from receiving or collecting any part of the debts due and
owing from or to the said estate, and also from receiving or collecting
any part of the rents of the freehold estate of the testator, and from
letting or managing the said estate, or interfering or intermeddling
therewith or with any part of the testator's estate or effects. —
See Bowen v. Phillips, Kekewich, J., 12 Jan. 1897, A. 17, [1897]
1 Ch. 174.
For like order for receiver and for injunction to restrain the Deft from all
further interference with the testator's estate, see Hare v. Smith, V.-C. K. B.,
16 April, 1845, A. 958.
For the like order appointing a manager, and restraining any interference
with the estate or business of an intestate, there being no existing admon
to the estate, see Steer v. S., 2 Dr. & S. 311.
For injunction exp. in the Probate Division to restrain the Deft until
further order from disposing or of removing any of the intestate's personal
estate, of which she was in possession as his alleged lawful widow, see Brand
V. Mitson, 24 W. R. 524 ; 45 L. J. P. 41 ; 34 L. T. 854.
SECT. XX.] Sales. 717
NOTES.
An injunction will be granted and a receiver appointed to restrain an exor
or admor from getting in the assets in cases where from liis misconduct,
drunken habits, extreme poverty, insolvency or bankruptcy, the property
if allowed to remain under his control, will be endangered ; though if the
testator has knowingly chosen to appoint a bankrupt or insolvent debtor as
his exor, the appointment will not be interfered with : Kerr, Injunctions,
444, 445 ; Lewin, 1097 ; and cases there cited ; Bowen v. Phillips, sup.
The Court can now, under the Judicial Trustee Act, 1896 (59 & 60 V. c. 35),
remove the exor and appoint a judicial trustee in his place, or under
the Public Trustee Act, 1906 (6 Ed. 7, c. 55), transfer the estate to the
public trustee for admon : see Ingpen on Executors, pp. 2, 45.
The Court will not thus interfere by injunction in favour of a creditor
unless it is shown that tlie assets are being wasted, and in a creditor's action
for admon, a receiver will not be appointed on interlocutory application,
merely because the exor will probably exercise his legal right of retaining
his own debt, or of preferring a particular creditor : Re Wells, Molony v.
Brooks, 45 Ch. D. 569 ; Harris v. H., 35 W. R. 710 ; 56 L. T. 507 ; 56
L. J. Ch. 754 ; Ingpen on Executors, pp. 338, 356.
Pending proceedings to recall probate, a bill lay to restrain the exors from
getting in the outstanding personal estate, and for a receiver : Dimes v.
Steinberg, 2 Sim. & G. 75 ; and see Watkins v. Brent, 1 M. & Cr. 97 ; Baron
de Feucheres v. Dawes, 5 Beav. 110 ; Newton v. Bicketts, 10 Beav. 527 ; and
see Be Pawley and London and Prov. Bank, [1900] 1 Ch. 58.
Where one exor before probate was proceeding to dispose of the estate,
the Prob. Div. gave the co-exor leave to issue a writ against him for an
injunction and receiver : In the Goods of Moore, 13 P. D. 36 ; referring to
Re Parker, Dearing v. Brooks, 54 L. J. Ch. 694, as showing that application
was rightly made to the Prob. Div.
Generally as to when pendente lite application should be made to the
Prob. Div. or to the Ch. Div., see Ingpen on Executors, Chap. VIJ., s. 5.
In a foreclosure action by an equitable mortgagee (entitled under contract
to a conveyance when called for), the mortgagor was restrained from parting
with the legal estate pendente lite : London and County Bank v. Lewis, 21 Ch.
D. 490, C. A. ; Speller v. S., 3 Sw. 556.
Section XX. — Sales.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Staying Sale by first Mortgagee, on payment into Court by
second Mortgagee — Account.
Order that the Deft R., his {solrs) and agents, be restrained from
selling or advertising for sale the life estate and interest of the Deft
T. in the statement of claim mentioned, or from doing any act by
which the same estate or interest may become vested in any other
person on the faith of the security of the said R. of the 17th Dec.
1864, in the statement of claim mentioned, being a subsisting security,
until &c. ; And it is ordered that the Pit H. do, on or before &c., lodge
7.18, Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
in Court &c., the sum of £1,200 ; And the Pit by his counsel admitting
the due execution of the said indenture of mortgage ; — ^Account of
what is due to the Deft ia respect of his mortgage without prejudice
to the questions whether the £1,200 or any and what less sum was
due at the date of the said indenture ; and Deft to give credit for
the rents and profits as mortgagee in possession. — \^Adi Lodgment
Schedule.]— Bee Hoare v. Harvey, V.-C. W., 4 Dec. 1866, A. 2525.
For injunction in a redemption suit, until the hearing or further order
(the right of Pit to redeem being in dispute), to restrain the mortgagee from
transferring or assigning the mortgage securities, and from conveying away
or otherwise dealing with the legal estate in the hereditaments comprised in
the mortgage securities or parting with the title-deeds, see Bhodes v.
Buckland, 16 Beav. 212, 219.
For injunction, on bill by judgment creditor, to restrain mortgagees who
were about to sell under their power from paying the surplus to the mort-
gagor, see Thornton v. Finch, 4 Giff. 515.
For interim injunction to restrain a sale by mortgagee under a trust or
power of sale, see Harding v. Tingey, M. R., 5 April, 1864, A. 550 ; S. C,
12 W. R. 684 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 872 ; 34 L. J. Ch. 13 ; 10 L. T. 323.
For injunction pending winding-up proceedings to restrain the sheriff
from selling or remaining in possession of the co.'s effects until the hearing
of the (winding-up) petition or further order, see Re The Stapleford Co., Ld.,
V.-C. B., 15 Dec. 1875, B. 1899 ; 8. C, 1875, W. N. 246.
2. Sale by Trustees under depreciatory Conditions restrained —
Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft H. (purchaser), and his agents, be restrained
from accepting any deed or deeds, grant, conveyance, or other
assurance of the B. estate in the pleadings mentioned, or any part
thereof, and from taking or holding any of the deeds or muniments
of or relating to the said estate or any part thereof ; And it is ordered
that the Defts G. and W. (the trustees) be restrained from executing
or delivering to the said H., or to any other person or persons on his
behalf, any deed or deeds, grant, conveyance, or other assurance of
the said B. estate, or any part thereof, and from delivering to the
said H. or to any other person or persons on his behalf any deed or
deeds, muniment or muniments of title, of or relating to the said
estate or any part thereof ; until &c. — Dance v. Goldingham, L. J.,
13 June, 1873, A. 2219 ; 8 Ch. 902.
3. Sale of Securities restrained on payment of Money into
Court — Interlocutory.
And the Pit by her counsel undertaking to lodge in Court on or
before the — day of &c., as directed in the schedule hereto, £ — ;
Order that the Pit be at liberty to lodge the said £ — ■ in Court
accordingly ; And it is ordered that the Deft be restrained from
selling or in aay other manner parting or dealing until further order
SECT. XX.] Sales. 719.
with any charges or securities held by him upon the life interest
of the Pit, or any policy or policies on the life of the Pit or her
husband, comprised in his charges and securities, or with any bill,
note, judgment debt, or other securities on which the Deft alleges
the Pit to be liable to him. — [Add Lodgment Schedule.] — Macleod
V. Jones, C. A., 17 July, 1883, B. 3793.
NOTES.
As a general rule a mortgagee will not be restrained from selling under Mortgagee,
his power of sale, provided he keeps within the terms of the power : Colson
V. Williams, 58 L. J. Ch. 539 ; 61 L. T. 71 ; but this rule is subject to
exceptions, and injunctions have been granted when the sale would be in
breach of special contract, or fraudulent as against the mortgagor : Kerr,
Injunctions, 462 — 4 ; Pish. Mort. s. 935.
In general, an injunction restraining a sale will only be granted on paj-
ment into Court by mortgagor of the amount sworn by mortgagee to be
due : Hill v. Kirhwood, 28 W. R. 358 ; unless it is manifest from the terms
of the deed that such an amount cannot be due on the security : Hickson v.
Darlow, 23 Ch. D. 690, C. A. ; or the relation of solr and client subsisted
between mortgagee and mortgagor at the time when the mortgage was
made : Macleod v. Jones, 24 Ch. D. 289, C. A.
Cases in which injunctions have been granted are :
— where the mortgagee had not given notice to determine the trusts of a
deed by which his power of sale was suspended : Oill v. NewUm, 12
Jur. N. S. 220 ; ^ecMS, when it had been provided that the mortgagor's
remedy, in the event of a sale without the stipulated notice, should be
by action for damages : Prichard v. Wilson, 10 Jur. N. S. 330 ; 11
L. T. 437 ; 3 N. R. 350 ;
— when the sale was alleged to be in breach of trust ; until Deft had put in
his answer, or further order : Merest v. Murray, 14 L. T. 321 ;
— where a co. made an absolute sale to a mortgagee, and the validity of
the sale was disputed by debenture holders : Hubbuck v. Helms, 56
L. J. Ch. 536 ; 56 L. T. 232 ; 35 W. R. 574 ;
— ^in an action by equitable mortgagee for sale and foreclosure, to restrain
the mortgagor from parting with the legal estate pendente lite :
London and County Bank v. Lewis, 21 Ch. D. 490, C. A.
And see Jen kins v. Jones, 2 Giff. 99, that on an actual tender at the time Efiect of
of sale of principal and interest the mortgagee ought not to proceed with the tender,
sale ; and as to a bill of sale, Exp. Cotton, 11 Q. B. D. 301 ; secus, where
there has been a mere offer unaccompanied by actual tender : see Kerr, 462
(citing Matthie v. Edwards, 16 L. J. Ch. 405 ; 11 Jur. 761).
And that a sale by a mortgagee cannot be impeached merely because he is Sale by share-
a shareholder in the purchasing co., see Farrar v, Farrars, Ld., 40 Ch. D. holder to co.
395, C. A.
A sale by mortgagees who were trustees of a building society to one of Sale by
their own number was held bad : Hodson v. Deans, [1903] 2 Ch. 647. building soo.
An injunction against the grantee of a bill of sale who is in uncontrolled t° °°^ °^
possession will not be granted in favour of the trustee in the liquidation of trustees,
the grantor on the mere suggestion that it is possible that the security may Bill of sale
be impeached : Exp. Bayly, Re Went, 15 Ch. D. 223, C. A. holder.
And see inf. Chap. XLVII., " Mortgages."
A Deft will be restrained from assigning the subject-matter of the action Assignment
pending litigation : Powell v. Wright, 7 Beav. 444, 452 ; including an appeal : pendente lite.
Dunn V. Flood, 28 Ch. D. 586, C. A. ; 25 Ch. D. 629 ; Wilson v. Church,
11 Ch. D. 576 ; London and County Bank v. Lewis, sup.
Both the purchaser and the trustees (the vendors) will be restrained from Trustee
completing a sale which from the improper and unnecessary character of and c. q. t.
the conditions of sale constitutes, as against the c. j. i., a breach of trust:
''^^ Injunctions. [chap. xxxi.
Dance v. Goldingham, 8 Oh. 902, sup. Form 2 ; and see Rede v. Oakes, 4 D. J.
& S. 505 ; Dunn v. Flood, sup. ; Lewin, Trusts, 500, 1097 ; Dart, V. & P.
195, 1056 ; or if the conveyance has not been executed, and it is shown
that by reason of the conditions the price is inadequate : Trustee Act,
1893 (56 k 57 V. o. 53), s. 14.
Pending Where a father's goods were seized in execution for liis son's debt, and
interpleader, interpleader proceedings were pending, an action by the father against the
sheriff for an injunction on the ground of trespass was held premature :
Hilliard v. Hanson, 21 Ch. D. 69, C. A. ; and that an action by a c. q. t.
merely to restrain a sale by the sheriff will not lie since Jud. Act, 1873,
s. 24 (5), see Wright v. Redgrave, 11 Ch. D. 32, 0. A.
Section XXI. — Staying Peoceedings in Fokeign Courts.
For form of Undertaking on Interlocutory Injunction, see p. 507, ante.
1. Order to stay Proceedings in Holland — Interlocutory.
Order that the Deft be restrained from contimiing or prosecuting
the proceedings commenced by her in the Kingdom of the Nether-
lands, in respect of the moveable and immoveable estate of the
testator ; and from commencing or prosecuting any proceedings in
respect of the moveable or personal estate of the testator, either in
the said Kingdom of the Netherlands or elsewhere, and from inter-
meddling with the said moveable or personal estate of the testator,
or any part thereof, whether in the said Kingdom of the Netherlands
or elsewhere, and from obstructing, by legal proceedings or otherwise,
or in any manner intermeddling with the said moveable or personal
estate, or with any agent or agents of the exors of the testator in the
said Kingdom of the Netherlands or elsewhere, or any person or
persons having the custody or management of any part of the said
moveable or personal estate, in respect to the management and
disposition of the said moveable or personal estate, or any part
thereof, or otherwise in relation thereto, until further order. — Hope v.
Carnegie, V.-C. S., 12 Jan. 1866, A. 76.
2. Order to stay Proceedings in Court of Session in Scotland —
Interlocutory.
Order that the Defts, the N. B. &c. Co., their &c., be restrained
until &c., from further prosecuting any proceedings in the Court of
Session in Scotland against the Defts H. and B., and the Pit as co-
exors of the will of D., which will involve taking the accounts of the
admon of the testator's estate. But this order is to be without pre-
judice to the Defts, the N. B. &c. Co., taking or prosecuting any pro-
ceedings for the purpose of establishing their right or title to a charge
upon the amount, which, upon taking the accounts prayed by the
siSCT. XXI.] Staying Proceedings in Foreign Courts. 721
Pit's (bill) in this cause, shall be found to be due to the Deft H. S. B.
in respect of his moiety of the residuary estate of the said D., and
without prejudice to any question of priority between the said Defts
and the Vlt.—Baillie v. B., V.-C. M., 3 Dec. 1867, A. 2766.
For order restraining proceedings in Demerara as to property there, on
undertaking by Pit to be bound by any order which this Court might
make with respect to those proceedings, see Bunbury v. B., 1 Beav. 336.
For order staying suits in Berbice and Essequibo, see Bromwell v. Parr,
M. R., 15 Jan. 1810, A. 165.
For order staying proceedings on a bill of foreclosure in the Jamaica
Court of Chancery, filed after a decree in the Court of Chancery, directing
inquiries as to what was due on the mortgage debt, see Beckford v. Kemble,
1 S. & S. 7.
For similar orders to restrain proceedings in the Courts of Ireland and
Scotland, see Harrison v. Ourney, 2 J. & W. 563 ; Bushby v. Munday, 5
Madd. 297 ; and in Ireland against executors, pending admon proceedings
in this country : Eustace v. Lloyd, 35 L. T. 900 ; 25 W. R. 211.
For order restraining proceedings in the Court of Session by a Pit in
respect of the same demand for which he had obtained a decree in this
country, except for the purpose of procuring security for what might be
found due to Pit, see Wedderhurn v. W., 4 M. & Or. 585 ; 2 Beav. 208.
For order staying a creditor from proceedings in an action in Scotland,
commenced by him in ignorance of an admon decree in this country, under
which his claim was in course of investigation, see Oraham v. Maxwell,
1 Mac. & G. 71.
For orders in bankruptcy restraining actions against a bankrupt or
liquidating debtor in foreign Courts, see Exp. Ormiston, 24 L. T. 197 ;
Exp. Tait, 13 Eq. 311.
For order giving leave to Scotch landlord to proceed with sequestration to
enforce his hypothec against the property of a company in liquidation,
unless sufficient security was given for the rent of the current year, including
a period previous to the winding-up, on terms of the landlord paying the
costs of the motion (the Court being of opinion that the hypothec gave a
security on the goods on the premises), see Re Warner, [1891] 1 Ch. 305.
NOTES.
jrTElSniCTION QENBEALLY.
The principles upon which Courts of Equity, by the exerciue of juris-
diction in personam (and not by any interference with the action of the
foreign tribunal : London, tbc. Bank v. Strutton, 18 W. R. 107 ; L. Crans-
town V. Johnston, 3 Ves. 182 ; 5 Ves. 277 ; and see Exp. Tait, 13 Eq. 311),
have restrained persons within the jurisdiction from improperly or vexa-
tiously instituting or prosecuting proceedings in foreign Courts to determine
questions which ought to be adjudicated upon in this country, are discussed
and illustrated in Carron Co. v. Maclaren, 5 H. L. C. 416 ; L. Portarlington
V. Srnilby, 3 M. & K. 104 ; Venning v. Lloyd, 1 D. F. & J. 193 ; McHenry v.
Lewis, 22 Ch. D. 397, C. A. ; Mercantile Inv. dkc. Co. v. Eivcr Plate, &c. Co.,
[1892] 2 Ch. 303 ; Kerr, 520, &c. ; Dan. 1332 et seq.
For oases in which after a decree in this country injunctions have been After decree,
granted against the prosecution of proceedings in foreign Courts, see Hope v.
Carnegie, 1 Ch. 320 ; Beckford v. Kemble, 1 Sim. & S. 7 ; Harrison v. Ourney,
2 J. & W. 563 ; Wedderbum v. W., 4 M. & Cr. 585 ; 2 Beav. 208 ; Graham v.
Maxwell, 1 Mac. & G. 71 ; Booth v. Leycester, 1 Ke. 579 ; 3 M. & Cr. 459
(against prosecuting a suit in Ireland after a decree in this country refusing
relief in respect of the same subject-matter).
In order that proceedings in a foreign suit may be restrained there must be
some equity to justify the application ; mere hardship or inconvenience is
VOL. I. 3 A
722
Injunctions,
[cB-AP. XXXI.
liot enougli i Fletcher v. Rodgers, 27 W. R. 96 ; and see Moor v. Anglo-Ilal,
Bank, 10 Ch. D. 681.
Although an admon judgment has been obtained in this country, foreign
creditors will not be restrained from proceeding in a foreign Court against
the admor : Re Boyse, Crofton v. C, 15 Ch. D. 591 ; Garron Co. v. Maclaren,
6 H. L. C. 416.
Before decree. Even though a decree had not been obtained, where the relief would be
more complete, or the question more conveniently tried in this country, or
the subject-matter of the suit must be governed by the rules of English law,
prosecution of the foreign action has been restrained on terms : see Bushhy
Y. Munday, 5 Madd. 297 ; Baillie v. B., 5 Eq. 175 ; Bunbury v. B., 1 Beav.
336 ; Good v. C., 33 Beav. 314 ; but qucere whether this could be done as
against a Deft who before decree has no control in the action : Hyman v.
Helm, 24 Ch. D. 531, 540, C. A., per Cotton, L. J.
If the injunction would be ineffectual (see Re Ghapman, 15 Eq. 75), or if
from the questions of foreign law involved, or from other reasons, the matter
cin be more conveniently tried in the foreign Court, the proceedings there
will not be restrained : see ElUotl v. L. Minto, 6 Madd. 16 (where the cause
was directed to stand over until the result of the Scotch proceedings should
have been determined) ; Jones v. Oeddes, 1 Ph. 724 ; Venning v. Lloyd, 1
D. P. & J. 193 ; Liverpool, &c. Co. v. Hunter, 4 Eq. 68 ; S.C.,3 Ch. 479 ; Re
Maudslay, Sons & Field, [1900] 1 Ch. 602 ; and pending the foreign litiga-
tion the Enghsh action may be stayed : Transatlantic Co. v. Pieironi, Joh.
604 ; or direction of accounts in a creditor's admon action postponed with
leave to the representative to take proceedings in a foreign Court to ascertain
the amount due : Batthyany v. Walford, 36 Ch. D. 369, C. A. ; or the Pit in
the English proceedings put to elect in which Court he will proceed : Pieters
V. Thompson, G. Coop. 294 ; but in order that the Pit may be put to election,
the Deft must show a case of actual vexation, and tliat there is no necessity
for harassing him by a double litigation : Peruvian Guano Go. v. Bockwoldt,
23 Ch. D. 225, C. A. ; McHenry v. Lewis, 22 Ch. D. 397, C. A. ; and it
fortiori, the Pit applying as against the Deft, see Hyman v. Helm, 24 Ch. D.
531, 540, C. A. ; see also The Mali Ivo, L. R. 2 A. & E. 356, that if it is
established that there is a Us alibi pendens before a (foreign) Court which
can ai^ord a complete remedy, whether the proceedings are in rem or in
personam, the proceedings in the English tribunal will be suspended, or the
parties put to their election ; and a Pit who has commenced actions in a
foreign (Irish) and in the English Admiralty Court will not be allowed to
proceed with the English until he has actually abandoned the foreign action :
The Catterina Chiazzare, 1 P. D. 368 ; The Delta, 1 P. D. 393 ; and where
in a foreign action in rem against a ship, the ship is released on bail given
or on a guarantee inter partes, an arrest of the ship in an action by the same
Pits in this country is contrary to good faith, and such action may be
stayed : The Christiansborg, 10 P. D. 141, C. A. And the Court ^^^1I stay
an action brought in the English Courts in respect of a cause of action
arising without the jurisdiction when satisfied that bringing the action in
the English Court is vexatious and oppressive to the defendant : Logan v.
Bank of Scotland (No. 2), [1906] 1 K. B. 141, C. A. ; see also EgbeH v.
Short, [1907] 2 Ch. 214 ; Re Norton's Settlement, [1908] 1 Ch. 471, C. A.
Plea of A ])lea of judgment recovered in an action in a foreign (consular) Court,
judgment. and payment by the Deft of the amount, is a bar to an action for the same
debt in this country : Barber v. Lamb, 8 C. B. N. S. 95.
Difierent On the other hand, the mere pendency of proceedings between the parties
remedies. for the same cause of action in a foreign Court, where the remedies and
forms of procedure are different, is not, where there are substantial reasons
for bringing actions in each country, a ground for putting Pit to his election
whether he will proceed with the English or the foreign action, or for staying
proceedings here : Peruvian Guano Go. v. Bockwoldt, 23 Ch. D. 225, C. A. ;
Htjman v. Helm, 24 Ch. D. 531, C. A. ; M'Henry v. Lewis, 22 Ch. D. 397,
C. A. ; 21 Ch. D. 202 ; The Christiansborg, 10 P. D. 141, 148, 153, C. A. j
SECT. xxi.J Staying Proceedings in Foreign Courts. 723
and see Wilson v. Ferrand. 13 Eq. 362 ; Cox v. Mitchell, 7 C. B.
N. S. 55.
Where, as in the case of a colonial Court, an appeal lies to this country, Colonial
the Court of Chancery declined to suspend the operation of the colonial decree,
decree pending the appeal : Henderson v. H., 3 Ha. 100. But semhle that
relief would be granted if the proceedings sought to be restrained were
in a foreign Court from which there was no appeal to this country : 8. C,
3 Ha. 118.
LEX FOEI AND LEX LOCI.
On the principle that locns regit actum, the lexfm'i applies to the form of Intention of
remedy and the order of judicial proceedings, not to the substance of the parties,
proceeding, which is governed by the lex loci : see Cope v. Doherty, 4 K. & J.
367 ; Smit}i v. Weguelin, 8 Eq. 198 ; Re Marseilles By. Co., Smallpage's case,
30 Ch. D. 598 ; Lloyd v. Ouihert, L. R. 1 Q. B. 115 ; and cases cited in notes
to Mostyn v. Fahrigas, 1 Sm. L. C. 658; Jacobs v. Credit Lyonnais, 12 Q. B. D.
589, C. A. ; and see Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery, [1894] A. C. 202 ;
South African Breweries, M. v. King, [1900] 1 Ch. 273, C. A. ; [1899] 2 Ch.
173 ; Royal Exchange Ass. Corp. v. Vega, 70 L. J. K. B. 874 ; but the Court
will look at all the circumstances to ascertain by the law of which country
the parties intended to be bound, and will enforce the contract accordingly,
unless contra honos mores, or forbidden by positive law : Re Missouri Steam-
ship Co., 24 Ch. D. 321. C. A. ; Bousillon v. R., 14 Ch. D. 351 ; and see
Ashbury v. Ellis, [1893] A. C. 339, 344 ; Spurrier v. La Cloche, [1902] A. C.
446 ; Royal Exchange Assce. Corp. v. Sjoforsahrings Aktiebolaget Vega,
[1902] 2 K. B. 384, C. A. ; Kaufmann v. Gerson, [1904] 1 K. B. 591, C. A.
A foreigner resident abroad cannot sue another foreigner in this country
in respect of a contract relating to foreign property : Matthaei v. Galitzin,
18 Eq. 340 ; and it is a valid plea to the jurisdiction that the contract in
respect of which the suit was brought was for the sale of land in Ireland,
and entered into in France between Pit, who resided in Prance, and Deft,
who resided in Ireland : Blake v. B., 18 W. R. 944. As to an English
contract to givea mortgage on foreign land,see British South Africa Co. v. De
Beers, dkc, [1910] 2 Ch. 502.
But these cases must be taken subject to the rule that where a person
against whom relief is sought is within the jurisdiction. Courts of Equity
acting in personam could make a decree respecting property situated out
of the jurisdiction : see Penn v. L. Baltimore, 2 L. C. Eq. 923, 939 ; Paget v.
Ede, 18 Eq. 118, and cases there cited ; and see Re Clinton, 1903, W. N. 20.
And foreclosure has been decreed of an English mortgage of foreign land. Foreclosure,
the foreclosure being treated as merely an extinction of the right to redeem:
Toller V. Carteret, 2 Vern. 494 ; Paget v. Ede, 18 Eq. 118 ; Colyer v. Finch,
5 H. L. C. 915 ; and see Re Hoyles, [1910] 2 Ch. 333 ; 1911, 1 Ch. 179, C. A.
But there is no jurisdiction to decide a dispute as to title depending Title to
on foreign law as to immoveables, although all the parties are resident here: immoveables.
Re Hawthorne, Graham v. Massey, 23 Ch. D. 743 ; and see Dischamps v.
Miller, [1908] 1 Ch. 856 ; or to entertain an action for damages in respect
of trespass to land situated in a foreign country : Companhia de Mogam,-
bique v. British Smith Africa Co., [1893] A. C. 602, H. L. (reversing C. A.,
[1892] 2 Q. B. 358, and restoring Div. Court, [1892] 2 Q. B. 358).
That the English Courts will not recognize a state of disability unknown Foreign
to our law, see Worms v. De Valder, 49 L. J. Ch. 261 ; Re Selot's Trusts, disability.
[1902] 1 Ch. 488.
JTTDGMENT OF FOEEIGN TEIBTTNAL.
The judgments and procedure of foreign tribunals will be recognized in
this country: Wright -v. Simpson, 6 Ves. 714; Story, Confl. Laws, 331 —
337 ; Rousillon v. R., 14 Ch. D. 351 (where the principles are considered) ;
and see Emanuel v. Symon, [1908] 1 K. B. 302 ; and the final judgment
724 Injunctions. [chap. XXXI.
or decree of a foreign Court of competent jurisdiction will be acted upon,
notwithstanding irregularity of procedure, provided the proceedings do
not offend against English views of substantial justice : Peniberton v.
Hughes, [1899] 1 Ch. 781, C. A. (foreign decree in undefended divorce
proceedings) ; but if there is error apparent on the face of the foreign judg-
ment, by the adoption of a course of procedure inconsistent with natural
justice, or by disregard of the lex loci contractus, it is examinable here,
and may be disregarded : Simpson v. Fogo, 1 J. & H. 18 ; and tliis principle
will, it appears, be also applied to a foreign judgment in rem : S. C, 1 H.
& M. 195 ; and fraud of the Pit is a good defence, though not capable of
proof without re-trying the case : Vaclala v. Lawes, 25 Q. B. D. 310, C. A. ;
Abouloffv. Oppenheimer, 10 Q. B. D. 295, 0. A.
And for the limits and extent of this jurisdiction, see Liverpool, dkc. Co. v.
Hunter, 4 Eq. 62 ; 3 Ch. 479 ; Se Trufort, Trafford v. Blami, 36 Ch. D. 600 ;
Be Maudslay, Sons & Field, [1900] 1 Ch. 602.
An order of a foreign Court will not be enforced by the Courts of this
country unless it is final and conclusive : Nownion v. Freeman, 15 App. Ca.
1 ; 37 Ch. D. 245 ; C. A. ; Paul v. Roy, 15 Beav. 433 ; and see Narris v.
Chambres, 29 Beav. 246 ; 1 D. F. & J. 881.
A judgment Qf a French Court convicting an offender of a crime and
awarding damages to a person injured by the crime is severable, and the
portion of it awarding damages to the injured person is not within the
rule of international law which prohibits Courts of Justice from executing
the penal judgments of a foreign court, but may be enforced by action in
this country: Baulin v. Fischer, [1911] 2 K. B. 93.
SECT.
i-l ( 725 )
CHAPTER XXXII.
KECEIVERg.
Section I. — Appointment of Receiver.
1. Undertaking for Receiver's Receifts and Liabilities.
The Pit by Ms counsel [or solrs] undertaking to be answerable
for what A. B. as receiver hereinafter appointed shall receive or
become liable to pay until he shall have given security as hereinafter
directed.
2. Order for reference to Chambers to appoint Receiver of Real and
Personal Estate.
Okdee that a proper person be appointed to receive the rents and
profits of the real [freehold and {or) leasehold] estates [If so, and to
collect and get in the outstanding personal estate] of the above-
named testator [or intestate] in the pleadings [or summons or writ]
named [or the rents and profits of the real &c. estates comprised in
the indenture dated &c., in &c. mentioned] ; And the tenants of the
said real [freehold and (or) leasehold] estates are to attorn and pay
their rents in arrear and growing rents to such receiver ; And it is
ordered that the Defts, the exors of the will of the testator [or
admors of the efiects of the intestate], do deliver over to such receiver
all securities in their hands for such outstanding personal estate,
together with all books and papers relating thereto ; And it is ordered
that such receiver do pass his accounts, and pay the balances which
may be certified to be due from him as the Judge shall direct.
For order made upon an ex parte application before service of the writ
in the action, see HollingdraJce v. Heatnn, 3 Deo. 1875, A. 1778 ; S. C. {Ee
H.'s Estate, H. v. H.), 1 Oh. D; 276 ; followed in Sutton's Estate, Vatiglian v.
Murphy, V.-C. H., 21 Dao. 1878, B. 2057.
For the appointment ex parte of a receiver when service of the (bill) on
Deft could not be effected from his having absconded, see L. <fc 8. W. Ry. v.
Facey, 19 W. R. 676.
The directions to allow a salary, and for giving security, and for leave to
sue for debts are now omitted, as unnecessary, the Judge in Chambers
having all requisite powers : and see O. l, 16 — 18.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 860 et seq.
726 . Receivers. [chap, xxxii.
3. Order appointing Receiver hy name {upon giving security) of
Real and Personal Estate.
This Court or the Judge doth order that A. of &c., be appointed
Upon giving security to receive &c. [Form 2, down to ivords " relating
thereto "], and it is ordered that the said A. do pass his accounts,
and pay the balances which may be certified to be due from him
as the Judge shall direct.
4. Subsequent Order in Chambers appointing Receiver after
reference from Court, as in Form 2.
Upon the application by summons, dated &c., of &c.. And A.,
hereinafter named, having given security by entering into a recog-
nizance dated &c., and a bond of the same date, together with &c.,
as his sureties, which has been approved by the Judge and duly filed,
The Judge doth, pursuant to the said order dated &c., hereby appoint
A. of &c., to receive (follow the terms of order read) ; And it is ordered
that the said A. do, on the ■ — day of — , 19 — , and the same day in
each succeeding year {or other •period fixed), leave at the Chambers
of the Judge his (annual) account as such receiver ; And it is
ordered that the said A. do pay the balances which may be
certified to be due from him as the Judge shall direct.
As to form and mode of application, see D. C. P. 870.
The above form is applicable where a receiver is appointed in Chambers
without previous reference, mth the omission of the words " pursuant to
the said order," but such an order can only be made in an action commenced
by originating summons or by consent : see A. P., O. l, 16, note.
Where a receiver is appointed in Court subject to his giving security
before the order is drawn up, a note in the form below is sent to Chambers,
and the order is drawn up and dated upon completion of security being
notified to the registrar ; Form 4 is applicable and will commence
" Upon motion on the — day — " &e., and omitting the words " pur-
suant to the said order."
Note to he signed hy the Registrar pending completion of above order.
A. V. B.
Adjourned to Chambers, pursuant to 0. l, 17, to settle security
to be given by A., of &c., the receiver appointed, on giving security,
to receive the rents and profits of the real estate, and to collect and
get in the outstanding personal estate of the testator. The order
will be completed on the Master's note of security having been
given, and of the times fixed for bringing in the accounts.
Dated the — day of — , 19 — .
X. Y. Z.,
Registrar.
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. ' 2«
5. Order appointing Receiver hy name, and to act before Security
given.
[Undertaking for receiver's receipts, see p. 725, ante] ; This Court
doth hereby appoint A. of &c., to receive &c. [Form 2 down to words
" relating thereto." And see note below] ; And it is ordered that the
said A. do, on or before the — day of — , 19 — , give security as such
receiver to the satisfaction of the Judge ; And it is ordered that the
said A. do pass his accounts as such receiver and pay the balances
which may be certified to be due from him as the Judge shall direct.
Where the Court directs that the receiver shall not act under the Pit's
undertaking to be answerable bejiond a specified date, the following words
should be inserted in the order after the direction appointing him, namely :
" But the said A. is not to act as such receiver after the — day of — unless
he shall have given security as hereinafter directed."
In Hunt V. Life Assoc, of Scotland, Kekewich, J., 20 July, 1893, A. 1073,
the Pit, in addition to being answerable for the receipts of the receiver, gave
a charge for the same on money payable to the Pit under an indenture in the
writ mentioned.
6. Appointment of Interim Receiver before Appearance.
[Undertaking in damages and also for receiver's receipts, see
pp. 507 and 725, ante] ; This Court doth hereby appoint A. of &c.,
receiver until after the — day of &c. ; And it is ordered that the
said A. do on or before &c., give security as such receiver to the
satisfaction of the Judge, and do pass his accounts and pay the
balances which may be certified to be due from him as the Judge
shall direct.
7. Receiver pending Proceedings in Probate Court.
" Order that a proper person be appointed until a legal pers.
represve of theestate of the above-named testator &c., has been consti-
tuted by(the Probate Division of His Majesty's High Court of Justice)
to collect and get in the personal estate of the testator ; And it is
ordered that the Deft, the executrix named in the will of the testator,
do deliver over to such receiver all securities in her hands for such
outstanding personal estate, together with all books and papers
relating thereto." — Receiver to pass his accounts and pay balances
&c.— See Maxwell v. Du Boison, V.-C. W., 11 July, 1872, B. 2070.
For the appointment exp. of a receiver and manager of an intestate's
business before grant of admon, see BlackeU v. B., 19 W. R. 559 ; 24 L. T.
276.
For the appointment of a receiver of personal estate pending the grant
of probate, and of the rents of real estate, neither the devisee nor the heir-
at-law being in actual possession, see Parkin v. Seddons, 16 Eq. 34.
For appointment on application of Pit in creditor's action, after decree
and death of sole exor (Deft), of interim receiver whose powers were to
extend for ten days after the appointment of an admor de bonis nan, the Pit
undertaking to use all possible speed in obtaining the appointment of such
admor, and to accept short notice of motion to discharge the receiver, see
Be Parker, Cash v. Parker, 12 Ch. D. 293.
728 Receivers. [chap, xxxil.
8. Receiver and Manager of Partnership.
[Undertaking for receiver's receipts, see p. 725, ante] ; This
Court doth hereby appoint A. of &c., to collect, get in, and
receive the debts now due and owing, and other assets, property,
or effects belonging to the partnership business carried on between
the Pits and Deft under the title of — as in the said writ mentioned,
and to manage the same, but the said A. is not to act as manager
beyond the — day of — , 19 — , without the leave of the Judge ;
And it is ordered that the said A. do on or before &c., give security
as such receiver and manager to the satisfaction of the Judge ;
And it is ordered that the Deft do deliver over to the said A. as such
receiver and manager all the stock-in-trade and effects of the said
partnership and also all securities in his hands for such outstanding
partnership estate, together with all books and papers relating
thereto, And it is ordered that the said A. do, out of the first moneys
to be received, pay the debts due from the said partnership ; And
it is ordered that the said A. do pass his accounts and pay the balances
which may be certified to be due from him as the Judge shall direct.
See note to Form 5, ante, p. 727.
9. Receiver and Manager of Partnership — Pit appointed Interim
Receiver and Manager without security until appointment of
Receiver and Manager.
This Court doth hereby appoint the Pit without giving security,
to collect, get in and receive the debts now due and outstanding,
and other assets, property, or effects belonging to the partnership
business carried on between the Pit and Deft as in the said writ
mentioned, and to manage the same until a receiver of such business
be duly appointed as hereinafter directed ; And it is ordered that
the Deft do deliver over to the Pit, as such interim receiver and
manager, all the stock-in-trade and effects of the said partnership
and also all securities in his hands for such outstanding partnership
estate, together with all books and papers relating thereto ; Pit to
pay debts [Form 8, sup.] ; And it is ordered that the Pit as such
receiver and manager do pass his accounts and pay the balances which
may be certified to be due from him as the Judge shall direct (The
Pit by his counsel undertaking not to deal with the property except
under the direction of the Court) ; And it is ordered that a proper
person be appointed to collect, get in and receive the debts now due
and outstanding, and other assets, property, and effects belonging to
the said partnership business, and to manage the same ; But such
person is not to act as such manager for more than — months from
the date of his appointment without the leave of the Judge ; And it
is ordered that the Pit do deliver over to such receiver and manager
when appointed all the stock-in-trade and effects of the said partner-
ship and all securities in his hands for such outstanding partnership
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. 729
estate together with all books and papers relating thereto ; And it
is ordered that such receiver and manager do pay debts [Form 8,
swp.y. And it is ordered that such receiver and manager do pass his
accounts and pay the balances which may be certified to be due
from him as the judge shall direct.
Tor interim injunction against parting with or dealing with racehorses,
with order appointing Pit interim receiver without giving security, and
ordering Deft to deliver over the horses to Pit as such receiver, Pit under-
taking not to part or deal with them except under the direction of the
Court, see Johnson v. Baylcy, V.-C. B., 30 Nov. 1876, A. 1847 ; and for a
similar form of order, see Harrison v. Kidd, M. R., 16 Dec. 1876, A. 1994.
For interim appointment upon interlocutory application by mortgagee
of a receiver and manager of an hotel without giving security, with injunc-
tion restraining Defts (mortgagors) from interfering with the management
of the business and the possession of the hotel, with directions for appoint-
ment of a proper person, upon first giving security, to receive the rents and
profits and to manage the business, the interim receiver to deliver up to the
receiver and manager, when so appointed, all the stock-in-trade and effects
of the business, and all licences, books, and papers relating thereto, see
Truman dk Co. v, Bedgrave, 18 Ch. D. 547, 550 ; (and see Forms 14 and 15,
infra).
10. Either of the Parties to propose himself, and to act without
Salary.
And either of the parties is to be at liberty to propose himself as
such receiver andmanager to act withoutsalary. — Pilling v. P., M. R.,
3 Dec. 1861, B. 2109.
The order in this form is not to be considered as a direction to the Master
to appoint either party : see Hamer v. H., M. R., 15 Dec. 1876, Reg. Min. 275.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 862.
11. The like, as to Defendant only, without Salary or Security.
Order that the Deft A. be at liberty to propose himself as such
receiver without giving security, he by his counsel undertaking to
act without salary in case he shall be appointed.
Fortheadditionof the words " withoutsalary " to an order upon trustees,
" undertaking to continue to act as receivers " of the trust property, to pass
their accounts, see Pilkington v. Baker, 24 W. R. 234.
For order by the Court of Appeal, pending an appeal from a judgment
for the Deft in an action for specific performance of an agreement to accept
a lease of a farm, appointing Pit receiver and manager of the farm, without
security, on his undertaking to abide by any order the Court might make
in the matter, see Hyde v. Warden, 1 Ex. D. 309, C. A.
For order that receiver deliver to the sherifi a statement in writing of
the goods, &c. in possession of the sheriff claimed by the receiver, and for
sheriff to withdraw from possession of such parts of the said goods, &c., as
the receiver shall so specify, see Wilmer v, Kidd, V.-C. W., in Chambers, 14
July, 1853, B. 1091.
For order to appoint receiver without salary, with a preference to Pit's
nominee, and option to receiver to let to the life tenant on security, see
Baylies v. B., 1 Col. 648.
For order for receiver of a moiety of the estate, and tenants to pay him
a moiety of their rents, see Taylor v. Jardine, V.-C, 8 March, 1841, B, 447 ;
Egarr y. E., M. R. 23, June, 1853, A. 1213.
730 Receivers. [chap, xxxil.
For order letting Pit, who would be tenant for life on attaining twenty,
five, into possession of part of the trust estates at twenty-one, on his giving
security, and continuing as to the rest the former receiver of the whole, see
Wilkinson v. Bewicke, M. R., in Chambers, 2 July, 1860, B. 1475.
For order for receiver of rents of realty pending actions at law, and of
rents of leasehold and of personalty, pending litigation as to admon, in
case of intestacy, and the Crown claiming, see Williams v. A. Q., M. R.,
8 May, 1861, B. 1055.
It has been usual to continue the receiver at the trial ; but there appears
to be no foundation for the notion that the powers and authority of a
receiver cease at the trial, if not then continued : per M. R. in Crane v.
Smilh, (C. A.) 10 Dec. 1879 ; and see Re Underwood, U. v. V., 37 W. R.
428 ; 62 L. T. 384 ; and where on an interlocutory order a receiver and
manager has been appointed as receiver generally, and manager until a fixed
date, the judgment in the action merely extends the time during which the
receiver may act as manager, as he is still in office as receiver by reason of
the former order: Davies v. Yale of Evesham Preserves, Ld., 1895, W. N,
105 ; 73 L. T. 150 ; 43 W. R. 646.
12. Solvent Partner appointed Receiver and Manager of Business.
Appoint the Deft, with a salary to be fixed by the Judge, to collect,
get in, and receive the debts now due and outstanding, and other
assets, property, and efiects belonging to the business of distillers
and wine and spirit merchants lately carried on by the Deft in
partnership with &c. {bankrupts of whose property the Pits were
trustees] and to manage the same as a going concern ; And it is ordered
that the Deft do out of the first moneys to be received pay the
debts due and the current expenses of the said business ; Deft to give
security on or before &o. ; And it is ordered that the Deft do forth-
with furnish to the Pits proper accounts of the said business up
to the date of this order, And it is ordered that the Deft do
from time to time furnish such further accounts as the Pits may
reasonably require, and allow the Pits at all reasonable times
access to inspect all the books and papers relating to the partnership
business ; And it is ordered that the Deft, as and when the
balance in his hands shall amount to such a sum as shall be fixed by
the Judge, pay so much thereof as the Judge shall direct into the L — •
Street Branch of P— and A— Banking Co. in the joint names of
the Pits and Deft; And it is ordered that the Deft do pass his
accounts and pay the balances which may be certified to be due
from him as the Judge shall direct. — Adapted from Collins v. Barker,
Stirling, J., 13 Jan. 1893, A. 8 ; [1893] 1 Ch. 578.
See note to Form 5, ante, p. 727.
13. Appointment of named Person Interim Eecei'tier of personal
Estate of Testator and Manager of Testator's Business until
a legal Represve constituted.
[Undertaking for receiver's receipts, see p. 725, ante] ; This
Court doth hereby appoint A, B., of &c., until a legal represve
SECT.
I.] Appointment of Receiver. «31
of the above-named testator C. D. shall have been constituted
to collect and get in the outstanding personal estate of the
testator, and to manage the business of [state nature of business]
lately carried on by the testator at — in the county of — ; And it
is ordered that the said A. B. do on or before &c. give security as
such receiver and manager to the satisfaction of the Judge ; And it
is ordered that the Defts do deliver over to the said A. B., as such
receiver and manager, all the stock-in-trade and effects of the said
business, and also all securities in their hands for such outstanding
personal estate, together with all books and papers relating thereto ;
And it is ordered that the said A. B. do pass his accoimts and pay
the balances which may be certified to be due from him as the Judge
shall direct.
See note to rorm 3, ante, p. 727.
As to the appointment of receiver pendente lite, see sup. p. 727.
14. Receiver and Manager of Public House appointed on behalf of
Mortgagee, with liberty for him to appoint Sub-Manager.
[Undertaking for receiver's receipts, see p. 725, ante] ; This
Court doth hereby appoint M., of &c., to receive the rents
and profits of the leasehold premises known as the [name] public
house, situate &c., comprised in the mortgage in the said writ men-
tioned, and to manage the business of a licensed victualler carried
on thereon, but the said M. is not to act as such manager after the
— day of — , 19 — , without the leave of the Judge. And it is ordered
that the said M. do act at once. And it is ordered that the Deft do
deliver over to the said M. as such receiver and manager, [all the stock
in trade and ejects of ike said business and] aU books, papers, and
licences relating to the said business. And it is ordered that the Deft
do deliver over to the said M., possession of the said premises so far as
is necessary for the purpose of the said receivership and manager-
ship; and it is ordered that the said M. do on or before &c. give
security as such receiver and manager to the satisfaction of the Judge,
and do pass his accounts and pay the balances which may be certified
to be due from him as the Judge shall direct, and the said M. is to
be at liberty to appoint some fit and proper person to reside upon
the said premises and to hold the said licences and conduct the said
business under his supervision. — Porter v. Corbett, North, J., dth Aug.
1899, B. 2736.
Se3 note to Form 5, ante, p. 727.
The words in italics are only to be inserted if stock in trade and effects
of the business are included in mortgage. It is not usual to so include
them, as in that 'case the mortgage would have to be registered as a bill
of sale.
In Trehj v. Tilley, 19 Jan., 1900, B. 164, the name of the sub-manager
was inserted in the order, but this would not appear to be a convenient
practice as the approval of the licensing bench to the sub-manager has to
be obtained before a transfer of the licence into the sub-manager's name
will be granted, hence the above form is considered more desirable.
^32 Receivers. [chap, xxxii.
15. Receiver of Licensed Premises appointed on behalf of Lessor.
[UNDEETAKiNa for receiver's receipts, see p. 725, ante] ; This
Court dotli hereby appoint M., of &c., to receive the rents
and profits of the leasehold premises known as the [name], situate
at &c., in the said writ mentioned ; And it is ordered that the said
M. do act at once ; And it is ordered that the Deft do deliver over to
the said M. all the licences and magistrates' certificates relating to
the said premises, and the said M. is to be at liberty until judgment
or further order to keep the said premises continuously open as an
hotel, and to do all such acts and things as may be or become
necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of preserving the
licence of the said hotel from endorsement, forfeiture, suspension, or
refusal and from being endangered or taken away ; And it is ordered
that the Deft do deliver over to the said M. possession of the said
premises so far as is necessary for the purpose of the said receivership ;
And it is ordered that the said M. do on or before &c. give security
to the satisfaction of the Judge and do pass his accounts and pay the
balances, which may be certified to be due from him as the Judge
shall direct. [And it is ordered that the said M. be at liberty to
appoint a fit and proper person to reside on the said premises and to
do all such acts and things as may be necessary for preserving the
said licence as aforesaid.] — See Leney v. Callingham, [1908] 1 K. B.
79.
See note to Form 5, ante, p. 727.
The words in brackets appear to have been omitted from the order as
drawn up, but would seem necessary, having regard to the judgment
given.
16. Appointme7it of Receiver of Estate in Mortgage where there are
prior Incumbrancers.
This Court doth order that a proper person be appointed &o.,
without prejudice to the rights of any mortgagees or mortgagee of
the said estates or any or either of them [or But the appointment of
such receiver is not to afiect any prior incumbrancers upon the said
estates who may think proper to take possession of the said estates
by virtue of their respective securities]. Tenants without prejudice,
and subject as aforesaid, to attorn [As to keeping down interest, do.,
see Form 9, p. 765, post.] — See, as to the reason for the words " with-
out prejudice," &c., Underhay v. Reed, 20 Q. B. D. 209, 218, C. A.
For order for receiver of mortgaged estates, and receiver to pay the
rents into Court, but order not to affect Defts admitted by Pit to be in-
cumbrancers prior to him, nor any other prior incumbrancers. Pit dis-
puting the priority of some, see Cook v. Srswell, V.-C. S., 19 Dec. 1861, A.
2383.
For the appointment, in an action for specific performance of a contract
for sale of a lease of a private hotel with furniture and business, of a receiver
and manager with power to take possession and carry on business, but not
to include any chattels other than those which would pass on the assignment
of the lease : Poole v. Dowries, 76 L. T. 110.
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. 733
Where the mortgagor is in occupation, the proper form is to direct the
Daft to give up possession to the receiver, instead of to attorn : Hawkes v.
Holland, 1881, W. N. 128 ; but see Taylor v. Soper, 62 L. T. 828.
17. Solicitor's Partnership Business — Special Directions as to
Papers.
Order that the Deft do, within four days after service of this
order, in all cases of clients who have not directed him to retain
their papers, and from whom there is any money due to the firm
in respect of their business, deliver over such papers to 0. the
receiver, who is to retain the papers untU the bills of costs shall be
paid or until further order ; and if and when the bills of costs shall be
paid, it is ordered that the said 0. do hand over such papers
to the client, or as he shall direct ; and it is ordered that the Deft
do, in all cases in which there are papers of clients in his hands relating
to business which is still pending, or to clients who have given him
notice not to part with their papers (there being in each of the above
cases money due to the firm), give to the said receiver free access
to such documents without expense at the Deft's office, to enable
the said receiver to make out the bUls ; and the Deft is, on payment
of such bills, to deliver the papers to the client, or as the client may
require ; And it is ordered that the Deft do, in all cases (if any) of
clients from whom money is due to the firm who shall desire their
papers to be delivered to the Pit C, deliver such papers to the said
receiver, who when the bill of costs in respect of such papers is paid
is to deliver such papers to the said Pit or as the Court may direct ;
and in case any such papers relate to pending business, it is ordered
that the said receiver, if so requested by the client, do deliver such
last-mentioned papers to the Pit upon his undertaking to give to the
said receiver full access to such papers without expense at the Pit's
office to enable the receiver to make out the bills ; and the Pit is, on
payment of such bUls, to deliver such papers to the respective clients,
or as they may respectively require ; And it is ordered that the Deft
do deliver over to the said receiver the bundle of papers. No. 155,
referred to in the said affidavit of documents filed &c. ; but the
receiver is not to part with the same to any person unless and until
the promissory note, dated &c., given by the said Deft and the Pit,
shall be delivered over, with the Deft's signature duly cancelled,
to the said receiver. — Costs reserved, to be dealt with on further
consideration.— CZi/i v. Watldn, M. R., 11 Nov. 1875, A. 1801.
For further order on summons adjourned into Court, giving special
directions as to papers, see Rawlinson v. Moss, V.-C. W., 21 June, 1861,
B. 1337 ; 9 W. R. 733 ; Orrmmd v. Toumsend, M. R., 16 Dec. 1875, B. 2099.
18. Receiver and Manager of Testator's Mines and Realty.
" Order that a proper person be appointed to manage, carry on,
and work the mines devised by the will of the testator H., and to
734 Receivers. [chap, xxxil.
raise, sell, get, and dispose of the coal, ironstone, quarrystone, and
other minerals from the said mines, and to receive the produce of
such sales, and the rents and profits of the said mines, and pay and
discharge the current expenses and charges of working the same, and
to receive the rents and profits of the lands (and hereditaments) in
or under which the said mines are now lying or being, and to collect
and get in the outstanding debts belonging to the said business." —
" And the tenants of the said lands are to attorn &c. ; And it is
ordered that the Defts do deliver up the possession of the said mines
to such manager and receiver, as from &o., and also all securities
in their hands in respect of such outstanding debts, and the stock,
goods, effects, and accounts belonging to the said mining business."
— ^Direction to pass accounts, and pay balances &c. — Shale v.
Hodson, V.-C. E., 13 Jan. 1846, B. 429.
For order for receiver of mines, see Crockford v. Salmon, V.-C. W.,
27 April, 1844, A. 991.
For order for receiver and manager of partnership colliery until sale,
see Olegg v. Fishwick, M. R., 2 June, 1852, A. 110.3 ; 1 Mac. & G. 294.
And for order to appoint a person to take and have the management of
the colliery stock and effects, and to have the direction and superintendence
of the working of the mines and the carrying on of the trade, and to collect
and get in the outstanding debts, see Clarke v. Smith, V.-C. W., 3 Aug.
1849, A. 2138.
For like order, and each partner in the colliery and trade, who should
show he was a partner, regularly admitted, and legally entitled to a share of
the mines, and to receive a share of the profits, to be at liberty to propose
himself, or such other person as he should think fit, being a practical miner,
see Jefferijs v. Smith, L. C, 29 April, 1820, A. 2556 ; IJ. & W. 298.
19. Order appointing Receiver to be Steward of Infant's Manors.
Order that P., of &c. {the receiver), be appointed steward of the
several manors of &c., and of all other, if any, the manors or lordships,
or reputed manors or lordships, of or to which the infant Pit is seised
or entitled for an estate in tail male under the indenture of settlement
dated &c., in the pleadings mentioned, or otherwise howsoever ;
And it is ordered that all necessary documents for carrying into efiect
such appointment be settled by the Judge. — Pym v. P., M. E., in
Chambers, 11 Dec. 1861, B. 2293.
When a receiver of a manor had been appointed, the Court,in the absence
of misconduct on the part of the steward, refused to order the Court books,
rolls, and papers to be delivered over to the receiver : Windham v. Qiubihi,
1871, W. N. 119 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 505 ; 24 L. T. 653.
20. Receiver of Heirlooms.
Deft to pay into Court a deposit, by way of security, to a separate
account ; But in default — " Order that a proper person or persons
be appointed to have the care and custody of the several articles at
B., particularly specified and set out in the inventory in the (bill)
SECT. I.] Appointment of jRecewer. 785
mentioned, and wliicli are specifically bequeathed by tlie will and.
codicil of G., late Duke of M., upon the trusts therein contained." —
Directions for allowance to receiver, and for his giving security —
" to take due care of such several articles, and deliver up the same
as this Coxirfc shall hereafter direct " — and to deliver the articles to
him.—E. Sliafteshimj v. D. Marlborough, L. C, 28 March, 1820,
A. 792.
As to the life tenant giving security for heirlooms, see Chap. XLIV.,
s. XXIT., p. 1559.
21. Receiver of Settlement Funds.
" Order that a proper person be appointed to receive the funds
subject to the trusts of the indenture of settlement dated &c., in
the pleadings mentioned, and to receive and get in the moneys
payable under the mortgage dated &c., therein also mentioned ;
And it is ordered that the Defts do deliver over to such receiver all
securities &c." Receiver to pass accounts and pay balances &c. —
Brotvn v. Walter, V.-C. W., 26 June, 1873, A. 1837.
For order for appointment of receiver of leasehold houses at instance of
trustees for the purpose of enforcing obUgation to repair against tenant for
life in possession, see Be Fowler, F. v. Odell, 16 Cli. D. 723, 726,
22. Receiver and Manager in Debenture Holders' Action.
[Undertaking for receiver's receipts, see p. 725, ante] ; This
Court doth hereby appoint A., of &c., receiver and manager on
behalf of the Pit, and other debenture holders of the Deft co., of
all the property and assets of the Deft co., except uncalled capital,
comprised in or subject to the securities and charge created by the
debentures issued by the Deft co. to the Pit and the other
debenture holders, but the said A. is not, without the leave of the
Judge, to act as such manager beyond the ■ — day of — , 19 — ; And it
is ordered that the said A. do on or before &c., give security as such
receiver and manager to the satisfaction of the Judge ; And it
is ordered that the said A. do forthwith, out of any assets coming
to his hands, pay the debts of the Deft co. which have priority over
the claims of the debenture holders under the Companies (Con-
solidation Act), 1908, and that he be allowed all such payments in
his accounts ; And it is ordered that the said A. do pass his accounts
and pay the balances which may be certified to be due from him as
the Judge shall direct. •
See note to Form 5, ante, p. 727.
For an interim order for the appointment of a manager of a mining co. in
a foreclosure action by debenture holders, see Peek v. Trinsmaran Iron Co.,
M. R., 11 Feb. 1876, B. 246 ; 2 Ch. D. 115.
And for a case in which a receiver and manager of collieries was appointed,
although the colliery business was not specifically comprised in the mortgage,
see Campbell v. Lloyd's Bank, 58 L. J. Ch. 424 ; and see Gloucester Bank v,
Budry, dec. Colliery Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 629, C. A.
736 Recemrs, [chap, xxxil.
For order giving leave to receiver appointed by debenture holders under
their deed to take possession, notwithstanding the appointment of an oflSeial
liquidator, but without prejudice to any question as to the powers of the
receiver, other than the power to take possession and to sell the property, see
In re Henry Pound, Son and Hutchins, 42 Ch. D. 402, C. A.
For order appointing receiver of property of a co. and manager of the
business of the co., the Pit undertaking to advance money for workmen's
wages, see Making v. Percy Ibotson <fc Sons, Kay, J., 4 Nov. 1890, B. 2110 ;
8. C, [1891] 1 Ch. 133.
23. Receiver in Debenture Holders^ Action where Defis are a
Company incorporated by Statute.
[Undeetaking for receiver's receipts, see p. 725, ante] ;
This Court doth hereby appoint A., of &c., receiver of the
undertaking of the Deft co. and of the nett earnings thereof.
Eeceiver to give security and pass accounts, &c. [Form 5, ante,
p. 727]. — See Marshall v. The South Staffordshire Tramways Co.,
11 Dec. 1894, B. 1957 ; [1895] 2 Ch. 36.
The common direction to pay debts having priority over debenture
holders' claims ought not to be inserted in such an order as the above, as
sect. 107 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, refers to companies
" registered " in England or Ireland.
24. Receiver of Railway.
This Court doth hereby appoint P., the secretary of the co., upon
giving security, receiver of the undertaking of the said co. ; And
it is ordered that the said P. do, out of the moneys to be received by
Jiim as such receiver, provide for the working expenses of the railway
and other outgoings in respect of the undertaking, and from time to
time pass accounts and pay balances as the Judge shall direct. —
And it is ordered that the following inquiry be made, that is to say :
1. an inquiry what are the debts and liabilities of the said co., and
what are the rights and priorities of the persons interested in the
moneys to come to the hands of the said P. as such receiver. —
Liberty to apply .^^e Manchester and Milford Ry. Co., V.-C. H.,
23 July, 1875, B. 2038.
In a subsequent stage of this ease {C. A., 14 Ap. 1880, B. 780 ; 14 Ch. D.
645, C. A.), the order for the appointment of a manager upon the application
of a judgment creditor was " without prejudice to any application by the
directors to be appointed managers by the Court."
25. Appointment of Receiver in place of one deceased.
And a. B. hereinafter named having 'given security [Form 4, p.
726, ante], the Judge doth hereby appoint A. B., of &c., to receive
&c. [follow frevious order] in substitution for C. D., deceased, the
receiver appointed by the said order dated &c. ; And it is ordered
that E. F., the legal pers. represve of the said C, D., deceased,
be at liberty to leave at the Chambers of the Judge the final
account of the said C. D., deceased, as such receiver ; And it is
SECT. I.] Appointvient of Receivet. '37
ordered that the said E. F. be at liberty to pay to the said A. B.
as such receiver the balance (if any) which may be certified to be
due from the estate of the said C. D., deceased, on such account, and
thereupon or upon its being certified that there is nothing due from
the estate of the said CD., deceased, it is ordered that the recognizance
dated &c., and the bond of the same date entered into bythe said CD.,
deceased, together with &c., be vacated ; And it is ordered that the
said A. B. do pay to the said E. F. the balance (if any) which may be
certified to be due to the estate of the said C D., deceased, and that
he be allowed the same on passing his accounts.
NOTES.
APPOINTMENT OP EEOEIVEK.
By the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), a reoeiver may be appointed by an inter- Interloou-
locutory order of the Court in all oases in which it shall appear to the tory order.
Court to be just or convenient that suoh order should be made ; and the
order may be made either unconditionally or upon such terms and con-
ditions as the Court shall think just ; and see sect. 24, sub-sect. 7, enabling
the Court in every cause or matter pending to grant, either absolutely or on
reasonable terms, all such remedies as the parties may appear entitled to
in respect of any and every legal or equitable claim brought forward therein.
The expression " interlocutory order " includes orders made after as well
as before final judgment : Smith v. Cowell, 6 Q. B. D. 75, C. A. ; and as to
meaning of interlocutory, see ante, p. 512; and the power given by sect. 25
can be exercised at the trial of the action as well as upon an interlocutory
application : Re Prytherch, P. v. Williams, 42 Ch. I). 590 ; and so long as
the judgment remains unsatisfied the action is " pending " within sect. 24,
sub-sect. 7 : Salt v. Cooper, 16 Ch. D. 544, C. A. ; Hart v. H., 18 Ch. D.
670, 680 ; but after final foreclosure of property, subject to an equitable
charge, though an assignment of the mortgaged premises to the Pit (not
required by him) remains to be settled, the action is at an end, and the
Pit cannot obtain the appointment of a rectivor : Wills v. I/aff, 38 Ch. D.
197 ; and as to the extensive nature of the power conferred by the Act, see
Re Coney, C. v. Bennett, 29 Ch. D. 993, and cases inf. Section II., pp. 757
et seq.
By 0. L, 6, an application for a receiver may be made to the Court or a
Judge by any party. If the application be bythe Pit, under sect. 25, sub-
sect. 8, it may be made either ex parte or with notice, and if by any other
party, on notice to Pit, and at any time after appearance by the party
applying.
In any case of urgency an ex parte application may be made ; and such an Ex parte
application may be made by a Deft under sect. 25, sub-sect. 8, notwith- application,
standing the provision of r. 6 as to notice to Pit : Hick v. Lockwood, 1883,
W. N. 48 ; but except under extraordinary circumstances a receiver ought
not to be appointed ex parte: Re Connolly Bros., Ld., [1911] 1 Ch. 731.
The application ex parte by the Pit may be made before service of
the writ or appearance : see Taylor v. Echersley, 2 Ch. D. 302 ; Re H.'s
Estate, H. v. H., 1 Ch. D. 276, sup. p. 725 ; Colebourne v. C, 1 Ch. D. 690 ;
and may be entertained in cases of emergency, e.g., for reoeiver of estate
of supposed lunatic, pending an application for an inquisition : Re Pountain,
37 Ch. D. 609, C. A. ; and see Fuggle v. Bland, 11 Q. B. D. 711, where a
judgment creditor of husband and wife was, on his application ex parte,
appointed reoeiver of the income of the wife's reversionary interest ; but,
even after judgment, the order ought not to be granted ex parte, except in
cases of emergency : Lucas v. Harris, 18 Q. B. D. 127, 134. The Coxirt of
Bankruptcy has jurisdiction under sect. 25 (8) of the Jud. Act, 1873, to
VOL. I. 3 b
738
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
Either party
may apply.
Indorsement
of writ.
Service.
Form of
order.
Summons.
Costs.
Action to
recover land.
Licensed
premises.
Foreign
property.
appoint a receiver by way of equitable execution for enforcing orders for
payment of money to the trustee in bankruptcy, but will not, as a general
rule, do so on an ex parte application : Re Qoudie, Exp. Official Receiver,
[1896] 2 Q. B. 481.
For the appointment, upon ex parte motion, of a receiver in place cf
one deceased, see Molloy v. Hamilton, I. R. 8 Eq. 499 ; Re Stone, ih., 9 Eq.
404.
Under 0. L, 6, a receiver may be appointed, on the application of either
party, either before or after judgment : Salt v. Cooper, 16 Ch. D. 544, C. A. ;
Bryan v. Bull, 10 Ch. D. 153 ; Anglo-Ital. Bank v. Davies, 9 Ch. D. 275 ;
Smith V. Oowell, 6 Q. B. D. 75, C. A. The Deft, therefore, may now, before
judgment, apply for a receiver : Sargant v. Read, 1 Ch. D. 600 ; though this
was not the case under the old practice : Robinson v. Hadley, 11 Beav. 614 ;
Hiles V. Moore, 15 Beav. 175 ; Barlow v. Gains, 8 Beav. 329 ; from which
it appears that the Deft could not apply for a receiver before decree, and
that his application should have been made by petition.
Although under the new practice, if the appointment of a receiver is
a substantial object of the action, the writ should be so indorsed, the
indorsement may be amended under 0. xxvm, 1, and upon such amend-
ment an interim receiver (or injunction) may be obtained : Colebourne v.
C, 1 Ch. D. 690 ; and also though not claimed by the indorsement of the
writ, original or amended : Norton v. Oover, 1877, W. N. 206 ; Salt v.
Cooper, 16 Ch. 544, C. A.
Where a Deft has not appeared and an application is made for the
appointment of a receiver, it is not sufficient to file the summons at the
Central Office under O. ixvn, 4, but it must be served on the Deft or leave
must be obtained for substituted service : Tilling, Ld. v. Blythe, [1899] 1
Q. B. 557, C. A. ; explained in Jamaica Co. v. Colonial Bank, [1905] 1 Ch.
at p. 688, C. A.
The order should state distinctly over what property the receiver is
appointed : Crow v. Wood, 13 Beav. 271 ; or else refer to the pleadings or
some other document describing it.
A receiver may be appointed in an action commenced by summons :
Re Francke, Drake v. F., 57 L. J. Ch. 437 ; 58 L. T. 305 ; Weston v. Levy,
1887, W. N. 76 ; and see Gee v. Bell, 35 Ch. D. 160 ; or where the application
is by consent : Blackhorough v. Ravenkill, 16 Jur. 1085 ; 1 W. R. 56 ; or
where a vacancy occurs by the decease or otherwise of a receiver already
appointed : Grote v. Bing, 9 Ha. App. 1 ; Booth v. Coulton, 16 W. R. 683 ;
18 L. T. 384.
As to the appointment of a receiver in an admon action commenced in a
district registry, see Re Capper, 26 W. R. 434.
The costs of a motion for a receiver are sometimes reserved until the
hearing : Chaplin v. Young, 6 L. T. 97 ; even though the application is
refused : Coope v. Cresswell, 12 W. R. 299.
The Court has jurisdiction under sect. 25, sub-sect. 8, of the Jud. Act,
1873, to appoint a receiver in an action to recover land although the title is
legal and the Deft is in possession, but a case must be made to justify such
appointment : Foxwell v. Van Grutten, [1897] 1 Ch. 64, C. A. ; John v. J.,
[1898] 2 Ch. 573, C. A.
The jurisdiction is discretionary, and the Court will have regard to all the
circumstances, e.^. , the interest of the tenants, the pecuniary position of the
Deft, and the probability of the Pit's title proving to be superior : John v.
J., sup.
The owner and lessor of Uoensed premises has been held to possess
sufficient primA facie interest in the licence to entitle him to the appoint-
ment of a receiver of the licence pending litigation : Charrington v. Camp,
[1902] 1 Ch. 386 ; Leney <& Sons r. Callingham and Thompson, [1908]
1 K. B. 79, C. A.
On the question of the jurisdiction to appoint a receiver over estates in
Ireland or out of the jurisdiction, which seems upon the authorities cited
SECT. l.J Appointment of Hecehef, '3ft
to be in the nature of a recommendation to the Irisli Court father that!
an appointment by this Court directly of such receiver, see Re Trant,
2 Sol. Jour. 11 ; iS. 0., M. R., in Chambers, 8 July, 1857, B. 1366, and oases
collected on the subject in Penii v. L. Baltimore, 1 L. C. Eq. 755 ; Houlditch
V. M. Donegal, Beat. 146 ; 8 Bli. N. S. 301. The mere order of the English
Court does not put the receiver into possession of foreign property (e.g. a
debt which ia to be treated as locally situate abroad), so as to constitute
foreign process a contempt of the English Court : lie Maudslay, Sons <ii
Field, [1900] 1 Ch. 602.
As to the jurisdiction of the Court to appoint a receiver and manager of
property in the colonies or abroad, see iiif. Section V., pp. 776 et seq.
As to the power of the Court to appoint a receiver and stay all further Arbitration,
proceedings, with a view to a reference to arbitration, see Compagnie du
Senegal v. Smith, 53 L. J. Ch. 16, 166 ; 49 L. T. 527 ; 32 W. R. Ill, and
aup. p. 393.
PERSON TO BE APPOINTED.
The right to the appointment of a receiver belongs in the first instance to
the parties interested in the suit, and not to a stranger : A. 0. v. Day,
2 Mad. 246 ; but the selection is matter for the discretion of the Court :
Morison v. Jf ., 4 M. & Cr. 216.
The selection of a receiver by a Judge will not be disturbed by the Court
of Appeal, except in extreme cases, or on some objection in point of prin-
ciple : Cookes v. C, 2 D. J. & S. 526 ; Perry v. Oriental Hotels Co., 5 Ch.
450 ; Nothard v. Proctor, 1 Ch. D. 4 ; Ley v. L., 27 L. T. 267 ; 25 L. J. Ch.
600.
The most fit person should be appointed, without regard to which party
may propose him : Lespinasse v. Bell, 2 J. & W. 436 ; but generally the
person having the carriage of the order has the right of nominating, and
effect will be given to liis nomination, unless good cause to the contrary is
shown by the other side.
Where debentures comprised special securities which could not be realized
otherwise than by a commercial liquidator, the receiver appointed by the
debenture holders, was as to those assets substituted for the official receiver
who had been appointed by the Court below : British Linen Co. v. South
American and Mexican Co., [1894] 1 Ch. 108, C. A.
Leave of the Court must be obtained before a party to the suit can propose
himself as receiver : see Davis v. D. Marlborough, 2 Swa. 118.
A person whose duty it is to watch and chock the receiver when appointed
is ineligible : Sutton v. Jones, 15 Ves. 584. Thus the Pit's solicitor will not
be appointed, even by consent : Allen v. Lloyd, 12 Ch. D. 447, C. A. ; and
as to the next friend or guardian of an infant being ineligible, see Simpson,
356.
Except in very special cases (see Sargant v. Read, 1 Ch. D. 400 ; Taylor
V. Eckersley, 2 Ch. D. 302), one of the parties to the action will not be
appointed receiver without the consent of the other party : see Allen v.
Lloyd, 12 Ch. D. 447, 451. But in the case of a partner continuing the
business (especially if he has the larger share) it is frequently done.
SALARY AND ALLOWANCES,
The usual allowance was formerly £5 p. c. on the gross rental of the
estates : Day v. Croft, 2 Beav. 488 ; but £3 p. c. is now very commonly
given. There is, however, no settled scale : Prior v. Bagster, 57 L. T. 760 j
1887, W. N. 194 ; and the amount must depend on the circumstances of the
particular case.
Where the rental is very considerable, a percentage at a lower rate has
been allowed, or a fixed salary may be given ; and if there is any special
difficulty in collecting the rents, the allowance has been increased! if
facility, diminished : Day v. Croft, sup.
740
iteceivel-s.
[cHAi*. xXxii.
Extra-
ordinary
allowancea.
Trustee.
Effect of
appointment
without
Expense of
completing
contracts.
Priority over
advances.
Borrowing
without leave
of Court.
The sdale allowed to liquidators is no guide : Prior v. Bagster, 57 L. T.
760 ; 1887, W. N. 194.
A receiver may be entitled to an allowance beyond his salary for extra-
ordinary trouble and expenses : Potts v. Leighton, 15 Ves. 276 ; but not
without previous order : Be Ormshy, 1 Ba. & B. 189.
He is not entitled to expenses of journeys abroad and proceedings there,
without the Court's express sanction, though they may be allowed where
the proceedings are successful : and for the practice of the Court as to
extraordinary allowances, see Malcolm v. O'Oallaghan, 3 M. & Cr. 52.
And see, as to receiver in bankruptcy, Exp. Izard, Re Bushell, 23 Ch. D.
75, C. A.
He has been hold entitled to repay himself such sums as have been reason-
ably expended in the collection of rents (including a salary or percentage to
a collector), before appljdng the rents in satisfaction of the arrears of
interest on mortgages : Gilbert v. Denely, 3 Scott, N. R. 364.
A receiver and manager is entitled to be paid for special services, but he
ought to ask the Court for the allowance of wages, and if he does not he
incurs great risk : Harris v. Sleep, [1897] 2 Ch. 80, C. A. (where £2 a week
was allowed to a receiver and manager as wages for manual work done in
the business by him).
When a trustee is appointed on his own undertaking to act as receiver of
the trust property, he is not ordinarily entitled to a salary, though the
words " without salary " ought, it seems, to be inserted in the order :
Pilhingion v. Baker, 24 W. Ri 234 ; but there is no inflexible rule that a
trustee can only be appointed receiver of the trust estate on the terms of
his receiving no remuneration : Re Bignell, B. v. Chapman, [1892] 1 Ch.
59, C. A.
A receiver and manager appointed without salary or remuneration is
entitled to be allowed in his account premiums paid by him to a guarantee
society as his surety : Harris v. 8leep,_[l8Ql] 2 Ch. 80.
A party interested proposing himself is usually required to act without
salary, unless by consent ; v. sup. p. 729.
Receivers and managers appointed in the winding-up of a co. who incurred
expenses in completing the contracts of the co.'s business as biiilders, were
held entitled to be indemnified out of the assets of the business in priority
to persons who had advanced money under a consent order providing
that the advances were to be a first charge on the assets of the co. :
Strapp V. Bull^ Sons S Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 1, C. A. And a similar rule
was applied where the order authorizing the advances did not itself create
a charge, but simply gave liberty to the manager to borrow on the security
of charges to be created by him : Re Glasdir Copper Mines, [1906] 1 Ch.
365 ; semble, that the rule will not apply where the person making the
advance is a stranger to the action in which the order has been made :
Re Glasdir Copper Mines, ubi sup. An order in a debenture holder's action
giving the receiver liberty to boiTOW for the preservation of the property
and to charge the same on the property, should state whether or not the
charge is subject to the receiver's right of indemnity : S. C. ; but compare
Re Boynton Limited, Hojfman v. Boynton, [1901] 1 Ch. 519. And see
Lathom v. Greenwich Ferry Co., 72 L. T. 790 ; 1895, W. N. 77 (where the costs
of realization to which the receiver was held entitled in priority were limited
to those of the actual sale exclusive of the costs of preserving the property ;
and see also Ramsay v. Simpson, [1899] 1 I. R. 194, C. A., as to costs of
realization).
A receiver and manager who is authorized by the Court to borrow a
limited sum for the general purposes of the business, and who incurs further
liabilities without any application to the Court, will only be entitled to be
indemnified in respect of them, so far as he can show that he was justified
in the circumstances in incurring them without leave : Re British Power
Traction, cfec. Co., [1906] 1 Ch. 497 ; see also S. C, reported [1907] 1 Ch,
528.
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. 741
In bankruptcy, the receiver is entitled to his costs next after the oosta of Costs, in
realizing the estate : Exp. Royle, 23 W. R. 908. T^^^
By Order as to Supreme Court Fees, 1884, Sched,, item 72, the Court banlmiptoy,
fee on taking an account of a receiver or consignee is Is. for every £100, Court fees,
or portion of £100, of the amount found to have been received, without
deducting any payment.
SBCITRITY.
By 0. L, 16, when an order is made directing a receiver to be appointed,
unless otherwise ordered, he is first to give security to be allowed by the
Court or a Judge, and taken before a person authorized to administer oaths,
duly to account for what he shall receive as such receiver, and to pay the
same, as the Court or Judge shall direct ; and the person so to be appointed
shall, unless otherwise ordered, be allowed a proper salary, or allowance.
The security is to be by recognizance of the receiver (see R. S. C, App. L.,
20a, 21 ; D. C. F. 864). In Poole v. Wood, V.-C, 21 Dec. 1832, leave
was given to pay part of the sum to be secured into Court, and to give
security for the rest. By 0. L, 16a, where the amount for which security
is to be given does not exceed £500 such security may be given by an
undertaking in the form No. 21a, Ann. Prac. ii. Appendix L.
By 0. Ii, 17, where a named receiver is appointed in Court, the Court or a
Judge may adjourn to Chambers the cause or matter then pending, in order
that the person named as receiver may give security, and may thereupon
direct the judgment or order to be drawn up.
Where a receiver is appointed merely for the purpose of securing a charge, Dispensing
e.g., by way of equitable execution, security may be dispensed with : Hewett with security.
V. Murray, 54 L. J. Ch. 572 ; 53 L. T. 380 ; and see Form 2, inf. p. 758 ;
and for the preservation of property pending an appeal, the Pit was
appointed interim receiver and manager of a farm without security on his
undertaking to abide by any order of the Court : Hyde v. Warden, 1 Ex. D.
309, C. A. ; and see Taylor v. Echersley, 2 Ch. D. 302, C. A. ; Gardner v.
Blane, 1 Ha. 381.
After reference the Court ^vi'l not dispense with the usual security, even
with the consent of the parties interested. If the parties desire it, they
should nominate of their own authority, and then apply that the receiver
appointed by themselves shall not be required to give security : Manners v.
Furze, 11 Beav. 30 ; Bidout v. E. Plymouth, 1 Dick. 68. And the parties so
applying must be sui juris : Tylee v. T., 17 Beav. 583.
And for the appointment under special circumstances of a receiver on his
own recognizance only, see Hibbert v. H., 3 Mer. 681 ; C. Carlisle v. L.
Berkley, Amb. 599.
In Bainbrigge v. Blair, 3 Beav. 421, the receiver was discharged on the
trustees undertaking, without recognizance, to account half-yearly like a
receiver.
The security is usually for double the annual rental ; though two sureties Amount and
are usual, the number may be increased, to reduce the amount of each, nature of
It was questioned whether the bond of an incorporated guarantee securiiy.
association (though sufiBoient as a security for costs : Plestow v. Johnston,
2 W. R. 3), would be accepted instead of the usual recognizance : Manners
V. Furze, 11 Beav. 30 ; but see Clarke v. Thornton, inf. Sect. IV., Form 5,
p. 772 ; Carpenter v. Solicitor to Treasury, 7 P. D. 235 ; Colmore v. North,
42 L. J. Ch. 4 ; 27 L. T. 405 ; 21 W. R. 43 ; and such a bond is commonly
accepted now. For form, see D. C. F. 866. And that a bond given by an
assurance co. was held to be intra vires the oo. under their special Act :
Be Spiritine, [1902] W. N. 124.
Money due from a receiver, whether an ascertained balance or not, is, so Recog-
long as the recognizance is existing, a debt of record : Seagram v. Tuck, 18 ni^auoe.
Ch. D. 296, C. A.
By O. LXi, 14, no recognizance shall be filed after six months from the
acknowledgment thereof, except under special circumstances, and by ao
5'42
Meceivers.
[chap. XXXII.
Sureties.
Additional
security.
order made by the Court or a Judge upon motion for the filing thereof
after that time. Leave may be given to file it nunc pro tunc : Bothomley
V. Fairfax, 1 P. W. 334, 340 ; Vaughan v. V., 1 Dick. 90 ; for such order,
see Marchant v. M., M. R., 3 Nov. 1853, B. 15 ; but it will be made so as
not to prejudice intervening incumbrances : Bothomley v. Fairfax, sup. ;
and see Fothergill v. Kendrich, 2 Ver. 234.
By O. LX, 4, where, by the practice of the Ch. Div., recognizances are
required to be given, such recognizances are to be given to the two senior
chief clerks (now Masters) for the time being of the Judge to whom the
cause or matter is assigned ; and when the same are, by any judgment or
order, directed to be vacated, the proper officer shall, on due notice thereof,
attend one of the said chief clerks (Masters), who shall thereupon vacate
such recognizances in the usual manner.
The sureties must be resident within the jurisdiction : Coclcburn v.
Raphael, 2 S. & S. 453 ; and upon any event, such as death or bankruptcy,
happening, which would prevent the recognizance being effectually put in
force against them, an order will be made at Chambers on summons,
directing the receiver to give a new security.
Additional security has been required when the property over which the
receiver has been appointed has since increased in value : Spenee v. Hang-
ford, M. R., in Chambers, 17 Feb. 1865.
Date of
order.
Possession.
EFFECT OF APPOINTMENT.
The appointment of a receiver, so far as it affects the rights of creditors or
third parties, dates not from the order appointing Mm, but from the com-
pletion of the security required to be given by the order ; and, accordingly,
until the appointment has been perfected by certificate that the security has
been completed, a judgment creditor is not debarred from proceeding to
execution : Edwards v. E., 2 Ch. D. 291 ; and see Exp. Evans, Re Watkins,
13 Ch. D. 252, 255. But if no security is required (which should appear on
the face of the order), the appointment is complete upon possession being
taken under the order : Morrison v. Skerne Ironworks Co., 60 L. T. 588.
His liability to account in respect of moneys received and expended by
him as receiver at once arises, whether the security has been completed or
not : Smart v. Flood, 49 L. T. 467.
His possession is the possession of the Court, and the effect of his appoint-
ment is to remove the parties to the suit from possession : Russell v. E. Ang.
Ry., 3 Mac. & G. 104 : Ames v. Birkenh^ead Docks, 20 Beav. 350 ; and, as
against the subsequent trustee in bankruptcy, to exclude the doctrine of
reputed ownership : Taylor v. Eckersley, 5 Ch. D. 740 ; and as to the
appointment of a receiver and manager of a oo. operating as a discharge to
tho co.'s servants, see Reid v. Explosives Co., 19 Q. B. D. 264, C. A.
He is entitled to rents in arrear when he is appointed : Codringlon v.
Johnstone, 1 Beav. 524 ; and his right to collect a sum admitted to be due to
the estate cannot be disputed by the person making the admission : Wood v.
Hitchings, 2 Beav. 294.
He is not "owner" within the Public Health Act, 1875, and, consequently,
service on him of notices as to improvement expenses, under sect. 150, is
bad : see Corp. ofBacup v. Smith, 45 Ch. D. 395.
A soir receiving rents must pay them over to the receiver without
reference to any lien for costs, though it might have been proper for him
to receive them : Wickens v. Townshend, 1 Rus. & M. 361, 363.
Money due to him in his character of receiverwas a debt,legal or equitable,
upon which a debtor's summons might be grounded under the Bankruptcy
Act, 1869, ss. 6, 7 (see now Bankruptcy Act, 1883, ss. 4, 6, sub-s. 1 (d)) ;
Exp. Harris, 2 Ch. D. 423.
The right of the receiver to collect vn\\ not prevent payment of money
into Court by a debtor to tho estate, on the petition of parties interested, to
6a ve the receiver's poundage ; Haigh v, Qrattan, I Beav. 201,
SECT. I.J Appointment of Receiver. 743
As against a receiver appointed by the Court, an exor cannot retain a debt
due to him : Davenport v. Moss, 14 W. R. 453 ; Re Jones, Claver v. Laxton,
31 Oh. D. 440 (following Be Birt, 22 Ch. D. 604 ; Richmond v. White, 12
Ch. D. 161) ; Be Harrison, Latimer v. Harrison, 32 C. D. 395 ; and v. inf.
Chap. XLIV., p. 1468.
A partner who has got in debts adversely to the receiver was ordered,
within a week, to make an affidavit of the amount, and pay such amount to
the receiver, or in default to be committed : Parker v. Pocock, 30 L. T. 458.
A receiver who has been appointed under the ordinary power in a mort- Agent of
gage deed is in possession for all purposes as the agent of the mortgagor : mortgagor.
<f^ff<i"js V. Dickson, I Ch. 183 ; Law v. Olenn, 2 Ch. 634 ; Conveyancing
Act, 1881, s. 24, sub-s. 2 ; and see Owen v. Cronh, [1896] 1 Q. B. 265, C. A. ;
Be Hale, Lilley v. Food, [1899] 2 Ch. 107, C. A. ; and a distress by the mort-
gagor without the receiver's authority is illegal : Woolston v. Boss, [1900] 1
Ch. 788.
But where debentures give the holders a power to appoint a receiver with-
out indicating that he is to be the agent of the co., he must be treated as
agent of the debenture holders : Re Vimbos, [1900] 1 Ch. 470 ; Bdbinson
Printing Co. v. Chic, [1905] 2 Ch. 123; DeyesY. Wood, [1911] 1 K. B. 806.
If the mortgagors are a oo. which is afterwards wound up, the receiver
after the winding-up order ceases to be the agent of the co., but does not
necessarily become the agent of the mortgagees : Oosling v. Oashell, [1897]
A. C. 575, H. L. ; reversing C. A., [1896] 1 Q. B. 669.
The receiver's possession does not alter the rights of parties as regards the Bights of
Statute of Limitations : Harrison v. Duignan, 2 Dr. & War. 295. parties not
Money in the hands of a receiver is not in custodid legis, as it is in the altered,
hands of a sequestrator. The rights to it must be decided on a consideration
of all the circumstances, and in particular the nature of the action and the
object of the appointment of the receiver : Be Hoare, H. v. Owen, [1892] 3
Ch. 94.
The right of a Pit to damages for detention of property by the Deft is not
lost by the appointment of a receiver of the property by consent pending the
trial of the action : Dreyfus v. Peruvian Quano Co., 42 Ch. D. 166 (see 8. C,
on appeal, 43 Ch. D. 316, C. A.) ; following Williams Y.Peel Biver Co., 65
L. T. 689.
A receiver appointed by will is a proper party to an admon suit : Consett v. Receiver
Bell, 1 Y. & C. C. 569. ;• appointed
by will.
AS EBGABDS PBESONS CLAIMING BY PABAMOITNT TITLE.
Leave is given to persons claiming by title paramount to the receiver to
pursue their remedies, provided there has been no delay in the assertion of
their rights : Fish. Mort. s. 868 ; Coote, 965.
As to the rights of a landlord after the appointment of a receiver as Landlord's
against the tenant or sub-tenant, see Sutton v. Bees, 9 Jur. N. S. 456 ; 1 rights.
N. R. 464 : Hand v. Blow, 70 L. J. Ch. 687 ; [1902] 2 Ch. 721, C. A. The
landlord should ask the Court for authority to distrain, notwithstanding
the possession of the receiver. If the landlord gives the receiver notice
of his claim for rent, but takes no other steps, and the receiver sells the
furniture, the landlord has no priority over other creditors in the proceeds :
S.C.
His right to distrain for rent is limited by the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 42,
as amended by the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, s. 28, to six months' rent accrued
due prior to the order of adjudication, including an order for the admon of
the estate of a debtor whose debts do not exceed £50, or of a deceased person
who dies insolvent : Exp. Cochrane, 20 Eq. 282 ; Exp. Till, 16 Eq. 97.
The appointment of a receiver of the tolls, profits, and income of a railway Effect of
in a suit on behalf of rent-charge holders was held not to affect the right of receivership
the owner of a rent-charge to distrain for his arrears on the goo(k and of income
chattels of the promoters of the undertaking, given by the L. C. C. Act, °^ railway.
744
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
Mortgagee
or judgment
creditor.
Partnership
action.
Exceeding
authority.
1845, s. 11 : EyUm v. Denbigh, &c. By., 6 Eq. 14 ; see also lb. 488 (on a
similar application in the same co.).
And see Bowen v. Brecon By., 3 Eq. 541, where, upon a petition (after the
appointment in a debenture holder's suit of a receiver of a railway under-
taking) by a debenture holder for leave to issue execution on his judgment,
an inquiry whether it would be for the benefit of the debenture holders that
any proceedings should be taken by the receiver for the purpose of making
such judgment available for them, was directed.
A mortgagee whose interests are not provided for in the order for the
receiver may apply to be examined ^o inter esse suo : Hunt v. Priest, 2 Dick.
540 ; so also if a receiver has been improperly, or by mistake, put in posses-
sion of goods, the proper course for the judgment creditor of the owner is
not to apply for leave to levy execution, but to move to discharge the order,
or apply to be examined pro interesse suo : Fowler v. Haynes, 2 N. R. 156 ;
and see Kerr, Reors., 178 et seq. ; and sup. Chap. XXVII., " Execution,"
p. 408.
The creditor of a party to whom a receiver appointed by the Court was
directed to pay the rents was allowed, on petition, to sue out and execute
such writs as advised : Oooch v. Haworth, 3 Beav. 428. But a judgment
creditor recovering merely under an order at law money of his debtor in a
receiver's hands, had to repay it, and he, and the receiver who had not
resisted, had to pay costs ; a party interested may apply at once to stay
such payments : De Winton v. Mayor of Brecon, 28 Beav. 200.
In Neate v. Pink, 15 Sim. 450, an inquiry went on petition by a stranger
to the suit to ascertain his right to rent paid into Court by the receiver ;
but see Wastell v. Leslie, lb., 453, n. ; Blundell v. B., 1886, W. N. 125 ;
explaining Neate v. Pink, and deciding that a judgment creditor, not a
party to an action, has no locn^ standi to apply for payment of money to him
by a receiver, though the debt be one properly payable out of the funds in
the receiver's hands : Brocklebank v. E. London By. Co., 12 Ch. D. 839.
Rent received by the receiver before the mortgagee took possession, but
not paid to her till after, was (under the circumstances of the case) assumed
to go in discharge of interest due when she took possession ; secus, as to rent
which did not appear to have been received before she took possession :
Horlock V. Smith, 1 Coll. 287.
And as to the remedies of a judgment creditor, or prior incumbrancer
against the owner and the receiver, as to surplus rents, or the estabUshment
of his rights, see Lervis v. L. Zouche, 2 Sim. 388 ; Smith v. E, Effingham,
2 Beav. 232 ; 7 Beav. 357.
Where, after appointment of a receiver in a partnership action, a creditor
of the firm obtained judgment, an order was made giving him a charge on
the partnership moneys coming to the receiver, upon his undertaking that
the charge was to be dealt with according to the order of the Court : Kewney
V. Aitrill, 34 Ch. D. 345 ; and see Be Cowan's Estate, Bapier v. Wright, 14
Ch, D. 638, where a receiver in an admon action, who had been directed
to pay to a legatee a quarterly sum, was ordered to pay the debt and
costs of judgment creditors of the legatee.
But where a judgment creditor had obtained an order following Kewney
V. Attrill, sup., the solr of the Pit in a partnership action was held entitled to
a charging order for his costs under sect. 28 of the Solicitor's Act, 1860, in
priority to a judgment creditor ; and semhle, an order in the form of Kewney
v. Attrill only operates as a charge as among the creditors of the partner-
ship themselves or as against the several partners of the firm : Bidd v.
Thorne, [1902] 2 Ch. 344.
If a receiver has exceeded his authority, the person injured thereby
ought not, without leave of the Court, to bring an action against the
receiver, but should apply for relief in the action in which the receiver was
appointed : Searle v. Choat, 25 Oh. D. 723.
If the receiver has paid to the tenant for life money which he ought to
have paid into Court for the benefit of creditors, and is afterwards compelled
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. '^^
to pay the same amount into Court, the receiver's right, to the surplus which
may remain after satisfaction of the creditors will have priority over any
claim by the tenant for life ; but if the wrongful payment has been made by
the solr in the cause as his agent, the receiver's right to the surplus is
subject to all liabilities between the solr and the person wrongly paid :
Ourden v. Badcock, 6 Beav. 157.
INTEEFBBENCB VWTH RECEIVER.
The Court will not allow its receiver to be interfered with, though
erroneously appointed : Ames v. Birkenhead Dock, 20 Beav. 332 ; Bandfield
V. R., 1 Dr. & S. 310. But leave to try a right which is claimed against the
receiver will not be refused, unless the claim is clearly without foundation :
S. C, on appeal, 3 D. F. & J. 766 ; Lane v. Capsey, [1891] 2 Ch. 411.
Where the Court has appointed a receiver, it will not allow him to be
sued in another Court in respect of acts done by him in discharge of his
office : Re Maidstone Paiace of Varieties, [1902] 2 Ch. 283.
Interference with a receiver appointed by the Court {e.g., by advertise- Contempt,
ments tending to prejudice the management of a business carried on by a
receiver and manager under order of the Court) is a contempt punishable by
a committal : Eelmore v. Smith (2), 35 Ch. D. 449 ; Hawkins v. Gathercole,
1 Drew. 12; which, after notice from the receiver, renders the persons
interfering, whoever they may be, and even though enforcing legal rights,
liable for the consequences of their contempt : and see Exp. Cochrane,
20 Eq. 282 ; but it is not interference with the receiver of a oo. to apply for
leave to issue execution against him, upon judgments recovered against
the CO., in respect of money due from him in his capacity of shareholder ;
Re West Lancashire Go., 1890, W. N. 165 ; 63 L. T. 56.
It maybe punished by committal by order absolute in the first instance : Committal.
Broad v. Wickham, 4 Sim. 511 ; but more usually, as in the case of breach
of an injunction, by payment of all costs and expenses occasioned by such
improper conduct : Lane v. Sterne, 3 Giff. 629.
And the particular act of interference may be restrained by injunction. Injunction,
wliich, in a proper case, may be obtained ex parte : Tink v. Bundle, 10 Beav.
318 ; Evelyn v. Lewis, 3 Ha. 472 ; Randfield v. R., 1 Dr. & S. 310; see also
Dixon V. Dixon, [1904] 1 Ch. 161. And in Bayly v. Went, 51 L. T. 764, an
injunction was granted to restrain a mortgagor from distraining for rent,
on the allegation that the receiver appointed by the mortgagee had been
negligent in collecting it ; and see Woolston v. Ross, [1900] 1 Ch. 788 ;
V. sup. p. 743.
A motion to commit for disturbance of a receiver's possession, made for
the purpose of extorting costs, rather than to protect such possession, will
not, however, be encouraged : Ward v. Swift, 6 Ha. 312.
Whether the sheriff may be committed for the act of his under-sheriff in Sheriff,
seizing property in the possession of a receiver appointed by the Court, see
Russell V. E. Anglian By., 3 Mac. & G. 104 ; Fish. Mort. s. 866 ; Coote,
p. 965.
In that case the sheriff, who had seized, under fi. fa., property in the
hands of the receiver, was ordered to withdraw, and to pay the costs and
expenses of the seizure, and was restrained from proceeding against the
receiver to compel him to interplead ; and the order went on to enjoin the
execution creditors from taking proceedings at law against the sheriff, in
relation to the property seized by him, or any other property in the posses-
sion of the receiver : see 3 Mao. & G. p. 120.
And the sheriff who executes process upon property over which a receiver
has been appointed, will not be protected against adverse claims to the
proceeds by the landlord and the receiver : Try v. T., 13 Beav. 422 ; see
also Rock V. Cook, 2 Ph. 691 ; Onyon v. WasJibourne, 14 Jur. 497, that the
sheriff levying under a fi. fa., under the Judgments Act, 1838 (1 & 2 V.
c. 110), was not, like a sequestrator, an officer of the Court, so as to be
entitled to protection under 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 58, s. 6.
746
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
And see, as to the effect of appointing a receiver, Dan. 1684 ; Kerr,
Receivers, 156 et seq. ; Robbins on Mortgage, 962 et seq. See also Exp.
Rylands ; Exp. Cooper, 6 Ch. D. 57, 255 ; Exp. Evans, 27 W, R. 712,
Ma.nager of
business.
Licensed
premises.
Person to be
appointed.
Appointment
limited as
to time.
Leave to
borrow.
APPOINTMENT OV EECBIVBB AND MANAGER.
A receiver, unless specially empowered so to do, is not at liberty to carry
on a business (lindley, 575), and accordingly a manager, as distinct from a
receiver, is usually appointed with a view to a sale of property as a going
concern : Whitley v. Challis, [1892] 1 Ch. 64, C. A. ; In re Victoria Steam-
boats, Id., [1897] 1 Ch. 158 ; Marshall v. Smith Staffordshire Trams Co.,
[1895] 2 Ch. 36, C. A. ; ex. gr., in the case of a mortgage of a colliery where
the business of the colliery is included (as it usually and presumably is) in
the security : County of Gloiicester Bank v. Bndry Merthyr Colliery Co.,
[1895] 1 Ch. 629, C. A. ; Campbell y. Lloyd's Bank, [1891] 1 Ch. 136, n. ; 58
h. J. Ch. 424 ; Gibbs v. David, 20 Eq. 373 ; or of a hotel where the
goodwill is comprised in the security : Truman v. Redgrave, 18 Ch. D. 547
(but not otherwise : Whitley v. Challis, sup. ; and see County of Gloucester
Bank v. Rudry Merthyr Colliery Co., sup.) ; or of debentures of a co. even
though no principal money is due, if the security is in jeopardy as, for
example, by proceedings by execution creditors : Makins v. Percy Ibbotson
and Sons, [1891] 1 Ch. 133 ; Edwards v. Standard Rolling Stock Syndicate,
[1893] 1 Ch. 574 ; In re Victoria Steamboats, Ld., [1897] 1 Ch. 158 ; or of the
business of a partnership with a view to realization on dissolution : Taylor
V. Neate, 39 Ch. D. 538 ; CoUins v. Barker, [1893] 1 Ch. 578 ; sup. p. 730 ;
Harris v. Sleep, [1897] 2 Ch. 80, C. A. ; and v. inf. p. 752.
A manager may be appointed in a proper case notwithstanding that the
mortgagee has taken possession : County of Gloucester Bank v. Rudry
Merthyr Colliery Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 629, C. A. ; but an appointment will not
be made where debenture holders (as in the case of a tramway co. under
the Tramways Act, 1870) are not entitled to enforce their charge by sale :
Marshall v. South Staffordshire Trams Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 36, C. A- (comment-
ing on and disapproving of previous cases) ; and see Blaker v. Herts and
Essex Waterworks Co., 41 Ch. D. 399.
In an action by the owner of licensed premises against the lessee to recover
possession, it has been held that the owner has sufficient pnm(t./bcje interest
in the business to entitle him to the appointment of a receiver of the licence
to secure its preservation pending litigation : Charington and Co. v. Camp,
[1902] 1 Ch. 386 ; Leney and Sons v. Callingham, [1908] 1 K. B. 79, C. A.
The receiver is usually appointed manager, it being found inconvenient to
appoint different persons to act in the two capacities : Collins v. Barker,
[1893] 1 Ch. 578 ; but the Court may direct the receiver to avail himself of
the services of a named person to act in the management : v. sup. p.
731.
The appointment of a manager is made for a limited period only, varying
according to the circumstances of the case : In re Victoria Steamboats, Ld.,
[1897] 1 Ch. 158 ; Securities and Properties Corp. v. Brighton Alhambra, 62
L. J. Ch. 566 ; and is sometimes coupled with a special intimation by the
Court : ex. gr., that the person appointed is only to carry on the business in
its ordinary course so far as it is necessary to protect the assets : Melson v.
Isle of Wight Brewery Co., Kekewich, J., 7th Feb. 1899 ; and see Leney and
Sons V. Callingham, [1908] 1 K. B. 79, C. A.
Where the appointment of a receiver and manager has been made on an
interlocutory application, the order made on the hearing should extend the
time during which the receiver is to act as manager : Davies v. Vale of
Evesham Preserves, 43 W. R. 646-
Leave to the managertoborrowmoneyin priority to existing incumbrances
will only be given, if at all, by way of salvage or to secure an advantageous
sale : Securities and Properties Corp. v. Brighton Alhambra, 62 L. J. Ch,
566.
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. 747
And for further instauoos of appointment of receiver and manager, v. inf.
pp. 749, 752-754. See also D. C. F. 887, note.
IN WHAT INSTANCES, AND OVEK WHAT PEOPEKTY, A EECEIVER MAY
BE APPOINTED.
Powers having been conferred by Jud. Act, 187.3, s. 25 (8), on every Against
TCvision of the High Court, of appointing a receiver in all cases " in which legal title,
it shall appear to the Court to be just or convenient," many of the questions
which have arisen as to the right to obtain a receiver, especially on behalf of
persons claiming as against a legal title, and where the remedy afforded by
the Courts of ordinary jurisdiction was inadequate (see Kerr, Recrs. 2 et seq. ),
will no longer arise.
The appointment of a receiver is a remedy designed for the preservation of Preservation,
property until the question between the parties claiming it shall have been
decided, but without prejudice to the right of possession {as in the case of
first mortgagee as against equitable incumbrancers) of a party claiming by
an interest paramount to the htigants' : Bemey v. Sewell, 1 J. & W. 648 ;
Dalmer v. Vashwood, 2 Cox, 378 ; and see Harris v. H., 56 H. J. Ch. 754 ;
56 L. T. 507 ; 36 W. R. 710 ; Re Wells, Molony v. Brooke, 45 Ch. D.
569.
Independently of sect. 25 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and on the principle
of Kearns v. Leaf, 1 H. & M. 681, a receiver maj' be appointed to protect a
fund in the hands of trustees out of wliich costs are payable : Cummins v.
Perkins, [1899] 1 Ch. 16, C. A.
Formerly a receiver would not be appointed where the title was in dispute, Title in
even in a case of vacant possession : see Talbot v. Hope-Scoit, 4 K. & J. 96, dispute.
139 ; Carrow v. Ferrier, 3 Ch. 719 ; but since the Jud. Act, 1873 (s. 25), the
Court has power to appoint a receiver where the title to the property is
disputed : Foxwell v. Van Orutten, [1897] 1 Ch. 64, C. A. ; John v. John,
[1898] 2 Ch. 573, C. A. (v. sup. p. 738) ; Berry v. Keen, 51 L. J. Ch. 912.
Real and Personal Assets ; —
By the Court of Probate Act, 1857 (20 & 21 V. c. 77), ss. 70, 73—75, Prob. Court,
jurisdiction was given to the Probate Court to appoint a temporary admor ;
and by ss. 71, 72, a receiver of realty. And when such appointment had
been made, a Court of Equity would not interfere by appointing a receiver :
Veret v. Duprez, 6 Eq. 329 ; Hitchen v. Birks, 10 Eq. 471.
Pending litigation in the Ecclesiastical Court (or while litigation was Chan. Div.
" impending : " Qrimston v. Turner, 18 W. R. 724) ; or in a creditors' action
for admon before grant of probate or admon, notwithstanding the absence of
lis pendens (see Re Parker, Bearing v. Brooks, 54 L. J. Ch. 694 ; In the Goods
of Moore, 13 P. D. 36) ; but not in an ordinary admon action where there
was no lis pendens, but only a caveat against a will warned : Salter v. S.,
[18961 P. 291 ; or pending an application for admon de bonis rum to deceased
i)eft (the exor) : Re Parker, Cash v. P., 12 Ch. D. 293 ; Re Clark, Clark v.
Clark, 1910, W. N. 234 ; there being a party before the Court entitled to
and undertaking to take out such admon (see Re Sheppard, Atkins v. jS'.,
43 Ch. D. 131, 136, C. A.) ; an interim receiver has been appointed in the
Ch. D. of personal estate ; and also of the rents of the realty, when neither
the devisee nor the heir-at-law was in actual possession : Parkin v. Seddons,
16 Eq. 34 ; and see Re Dawson, 1906, W. N. 20.
As by the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 16, the Probate Court, with the Admiralty lAs pendens
and Divorce Courts, has been constituted a Division of the High Court, in Prob. Div.
any conflict of jurisdiction between the Probate Court and the Court of
Cliancery as to the appointment of a receiver is now at an end ; and,
pending proceedings in the Probate Division, an application for the appoint-
ment of a receiver should in general be made in that Division : Barr v. B.,
1876, W. N. 44 ; Re Parker, Bearing v. Brooks, 54 L. J. Ch. 694.
748
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
Grant of
admon to
reoeiver.
Costs of suit.
Danger to
assets to be
shown.
And as to the propriety of making application to the P. D., see Se
Parher. aup.. In the Goods of Moore, sup. ; Be Mallalieu, 91 L. T. Jo. 398 ;
Be Green, 1895. W. N. 69 ; Ingpen on Executors, pp. 126, 309.
And when, pending litigation between the parties interested, a receiver
had been appointed by the Court of Chancery, with authority to collect the
outstanding personal estate of an intestate until admon, and with liberty to
apply for letters of admon, a general grant of admon was made to the
receiver : Be Mayer, L. R. 3 P. & M. 39, followed in In the Goods of Moore,
[1892] P. 145.
Sea also Tichiorne v. T., 1 lb. 730, where the receiver appointed by the
Court of Chancery was appointed admor pendente lite ; and see In the Goods
of Evans, 15 P. D. 215 ; and generally as to when the grant will be made to
the reoeiver, see Ingpen on Executors, pp. 106, 127.
The costs of a suit for a receiver pending litigation in the Ecclesiastical
Court, as it was never brought to a hearing, were disposed of on motion :
Barton v. Boch, 22 Beav. 81, 376.
Though a receiver might be appointed to protect a testator's estate until a
legal pers. represve had been appointed, the addition of a prayer for admon
of the estate was irregular and demurrable : Overington v. Ward, 34 Beav.
175 ; Eawlings v. Lambert, 1 J. & H. 458.
The bankruptcy [Smith v. 8., 2 Y. & C. 353) or insolvency (Stainton v.
Carron Co., 18 Beav. 146) of an exor or admor is not in itself a ground for
appointing a receiver of the assets, and before judgment in a creditor's
action a receiver will not be appointed unless a case is shown of the assets
being wasted : Harris v. H., 56 L. J. Ch. 754 ; 56 L. T. 507; 35 W. R. 710
(following Philips v. Jones, 28 S. J. 360, dissenting from dictum of Jessel,
M. R., in Be BadcUffe, 7 Ch. D. 733) ; Be Wells, Molony v. Brookes, 45
Ch. D. 569 ; nor merely because the exor will probably exercise his right
of retainer to the prejudice of the creditors generally : 8. C. ; and the Court
has jurisdiction to restrain an exor who has become bankrupt since the death
of the testator from further acting as exor ; and if there is a co-exor wilhng
to continue to act will not require the appointment of a reoeiver : Bowen v.
Phillips, [1897] 1 Ch. 174; and that the Court can under the Judicial
Trustee Act, 1896, remove an executor and appoint a person to act in his
place, see Ingpen on Executors, pp. 2, 45.
Where from his bankruptcy an exor has been deprived of the conduct of
an admon action, and a reoeiver has been appointed, it is not the practice
to give the conduct to the reoeiver : Be Hopkins, Dowd v. Hawtin, 19 Ch. D.
61.
Where the exor was abroad, and no account could be obtained from the
person in charge of the estate, a reoeiver was appointed : Dickens v. Harris,
14 L. T. 98.
Tenancy in Common ;^
A receiver will be appointed on the application of an equitable tenant in
common : 8andford v. Ballard, 30 Beav. 109 ; Hargrave v. H., 9 Beav. 549.
And on evidence that the tenant has been excluded by his co-tenants, the
appointment will be extended to the whole estate : 8andford v. Ballard (2),
33 Beav. 401 ; and see Holmes v. Bell, 2 Beav. 298 ; Tyson b. Fairclough,
2 S. & St. 142.
And, although there is no exclusion, an interim reoeiver may be granted
in a partition action, unless the co-owner in occupation elects to pay an
occupation rent : Porter v. Lopes, 7 Ch. D. 358.
Landlord and Tenant : —
An interim receiver was appointed in an action by landlord against
tenant under a proviso for re-entry, the premises having been sub-let to
numerous tenants at weekly rents : Gwatkin v. Bird, 52 L. J. Q. B. 263
(where the form of order as drawn up is given at p. 264).
steoT. I.] Appointment of Heceiver, '^^
Legal Title :—
The general rule of the Court has been not to appoint a receiver against a
person in possession under a legal title, except in oases of fraud or danger to
the estate : Lloyd v. Passingham, 16 Ves. 59 ; but as to the practice since
Jud. Act, V. sup. p. 738.
Mortgagor and Mortgagee : —
On the principle that Courts of Equity would not assist a person who
had a full legal remedy, a receiver would not formerly be appointed at the
instance of a mortgagee who had the legal estate {Berney v. Sewell, 1 J. &
W. 648), or of an annuitant, or equitable incumbrancer, with power to dis-
train given by deed [Buxton v. Monkhouse, G. Coop. 41 ; Kelsey v. K., 17
Eq. 495), or superadded by stat. 4 G. II. c. 28 [Sollory v. Leaver, 9 Eq.
22), or except under special circumstances : see Ackland v. Oravener, 31
Beav. 482 ; or where the arrears could not have been recovered by distress :
Foster v. F., 2 Ver. 386 ; Cupit v. Jackson, 13 Pri. 721 ; Manly v. Hawkins,
1 D. & Wal. 363 ; Beamish v. Austen, I. R. 9 Eq. 361.
Under the extended powers given by the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), a
receiver may now be appointed over property of which the Pit is both legal
and equitable mortgagee, without prejudice to the right of prior incum-
brancers to take possession under their security : Pease v. Fletcher, 1 Ch. D.
273 ; see also Habershon v. Oill, 1875, W. N. 231.
A legal mortgagee of business premises, prevented from taking possession
by the mortgagor, may obtain the interim appointment of a receiver and
manager, and an injunction restraining the mortgagor from interfering
with the management : Truman dh Co. v. Rtdgrave, 18 Ch. D. 547 ; but not
an injunction before judgment restraining the mortgagor from remaining
in occupation : Taylor v. Scper, 62 L. T. 828. And a receiver has been
appointed so as to relieve a mortgagee from the liabilities incurred by
taking possession : Mason v. Westoby. 32 Ch. D. 206 ; but the mortgagee
has no absolute right to have such an appointment made, and if he has
assumed the responsibihty of taking possession, the Court will not in
general assist him to relinquish it : Re Prylherch, P. v. Williams, 42 Ch. D.
590.
At the instance of a mortgagee of a share, a Receiver of the whole has
been appointed : Sumsion v. Cruitwell, 31 W. R. 399 ; and in the case of
collieries held under leases containing working covenants, a receiver and
manager of the property and business was appointed, although the business
was not specifically referred to in the mortgage : Campbell v. Lloyd^s Bank,
58 L. J. Ch. 424 ; [1896] 1 Ch. 136, n. ; and see County of Gloucester Bank
V. Rudry Merthyr Steam and House Coal Colliery Co., [1895] 1 Ch. 629, C. A. ;
and .sup. p. 746. As to the right of a lessor of licensed premises to the
appointment of a receiver of the licence, see Charington v. Camp, [1902]
1 Ch. 386 ; Leney and Sons v. Callingham, [1908] 1 K. B. 79, C. A. ; and
sup. pp. 738, 746.
By the Conveyancing Act, 1881, s. 19 (1) (iii), a mortgagee, where the Effect of
mortgage is made by deed, has by virtue of that Act power (to the same Conv. Act,
extent as if in terms conveyed by the mortgage deed, but no further), when 1881.
the mortgage money has become due, to appoint a receiver of the income of
the mortgaged property, or any part thereof. Notwithstanding this power,
a mortgagee may still obtain a receiver by application to the Court : Tillelt
V. Nixon, 25 Ch. D. 238 ; and where an action is pending it is desirable that
the appointment should be made by the Court : Ibid.
As to the measure of the mortgagee's responsibility when a receiver is so
appointed, and that the mortgagee is bound only to give credit for sums
which reach his hands, see Re Delia Rosella's Estate, 29 L. R. Ir. 414.
By sect. 24 (1), a receiver shall not be appointed by a mortgagee under
the above power until he has become entitled to exercise the power of sale
conferred by the Act. The powers, remuneration and duties of the receiver
are stated in sect 24, sub-sects. 2 — 8,
750
Receivers.
[chap. XXXll.
Where the receiver is appointed under the Act with a special provision
empowering him to manage and carry on a. mortgaged business, he has
authority to continue paying instalments of a business debt, and such pay-
ment, if made by him, may take the case out of the Statute of Limitation,
but quxre whether a receiver appointed under the Act simpUciter would
have such authority : Re Hale, Lilley v. Foad, [1899] 2 Ch. 107, C, A. And
as to the position of mortgagee's receiver as agent of the mortgagor, v. sup.
p. 743.
Suing and As to the rights of the mortgagee's receiver to sue for rent in the name of
distraining the mortgagee's heir at law, on giving him indemnity, see Fairholme v.
for rent. Kennedy, 24 L. R. Ir. 498 ; and that mortgagor distraining for rent will be
restrained from such interference : Bayly v. Went, 51 L. T. 764.
Where a mortgagor is in possession, a receivership order, containing no
direction thathe attorn or deliver up possession, does not make his possession
wrongful, nor can he be fixed with an occupation rent before demand made
by the receiver : Yorkshire Banking Go. v. Mullan, 35 Ch. D. 125.
Prior mort- The rule of the Court is not to appoint a receiver at the instance of a
gagees. second mortgagee or incumbrancer against a prior legal mortgagee, or
against an incumbrancer of later date who has acquired the legal possession,
to whom anything remains due. Such prior mortgagee, &c., is entitled to
retain possession until he is fully paid, or he has rendered it impossible, from
his negligence in keeping his accounts, to ascertain what is due to him : see
Berney v. Sewell, IJ. & W. 647 ; Codrington v. Parker, 16 Ves. 469 ; Hiles v.
Moore, 15 Beav. 175 ; Bates v. Brothers, 2 Sm. & G. 509.
When, however, there are prior mortgagees or incumbrancers who are
not in possession, a receiver may be appointed without prejudice to such
incumbrancers taking possession (leave to do which is granted almost as
of course) : Form 16, sup. p. 732 ; Underhay v. Bead, 20 Q. B. D. 209,
C. A. ; Bryan v. Oormick, 1 Cox, 422 ; Dalmer v. Dashwood, 2 Cox, 383 ;
Norway v. Bowe, 19 Ves. 153.
In a suit by second mortgagee to redeem first mortgagee, who, by his
deed, had power to appoint a receiver, the Court appointed a receiver,
giving the nomination to first mortgagee : Bord v. Tollemache, 1 N. R. 177.
Equitable As against the mortgagor in possession, a receiver may be appointed on
mortgagee. the application of an equitable mortgagee : Aberdeen v. Chiity, 3 Y. & C.
379.
After fore- After judgment for foreclosure absolute. Pit (mortgagee) cannot obtain
closure the appointment of a receiver : see Wills v. Luff, 38 Ch. D. 197.
absolute. As between a vendor, and a purchaser and his mortgagee, a receiver was
Vendor and appointed on bill by mortgagee : Dawson v. Yates, I Beav. 301.
purchaser. And against a purchaser in possession : Osborne v. Harvey, 1 Y. & C. C,
116.
Trust Estate :--
The oases in which a receiver of a trust estate may be appointed are
collected in Lewin, 1262 et seq.
As a general rule, the trustees or exors will not, on slight grounds, ba
dispossessed of the trust property by the appointment of a receiver :
Barkley v. L. Reay, 2 Ha. 308 ; Wiles v. Cooper, 9 Beav. 294 ; Whitworth
V. Whyddon, 2 Mac. & G. 52.
On the appointment of new trustees, a receiver who had been appointed
in the place of improper trustees was discharged on their undertaking,
without recognizance, to pass their accounts lialf-yearly : Bainbrigge v.
Blair, 3 Beav. 421.
If the trustee consents, a receiver may be appointed at the instance of all
the cs. q. t. i Brodie v. Barry, 3 Mer. 695 ; but the usual recognizances will
be required: Manners v. Furze, II Beav. 30.
If the trustee has been guilty of misconduct or waste, or has not shown
himself impartial between oonfiioting claims (E. Talbot v. Hope-Scott, 4
K. & J. 139 J Anon., 12 Ves. 5), or the property is endangered from the
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. 751
bankruptcy, insolvency, or great poverty of the trustee {Scott v. Beecher,
4 Price, 346 ; Oladdon v. Stoneman, 1 Madd. 143 ; Everett v. Prytherch, 12
Sim. 367 ; and v. sup. p. 748), or if he is incapacitated from acting (Bain-
brigge v. Blair, 3 Beav. 421), or is of bad character or drunken habits
{Everett v. Prytherch, sup.), a receiver may be appointed at the instance of
any one c. q. t.
As also wlien, from disputes between the trustees, the rents have fallen
into arrear : Wilson v. W.,2 Ke. 249.
Loss of part of trust funds is also ground for appointing a receiver :
Evims V. Coventrxj, 5 D. M. & G. 911 ; 3 Drew. 75.
Or investments by two of the trustees in their own names without the
consent of the third : Svxde v. S., 22 Beav. 684.
On the disclaimer of one of two trustees, a receiver was appointed, mth
leave to either trustee to propose himself : Tail v. Jenkins, 1 Y. & C. C.
492 ; though in Browell v. Beid, 1 Ha. 434, the disclaimer, inactivity, or
absence abroad of one of several trustees was not held sufficient ground ;
but see Trustee Act, 1893 (66 & 57 V. c. 53), s. 10.
Where trustees of leaseholds were directed by the will to repair according
to the lessee's covenants out of rents, a receiver was appointed for the
purpose of enforcing the obligation against the tenant for life : Be Fowler,
F. V. Odell, 16 Ch. D. 723 ; secus, as between tenant for life and remainder-
man, where there was no such direction : Be Courtier, Coles v. Courtier,
34 Ch. D. 136, C. A.
Married Woman's Separate Estate : —
A receiver may be appointed by way of equitable execution of a married
woman's separate estate : see Peace v. Waller, 24 Ch. D. 405 ; Bryant v.
Bull, 10 Ch. D. 153 ; inf. Sect. II. p. 760 ; and independently of sect. 25
of the Jud. Act, 1873, and on the principle of Keams v. Leaf, 1 H. & M. 681,
a receiver may be appointed to protect a fund out of which costs are pay-
able ; and accordingly where an action by a married woman had been
dismissed with costs to be taxed and " payable out of her separate property,
but not otherwise," the Court appointed a receiver of a fund coming to her
under a will as her separate property : Cummins v. Perkins, [1899] 1 Ch.
16, C. A. For proper form of judgment against a married woman under
sect. 1 (2) of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, see Scott v. Morley,
20 Q. B. D. 120.
Infant's Estate : —
A receiver may be appointed of an infant's estate when there is no
guardian : Hicks v. H., 3 Atk. 274 ; or the guardian is abroad : Westly v.
W., 2 C. P. Coop. 210 ; or when the estate is being mismanaged : Ahurrow
V. A., 10 Sim. 602 ; Bennett v. Colley, 5 Sim. 181 ; and on petition or sum-
mons without suit : B& Leeming, 20 L, J. Ch. 550 ; Be Beynolds, 19 L. T.
311 ; Be Goode, 1 Ir. Ch. 256 ; and the rules that apply to appointing a
receiver of a trust estate are applicable where the person beneficially
interested is an infant, with this addition, that the Court considers chiefly
what will be most beneficial to the infant's interests : see Simpson, Law
of Infants, 555 seq.
Partnership : —
A receiver will be appointed of partnership property in cases of mis-
conduct of one or more of the partners involving violation of the partner-
ship contract, risk to the property, or to exclusion of the others or other
from the right of personal intervention, or other unrighteous act whereby
the due winding up of the affairs of the partnersliip might be endangered ;
but mere quarrels and disagreements are not a sufficient ground : Wilson
V. Qreenwood, 1 Sw. 481 ; Qoodmam, v. Whitcomh, 1 J. & W. 589 ; Marshall
V. Colman, 2 J. & W. 266 ; Hale v. H., 4 Beav. 369 ; Blakeney v. Dufaur,
15 Beav. 40; Baxter v. West, 28 L. J. Ch. 169.
752
Receivers.
[cHAt. XXXIl.
EfCeot of
appointment.
Dissolution
iatended.
Manager.
Creditors.
Right of
solvent
partner to
be appointed,
Deceased
partner's
represves.
If the existence of the partneiship is questioned, a receiver will not
usually be appointed : Fairbum v. Pearson, 2 Mao. & G. 144 ; and see
Walker v. Hirsch, 27 Ch. D. 460.
The efiect of appointing a receiver is to exclude all the partners from the
management, and not, as in the case of an injunction, the misconducting
members of the firm only : and therefore an injunction may be granted in
esses where a receiver will not be appointed, and the refusal of a receiver
does not prevent the granting of an injunction : Kerr, Recrs. 80 ; Baxter v.
West, sup., where Kindersley, V.-C, said that in such a case the Court
would not appoint a receiver unless it sarn that there was an actual present
dissolution arising from the act of the parties, or that, at the hearing, it
would, upon the merits, dissolve the partnership ; and see lindley, 7th ed.
pp. 575, 577.
Where the object of the suit is not to dissolve, but to continue a
partnership, the rule is not to appoint a receiver and manager, though there
may be cases for such interim appointment : Hall v. H.,3 Mac. & G. 79 ;
12 Beav. 414, 416, n. ; Roberts v. Mberhardt, Kay, 148 ; Rowlands v.
Evans, 30 Beav. 302 ; see also Peek v. Trinsmaran Mining Co., 2 Ch. D.
115.
And as to the right of one partner to a receiver as against his co-partners,
with or without reference to a dissolution, see Smith v. Jeyes, 4 Beav. 503 ;
and cases collected, Lindley, 7th ed. p. 577 et seq.
After dissolution, the right of one partner to a receiver for the protection
of his interests as against the others is recognized in Thompson v. Anderson,
9 Eq. 533, in which case security was given by the Defts to answer any
demand Pit might establish with respect to the partnership deaUngs and
transactions : and see Taylor v. Neate, 39 Ch. D. 538.
A receiver will be more readily appointed than a manager, as the Court
will not interfere with the management of a partnership except for the
purposes of winding up the concern and dividing the assets : Const v.
Harris, T. & R. 517 ; Waters v. Taylor, 15 Ves. 13 ; Ooodman v. Whitcomb,
sup. ; or until sale as a going concern, or for the purpose of preserving
assets, carrying out contracts, and entering into necessary (but not specu-
lative or onerous) contracts : Taylor v. Neate, 39 Ch. D. 538.
But the Court cannot confer on such a receiver greater powers than a
partner could have had, e.g., to accept shares in a co., though fully paid, in
satisfaction of a debt due to the firm : Nieman v. N., 43 Ch. D. 198, C. A. ;
explaining Weikersheim^s case, L. R. 8 Ch. 831.
Such an appointment (with direction for payment of debts) does not
entitle a creditor, though his debt is ascertained and undisputed, to come
to the Court for an order that the receiver should pay his debt : Bhmdell
V. B., 1886, W. N. 125.
In Collins v. Barker, [1893] 1 Ch. 578, the solvent partner was held
entitled, as against the trustees in the bankruptcy of his co-partners, to be
appointed receiver and manager, but was required to give security, pass his
accounts, furnish the trustees with proper accounts, allow them all reason-
able access to the books, and pay the balances in his hands, as and when
they reached a certain amount to be agreed upon, into Court or into a joint
banking account of the trustees and himself.
A receiver of partnership debts will be appointed upon motion by solvent
partner against the other's assignees : Freeland v. Stansfeld, 2 Sm. & G. 479.
In general, where disputes arise between the trustee of a bankrupt partner
and a solvent partner, the latter will be appointed receiver : Collins v.
Barker, [1893] 1 Ch. 578, 584 ; Lindley on Part., 7th ed. p. 739.
A retired partner who had advanced the capital, and was hable for the
debts, was appointed receiver without salary : Hoffman v. Duncan, 18 Jur.
69.
As to the right of a deceased partner's represve to a receiver, see Clegg v.
Fishwick, 1 Mac. & G. 294 ; Davis v. Amer, 3 Dr. 64.
On the decease of one partner, a receiver may be appointed against the
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. 753
survivors who insist upon emplojdng the assets of the deceased in the
business : Madgwich v. Wimble, 6 Beav. 495.
Where part of the assets of a deceased consisted of his share of a partner-
ship business, the Probate Court would not, against the wish of the surviving
partner, appoint an admor pendente lite unless on a strong case of improper
dealing with the business : Horrell v. Witts, L. R. 1 P. & M. 103.
If part owners of a mine cannot agree as to the working, the Court will Colliery,
appoint a manager and receiver : Jefferys v. Smith, 1 J. & W. 298 ; and see
Lees V. Jones, 3 Jur. N. S. 954.
For the appointment of a receiver and manager of a colliery on the appli-
cation of a purchaser in possession, who sought to rescind his contract on
the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation, see Oibhs v. David, 20 Eq. 373.
Where tenants in common work a mine in partnership, or it is partner-
ship property, the Court will not appoint a receiver and manager at the suit
of one partner not seeking to dissolve ; nor, if so seeking, before the hearing
merely for non-co-operation ; the managing partner can defray all necessary
working expenses from profits : Roberta v. Eberhardt, Kay, 148.
Where a receiver has been appointed in a solr's partnership which has Solr's
expired by effluxion of time, the Deft (the former managing partner) Mill business,
not be compelled to deliver over to the receiver the partnership books and
accounts, it free access for examination of the books, &c. in the office be
offered by the Deft : Dacie v. John, M'Clel. 206.
The remuneration of a receiver and manager appointed by partners to Remunera-
wind up their business is to be quantum meruit, and is not governed by any tion.
scale : Prior v. Bagster, 1887, W. N. 194 ; 57 L. T. 760.
There is no jurisdiction to restrain a manager of a business, after his Soliciting by
official position has ceased, from soliciting orders from the customers on his discharged
own behalf : Re Irish, I. v. I., 40 Ch. D. 49. manager.
And see as to the appointment of receivers of partnership property,
Lindl., 7th ed. 575 et seq.
Companies : —
The Court has jurisdiction, at the instance of an unpaid vendor, or mort- Unnaid
gagee or debenture holder of a co. or corp., to appoint a receiver and vendor
manager, for the protection of the property or security : Boyle v. Bettws debenture
Colliery Co., 2 Ch. D. 727 ; Peeh v. Trinsmaran Iron Co., lb. 115 ; Hopkins holder, or
V. Worcester, &c. Canal, 6 Eq. 437 ; Makins v. Ibotson & Sons, [1891] 1 Ch. mortgagee
133 ; Edwards v. Standard Rolling Stock Syndicate, [1893] 1 Ch. 574 ; and °* no-
where the debenture-holders' security is in jeopardy through the insolvency
of the CO., a receiver may be appointed, though the principal money is not
immediately payable, and there has been no default in payment of interest :
McMahon v. North Kent Ironworks Co., [1891] 2 Ch. 148 ; Edwards v.
Standard Rolling Stock Syndicate, sup. ; Wildy v. Mid. Hants By. Co., 16
W. R. 409 ; 18 L. T. 73 ; Re Victoria Steamboats, Ld., [1897] 1 Ch. 158 ;
Re London Pressed Hinge Co., [1905] 1 Ch. 577 ; but as the appointment
of a manager is made only with a view to the probable necessity of reaUza-
tion it should extend for a limited period only : In re Victoria Steamboats,
Ld., [1897] 1 Ch. 158.
But where debentures constitute merely a charge upon a pubUo under- Public
taking, such as a railway or waterworks co., and confer no power to sell or undertaking,
stop the undertaking, the Court will not (in the absence of express stipula-
tion or statutory enactment) appoint a manager at the instance of a deben-
ture holder : Blaker v. Herts and Essex Water Co., 41 Ch. D. 399, 406 ;
Gardner v. London, Chatham and Dover By. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. 201, 212 ;
Potts v. Warwick and Birmingham Canal, Kay, 142 ; Re Yerbury ; Ker v.
Dent, 62 L. T. 65 ; and the holders of debentures issued by a tramway co.
governed by the Tramways Act, 1870, are, in the event of default by the co.,
entitled only to the appointment of a receiver of the undertaking of the oo.
and the net earnings thereof ; not to an order for the sale of the under-
taking, or the appointment of a manager : Marshall v. South Staffordshire
YOI. I, 3 C
754
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
Joint
stock CO.
Official
liquidator.
Unpaid
vendor.
Proceedings
in name of
liquidator.
Tramways Co., [1895] 2 Ch. 36, C. A., disapproving Barllett v. West Metro-
politan Tramways Co., [1893] 3 Ch. 437 ; [1894] 2 Ch. 286.
The principle of Gardner v. L. C. <t- D. Ry. Co., L. R. 2 Ch. 201, does not
prevent the levying by distress of penalties imposed on a tramway co. for
non-repair of their rails, and leave to distrain will be granted though a
receiver has been appointed : Pegge v. Neaih District Tramways Co., [1895]
2 Ch. 508.
The independent jurisdiction of the Court is not affected by the Cos. CI.
Act, ss. 53, 54, providing that the appointment of a receiver on behalf of
mortgagees of an undertaking shall be by two justices : see Fripp v. Chard
By., II Ha. 241.
Similar provisions for the appointment of a receiver on behalf of debenture
holders in railway and other joint stock cos. whose interest is in arrear, are
contained in the Cos. CI. Act, 1863 (26 & 2.7 V. c. 118), ss. 25, 26.
A receiver and manager of a joint stock oo. was appointed, while there
was no properly constituted governing body, until a meeting could be called :
Trade Auxiliary Co. v. Vickers, 16 Eq. 298 ; 21 W. R. 836 ; and see sup.
Chap. XXXI., p. 694.
In winding-up, the official liquidator is in the position of the receiver of
the property of the co. appointed by the Court for the benefit of all parties
interested : Campbell v. Cie. Gen. de Bdlegarde, 2 Ch. D. 181 ; Perry v.
Oriental Hotels Co., 5 Ch. 420.
In the absence of special circumstances, he will generally, when a receiver
is appUed or in a debenture-holders' action, be the person appointed .•
Giles V. Nuttall, 1885, W. N. 61 ; and although there is no general rule that
a receiver already appointed must be displaced by the liquidator (see
Bartlett v. North Avenue Co., 53 L. T. 611, 612), a receiver appointed before
winding up has been removed, and the liquidator appointed in his place :
Tottenham v. Swansea Zinc Co., 51 L. T. 61 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 776 ; 32 W. R.
716 ; Perry v. Oriental Hotels Co. ; Campbell v. Cie. Oen. de Bellegarde, sup. ;
Palm. Comp. Prec. Pt. II. 485 ; and this course vnll ordinarily be taken
where there are outstanding assets which can be more expeditiously and
inexpensively got in under the winding-up machinery provided by the
Companies Acts : Re Stubhs, Barney v. Stubbs, [1891] 1 Ch. 475, C. A. And
by the Companies (ConsoUdation) Act, 1908, s. 149, where an application
is made to the Court to appoint a receiver on behalf of the debenture
holders or other creditors of a oo., the official receiver may be so
appointed.
But where, after a winding-up and appointment of a liquidator, debenture
holders, having under their deed power to appoint a receiver to carry on the
company's business, and manage and dispose of their undertaking and
property, appointed a receiver, the Court held that the right of the de-
benture holders ought not to be interfered with, and gave leave to the
receiver to take possession, but without prejudice to any question as to his
powers other than of taking possession and seUing the property : Re
Pound, Son d; Hutchins, 42 Ch. D. 402, C. A. ; citing Re David Lloyd & Co.,
6 Ch. D. 339 ; and see Re Stubbs, sup. ; Strong v. Carlyle Press, [1893J
1 Ch. D. 268, C. A.
Under special circumstances, the unpaid vendor of an insolvent company
in voluntary liquidation was appointed receiver without security or salary :
Boyle v. Bettws, <hc. Co., 2 Ch. D. 726 ; and in Budgett v. Improved Furnace
Syndicate, 1901, W. N. 23, the Pit, a director, was appointed receiver and
manager subject to evidence that all the other debenture holders consented.
After a winding-up, the power to make calls is vested exclusively in the
liquidator, but the receiver, where the debentures extend to uncalled
capital, may be empowered to take proceedings in the name of the liquidator
for getting in oalls : Fowler v. Broad's Patent Night Light Co., [1893] 1
Ch. 724.
For a case in which an order was made that the receiver of a co. in
liquidation, on hja upcJeftaMng to leave the books of the co, in the
SECT. I.] Appointment of Receiver. 755
possession of the liquidator, and indemnifying him against oosts,
should take proceedings necessary for getting in calls, using for that
purpose the liquidator's name, and, if necessary, the name of the co.,
see Harrison v. St. Elienne Brewery Co., 1893, W. N. 108 ; q. v., also,
that in general it is better that the liquidator should be the person to take
proceedings.
Where in each of the debentures a special power was given to a corp. (one Trustee for
of the debenture holders) to appoint a receiver, the corp. wore held to be debenture
trustees of this power for all the debenture holders and bound to exercise it holders,
in their interest alone, so that an appointment made in the interest of the
shareholders could not stand, and the Court had jurisdiction to interfere to
carry out the trust and to appoint its own receiver : Re Maslcelyne British
Typewriter, Id. ; Stuart v. M., [1898] 1 Ch. 133, C. A.
Where the Judge has refused to displace the receiver, the Court of Appeal Appeal,
will not interfere with his discretion in the absence of special circumstances :
Be Stubbs; Barney v. Stubbs, [1891] 1 Ch. 475, C. A.
As to the jurisdiction of the Court to authorize expenditure by the Expenditure
receiver and manager, prospectively or otherwise, (1) with a view to the sale of receiver,
of the property as a going concern and the carrying on of the business of
the CO. until sale ; and (2) by way of salvage, to prevent imminent danger
of loss of property, and as to the principles which ought to guide the Court
in the exercise of such jurisdiction, see Securities and Properties Corp. v.
Brighton Alhambra, Ld., 1893, W. N. 15 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 566 ; 68 L. T. 249 ;
and Greenwood v. Algesiras Ry. Co., [1894] 2 Ch. 205, C. A.
The costs and remuneration of the receiver and manager in a debenture- Costs and
holder's action have priority over the costs of the Pit ; Batten v. Wedgwood remuneration
Coal Co., 28 Ch. D. 317. of receiver.
Railway Companies Act, 1867 : —
The Ry. Cos. Act, 1867 (30 & 31 V. c. 127), s. 4, which takes away from Keceiver and
the judgment creditor of a railway co. the right of taking in execution the manager,
rolling stock and plant of the co., enables him to obtain the appointment of
a receiver, and, if necessary, of a manager of the undertaking of the co., on
application by petition : see Re The Scarborough and Whitby Ry. Co.,
Kay, J., 19 Dec. 1887, B. 2903; Re Manchester and Milford Ry. Co., 14
Ch. D. 645, C. A. For form of petition, see D. C. P. 1118.
Applications under the Ry. Cos. Act, 1867, s. 4, are regulated by Gen.
Ord. 24 Jan. 1868 (see L. R. 3 Ch. xxxv.), which provides (r. xxxi.) that
every order appointing a receiver and manager under this section shall
direct such accounts and inquiries as the Court may think fit for
ascertaining the debts of the co.,aDd the rights and priorities of the persons
interested in the moneys to come to the hands of such receiver and
manager.
The effect of this section is that a judgment creditor of a railway co.,
whose debt is unsatisfied, is entitled as of right to the appointment of a
receiver, and, if the business of the co. is to be continued as a going con-
cern, a manager will be appointed : Re Manchester and Milford Ry. Co., 14
Ch. D. 645, C. A.
No priority is gained by the judgment creditor who obtains an order
under the section ; but Ms receiver will not be discharged until all judg-
ment creditors, whose judgments were so recovered as to entitle them to a
receiving order have been satisfied, and a second receiver will not be
appointed while there is a receiver already in possession : Re Mersey Ry.
Co., 37 Ch. D. 610, C. A.
Where a scheme of arrangement under the Act has been filed, a judgment
creditor who has previously served a notice of motion for equitable execu-
tion will not be regarded as in an exceptional position i Devas v. E, S W,
India Dock Co., 58 L. J. (Ch.) 522 ; 61 L. T. 217.
The provisions of the section apply to " every oo. constituted by Act of
Parliament for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, and working a
756
Re/ieivers
[chap, xxxii.
Railway
must be open
for traffic.
railway either alone or in conjunction with any other purpose " (sect. 3),
even though the railway is merely ancillary, and not the primary object
of the CO. (e.g., a dock oo., with power to construct a short hne connecting
the dock with other railways) : ReE. & W. India Doch Co., 38 Ch. D. 576,
C. A. ; Q. N. By. Go. v. Tahourdin, 13 Q. B. D. 320.
But a CO. which has never commenced to acquire the land or construct the
line authorized by the Act is not an " undertaking " of which a receiver can
be appointed : Be Birming. and Lichfield June. By. Co., 18 Ch. D. 155.
This section {semhle) does not affect rights of judgment creditors until the
railway is open for pubUo traffic, and until then the Court will not appoint
a receiver : Be Knott End By. Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 8, C. A.
The protection of the rolling stock continues, although the railway is
afterwards closed for traffic : Midland Wagon Co. v. Potteries By. Co.,
6 Q. B. D. 36.
Person to be As a general rule, the directors, or secretary, or some of them, will be
appointed. appointed managers, when they are acting fairly : Be Manchester and
Milford By. Co., sup. ; and while the concern is going the debenture holders
have no voice in the management : Be Hull, Barnsley, <Ssc. By. Co., 57
L. T. 82.
Applioatiou The moneys received by such a receiver must be applied in the first place
of money in providing for " working expenses " : Be Eastern and Midland By. Co.,
received. 46 Ch. D. 367, C. A. ; and as to the meaning of that expression, see S. C,
and Be Wrexham, &c. By. Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 261, C. A. ; Be Wrexham, (be.
By. Co., No, 2, [1900] 2 Ch. 436 ; but where proceedings have been taken
for the benefit as well of the debenture holders as of the other creditors of
the CO., the Court has power to order the costs to be paid by the receiver
and manager in priority to their claims : Be Wrexham, &c. Co., [1900] 1
Ch. 261, C. A. And see Be Lancashire, d:c. Bailway Acts, 1903, 2 Ch. 711.
As to the effect of the appointment of a receiver of the tolls, profits, &c.
of the undertaking, see Eyton v. Denbigh, tSsc. By., 6 Eq. 14, sup., p. 744.
Rates : —
According to Drewry v. Barnes, 3 Russ. 94, there can be no receiver of
(parish) rates which are to be assessed at a future period ; for until the
assessment there is nothing to collect. See also Preston v. Corp. of Tar-
mouth, 7 Oh. 655, negativing the right of creditors secured by bonds on the
rates, and paid off by periodical drawings, to obtain immediate payment,
or a receiver of the rates.
But in Gibbons v. Fletcher (cited 11 Ha. 251), Lord St. Leonards affirmed
the right of mortgagees, under a special Act, of parish rates to a receiver.
Ship :—
See Burn v. Herlopson, 56 L. T, 722 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 126, C. A. ; The
V AmpthiU, 5 P. D. 224.
Benefice, Ofiice : —
A receiver may be appointed of the profits of a college fellowship : Feistel
V. King's Coll., 10 Beav. 602 ; though in the earlier case of Berkeley v.
King's Coll., lb. 602 (V.-C, 6 Aug. 1830), the incumbrancer's motion for a
receiver was refused with costs.
And see Orenfdl v. Dean of Windsor, 2 Beav. 544, for the appointment of
a receiver of a canonry without cure of souls.
But as a benefice with cure of souls cannot be charged (see 13 Ehz. c. 20,
repealed by 43 G. III. o. 84, but revived by 57 G. III. c. 99, and unafiected
by 1 & 2 V. 0. 110 ; Kerr, 116), there cannot be a receiver of the profits of an
ecclesiastical benefice : Hawkins v. Oathercole, 6 D. M. & G. 1 ; or of a
pension allowed to a retiring incumbent under the Incumbents' Resignation
Act, 1871 (34 & 35 V. c. 44), and thereby charged upon the revenues of the
benefice : Oathercole v. Smith, 17 Ch. I). 1 ; secus, sums payable by way of
compensation to a retired incumbent under the Union of Benefices Act,
SECT. II.] Receiver hy way of Eqiiitahte Execution. < 57
I860 (23 & 24 V. o. 142), whioh can be validly mortgaged, and semhle a
receiver of whioh can be appointed : McBean v. Deane, 30 Ch. D. 520 ;
and see Bates v. Brothers, 2 Sm. & G. 609.
A receiver of the oifioe of master forester of the royal forest of Wyersdale
was granted, with an injunction to stay owners of land in the forest from
sporting therein : Blanchard v. Cawthorne, 4 Sim. 666 ; 6 Sim. 165.
Newspaper : —
Receiver and manager of, may be appointed until the hearing, on under-
taking to print, publish, and edit the paper in the meantime, and forthwith
to register himself as proprietor according to the statute : Chaplin v.
Young, 6 L. T. 97 ; Kelly v. Button, 17 W. R. 425 ; 20 L. T. 201.
Pension or Salary : —
A receiver may be appointed of a government pension : Noad v. Back-
house, 2 Y. & C. C. 529 ; Molony v. Cruise, 30 L. R. Ir. 99 ; or it may be
sequestrated : Willcock v. Terrell, 3 Ex. D. 323 ; Dmt v. D , L. R. 1 P. & D.
366 ; V. sup., p. 445, provided the pension has not been made inalienable
by the legislature {e.g., under the Army Act, 1881, 44 & 45 V. c. 58, s. 141) ;
LuMS V. Harris, 18 Q. B. D. 127 ; Birch v. B., 8 P. D. 163 ; Heald v. Hay,
3 GifE. 467.
In respect of an annual allowance in the nature of fees payable by the
Treasury, for which no action could be maintained, a receiver was refused :
Cooper V. Reilly, 1 R. & M. 560 ; 2 Sim. 660 ; and see 76. 564, n.
Pending an inquiry as to the validity of the assignment, a receiver of the
profits of the office of clerk of the peace of the county was appointed :
Palmer v. Vaughan, 3 Sw. 173.
A receiver of a national schoolmaster's salary may be appointed : Picton
V. Cullen, [1900] 2 I. R. 612, 0. A.
Section II. — Receiver by way of Equitable Execution.
1. Appointment of Receiver by way of Equitable Execution —
Receiver to act before Security given.
[Undbetaking for receiver's receipts, see p. 725, ante] ; This
Court doth hereby appoint A. B., of &c., to receive the rents
and profits of the real estate of the Deft in the said judgment
mentioned ; but this appointment is to be without prejudice to the
rights of any prior incumbrancers upon the said estate who may think
proper to take possession of the same by virtue of their respective
securities, or if any prior incumbrancer is in possession, then without
prejudice to such possession ; And it is ordered that the said A. B.
do on or before &c. give security as such receiver to the satisfaction
of the Judge ; And the tenants of the said real estate are, subject as
aforesaid, to attorn and pay theii rents in arrear and growing rents to
the said A. B. as such receiver ; And it is ordered that the said A. B.
be at liberty, if he shall think proper (but not otherwise), out of the
rents and profits to be received by Mm, to keep down the interest
upon the prior incumbrances according to their priorities and be
allowed such payments (if any) on passing his accounts ; And it is
758 Beceivers. [chap, xxxil.
ordered that the said A. B. do pass Ms accounts and pay the balances
which may be certified to be due from him, or such part thereof as
shall be certified as proper to be paid by him in or towards payment
of what shall for the time being be due in respect of the said judgment ;
And it is ordered that the costs of this order and of the receivership
be paid out of the sums received by the receiver, but not to be added
to the jijdgment debt as against the debtor, and any of the parties
are to be at liberty to apply in. Chambers as they may be advised.
See note to Form 5, p. 727, ante.
2. Another Form — Taxed Costs.
This Court doth hereby appoint A. B., of &c., without salary
or security to receive the taxed costs of C. D. in an action of &c. in the
Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster, which, by an
order in that action, are directed to be paid to C. D., and to satisfy
thereout (so far as the same will extend) £ — , the amount of principal
&c. remaining unsatisfied payable to the Pit in this action under the
judgment dated &c. Liberty to receiver to apply to Palatine Court
for payment of such costs to himself. Injunction against C. D.
applying for, dealing with, or receiving the said costs payable to him
under order of Palatine Court until payment of the said £ — . —
WestJiead v. Riley, Chitty, J., 21 Dec. 1883, B. 1684.
NOTES.
JURISDICTION TO APPOINT.
Previously to the Jud. Acts, and to the Judgments Act, 1838 (1 & 2 V.
e. 110), a Pit " having a judgment which, owing to legal impediments, could
not be enforced at law, came into equity, not for the purpose of enforcing
such a right by way of charge as is given by the Act of 1 & 2 V. c. 110, but
to have what is called equitable execution ; that is to say, to have the lands
delivered in execution to him in equity when he would have got them at law
in the ordinary process but for certain difficulties existing " : Anglo-
Italian Bank v. Davies, 9 Ch. D. 275, 290, C. A., per Cotton, L. J., referring
to Neate v. The Duke of Marlborough, 3 My. & C. 407 ; and in such a case
relief was given by granting a receiver.
Equitable execution was most commonly required in oases where the
judgment debtor was entitled to an interest in land not extendible under the
writ of elegit. For an historical statement of the law on this subject, and
as to judgments against cs. g. t., see Lewin, 1028 et seq.
Under the extensive power of appointing receivers conferred on the Court
by the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), this form of relief is of frequent occurrence ;
and the remedy by appointment of a receiver may now be regarded as
available not merely — (1) for its primary purpose of the preservation of
property, but (2) as a method of enforcing in many cases the judgments of
the Court.
Where the issue of an elegit, fi. fa., or the like process, would be ineffectual
for obtaining payment of the judgment debt, the Court, since the Jud. Acts,
which in this respect confirm and expand, where defective, the remedies of
judgment creditors, will grant equitable execution by the appointment of a
receiver on the application of a judgment creditor by appUcation in the
action and not upon petition or summons, under 27 & 28 V. c. 112, and
O. LV, 9h, see Re Nixon, 1886, W. N. 191 : Re Pope, 17 Q. B. D. 743, 749 ;
Exp. Evans, 13 Ch. D, 252 ; Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies, 9 Ch. D. 275,
SECT. II.] Receiver hy way of Equitable Execution. 759
C. A. ; as also where [a) sequestration, see Whitdey v. Learoyd, 66 L. T.
846 ; Bryant v. Bull, 10 Cli. D. 153 ; (6) writ of attachment (in case of
defaulting trustee), see Coney v. Bennett, 29 Ch. D. 993, would be the
ordinary remedy, but could not be enforced ; and see lie Pemberton, 1907,
W. N. 118.
But this mode of procedure, though called equitable execution, is in When " just
truth not execution, but eqxiitable relief : Re Shephard, Atkins v. S., 43 or con-
Ch. D. 131, 0. A. ; and is only available where there is some impediment in venient.
the way of execution at law, and special circumstances make the appoint-
ment " just or convenient " within the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8) : Hatton v,
Haywood, 9 Ch. 235 ; Manchester and Liverpool District Banking Co. v,
Parkinson, 22 Q. B. D. 173, C. A. ; Re Shephard, Atkins v. S., sup. ; Holmes
v. Millage, [1893] 1 Q. B. 551, C. A. ; Re Hartley, Nuttall v. Whittaker, 66
L. T. 588 {q. v. as to making application in Chambers) ; and would have
enabled the Court of Chancery to make the appointment before the .Jud.
Act ; and the Court has no jurisdiction to appoint a receiver merely because
it would be a more convenient mode of obtaining satisfaction of a judgment
than the usual mode of execution : Harris v. Beauchamp Bros., [1894]
1 Q. B. 801, C. A.
By 0. L, 15a, "in every case in which an application is made for the
appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution, the Court or a
Judge, in determining whether it is just or convenient that such appoint-
ment should be made, shall have regard to the amount of the debt claimed
by the applicant, to the amount which may probably ba obtained by the
receiver, and to the pi-obable costs of his appointment, and may, if they or
ho shall so think fit, direct any inquiries on these or other matters before
making the appointment " : see also J. v. K., 1884, W. N. 63,
Where 1 he circumstances are exceptional (as, e,g., if it is shown that there Ex parte
is immediate danger to the property, and that the receiver will do nothing to application,
prejudice the rights of the other side) the appointment may be made on
an ex parte application : Minter v. Kent, Sussex, and General Land Soc, 72
L. T. 186, C. A.
A receivership order, though apparently made in a case where execution Operates as
could have been had by elegit, was held to operate as a " taking in execution delivery in
by process of law " within the meaning of a forfeiture clause in a will : execution.
Blackman v. Fysh, [1892] 3 Ch. 20, C. A.
The appointment of a receiver by any of equitable execution is an
" execution " within the meaning of sect. 4 of the Judgments Extension
Act, 1868 : Thompson v. Gill, [1903] 1 K. B. 760.
By the Judgments Act, 1864 (27 & 28 V. c. 112), s. 1, no judgment
entered up after the 29th of July, 1864, is to affect any land (of whatever
tenure) " until such land shall have been actually delivered in execution
by virtue of a writ of elegit or other lawful authority in pursuance of such
judgment." But this section as from 1st July, 1901, is repealed by the
Land Charges Act, 1900 (63 & 64 V, c. 26), v. inf. Vol. III. p. 2002.
Under sect. 2 of the Act of 1900, until a writ or order for the purpose of
enforcing the judgment or recognizance is registered under sect. 5 of the
Land Charges Registration and Searches Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict. c. 51), it
shall not operate as a charge on land.
Formerly, before equitable execution was applied for, it was necessary to
issue a writ of elegit, and the practice continued after the 27 & 28 V. c. 112 ;
but it has been decided that the appointment of a receiver, although not
perfected by the giving of security (Exp. Evans, Re Walkins, 13 Ch. D. 252,
C. A.), amounts to actual delivery in execution by a lawful authority
within the meaning of the section : Hatton v. Haywood, 9 Ch. 229 ; Re
Pope, 17 Q. B. D. 743, C. A. ; and that it was therefore not necessary to
issue a writ of elegit : Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies, 9 Ch. D. 275, C. A. ;
Exp, Evans, sup. ; and if the land had been actually delivered in execution
by the appointment of a receiver or other " process of execution," regis-
tration of such process was not necessary to give the creditor a charge on
7G0
Receivers.
[cHAf. XXXII.
the land in priority to persons claiming under the debtor, including a
purchaser for value without notice : Be Pope, 17 Q. B. D. 743, C. A. ; but
such registration was requisite before a summary order for sale could be
obtained under sect. 4 of the same Act : S. G. ; and as to the remedy by
sale, V. inf. Chap. XLVII., "Mobtoagbs."
The appointment of a receiver, however, will not amount to an " actual
delivery in execution " of a legal remainder in real estate within the mean-
ing of sect. 1 of the Judgments Act, 1864, so as to entitle the judgment
creditor to a sale under sect. 4 : Re Harrison and Bottomley, [1899] 1 Ch.
465, 0. A. ; and see Hood-Bans v. Cathcart, [1895] 2 Ch. 411.
Where there
is existing
receiver.
PROCEDITRE SUBSEQUENTLY TO JUDICATURE ACTS.
Application Since the Jud. Acts it is not necessary for a creditor who has obtained
in same judgment in a pending action to institute another action for the purpose of
action. obtaining equitable execution ; but application should be made in the action
in which judgment was obtained : Anglo-Italian Bank v. Bavies, 9 Ch. D.
275, C. A. ; Salt v. Cooper, 16 Ch. D. 544, C. A. ; though the writ contains no
claim for a receiver, and though final judgment has been given, as the action
is " pending " within Jud. Act, 1873, s. 24 (7), so long as the judgment
renvains unsatisfied, and the expression " interlocutory order," in s. 25 (8),
is not confined to orders before final judgment : Salt v. Cooper, sup. ;
Hart V. H., 18 Ch. D. 670, 680 ; Sm,ith v. Cmoell, 6 Q. B. D. 75, C. A.
A receiver maybe appointed to enforce payment of costs in proceedings
for taxation under the Solicitors Act, 1843, s. 45 : In re Peace and Waller,
24 Ch. D. 495, C. A.
Where there is an existing receiver, the judgment creditor may obtain the
benefit of his appointment ; and where a receiver had been appointed in a
partnership action in the Ch. D., a creditor who had recovered judgment
against the firm in the Q. B. D. obtained an order in the Oh. D. giving Mm
a charge on the partnership moneys coming to the receiver, but upon a sub-
mission that the charge was to be dealt with according to the order of the
Court : Kewney v. Attrill, 34 Ch. D. 345. As to the effect of this form of
order, see Bidd v. Thome, [1902] 2 Ch. 344, see p. 744, sup. ; and see
Hope V. Croydon and Norwood Tramways Go., 34 Ch. D. 730 {where upon
judgment in a debenture holder's action, the powers of the existing receiver
were extended so as to give the Pit equitable execution against property
not comprised in the debentures) ; and the Court may appoint another
receiver, but not to act until the earlier receiver has been discharged :
Salt V. Cooper, 16 Ch. D. 544.
Where before judgment in an admon action, a creditor obtained judgment
against the executor, the receiver in the action was directed to pay the debt
and costs without prejudice to the question whether they were to be allowed
the executor : Be Womersley, Etheridge v. W., 29 Ch. D. 557.
Instances of A receiver by way of equitable execution has been appointed to receive
equitable so much of a legacy to which a judgment debtor was entitled in expectancy
executions. as, when receivable, would satisfy the debt and costs : Macnicoll v. Parnell,
35 W. R. 773 ; of an equitable reversionary interest in personal estate :
Tyrrell v. Painton, [1895] 1 Q. B. 202, C. A. ; Ideal Bedding Co. v. Holland,
[1907] 2 Ch. 157 ; Be Marquis of Anglesey, [1903] 2 Ch. 727 ; of a married
woman's reversionary interest under a will : Fuggle v. Bland, 11 Q. B. D.
711 ; and of her separate property, in the absence of the trustees in proceed-
ings by her for taxation of costs : Be Peace and Waller, 24 Ch. D. 405, C. A. ;
of the share of the debtor as one of the next of kin of a deceased intestate
to whom admon had not been taken out : Mullane v. Ahem, 28 L. R. Ir.
105 ; of a life interest in settled funds : Oliver v. Lowther, 28 W. B. 381 ;
42 L. T. 47 ; of debts or sums of money payable to the judgment debtor
to which garnishee proceedings were not applicable : Westhead v. Biley,
25 Ch. D. 413 ; Form 2, sup. p. 758 ; e.g., a deposit receipt held in the
joint names of the judgment debtor and another, even though the whole
SECT. II.] Receiver by way of EquitaUe Execution, 761
beneficial interest was in the former : 0' Donovan v. Gpggin, 30 L. R. Ir.
579 ; of the tolls and earnings of a railway co. : Kingston v. Cowhridge By.
Co., 41 L. J. Ch. 152 ; of the rents and profits of land used as a theatre,
secus of moneys paid by the public for entrance to the theatre : Cadogan
V. Lyric Theatre, [1894] 3 Ch. 338, C. A. ; or secus, the pension of a retired
officer, which is rendered inalienable by the Army Act : Lucas v. Harris,
18 Q. B. D. 127 ; and as to the jurisdiction under sect. 53, sub-sect. 2, of
the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, to order payment of a pension which is made
inalienable by Indian legislation to the trustee in bankruptcy of the holder,
see Re Saunders, Exp. S., [1895] 2 Q. B. 424, C. A. ; or where it depends
on the discretion of trustees whether anything should be paid to the judg-
ment debtor : Reg. v. Judge of Lincolnshire County Court, 20 Q. B. D.
167 ; and there is no jurisdiction to declare a charge on reversionary
personalty : Flegg v. Prentis, [1892] 2 Ch. 428 ; or the future earnings of the
judgment debtor : Holmes v. Millage, [1893] 1 Q. B. 651, C. A.
Where a defaulting trustee ordered to pay money into Court was out of
the jurisdiction, a receiver was appointed of his equitable interest in this
country, notwithstanding O. XLn, 4, which, even apart from r. 8, is not to
be deemed exhaustive : Re Coney, C. v. Bennett, 29 Ch. D. 993 ; and see
Re Whitdey, W. v. Learoyd, 1887, W. N. 37 ; 56 L. T. 846 ; and see Re
Pemberton, 1907, W. N. 118.
If the receiver is required merely for the purpose of giving a charge, and Without
it is not intended he should take possession, the appointment may be made security,
without security, on the judgment creditor and receiver undertaking that
he shall not act without the leave of the Court : Hewett v. Murray, 54
L. J. Ch. 572 ; 52 L. T. 380. And see Macnicoll v. Parnell, sup. ; Fuggle
V. Bland, sup.
But as the equitable relief can be granted only when proper parties are Absence of
before the Court, a receiver of the property of a deceased person, though 1. p. r. of
upon application made before the death, cannot be appointed in the absence deceased,
of any person to represent the estate : In re Shephard, Atkins v. S., 43 Ch. D.
131, C. A. ; and quaere whether at law execution can be issued against the
estate of a deceased person without any leave of the Court : Ih.
The receivership affects only the interest of the debtor : Wills v. Luff, 38 Effect of
Ch. D. 200 ; and the judgment creditor cannot, by giving notice to the appointment.
trustees, obtain priority over prior incumbrancers of a ijhose in action :
Arden v. A., 29 Ch. D. 702 ; Scott v. Lord Hastings, 4 K. & J. 633.
An ex parte order for a receiver of a share of residuary estate devolving on
a judgment debtor, though notice is given to the executor, does not confer a
" mortgage charge or lien " so as to make the creditor a secured creditor
within sects. 9 and 168 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 : Re Potts, Exp.
Taylor, [1893] 1 Q. B. 648.
The appointment of a receiver of the goods of the judgment debtor
without power to realize is not an equitable execution, and does not make
the judgment creditor a " secured creditor " within the meaning of the
Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 9 : Exp. Charrington, 22 Q. B. D. 187 ; Re Potts,
Exp. Taylor, [1893] 1 Q. B. 648 ; Re Lough Neagh Ship Co., [1896] 1 I. R.
29 ; nor does it amount to putting in force an execution within sect. 163
of the Companies Act, 1862 (now substituted by sect. 211 of the Companies
(Consohdation) Act, 1908), and therefore the Court will not under sect. 87
(sect. 142 of the 1908 Act), allow further proceedings thereunder: Croshaw
V. Lyndhurst Ship Co., [1897] 2 Ch. 154. See also as to effect of receiver-
ship order, Levasseur v. Mason and Barry, [1891] 2 Q. B, 73, C. A. ; Re
Beaumont, Woods v. Beaumont, 1910, W. N. 181.
Judgment creditors, having obtained equitable execution against property
subject to a lien, gained priority over a subsequent foreign liquidation which
occurred before the lien was paid off : Levasseur v. Mason and Barry, [1891]
2 Q. B. 73, C. A.
For cases in which injunctions have been granted in aid of equitable Injunction
execution, see Westhead v. Riley, 26 Ch. D. 413 ; Oliver v. Lowther, 28 in aid.
762
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
Reversionary
interest.
Charging
order.
Railway co.
W. R. 381 ; Archer v. A., 1886, W. N. 66 ; 42 L. T. 47 ; Ideal Bedding Co.
V. Holland, [1907] 2 Ch. 157. The practice of granting an ex parte injunction
restraining dealing with property over the return of a summons for a
receiver has not been adopted in the Chancery Division : Lloyds Bank v.
Medway Upper Navigation Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 359.
In the case of a reversionary interest in personal estate, where a judgment
creditor has obtained a receivership order, the Court has no jurisdiction
to make a declaration of charge in his favour with a view to a sale : Flegg v.
Prentis, [1892] 2 Ch. 428 ; De Peyrecase v. Nicholson, 71 L. T. 255. The
appointment of a receiver of a reversionary interest in the proceeds of sale
of real estate does not create a charge, but it operates as an injunction to
restrain the Deft from himself receiving the proceeds of sale : Tyrrell v.
Painton, [1895] 1 Q. B. 202, per Lindley, L. J. ; oaAsemble, it prevents any
subsequent judgment creditor from gaining priority over the creditor
obtaining the order, if, at the date when obtained, the property of the
debtor cannot be taken in execution or made available by any other legal
process : Be Marquis of Anglesey, [1903] 2 Ch. 727 ; Ideal Bedding Co. v,
Holland, [1907] 2 Ch. 157.
A receiver will not be appointed in favour of a judgment creditor of the
rents of lands charged with a sum payable at the death of the tenant for life
in esse : Kenney v. K., Ir. Rep. 4 Eq. 181.
Before the Jud. Acts, the Court of Chancery would give assistance to a
judgment creditor by way of equitable execution to recover money under
the control of the Court which could not be reached by a fi. fa. : Watts v,
J^ffryes, 3 M. & 0. 412 ; and since the Acts a charging order can be made,
without the appointment of a receiver, upon cash in Court ; and having
regard to S. C. P. R. r. 99, notice to the paymaster is sufficient, and no stop
order is required : Brereton v. Edwards, 21 Q. B. D. 488, C. A.
A form of relief analogous to but in substance distinguishable from
equitable execution exists by the appointment of a receiver to protect a
fund out of which costs are payable : see Cummins v. Perkins, [1899] 1
Ch. 16, C. A. ; Kearns v. Leaf, 1 H. & H. 681, ante, pp. 747, 751.
As against a railway co., a judgment creditor to whom the land has been
delivered under an elegit is entitled to a receiver of the tolls and earnings :
Kingston v. Cowhridge By., 41 L. J. Ch. 162.,
Section III. — Powers op Management — Special Directions.
1. Tenant to attorn and pay Rent and Arrears.
Upon motion &c., and upon reading an order [or orders] dated &c.
[If so, and the Master's certificate dated &c.], whereby it appears
that A. has been duly appointed receiver of &c. ; and an affidavit of
&c., filed &c., of service on C, of &c., of the said order [or orders]
[If so, and certificate], and of notice in writing, signed by the said A.,
requiring the said C. to attorn to him as such receiver for the [Describe
the property], occupied by him, situate at — , being part of the said
estates, and to pay his rent in arrear and growing rent for the same
to the said receiver ; and an affidavit of &c., filed &c., whereby it
appears that the said C. has refused [or neglected] to attorn to and
become the tenant of the said receiver, or to pay any rent to him ;
and an affidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of notice of this motion
on the said C. ; This Court doth order that the said C. do, within
SECT. III. J Powers of Management. 763
— days after service of this order, attorn to and become the
tenant of the said A., the receiver appointed in this action in respect
of the &c., occupied by the said C, situate at — , part of the estate
of the testator &c. ; [If payment of arrears is ordered] And it is ordered
that the said C. do also, withia &c., pay to the said A. the sum of
£ — , being the amount due from him for arrears of rent in respect of
the said — to the — day of — . — See Garlick v. Locke, V.-C. W., 18
Dec. 1884, A. 462.
For order for committal of person for obstructing receiver in collecting the
rents, and persuading tenants not to attorn and pay their rents, and for
distraining after notice of order, see Marsh v. Ooodall, M. R., 13 Jan. 1857,
B. 288.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 874.
2. Separate Accounts of Rents and Personalty.
Order that A., the receiver do keep separate accounts of the said
rents and profits, and of the said personal estate, and from time to
time pass his accounts, and pay the respective balances which may
be certified to be due from him as the Judge shall direct.
For like direction that receiver keep separate account of real and personal
estate, see Hill v. Hibbit, 18 L. T. 553.
3. Order to enlarge period during which Receiver and Manager
is to act as Manager.
Order that A., the receiver and manager appointed by the said order
dated &c., be at liberty to act as such manager until the — day of — .
4. Order reducing Receiver's Security.
The — Society by their solrs consenting to this order. It is
ordered that the security given by A. on his appointment as receiver
in this action by the bond entered into by him together with the —
Society as his sureties dated &c., and filed &c., be reduced from the
sum of £ — , the amount named in the said bond, to the sum of £ — ,
and that the said bond of the said — Society do stand as a security
for the sum of £ — {reduced amount) and no more, and that the
liability of the said — Society in respect of the matters mentioned in
the said bond be henceforth limited to the said sum of £ — .
5. Receiver to distrain.
" Order that C, the receiver of the rents and profits of the estates
of &c., be at liberty to distrain upon the goods and chattels of the
several tenants named in the said affidavit, for the several amounts
of rent due and owing from the said tenants ; And it is ordered that
such distraints be made in the name of the Deft A., in whom the legal
'^fi^ Receivers. [chap, xxxii.
estate in the said &c., is vested."— (?ee v. AiheHon, V.-C. E., 8 May,
1844, MSS.
Tor orders for receiver to distrain for rents in arrear, and for growing
rents, if not paid witliin two months after every half-year, see Lamhrozzo v.
Francia, L. Q, 16 April, 1746, B. 310 ; 30 July, 1747, B. 425.
For form of application, see D. C. ]?. 875.
6. Order giving leave to Receiver and Manager in Debenture
Holders' Action to Borrow.
Order that A., the receiver and manager appointed in this action,
be at liberty for the purpose of carrying on the business of the Deft co.,
to borrow from B. such sum or sums as may be necessary, not
exceeding £— in the aggregate ; And it is ordered that the property
and assets comprised in and charged by the mortgage debentures
issued by the Deft co. do stand charged with the payment to the
said B. of the sum or sums so advanced by him (not exceeding in
the aggregate £ — ) for the purpose aforesaid, together with interest
at the rate of £ — p. c. per annum on the respective advances from the
respective dates thereof [subject to any overriding mortgage or charge],
but in priority to the charge created by the said mortgage debentures
and free from [or subject to] the right of the said A. to indemnity
as such receiver and manager out of the said property and assets
in respect of his remuneration to be allowed by the Judge and his
costs and expenses properly incurred; And it is ordered that the
charge hereby created be not enforced except in this action and with
the leave of the Judge. — See Re Glasdir Copper Mines, [1906] 1
Ch. 365, 384 ; and Re Boynton, Ld., Hoffman v. The Co., [1910] 1
Ch. 519.
It must be definitely stated in the order as above whether the loan is to
be free from or subject to the receiver's right to indemnity.
7. Declaration that Receiver and Manager entitled to First Charge
for Balance, &c. due to him.
Declare that the applicants, as the receivers and managers
appointed in this action, are entitled to a iiist charge upon the funds
in Court to the credit of this action, and upon all moneys, funds, and
properties of the Deft co. comprised in or subject to any of the
debentures issued by the Deft co., for the due payment of the balance
which shall be found due to them upon taking their accounts as such
receivers and managers, and of the costs properly incurred by them,
as hereinafter mentioned, which they shall not recover from the Pits
in the said action, and also for effectuating and securing to the appli-
cants an indemnity against all liability which they shall have properly
incurred in acting as such managers as aforesaid upon the contracts
entered into and orders given by them or otherwise ; And the
SECT. III.] Powers of Management. 765
applicants are to be at liberty to apply as to raising sucli balance and
costs, and providing for such indemnity out of tbe funds in Court,
or to be brought into Court, or any other moneys, funds, and pro-
perties subject to such charge ; And it is ordered that the Pits in
the said action do pay to the applicants their costs incurred in the said
action, and also their costs of the said order dated &c., and of and
occasioned by this appeal, to be taxed. — See Strapp v. Bull, 0. A.,
12 March, 1895, B. 485 ; [1895] 2 Ch. 1, C. A.
8. Receiver to bring Action for Rent.
Order that A., the receiver of the rents and profits of &c., be
at liberty, in the names of the Defts, to bring actions in the (proper
County Court) against the several persons named in his said af&davit,
for recovery of the arrears of rent due from them respectively.
For order for receiver to present petition in the name of trustees of
testator's will, and take other necessary proceedings, to recover a sum in
Court in another matter, the parties to be indemnified out of the estate, see
Turner v. T., V.-C. K., in Chambers, 11 June, 1858, B. 1291.
9. Receiver to keep down Interest.
" Order that A., the receiver, do out of the rents and profits to be
received by him, keep down the interest and payments in respect of
the said incumbrances according to their priorities, and be allowed the
same on passing his accounts."
If the order only directs that the interest on the mortgage be kept down,
the surplus rents will go to the mortgagor, and not be applied in reduction
of principal : see Gresley v. Adderley, 1 Swa. 573.
10. Receiver to expend a Limited Sum in Repairs.
Order that A., the receiver appointed &c., be at liberty to expend
a sum not exceeding £ — in the repair of the hereditaments at &c.,
part of the estates in question in this action, such repairs to be done
according to the specification and plan marked A. in the affidavit of
M. [surveyor) referred to, and to the satisfaction of the said M. ;
and the said A. is to be allowed what he shall so expend in passing
his accounts.
11. Receiver to repair Farm Buildings in accor dunce with
Specification.
Order that the works and repairs on the farm in the occupation
of &c., at &c., mentioned in the affidavit of &c., be done and executed
by &c., according to the specifications and estimates contained in the
exhibits marked K. and L: in the said affidavit referred to ; And it
is ordered that the said works and repairs be done and executed under
766 Receivers. [chap, xxxii.
the direction and superintendence of the Deft T., the receiver of the
rents and profits of the trust estates in question in these actions ;
And it is ordered that, upon the said works and repairs being certified
to have been properly executed according to the said several specifica-
tions and estimates, the said receiver be at liberty to pay to the said
&c., the sum of £ — , and be allowed the same on passing his accounts ;
And it is ordered that timber of the value of £ — be taken off the said
trust estates for the said repairs and works. — Thellusson v. Woodford,
M. R., in Chambers, 12 April, 1855, B. 714 ; and see Dolman v.
Curling, V.-C. K., in Chambers, 28 July, 1853, A. 1325.
For order for receiver to lease and rebuild, using timber, see Unwin v. D.,
V.-C. K., in Chambers, 16 March, 1853, B. 676.
For order for receiver to accept a surrender of a lease of part of the
estates, on pa5ring up arrears of rent and rates and taxes, see Dyer v. -D.,
V.-C. S., in Chambers, 20 May, 1859, A. 1622.
For order for receiver to grant a licence to get clay and brick earth on a
part of the estate, and to manufacture bricks thereon, the licensee paying a
rent according to the number of bricks made, see Mellor v. Woodward,
V.-C. S., in Chambers, 10 May, 1859, 1858, B. 1622.
12. Receiver to cut and sell Timber.
Order that A., the receiver appointed in this action, be at liberty
to cut down the timber and other trees mentioned in the afl&davit of
&c., filed &c., and to sell the same, and include the proceeds thereof
in his accounts as such receiver.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 876.
13. Receiver to pay Widow's Annuity.
Order that A., the receiver appointed &c., be at liberty, out of the
moneys from time to time received by him on account of the rents
and profits, interest, dividends, and annual produce of the real and
personal estate of the above-named testator in &c., to pay to F.
the annuity of £ — • bequeathed to her by the will of the testator
during her widowhood ; And it is ordered that the said A. be allowed
such payments in passing his accounts. — Cranswich v. Pearson,
M. R., in Chambers, 1 March, 1862, A. 415.
14. Receiver to fay Annuities.
Order that A., the receiver appointed &c., do out of the rents and
profits of the real estates of H., the testator in &c., pay to the annui-
tants in his will named the arrears now due (to them in respect) of
their several annuities, and also (keep down the growing payments of)
such annuities, as the same shall from time to time become due, at
the times and in the manner in the said will mentioned ; such pay-
ments to be allowed in his accounts. — HopMns v. Walker, V.-C. K.,
7 May, 1853, A. 1129.
SECT. III.] Powers of Management. 767
For order for receiver to pay interest of mortgages, and annuitants,
without prejudice, tliey agreeing to refund, should the Court so order, see
Reynolds v. James, V.-C, 29 May, 1834, B. 1099.
As to duty of mortgagee's receiver under sect. 24 (8) of the Conveyancing
Act, 1881, to pay arrears of interest due to mortgagee, see National Bank v.
Kenny, (1898) 1 I. R. 197. And as to liis power to execute repairs, see
White. V. Metcalf, [1903] 2 Oh. 567.
15. Receiver of Manor to hold Courts and account for Fines.
Order that such Courts as have been usually held, and are proper
to be holden, for any manor or manors vested in the Pits as trustees
of the will of the testator, be from time to time held by the said
receiver or receivers in the name or names of the person or persons
in whom the legal estate may be ; And it is ordered that the said
receiver or receivers do bring into his or their accounts all such fines
and other profits as shall be taken by them in respect of the said
manonis.—Thdlusson v. Woodford, M. R., 2 Aug. 1852, B. 1156 ;
and see S. C, L. C, 19 Feb. 1801, B. 937 ; 13 Ves. 209 ; i Mad. 420.
16. Receiver to take Legal Proceedings — Bankrupt's Estate.
Order that G. S., the receiver appointed in this (action), be at
liberty to commence, continue, and carry on proceedings at law
against the several persons named in the schedule hereto, to recover
from them the amounts due from them to the partnership estate
which are respectively set opposite their names in the second column
of the said schedule. And it is ordered that the said G. S. be at
liberty at the expense of the said estate, to convene a meetiug of
all the creditors of the said estate for the purpose of laying before
them a statement of the partnership estate and assets, and of the
proceedings in this (action). — See Hodgson v. Davidson, Y.-C. B., 21
Feb. 1871.
17. Person to he appointed to hold Courts.
" Order that a proper person be appointed to hold courts for the
manor of — in &c. mentioned ; And it is ordered that the Pit and
the Deft do join in giving proper authorities to the person so to be
appointed to hold the said courts ; And it is ordered that the court
rolls, and other necessary books and papers for holding the said courts,
be delivered to him for that purpose." — See Barker v. Mariott, L. C,
20 June, 6 July, 1767, A. 429, 483.
18. Receiver of Railway to pay Rent Charges pari passu.
Order that A., the receiver appointed &c., do apply any balances
now or hereafter in his hands after payment of the working expenses
of the railway ia meeting arrears of reiit-ch3,rges, and the accruing
768
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
payments thereof rateably fari 'passu so far as the same will extend.
— See Forster v. The Manchester and Milford Ry. Co., V.-C. H.,
9 Dec. 1875, A. 2037.
19. Liberty to "pursue Remedies in respect of Right of Way notwith-
standing Possession of Receiver.
Order that the applicants be at liberty, notwithstanding that the
receiver is in receipt of the rents of the property, to pursue any
remedies, or do any acts which they may lawfully pursue or do in
respect of the rights of way to which the^ applicants claim to be
entitled over the paths coloured &c., referred to in the said judgment,
dated &c. (the applicants by their counsel undertaking not to do any
more injury to the property than 40s. without further leave of the
Court). — -Eeserve costs. — Liberty to apply. — Lane v. Capsey, Chitty,
J., 5 Aug. 1891, B. 1083 ; [1891] 3 Ch. 411.
NOTES.
POSSESSION OB ATTORNMENT.
Owner in H the appointment is of the rents of real or leasehold estate, the owner, if
possession. in possession, will be ordered to deliver possession to the receiver : Griffith
v. G., 2 Ves. 401 ; Davies v, D. of Marlborough, 2 Swa. 116 ; Baylies v. B ,
1 Col. 648.
Writ of A writ of assistance, for which the writ of possession has been substituted
assistance. (see 0. XLVII, 2), might be issued to put a receiver in possession of land :
Sharp V. Garter, 3 P. Wms. 379, n. ; A. G. v. Tastett, V.-C. K., 31 Jan.
1855, Reg. Mn. H. T. 125 ; but not to aid a receiver in distraining for rerjt :
White V. Phipps, Sau. & Sc. 88; and for the purpose of recovering possession
of, and preserving, chattels which have been ordered to be delivered to a
receiver, the writ may still be issued : see Wyman v. Knight, 39 Ch. D. 165 ;
Cazet de la Borde v. Othon, 23 W. R. 110 ; and see sup. p. 423.
Attornment, If the owner is not in possession, the tenants will be ordered to attorn
and pay their rents in arrear and growing rents to the reosiver : see sup.
Form 2, p. 725 ; but this direction should be omitted where the estates are
out of England (see as to Ireland, Be Trant, M. R., in Chambers, 8 July,
1857, B. 1366; 8. C, 2 Sol. Jour. 11 ; from which it appears that, on
reconsideration, the M. R. considered the direction to tenants of Irish
estates to attorn should not have been inserted).
For form where there are other incumbrancers, see Form 16, p. 732.
By the Distress for Rent Act, 1737 (11 G. II, c. 19), s. 11, attornments by
tenants to strangers were made void, unless made in pursuance of a judg-
ment (at law, or) decree or order (of a Court of Equity).
Occupation If the person in possession refuses to attorn, application should be made
rent. that he do : Beid v. Middleton, 1 T. & R. 455 ; the order is without costs ;
but if his tenancy appears, an order may be obtained that he deliver up
possession, or pay an occupation rent : Hobhouse v. Hollcombe, 2 D. & S.
208 ; and a tenant who had not attorned was ordered to pay arrears in
fourteen days, with costs : HobsonY. Sherwood,lQ'Bea,Y. 575 ; but the Court
will not, by an interlocutory order before the hearing, charge a party in
possession, and ordered to pay an occupation rent, with such rent previous
to the date of the order : Lloyd v. Mason, 2 M. & Cr. 487.
And where the possession, as of the mortgagor, is rightful, occupation
rent will be payable from the date of demand by the receiver, and not,
from the date of the order appointing the receiver : Yorkshire Bldg. Co, v,
Mullan, 35 Ch. D. 125.
SECT. III. J Pou:ers of Management. 769
The further order to attorn and pay rent should bo on notice, and should Enforcing
limit a time : O. xli, 5 ; and may be enforced by attachment : O. xlii, order.
7, 26 ; and for order to turn over to the Queen's (HoUoway) prison a tenant,
brought up bv habeas after attachment, for not attorning, see Masterman v.
Prance, V.-C."P., 12 July, 1852, B. 906.
As to the effect of an attornment as creating a tenancy by estoppel Tenancy by
between the tenant and receiver, but that it does not enure for the benefit of estoppel,
the person ultimately found to be entitled to the legal estate, see Evans v.
Mathias, 7 E. & B. 602 ; Kerr, 193.
LETTING.
Subsequently to 15 & 16 V. cc. 80, 86, and Cons. Ord. 24, r. 1 (see now
0. Lv), a direction to manage or set and let has not been inserted, the Judge
having power to give any direction as to the management.
When a receiver of the tolls and stallages of a corp. has been appointed at Tolls of
the instance of their mortgagees, such appointment will not be allowed to corporation,
affect the powers of letting the stalls, &c. given to the corp. by their special
Act, under which the mortgages were authorized : De Winton v. Mayor of
Brecon, 26 Beav. 533, 542.
The power of a receiver to grant leases is limited to such parol leases as Extent of
are authorized by the Stat, of Frauds (29 Car. II. c. 2), s. 2 : Kerr, 205, 206 ; leasing
but in an ordinary case a receiver may, without applying for the sanction of power,
the Judge, let for a year certain, or less, or for any term not exceeding three
years : Shuffv. Holdaway, M. R., in Chambers, 27 March, 1863, Dan. 1443.
According to the older cases, a receiver could not let even for one year
or turn out tenants, or bring ejectment, without (the Master's) approbation :
Wynne v. L. Newborough, 1 Ves. jun. 165 ; though he had power to deter-
mine tenancies from year to year by notice to quit : Doe v. Bead, 12
East, 57.
The Court would not even direct an inquiry whether it would be for the
benefit of an infant entitled in remainder for the receiver to lease for years :
Gibbons v. Howell, 3 Mad. 469.
But see Be Bell, 6 Ves. 419, where, the property being small, an order was
made without reference for a trustee of an infant's estate to let with the
Master's approbation during the infant's minority.
It has been held {Wilkinson v. Colley, 5 Burr. 2694 ; Doe v. Bead, 12 Notice
East, 57, recognized in Jones v. Phipps, L. R. 3 Q. B. 567, 572), that notice to quit,
given in his own name by a receiver appointed by the Court is a valid
notice to quit.
DISTRAINING BY OK AGAINST.
Orders have been made that receivers might be at liberty to distrain : Leave of
ante, p. 763 ; Shelly v. Pelham, I Dick. 120 ; Mitchell v. D. Manchester, Court.
2 Dick. 787. But, it seems, if the tenants have attorned an order is un-
necessary : see Baincock v. Simpson, 1 Dick. 120, n. ; Hughes v. H., 1 Ves.
161 ; 3 B. C. C. 87 ; Pitt v. Snowden, 3 Atk. 750. In Brandon v. B., 5 Mad.
473, the practice was stated to be for a receiver to distrain upon his own
discretion for rent in arrear within the year ; but if in arrear for more than
a year, that then an order was necessary.
A receiver who defended actions arising out of a distress, without tha
Court's leave, was not allowed his costs : Swaby v. Dickon, 5 Sim. 629.
A receiver was not allowed, as solr, to bring actions against tenants,
with the Master's approbation, in the name of a trustee who opposed ii :
Delia Cainea v. Hayward, M'Cl. & Y. 272.
The receiver was held entitled to distrain where^ by the mortgagee's
concurring in appointing, and the mortgagor's attornment to a receiver,
the relation of landlord and tenant was created between the receiver and
mortgagor : see Jolly v. Arbuthnot, 4 D. & J. 224.
As to illegality of distress by mortgagor after appointment of a receiver
by the mortgagee, see Woolston v. Boss, [1900] 1 Ch. 788.
VOL. I. 3d
770
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
Change of
occupation.
Rates.
Gas.
Winding up
of CO.
Penalties,
levying by
distress.
Leave of
Court.
And as to the right to distrain as incident to a lease by a receiver, see
Dancer y. Hastings, 12 Moo. 34 ; cited in Morton v. Woods, L. R. 3 Q. B.
658, 668 ; and see Re Thrdfall, 16 Ch. D. 274, C. A.
Where a receiver and manager of a business, appointed by the C!ourt by
an order which does not direct delivery up of possession to him, enters upon
the premises, there is no change of occupation within sect. 16 of the Poor
Kate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 & 33 V. c. 41), and the goods
remain Uable to distress for the parish rates, and this right of distress pre-
vails as against the equitable charge created by debentures which contain
no assignment of chattels. But qucere whether, if the order directed
delivery up of possession there would be a change of occupation : In re
Marriage, Neave & Co. ; North of England Trustee Debenture and Assets
Corp. V. Marriage, Neave tb Co., [1896] 2 Ch. 663, C. A.
But where a receiver duly appointed under a power contained in a
mortgage deed of floating charge enters into possession and carries on
business, there is a change of occupation within sect. 16 of the Act of 1869,
and the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 211, sub-s. 3 : Richards v. Overseers of
Kidderminster, [1896] 2 Ch. 212.
There is no preferential charge in respect of rates on effects of a co. in the
hands of a receiver for debenture holders when the co. is being wound up :
8. C.
And similarly as regards the supply of gas, the relation of receivers and
managers appointed by the Court to the co. is not that of incoming and out-
going tenant, but of caretaker and owner, and the former are in no better
position against the gas co. than the latter were, and cannot claim a supply
of gas except on payment of arrears : Paterson v. Gas Light and Coke Co.,
[1896] 2 Ch. 476, C. A.
A distress for rent levied before the commencement of the winding up of a
CO. and before a receiver is effectively appointed on behalf of the debenture
holders is valid against them : Re Roundwood Colliery Co., Lee v. -K. C. C,
[1897] 1 Ch. 373, C. A.
The principle of Gardner v. L. C. <Ss D. Ry. Co. (L. R. 2 Ch. 201) does not
prevent the levying by distress of penalties imposed on a tramway co. for
non-repair of their rails, and leave to distrain may be granted, although a
receiver has been appointed : Pegge v. Neath District Tramways Co., [1895]
2 Ch. 608.
As to the effect of an attornment clause in a mortgage, v. inf. Chap.
XLVII.
EXPENDITUEB IN EESPECT OP ESTATE.
Since the Court of Chancery Act, 1852 (15 & 16 V. c. 80), applications as
to the management of the estate, including directions as to repairs, letting,
cutting, and selling timber, are made to the Judge in Chambers, where the
matter is inquired into without previous order before the particular act is
authorized to be done.
A receiver was not entitled formerly to lay out any money on the estate
at his own discretion, and without order of the Court, but the rule was
relaxed ; and where money was laid out by him without previous order, it
was usual to direct an inquiry if the transaction was beneficial to the
parties, and, if so, he was allowed the money laid out : Tempest v. Ord,
2 Mer. 56 ; and see A. G. v. Vigor, 11 Ves. 563 : Blunt v. Clitherow, 6 Ves.
799.
And before advancing money a receiver and manager should apply to
the Court for authority, and the Court, on granting it, generally allows
him interest (at 5 p. c.) on the sum which it authorizes him to advance,
and gives him a charge on the assets : Exp. Izard, Re Bushell, 23 Ch. D. 75,
C. A. (per Jessel, M. R.).
And generally it is improper for a receiver, guardian, or trustee to do,
without the sanction of the Judge, anything that may involve the estate in
expense. The limit of the amount wliich may be applied without sanction
is stated to be in general £30 a year : Dan. 1444.
SECT.
IV.] Account and Payment. 771
As to the duties of receivers of rents and profits in reference to insurance Insurance:
and repairs, see Be Graham, 0. v. Noakcs, [1895] I Ch. 66.
APPLYING FOB DIRECTIONS.
Except in oases of necessity, a receiver should not originate any proceed- Receiver
ings, but should apply to the Pit or to the parties having the conduct of the should not
proceedings to make any necessary application to the Court ; but on their originate
default he may be justified in himself appl3ang : Parker v. Dunn, 8 Beav. proceedings.
497 ; Ireland v. Bade, 7 Beav. 55 ; and see Armstronq v. A., 12 Eq. 614,
that a receiver, by proving without leave against the estate of a bankrupt
legatee, a debtor to the estate, thereby discharges the debt, and entitles the
legatee whose bankruptcy has been annulled to his legacy.
As to the liability of a liquidating debtor's solr at whose instigation
receiver refrains from collecting debts, see Exp. Hayward, Re Plant, 1881,
W. N. 115; 43 L. T. 326.
A receiver will not be allowed the costs of unsuccessfully defending actions Defending
without leave : Swahy v. Dickon, 5 Sim. 629 ; though, if successful, he may proceedings,
be entitled to be indemnified against extra costs incurred : Bristowe v.
■Needham, 2 Ph. 190.
A receiver was refused indemnity against costs incurred in successfully Indemnity
defending an action, which charged him with misconduct while acting as against costs,
receiver, but which otherwise had no relation to the estate which he had
administered : Be Dunn, [1904} 1 Ch. 648.
A receiver in an admon action will not be permitted to carry on another
admon action in the name of a bankrupt exor or admor : Re Hopkins, Dowd
v. HavJtin, 19 Ch. D. 61, C. A.
A receiver was allowed to retain out of a fund in his hands his costs
(solr and client) occasioned by an adverse application, which failed, made
against him by a Deft who was unable to pay costs : Courand v. Hanmer,
9 Beav. 3.
An application by a receiver of real estate appointed by the Probate Letting and
Court for directions as to letting and management was referred to the management,
registrar of the Probate Court : Neale v. Bailey, 23 W. R. 418.
And, generally, as to the receiver's functions and the management of
estates, see Dan. 1442 ei seq. ; Kerr, Receivers, 204 et seq. ; Eish. Mort. 850
et seq. : Coote, pp. 962 et seq.
Section IV. — ^Account and Payment.
1. Receiver to bring in Account.
Order that C, the receiver appointed in (this action), do on or
before the — day of — [or within — days after service of this
order], leave in the Chambers of the Judge his account as such
receiver.'
Eor form of application, see D. C. F. 883.
2. Receiver to account at District Registry.
This Court doth hereby appoint A. B. to receive &c. ; And it is
ordered that the said A. B. do pass his accounts and pay the balances
which may be certified to be due from him as the Jud^e of the B.
772 Receivers. [chap, xxxit.
District Registry shall direct. — See Re Dunn, Graham v. Halliday,
Chitty, J., 11th June, 1885, A. 1770.
A receiver may be directed to pass his accounts in a district registry,
but (except in the cases of Liverpool and Manchester District Registries)
he must give security in London. — See Re Capper, 26 W. R. 434.
3. Putting Recognizance in Suit.
Order that the Pits (and the Deft C, the trustees of the will of P.
the testator in &c.) be at liberty to put in suit the recognizance
entered into by B., the late receiver in this action, together with D.
and E., his sureties, dated &c. — Ingle v. Neale, V.-C. E., 22 April,
1844, B. 1198.
For order, where the receiver was in contempt for non-payment, to put
recognizance in suit, in the name of the exors of the deceased, upon the
petrs' recognizance to indemnify his estate, see Blair v. Toppitt, M. R.,
1 Aug. 1829, A. 2784.
For form of summons, see D. C. F. 884.
4. New Surety, instead of one Deceased or Bankrupt.
Order that a new security, to be given by B., the receiver
appointed in this (action), duly to account for what he shall receive
of the rents and profits of the estates in question &c., under the
order dated &c., be approved by the Judge ; And it is ordered that
the said B. do pass his accounts &c. up to the date of the new
security, and lodge the balance which may be certified to be due
from him in Court, as directed in the Schedule hereto ; And it is
ordered that upon such new security being given and lodgment of the
said balance in Court being made, the recognizance dated &c. be
vacated [Add Lodgment Schedule]. — See Blandyv. B., 1847, A. 1350;
Peach y. Pigou, 1847, B. 1628 ; Johnstone v. J., 1814, A. 361 ;
Thellusson v. Woodford, M. E,., in Chambers, 12 April, 1855, B. 714.
For like order in case of bankruptcy, see Franklyn v. Masson, 1817,
A. 786 ; and within a month, the surety having absconded, Jones v. Tiffen,
V.-C. S., 30 June, 1854, A. 1227.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 886.
5. Subsequent Order.
And the Judge having directed J. A., the receiver appointed by the
said order dated &c., to give a new security in the place of W. H.,
deceased, and E. H., the sureties named in the said recognizance dated
&c., and the said E. H. by his solr desiring to retire, and the said
J. A. having given such new security by entering into a recognizance
dated &c., and also a bond, together with the Guarantee Society as his
sureties dated &c., which have been approved by the Judge and duly
filed. And it is ordered that the said J. A. do leave at the chambers
of the Judge his accounts as such receiver up to &c., and lodge the
SECT. IV.] Account mid Payment 773
balance which may be certified to be due from him in Court as
directed in the Scliedule hereto ; And thereupon It is admitted that
the recognizance entered into by the said J. A., together with W. H.
and E. H. as his sureties, dated &c., be vacated [Add Lodgment
Schedule].— See Clarke v. Thornton, M. R., 5 May, 1876, A. 1606 ;
and see Freeman v. F., 31 Jan. 1876, A. 194.
For order disallowing a receiver's poundage, and charging him with
interest at 5 p. c. on the balances during the time the same were in his
hands, see Bristowe v. Needham, 11 W. R. 926 ; 8 L. T. 652 ; 9 Jur. N. S.
1168; 2 Ph. 190.
ACCOUNTING.
By 0. L, 18, the Court or a Judge is to fix the days on which receivers Time fixed,
are annually, or at longer or shorter periods, to leave and pass their accounts
and pay the balances appearing due on the accounts left, or such part as
shall be certified to be proper to be paid by them ; on their neglect, the
Judge may, on their subsequent accounts, disallow their salaries and charge
them witli 5 p. c. interest on such balances, while in their hands.
By r. 19, receivers' accounts are to be in Form 14, App. to R. S. C. ;
D. C. F. 879, witli such variations as circumstances may require.
By r. 20, every receiver shall leave in the Chambers of the Judge to whom
the cause or motion is assigned his account, together with an affidavit
verifying the same, as in Form 22, App. L. ; D. C. F. 877. An appoint-
ment shall thereupon be obtained by the Pit or the person having the
conduct of the cause for the purpose of passing such account.
By r. 21, on default of a receiver in leaving or passing any account, or
making any payment, the parties may be required to attend at Chambers,
and directions there given for his discharge, and appointing another, and
payment of costs.
And by r. 22, a certificate of the Master, stating the result of a receiver's
account, is from time to time to be taken. For form of certificate, see
D. C. F. 881.
A receiver may be directed to bring in his account, or pay his balance,
by a four-day order, obtainable on summons, and not by a fi. fa. : White-
head V. Lynes, 34 Beav. 161 ; 12 L. T. 332 (on appeal). The order must be
indorsed, under 0. xli, and served personally, and may be enforced,
under 0. XLir, 7, by attachment or committal, or, without any leave from
the Court, by writ of sequestration against his estate and effects : Sprnnt v.
Pugh, 7 Ch. D. 567 ; Re Bell's Estate, 9 Eq. 172, 173 ; Be H. A. Grey, [1892]
2 Q. B. 440, 451 ; Davies v. Oracroft, 14 Ves. 143, 144.
A receiver bringing in irregular accounts was ordered to bring them in
in a stated form, and to pay the costs of tlie application : see Bertie v.
L. Abingdon, 8 Beav. 53, and for the inquiry as to former balances, 26. 60.
Though a receiver passes his accounts and pays his balances regularly, he Interest on
cannot make interest, for his own benefit, of such sums as may from time to balances,
time be in his hands : Shaw v. Rhodes, 2 Russ. 539.
Directors who were appointed receivers of a co. at a salary, were in
addition held entitled to their remuneration as directors, as provided by
the articles of association : Re South Western of Venezuela, die. Co., [1902]
1 Ch. 701.
A receiver depositing money with a bank, so as to part with the absolute Misapplica-
control, though in sureties' names, to prevent its misapplication, was liable tiou of funds,
for the loss : Salway y.S.,2 Russ. & M. 215 ; White v. Baugh, 3 CI. & F. 44 ;
but a receiver depositing money to a separate account is not liable for the
banker's failure ; secus, if in default in passing his accounts, and although
not in default, if taking interest : Drever v. Maudesley, 8 Jur. 547.
The fraudulent receipt and appropriation of trust money places the
receiver under the same liability as the trustee from whom he received it
774
Receivers.
[chap. XXXII.
Payment of
balances.
Poundage.
Copy of
accounts.
Review.
Eepreaves of
deceased
Personal
liability of
receiver.
(and the right of the party defrauded is not affected by anything done or
omitted so long as he was ignorant of the fraud) : Rolfe v. Qregory, 4 D. J. &
S. 576.
Persons interested may at once apply to prevent the misapplication by a
receiver of funds in his hands, without waiting until he passes iiis accounts
to get the particular items disallowed : De Winton v. Mayor of Brecon, 28
Beav. 200.
The share of a defaulting bankrupt receiver being unduly paid into Court,
his assigns were entitled to receive the whole : Brandon v. -B., 1 D. & S.
16, 19.
After the bill was dismissed, or the proceedings ordered to be stayed
(PaynUr v. Carew, Kay, App. xxxvi.), a receiver was ordered to pass his
accounts and pay the balance to Deft : Pitt v. Bonner, 5 Sim. 577 ; and see
Button V. Beetrni, 9 Jur. N. S. 1339.
The objection, under O. L, 18, to allowing the receiver's poundage and
costs must be raised bj' the parties on taking the account : Ward v. Swift,
8 Ha. 139.
In passing a receiver's accounts in Chambers, when the same solr appears
for the receiver and one of the parties to the suit, only one copy of the
accounts will be allowed between them on taxation : Sharp v. Wright, 1 Eq.
635.
A receiver's accounts though passed have been ordered to be reviewed on
application by a late ward of Court, stating errors and neglect : Wildridge
V. M'Kane, 2 Moll. 545 ; and a settlement of accounts, between the infant
two days after coming of age and the receiver, did not prevent the receiver
from being charged with interest at 4 p. c. from the decree until the infant
came of age, on surplus rents omitted to be inserted pursuant to direction :
Hicks Y. H.,3 Atk. 274.
The Court has no jurisdiction to make a summary order to account against
the represves of a deceased receiver : Jenkins v. Briant, 7 Sim. 171 ;
Ludgater v. Channell, 15 Sim. 479 ; though it seems that if the balance has
been ascertained, the order may be made on petition that his recognizances
be put in force against his real andpers. represves and against his sureties :
8. C, 3 Mac. & G. 175.
But where, on their application to pass his accounts, and pay in the
balance, it had been so ordered in 1812, they were not allowed in 1841 to
object want of assets : Garden v. Badcock, 6 Beav. 157.
And see Dan. 1446 et seq.
The position of a receiver or manager in respect of personal liability
differs according to the nature and mode of his appointment.
A receiver appointed by the trustees of a debenture trust deed which
provides that he is to be in the same position as a receiver duly appointed
under the Conveyancing Act, 1881, and carrying on the co.'s business in the
co.'s name, is a mere agent for the co. while it continues as a going concern,
and does not incur any personal liability : Owen v. Cronk, [1895] 1 Q. B.
265, C. A.; and see Plumpton v. Burhenshaw, [1908] 2 K. B. 572,
C. A.
If in such a case the eo. is wound up the receiver ceases to be the agent
of the CO., but in the absence of any authority from the trustees to him to
act as their agent they cannot be held personally liable for goods ordered by
and supplied to him : Oosling v. Qaskcll, [1897] A. C. 575, H. L. reversing
C. A., [1896] 1 Q. B. 669.
But receivers and managers appointed by the Court, unless there is any
provision to the contrary in the order appointing them, must be taken to be
pledging their personal credit, looking for indemnity to the assets of the
business, and are therefore personally liable for the price of goods supplied
to them : Burt, Boulton & Hayward v. Bull, [1895] 1 Q. B. 276, C. A. ;
and see Plumpton v. Burkenshaw, sup. ; and the fact that the order
appointing them was made by consent does not put them in any better
position : Boehm v. Ooodall, [1911] 1 Ch. 155.
SECT.
IV.] Account and Payment. 775
A receiver appointed by way of equitable execution, and ordered to pay
specified sums to creditors, will be held personally liable if, instead of
paying the creditors personally, he hands over the money received to the
solr of the Pit : Ind, Coope cfc Co. v. Kidd, 63, L. J. Q. B. 726.
SURETIES.
The surety is answerable to the extent of the amount of the recognizance Liability,
for whatever sum, principal, interest, or costs, the receiver has become
Uable, and also for the costs of his removal and of appointing a new receiver :
Exp. Maunsell, 3 J. & Lat. 251 ; Re Lockey, 1 Ph. 509 ; Smart v. Flood, 49
L. T. 467 ; Dawson v. Baynes, 2 Russ. 466, though under the particular
circumstances of this case payment of interest was not required from the
sureties of a bankrupt receiver.
In ascertaining this liability the Court treats the surety as answerable (to
the amount of the penalty) for all sums of money which the receiver himself
was properly liable to pay into Court or to account for ; ex. gr., in the case
of a receiver of " rents and profits " of real estate, for moneys for insurance
received and misapplied, for dividends received on consols representing pro-
ceeds of sale of real estate, and for money representing personal estate to
be spent in repairs under an order of the Court : Re Oraham, G. v. Noakes,
[1895] 1 Ch. 66.
A surety was held answerable for costs of attachment against receiver for
not accounting, and costs of appointing new receiver, and ordering tenants
to pay rents to him : Exp. Maunsell, 3 J. & Lat. 251.
The recognizance, after it has been allowed by the Master by signing a riling
memorandum in the margin, is sent from Chambers to the Piling Depart- recognizance,
ment Central Office, and receipt taken for it from the proper officer.
Piling will not be allowed after six months from acknowledgment
except under special circumstances, and by order made by the Court or a
Judge upon motion for filing after that time : see 0. lxi, 14.
It has been held that the precise amount due must be shown by the Enforcing
certificate (report) before the recognizance could be put in suit : Ludgater v. recognizance.
Channell, 15 Sim. 479, 481. But on appeal (3 Mao. & G. 175) it was held
that the recognizance might be enforced against the surety as well as against
the real and personal represves of the deceased receiver without the amount
due having been actually ascertained, and that the order might be made
on petition.
An amount due from a receiver is a debt of record so long as his recog-
nizance remains in force, so that the Statute of Limitations only begins to
run from the time when the recognizance is vacated : Seagram v. Tuck, 18
Ch. D. 296.
Por the practice as to putting recognizances in suit, and as to vacating
them when the receiver has passed his final account, see Dan. 1454.
An action having been brought against a surety on his recognizance, an
order by consent was made, on payment by the surety of the costs of the
application, and of subsequent proceedings consequent thereon, for a refer-
ence to see what was due from the receiver, payment by instalments of the
amount, not exceeding the amount of the recognizance, and an injunction
to stay proceedings in the action : Walker v. Wild, 1 Madd. 528, 1815,
B. 1125.
The surety is entitled to stand in the receiver's place, and be indemnified Recouping
out of a balance in Court due to him : Olossop v. Harrison, G. Coop. 61 ; surety.
3 V. & B. 134.
Accordingly, a receiver's shares of an estate which was being administered
in Court, though excepted from a mortgage given as an indemnity to his
surety, were liable to recoup the surety the amount paid by him for the
receiver : Brandon v. B., 3 D. & J. 524.
They will not be discharged at their own request, unless under special Discharge,
circumstances : Griffith v. 0., 2 Vez. 400 ; in Swain v. Smith, V.-C, 13 July,
776
Receivers.
[chap. XXXI I.
1827, B. 1447, a surety was discharged on his own application, having
become such in breach of his partnership articles.
On payment by surety to solr of Pit proceeding against him in the Petty
Bag, and on notice of the application to Pit, his recognizance was discharged :
Mann v. Stennett, 8 Beav. 189.
Remedy The surety who has paid the debt of the receiver (his principal) is entitled
against to enforce the recognizance against his co-surety : Woods v. Creaghe,
co-surety. 2 Hog. 51 ; Kerr, Receivers, 267.
And as to the liabilities and rights of a receiver's sureties, see Dan. 1455 ;
Kerr, Receivers, 241 et seq.
Section V. — Eeceiver and Manager Abroad.
1. Receiver and Manager of Estates in India.
Order that A. and B., of &c., be appointed, upon giving security,
to manage the estates of the above-named testator C. at &c., in
British India, and to receive the rents, profits, and proceeds thereof,
and to convert, get in, and remit the same to the Pits, to be accounted
for by them as exors of the will of the testator ; And the Pits are to
be at liberty to execute a proper power of attorney in favour of the
said A. and B., for the purposes aforesaid. — See Logan v. Prin. of
Coorg., M. R., in Chambers, 8 May, 1960, B. 1151.
For order appointing one or more persons in succession in Calcutta, to
receive and remit assets in India and China, and conduct and defend suits,
and to take security, see Hodson v. IFaisore, L. Commrs., 24 June, 1788,
A. 471 ; and see Wood v. Lindsay, V.-C, 18 Dec. 1826, B. 1938. For order
directing a receiver to authorize a firm in Calcutta to receive assets in India,
and remit the same to the receiver, see Keys v. K., 1838, A. 767 ; 1 Beav.
425.
2. Receiver of Property in N. S. Wales — Leave to appoint Agent.
An inquiry — " What real estate in New South Wales or elsewhere
the testator U. was seised of or entitled to at the time of his death,
and the nature and extent of his interest therein ; And it is ordered
that a proper person be appointed to receive the rents and profits
of such part of the real estate of the Pits, the infants, as was derived
through the will of the testator ; And it is ordered that such receiver,
with the approbation of the Judge, do appoint a proper person or
persons as his agent or agents in New South Wales or else-
where to receive such rents and profits, and to remit the same
to such receiver in this country, and make such agent or agents a
proper allowance in respect thereof." — Receiver to pass accounts
and pay balances as the Judge shall direct. — Vnderioood v. Frost,
V.-C. S., in Chambers, 14 Feb. 1857, B. 543.
SECT, v.] Receive}' and Manager Abroad. T^
3. Receiver of Property in Italy, with Agent there, and to
litigate Rights.
Order that a proper person be appointed to collect and get in the
outstanding personal estate and effects of the testator, and to receive
the rents and profits of his real estate in Italy, and any money that
may arise from the sale of his real estate in Italy ; " And it is ordered
that such receiver, with the approbation of the Judge, do, if expedient,
appoint a proper person as his agent, living at or near L., or elsewhere
in Italy, to collect the said rents and profits, and to receive and get
in the (personal) estate and effects of the testator, and to see the same
properly secured and transmitted to England, to be disposed of as this
Court shall direct, and, if necessary, to continue the suit now insti-
tuted, and to litigate and contest any other suit which may arise
(concerning), or have relation to, the testator's estate in Italy ;
And it is ordered that, if necessary, a proper instrument be executed
by the Deft, to such person so to be appointed, for the purposes
above mentioned, such instrument to be approved of by the Judge."
• — Pit and Deft to deliver over to receiver all securities, books, and
papers. — Eeceiver to pass accounts, and pay balances as the Judge
shall dAiQct.—Hiraon v. Galli, M. R., 28 March, 1854, A. 720.
For order to appoint a person resident near Naples to get the testator's
estate and effects, and contest any will set up there, see Drewry v. Darioin,
M. R., 20 May, 1765, A. 252.
For order to appoint a person to receive property in America, and another
here to receive remittances, and for allowance to each, and each to give
security, with inquiry as to enforcing payment of debts there, and out of
what fund the expenses and allowances should be paid, see Hanson v.
Walker, M. R., 12 May, 1815, A. 1219.
For order directing the appointment of a person in Canada to receive the
rents of testator's unsold estates there, and the proceeds of estates sold, and
to enter into contracts and sell the unsold estates, according to a scheme,
and Deft to execute a power of attorney to such person to enable him to
enter into such contracts, and convey the lands sold ; moneys received to
be remitted to a person in London, he giving security, and the receiver and
consignee both to pass their accounts, see Tylee v. T., M. R., 8 Nov. 1856,
B. 309.
For order on the appUcation of C, the receiver of the rents and profits of
the real estates of the testator at the Cape of Good Hope, &c., that C, as
such receiver, be at liberty to sell the testator's real estate in South Africa,
consisting of the several estates mentioned in the schedule, at the best
prices which he could obtain, not being less than the sum set opposite the
same in the same schedule ; and that the receiver was not to be allowed any
commission on such sales, but was to be allowed to charge all his costs out
of pocket relating thereto ; and that Defts do appoint the said C, the
attorney of Defts, the exors of the testator, for the purpose of obtaining
letters of admon in South Africa, with the will annexed, of the personal
estate, &c., until the exors should obtain probate, see Re Collison, 0. v. 6'.,
V.-C. H., at Chambers, 4 Dec. 1876.
4. Manager appointed with Direction to remit to Consignee here.
Order that one or more proper person or persons be appointed
at — in — , to manage the estates of the above-named testator.
778 Receivers. [chap, xxxii.
at — , and to receive the rents, profits, and produce thereof, and he
or they is or are to remit the same to a proper person in London to
be approved of by the Judge for that purpose ; And it is ordered that
the person to whom the said rents, profits, and produce are to be
so remitted do pass his accounts and pay the balances which may
be certified to be due from him as the Judge shall direct.
For order, by consent, appointing persons to sell a cargo of sugar, and
directing them to pay the net proceeds, after deducting their broker's com-
mission and all other proper charges, into Court from time to time, when
the sums received amounted to £500 and upwards, see Blythe v. Schokfield,
M. R., 17 March, 1858, A. 729.
5. Declaration as to Management of Colonial Estate — Consignee
appointed ad Interim — Inquiry as to Liabilities — Scheme.
Declare that it is fit and proper and for the benefit of all parties
interested under the testator's will, that his estate and plantations
in D. should be managed and carried on until the further order of
this Court in the manner in which the same appear by the affidavit
of A. and B., filed &c., to have been managed and carried on since
the testator's death ; And this Court doth order that E., of the firm
of &c., in the said affidavit named, be appointed on giving security,
consignee ad interim in this country of the produce of the said estate,
upon the same terms as regards remuneration as (those on which)
the said firm have heretofore acted on behalf of the testator ; And
it is ordered that the said consignee do apply the rents, profits, and
produce thereof under the direction of the trustees or trustee for the
time being of the said will until further order ; And it is ordered that
the following inquiry be made, that is to say : 1. An inquiry whether
any expenses and liabilities, and to what amount, have been incurred
in such management, since the testator's decease, which remain un-
satisfied, and whether the same, or any and what part thereof, ought
properly to be raised or provided for out of or charged upon the said
estates and plantations, or any and which of them, or in any and in
what other manner ; And it is ordered that a proper scheme be
approved and settled for the management of the said estates and
plantations for the time to come.^ — Any of the parties to be at liberty
to propose such scheme. — Porter v. P., M. R., 9 July, 1859, B. 2587.
For order to appoint manager and consignee for estate in Demerara, with
stay of proceedings, see Bunhury y. B.,\ Beav. 336, sup.
For order to appoint consignee, and proper person or persons, to act as
manager or managers in Jamaica, in the event of the death, absence, or
other incapacity to act of the present manager, to receive the rents, profits,
and produce thereof, and remit the same to the consignee or consignees in
London, see Rutherford v. Wilkinson, M. R., 31 May, 1823, B. 1241, and
note, inf. p. 780.
For subsequent order, with security, see S. C, 30 Nov. 1824, B. 146 ; and
without security. Pit's counsel consenting, S. C, 22 April, 1826, B. 903.
For order appointing resident in Jamaica to take out admon and get in
SECT, v.] Receiver and Manager Abroad. 779
estate there, with an allowance, and for appointment of manager and con-
signee of plantations and real estates, see Hammett v. Reid, V.-C, 11 Aug.
1827, A. 1990.
For orders appointing managers and consignees in the West Indies, with
direction to keep down interest on charges, see Quarrel v. Beckford, L. C,
20 Feb. 1807, B. 269 ; Wedderbum v. Olarh, L. C, 13 May, 1793, B. 320 ;
Cunyngham v. C, L. C, 31 July, 1750, A. 536 ; 1 Vez. 522 ; Belt's Supp.
232.
For order in the West Indian Encumbered Estates Court appointing a
receiver and manager of an estate in Jamaica, see Re darkens Estate, 24
Feb. 1853, Cust, 147. And for the recognizance of the receiver, certificate
of security, and order discharging the receiver in that case, see ih. 148,
149, 150.
NOTES.
The Court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of real and personal
property abroad : see Houlditch v. L. Donegal, 8 Bli. N. S. 343 ; Re
Mavdslay, Sons <S; Field, [1900] 1 Ch. 602 ; and see Barkley v. L. Reap, 2
Ha. 308 ; Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Ha. 204.
And accordingly receivers have been appointed to receive, convert, get
in, and remit to this country the rents, profits, and proceeds of property :
— ^in East India : Logan v. Princess ofCoorg, sup. Form 1, p. 776 ; Keys
V. K., 1 Beav. 425 ;
—in China : Hodson v. Watson, sup. p. 776 ;
■ — in N. S. Wales : Underwood v. Frost, sup. Form 2, p. 776 ;
■ — ^in the West Indies : Bunbury v. B., and other cases, sup. ;
— ^in Canada : Tylee v. T., sup. p. 777 ;
— ^in America : Hanson v. Walker, sup. p. 777 ;
— ^in Brazil : Sheppard v. Oxenford, 1 K. & J. 500 ;
— ^in Italy : Hinton v. Oalli, sup. Form 3, p. 777 ; Drewry v. Darwin, sup.
p. 777;
— in Ireland : Houlditch v. L. Donegal, sup. And see Re Trant, M. R., in
Chambers, 8 July, 1857, B. 1366, sup. p. 768 ;
— ^in Jersey : SmitK v. S., 10 Ha. Appx. Ixxi. In this case the real estate
was in England, but part of the personal estate consisted of personal chattels
in Jersey.
By the West Indian Incumbered Estates Act, 1862 (25 & 26 V. c. 45), Receiver in
s. 3, power is given to the commrs appointed under the W. I. Incumbered West Indies.
Estates Acts, 1854, 1858, when they shall have made an absolute order for
sale of any lands under the Acts, to appoint a receiver of the rents and
profits of any lands within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, in a
suit relating to such lands ; and the receiver so appointed shall have and
possess all the powers, authorities, rights, and privileges possessed by
receivers appointed by the Court of Chancery in England.
By the W. I. Incumbered Estates Act, 1864 (27 & 28 V. c. 108), s. 5, the
power to appoint receivers, given by the Act of 1862, was extended by
including live and dead stock, machinery, utensils, and other chattels and
effects in the property of which a receiver might be appointed ; and the
appointment might be made after a conditional order for sale.
From the difference between a plantation and an estate in England, the
former being in the nature of a business or trading concern requiring a
large investment of capital and skilful management, the rights and liabilities
of receivers and managers of West Indian property differed in many respects
from those of an ordinary English receiver : see Daniel v. Trotman, 11 W. R.
717,* 719 ; 1 Moore, P. C. N. S. 123 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 583 ; 8 L. T. 522 ; Crist,
W. I. Estates, 9.
In some of the earlier cases it appears that the manager of West Indian Security,
property was not required to give security ; and in Forrest v. Timms, L. C,
1789, A. 128, the appointment was " on his giving security to be approved,
&c., for his duly managing the plantation and estates, and for his duly
780
Receivers.
[chap, xxxir.
accounting for what he should receive, and for his consigning the produce
of the said plantation, as far as the due management of the said estates
required it, to the person, &c., to whom the Court had directed, or should
direct, the consignments to be made."
See also 8. C, nom. Morris v. Elme, 1 Ves. jun. 139 ; Cockburn v. BapJiael,
2 Sim. & S. 453.
And in Bulherford v. Wilkinson, sup. p. 778, 9 July, 1825, Lord Gifford,
M. R., in making the order under the circumstances without security, said
that in general, in order to dispense with security, it should appear that no
manager could bo found who would give security, or that the proposed
person was fit to be appointed without, but made the order under the cir-
cumstances without security, by consent of such parties as could consent ;
but on a subsequent application in the same cause security was required :
and see Wedderburn v. Clark, sup. p. 779 ; and so in Oobham v. C, V.-C,
30 April, 1841, A. 1801.
In the case of receivers of West Indian property appointed under the
W. I. Incumbered Estates Acts, 1862 and 1864, the appointment is made
" upon their first giving security " : see Forms in Oust, W. I. Estates,
pp. 147, 149.
Lien of The hen of a consignee of West Indian property (not only on the produce,
consignee. but also on the corpus of the estate : see Oust, 275) for the balance due to
him in respect of advances made by him for supplies, or for the interest of
incumbrancers, takes priority not only over the interest of the owner, but
over all estates, interests, and incumbrancers whatever ; and he will be
allowed interest at 4 p. c. on the balances due : Be Greatheed, W. I. Estate
Commrs., 12 May, 1859 ; Oust, 219 ; Re McDowall, lb. 300 ; but this lien
arises by implication of law, and may be limited or excluded by his taking
a security containing express stipulations : Leith's Estate, Chambers v.
Davidson, L. R. 1 P. C. 296.
And see Morison v. M., 7 D. M. & G. 214 ; 2 Sm. & G. 564 ; Scott v.
Nesbitt, 14 Ves. 438 ; Sayers v. Whitfield, 1 Knapp, P. 0. 133.
The consignee is not bound to see to the application of moneys advanced
by liim under an agreement : Daniel v. Trotman, 11 W. R. 717 ; Be Harriod,
Oust, 271, 277.
A receiver and manager appointed at the instance of a mortgagee of a
W. I. estate is not entitled to the produce shipped, prior to his appointment,
to the consignee, though it had not at the time of the order been received
by the consignee : Codrington v. Johnstone, 1 Beav. 520.
When employed as manager by the owner of the incumbered estate,
unless his possession has been so recognized by the mortgagees that he can
be considered as acting on their behalf and for their benefit, he has not, as
a general rule, any lien on the inheritance for advances which he has made
for its cultivation : Fraser v. Burgess, 13 Moo. P. C. 340 ; but see Bertrand
V. Davies, 31 Beav. 436, in which case the rule as to the lien of a manager
appointed by the owner is somewhat differently stated.
Commission. When appointed as manager by a trustee in possession of the estate on
behalf of all parties interested, or when appointed by the Court of Chancery,
he is entitled to his ordinary commission and allowances, as against all
persons interested in the estate, for the balance that shall be due to him on
taking his accounts : Bertrand v. Davies ; Fraser v. Burgess, sup. ; Be
Harriott, W. I. Commrs, July, 1863, Oust, 271.
See also Scott v. Smith, Burge, Col. Law, 1st ed. vol. iii. 357.
So long as he resides in the colony and acts personally in the manage-
ment of the property, the manager is entitled to a commission as a reward
for personal care and trouble : Forrest v. Elwes, 2 Mer. 68 ; Chamhefs v.
Ooldwin, 5 Ves. 834 ; 9 Ves. 254 ; Kerr, Receivers, 280 ; and to reasonable
payments made to others for the management during his absence : 8. C.
SECT. VI.] Discharge of Receiver. 781
Section VI. — Discharge of Keceiver.
1. Discharge and Payment.
Oedbe that A., the receiver appointed by the order dated &c., be
discharged ; And it is ordered that the said A. do leave at the
Chambers of the Judge his final account as such receiver, and lodge
the balance (if any) which may be certified to be due from him in
Court as directed in the schedule hereto [or pay to the Pit] ; And
thereupon, or upon its being certified that there is nothing due
from the said A., it is ordered that the recognizance dated &c., and
the bond of the same date entered into by the said A., together with
C. and D., his sureties, be vacated. — [Add Lodgment Schedule].
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 88.5.
2. Payment by Receiver's Executors.
Order that A., the surviving exor of L., the receiver appointed in
this action, be at liberty to carry in and pass the accounts of the
receipts and payments of the said L., as such receiver, from the foot
of his last account to the time of his decease, and lodge the balance
which may be certified to be due from the estate of the said L. in
Court as directed in the Lodgment Schedule hereto [or to (the Pit)
B. or &c.] ; And thereupon &c. [Form 1]. — Costs of the application,
as between solr and client, to be taxed and retained by the exor and
allowed in his accounts. — [Add Lodgment Schedule.]
For form of application, see D. C. F. 884.
NOTES.
A receiver appointed for the benefit of all parties interested will not be Discharge,
discharged on the ex parte application of the party at whose instance he was
appointed : Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Ha. 204 ; Merc. Inv., dsc. Co. v. River
Plate, &C. Co., [1892] 2 Ch. 303 ; Bainhrigge v. Blair, 3 Beav. 421.
But when the object of his appointment has been fully effected (see
Tewart v. Laioson, 18 Eq. 490), or his continuance becomes unnecessary, he
will be discharged.
Where the legal estate was in dispute, the receiver was not discharged on
the appointment of new trustees : Beeves v. Neville, 10 W. R. 235.
And where appointed for infants he was not discharged on one of them
attaining twenty-one ; and a petition to discharge him was dismissed with
costs : Smith v. Lyster, 4 Beav. 227.
He will not in general be discharged on his own application without
showing special grounds : see Dan. 1463 ; Kerr, 233.
Where he had been wrongfully appointed over property of a person not a
party to the action, he was discharged, although there had been an abate-
ment by the death of the sole Deft : Lavender v. L., I. R. 9 Eq. 693.
On petition to discharge receiver and pay over balances, though served,
he should not appear, and will not be allowed his costs of appearance :
Herman v. Dunbar, 23 Beav. 312.
When the receiver has passed his final account, and paid his balances, his Vacating re-
recognizances will be vacated : see 0. lx, 4 ; Dan. 1464. cognizances.
The application to discharge and to vacate the recognizances may be by
petition, or motion, or summons, or the direction may be given in the order
782 Receivers. [chap, xxxii.
on further consideratiou ; and the recognizances will be vacated on a proper
affidavit of payment to the party entitled to receive the balance, or on the
Paymaster's or Master's certificate ; the rule to the contrary, as stated
in Lawson v. RicJceits, 11 Beav. 627, is not now followed.
In case of an infant's estate, it is said that recognizances should not be
vacated till a year after the party attains twenty-one : see 2 Madd. Ch. 298 ;
and for a statement of the rule (Lord Alvanley's) by L. C. Hart, see Kilbee v.
Sneyd, 2 Mol. 233.
Balances. Discharged receiver, not paying in balance by time fixed, was ordered to
pay it in, and the amount of his salary, with interest at £5 p. c. on both
sums from the day appointed, and the costs of the motion : Harrison v.
Boydell, 6 Sim. 211.
Where money due from him has not been brought into account, he is
a trustee of the money, and cannot (unless, possibly, in some cases under the
Trustee Act, 1888, s. 8) set up the Statute of Limitations : Seagram v. Tvck,
18 Ch. D. 296 ; and after his discharge payment may be enforced against
him by attachment, as a person in a fiduciary position within sect. 4 of the
Debtors Act, 1869 : Me Oent, Oent-Davis v. Harris, 40 Ch. D. 190 ; and
V. sup. p. 460.
Where suit by third mortgagee was stayed, on motion by subsequent
mortgagee, on payment of what was due to Pit and his costs, and the costs
of the GO-Defts, balances in the receiver's hands belonged to the person in
possession, when he was appointed, and the receiver was discharged :
Paynter v. Carew, Kay, xxxvi., 18 Jur. 417.
( 783 )
CHAPTER XXXllI.
rKOHIblTION OF PROCEEDINGS IN INFEKIOR COURTS.
1. Order for Writ of Prohibition directed to an Ecclesiastical Court.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the above-named B., who alleged
that pleas or actions in which the title to any corporeal or incorporeal
hereditaments is in question cannot be impleaded or brought or
adjudicated upon iu the above-mentioned Consistorial Court of
Llandafi, and that the above-named I. and H. have impleaded or
cited the ministers, parishioners, and inhabitants of the parish of L.,
and all others in several having or pretending to have any right, title,
or interest La the premises, to show cause why a licence or faculty
should not be granted to the said I. and H., the churchwardens of the
said parish (for the purpose of new flooring and reseating the church
of L. aforesaid, and of removing the present galleryin the said church,
and also of taking down portions of the north wall and re-erecting the
same on the same site, and placing two windows in the same north
wall), in the said Episcopal and Consistorial Court of LlandafE afore-
said, wherein the title to certain hereditaments is in question, that is
to say, the title to certain pews and seats ia the church of the said
parish of L., claimed to be part of and appurtenant to a certain free-
hold mansion-house, and a certain freehold farmhouse, and heredita-
ments of or to which B. is or claims to be seised or entitled ; and
upon readiug an aflSdavit of W. in support of the said allegation filed
&c., and the exhibits therein referred to, this Court doth order that
the chancellor of the diocese of Llandafi and the said I. and H. be
prohibited from further proceeding in the said pleas or action in the
said Consistorial Court of the diocese of Llandafi, and that a writ of
prohibition do issue accordingly. — Exp. Bateman, V.-C. J., 8 Feb.
1870, A. 195 ; 9 Eq. 660.
For order in vacation prohibiting justices of Hants from holding plea of
public footway, see Be Dashwood, V.-C. W., 16 Sept. 1853, A. 1532.
For order, on application of judgment creditor, proliibiting the bishop
from executing writs of sequeslrari facias against a vicarage, at the instance
of subsequent judgment creditors, and enjoining them from proceeding with
such writs, or on their judgments, see Hawkins v. OatJiercole, 1 Sim. N. S.
75, 150 ; 1 Drew. 12 ; 6 D. M. & G. 1, 2, n., 16.
For order absolute in the first instance against the Mayor's Court, see
Jacobs V. Friedburg, V.-C. M., 7 Jan. 1873, A. 12.
For form of application, see B. C. F. 847.
'84 Prohibition of Proceeding i'. [chap, xxxiii.
2. Order Nisi against Official Principal of the Arches Court of
Canterbury.
Upon motion, &o. by counsel for A. B., This Court doth order that
the Eight Honourable James Plaisted Baron Penzance, the official
principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, and C. D., the promoter
of the office of the Judge in a certain suit of Conibe v. De La Bere in
the said Arches Court of Canterbury, upon notice of this order to be
given to the said official principal, or to his registrar, and the said C. D.
or his solr do show cause on &c., why a prohibition should not issue
directed to the said official principal to prohibit him from carrying
into execution, or otherwise giving efiect to the sentence of depriva-
tion pronounced in the said suit by the said official principal on &c.,
against the said A. B., such sentence being one which he had no
jurisdiction to pronounce, and pronounced without jurisdiction and
in excess of jurisdiction. — Re De La Bere, M. E., 14 Jan. 1881, A. 14.
3. Prohibition Nisi to Police Magistrate.
Upon motion &c., by &c., who alleged that two summonses in-
volving questions relating to the validity of the issue of certain
shares which appeared upon the register of the B. Association,
Limited, were, upon the application of B. B., issued by J. V., Esq.,
one of the magistrates of the Bow Street Metropolitan Police Court ;
that upon the return of the said summonses, counsel for the associa-
tion took the preliminary objection that the magistraj;e had no
jurisdiction ; and upon reading an affidavit of &c.. This Court doth
order that the said J. V. and other the magistrate or magistrates
at the Bow Street Metropolitan Police Court be prohibited from
further proceeding with the said summonses imtil this order shall be
made absolute or be discharged ; And the said B. B..is, on &c., to
show unto this Court good cause why the said prohibition should
not be made absolute. — ^And it is ordered that a writ of prohibition
do issue accordingly. — Re Boaler, Stirling, J., 25 April, 1888, A. 534.
As to the proper mode of procedure in a case where a police magistrate is
exceeding his jurisdiction, see In re Briton Medical and General Life Associa-
tion, 39 Ch. D. 61.
For orders nisi and absolute against the Railway Commrs, see The Great
Western By. Co. v. The Waierford and Limerick Ry. Co., M. R., 14 Feb. 1881,
A. 183 ; C. A. 9 April, 1881, A. 697 ; also EaM and West India Dock Co. v.
Shaw, Chitty, J., 6 July, 1888, A. 1051.
NOTES.
PROHIBITION — NATUKE OF WRIT — INFERIOR COTJETS.
The writ of prohibition is a writ issued out of the High Court to restrain
inferior Courts from exceeding their jurisdiction by " intermeddling with or
executing anything which by law they ought not to hold plea of " : 2 Inst.
602, cited in Mayor of London v. Cox, L. R. 2 H. L. 239, 254 ; Dan. 1391.
Prohibition of Proceedings, 785
Vox the history of this jurisdiction, and an exposition of the law and
practice of the superior Courts relating to it, and as to the distinction
between superior and inferior Courts, see S. C.
For form of writ of prohibition, see R. S. C. App. J. 11 ; Chitty's Forms,
pp. 794, 795; D. C. F. 848.
Although by the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 24 (5), " no cause or proceeding at County
any time pending in the High Court, or before the Court of Appeal, shall Court,
be restrained by prohibition or injunction," the inferior Courts, such as the Mayor s
County Courts, the Mayor's Courts, and the Diocesan Courts, not being ^'?™^»
branches of the Supreme Court (see Jud. Act. 1873, s. 3), are not afEected ^^o"^^*"
by this provision, and prohibition will still lie to restrain them from
exceeding their jurisdiction.
For cases in which prohibition has gone to restrain the Railway Commrs Ry. Com-
from executing their powers, see Warwick Canal Co. v. Birmingham Canal missioner.
Co., 5 Ex. D. 1 ; G. W. By. Co. v. Waterford and Limerick Ry. Co., 17 Ch. D.
493, C. A. ; Shortt, pp. 483, 484.
As to the constitution and jurisdiction of the present Railway Commission,
and as to appeals from the decisions of the Commrs to the superior Courts of
Appeal, and by leave to the House of Lords, see the Railway and Canal
Traffic Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 25), ss. 2, 8, 17 ; Railway and Canal Traffic
Act, 1894 (57 & 58 V. c. 54), ss. 1, 2.
An appUcation before the Jud. Acts for prohibition to the Chief Judge in Bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy was refused, that Court being a superior Court : Be Marcus
Davis, L. C, 23 Feb. 1873, Reg. Min. 150.
And prohibition against the issue by a bishop of a commission of inquiry Bishop's
under the Church Discipline Act (3 & 4 V. c. 86) until the status of the pro- Commission,
meter should have been inquired into, was refused : Exp. Edwards, 9 Ch. 138.
An examination into the affairs of a joint stock co. by an inspector Board
appointed by the Board of Trade, under sect. 66 of the Cos. Act, 1862, now of Trade
substituted by sect. 109 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, is not Inquiry,
a judicial proceeding, and therefore prohibition will not lie in respect of it
either to the Board of Trade or the inspector : Be Orosvenor <h W. End By.
Terminus Hotel, 76 L. T. 337, C. A.
Where there is irregularity rather than excess of jurisdiction, the matter Appeal in
is one for appeal and not for prohibition : Hooper v. Hill, [1894] 1 Q. B. cases of
659, C. A. ; and where an order has been made under circumstances wliich irregularity,
would give jurisdiction to issue a proliibition, the party aggrieved is not
thereby deprived of his right to appeal in the ordinary way : Sweetland v.
Turkish Cigarette Co., 47 W. R. 511.
And for an enumeration of the Courts to which prohibitions have issued,
see Shortt, p. 431.
PKOCEDTJEE TO OBTAIN WBIT.
To obtain the writ, a want of jurisdiction in the inferior Court to decide
the case must be shown : Burder v. Veley, 12 A. & E. 263 ; Mayor of London
V. Cox, L. R. 2 H. L. 239, 279.
The writ was obtained at law by special application to the Court on
affidavit : see 1 Will. 4, c. 21, and not, as before that Act, by mere sugges-
tions : lb. 279.
In Chancery, upon production of a proper affidavit, the writ formerly
issued as of course without an order : see Jacobs v. Brett, 20 Eq. 1 ; but since
1885 the writ has issued out of the Crown Office Department pursuant to the
order of a Judge : see D. C. F. 847 et seq.
The writ must be indorsed with the names and addresses of the solrs
issuing it, and must state whether they issue it on behalf of the Pit, Deft,
garnishee, or any other person.
The affidavit must show clearly and distinctly that the inferior Court has
not jurisdiction, or has gone beyond it, and must, on the Crown side, be
intituled " In the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division " : Crown
Office Rules, 1886, r. 7 ; Shortt, 488.
VOL. I. 3 E
786.
Prohibition of Proceedings, [chap, xxxill.
But in Chancery the order and affidavit have been entitled, " Ex parte
(the applicants) in the matter of the suit in the Consistory Court " : see
Ri Bateman, sup. p. 783, and see Re Dashwood, sup, p. 783, where the order
and affidavit were entitled in the matter of the applicant.
For the form of the affidavit in support of the application for the writ to
a County Court, of the summons, order for the writ to issue, and of the rule
nisi, see Chitty's Forms, 790, 791.
The application for the writ may be made either by a party to the pro-
ceedings in the inferior Court or by a stranger, or, as stated in Jacobs v.
Brett, 20 Eq. 5 : " Either the Crown or any subject may intervene and
inform a superior Court that an inferior Court is exceeding its jurisdiction,
and it is the duty of the superior Court, when so informed, to confine the
inferior Court within the limits of its jurisdiction." See also Oram v.
Brearey, 2 Ex. D. 436.
By 51 & 52 V. o. 43, s. 127, any Judge of the High Court may as well
during sittings as in vacation hear and determine applications for writs
of prohibition directed to any County Court.
By O. Liv, 12, prohibitions (as included in the orders mentioned in Jud.
Act, 1873, s. 26 (8)) are excepted from the jurisdiction of the Masters of the
King's Bench, and of the registrars of the Probate, &c. Divisions.
The practice in Chancery has been to grant an order absolute in the first
instance, leaving it to the parties affected to move to dissolve it : Re
Bateman, 9 Eq. 660 ; Re Dashwood, e.nd other cases cited, sup. pp. 783 ;
though in Re Dyson, L. C. and L. J., 3 March, 1860, on subsequent motion
to commit the Judge for disobedience to the writ, this was doubted.
Appeal. An application to a Judge at Chambers for a prohibition not being a
matter of practice and procedure within the Jud. Act, 1894, s. 1, sub-s. 4,
an appeal from his order lies in the first instance to the Divisional Court and
not to the Court of Appeal : WaUon v. Petts, [1899] 1 Q. B. 54, C. A.
WHEN OEANTED.
The writ is granted ex debito justitiai to a party to the proceedings who is
aggrieved ; but on the application of a stranger, even when he shows with
reference to the law and the facts that the inferior Court is exceeding its
jurisdiction, the interference of the superior Court is discretionarj' :
Chambers v. Green, 20 Eq. 552 ; Re Forster, 4 B. & S. 187 ; Reg. v. Twiss,
L. R. 4 Q. B. 407 ; Mayor of London v. Cox, L. R. 2 H. L. 239, 280 ; Broad
V. Perkins, 21 Q. B. D. 533, C. A. ; but the rule does not affect the right of
the Crown to claim a writ of prohibition at any stage : S. C, at p. 535.
But where total absence of jurisdiction appears on the face of the pro-
ceedings the Court is bound to issue prohibition, although the applicant has
acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the inferior Court : Farguharson v. Morgan,
[1894] 1 Q. B. 552, C. A. ; Alderson v. Palliser, [1901] 2 K. B. 833, C. A.
And generally for a review of the authorities as to whether the grant of
prohibition is discretionary, and if so, to what extent, see Shortt, 441 et aeq.
Where the objection to the jurisdiction is capable of being waived, and has
been waived, by the applicant, prohibition will not be granted : Moore v.
Oamgee, 25 Q. B. D. 244 ; Mouflet v. Washburn, 54 L. T. 16 ; In re Jones v.
James, 19 L. J. Q. B. 257.
As to the distinction between cases where there is a total want of juris-
diction, and where the jurisdiction is contingent {ex. gr., on leave to sue
being obtained under the County Courts Act, 1888, s. 74), see Moore v.
Oamgee, sup.
Setting When the writ has been improperly granted in the first instance on the
aside writ. application of a stranger, and it does not appear that the inferior Court is
exceeding its jurisdiction, both with reference to the facts and to the law,
the superior Court has jurisdiction to set it aside : Chambers v. Qreen, 20
Eq. 552.
A prohibition to the Mayor's Court (formerly issued out of the Petty Bag
Office, which is now merged in the Central Office : R. S. C. Jan. 1889),
Proldbltion of Proceed inyft. 787
might be set aside on tho ground that the order for the goods and the delivery
both took place within the jurisdiction of that Court : see Taylor r, Jones,
1 C. P. D. 87 (following Dunlop v. Higgins, 1 H. L. C. 381 ; Evans v. Nichol-
son, 32 L. T. 778, that the letter containing an order speaks from the place
where and the time when it was posted). And as to what will give juris-
diction to Mayor's Court, see Josolyne v. Roberts, [1908] 2 K. B. 349 (action
on promissory note expressed to be payable at an address within the City
of London).
But though the writ has been improperly issued, it must be obeyed until
superseded : Iveson v. Harris. 7 Ves. 225.
As to the jurisdiction of a Judge at Chambers to set aside a writ of pro-
hibition issued out of the Petty Bag Office (merged since R. S. C. Jan. 1889,
in the Central Office), see Amstell v. Lesser, 16 Q. B. D. 187 ; and see Shortt,
490.
By Crown Office Rules, 1886, r. 229 : " All writs on the Crown side shall
be issued at the Crown Office Department of the Central Office."
As to the preparation, teste and return of such writs, see rr. 230 — 232.
POEM OE OKDEE.
As to the form of order, see 0. W. Ry. Co. v. Waterford and Limerick Ry,
Co., 17 Ch. D. 493, 511 ; E. and W. India Dock Co. v. Shaw, Savill and
Albion Co., 39 Ch. D. 524, 533.
In lieu of granting prohibition, the Court will, where it is " just or con-
venient," within Jud. Act, 1873, s. 25 (8), grant an injunction inter partes,
e.g., to restrain a landowner from taldng projceedings before justices on an
irregular notice under the Land Drainage Act, 1861 (24 & 25 V. c. 133) :
Hedley v. Bates, 13 Ch. D. 498.
COUNTY COITRT.
For the practice as to prohibitions directed to the County Courts, see
Pitt-Lewis, County Court Practice, 130 et seq. ; Annual County Court
Practice, p. 76 ; County Courts Practice, 216 ; Pollock & Nicol, 249 ;
and for the oases in which the writ will and ■i\'ill not issue, see Chit. Arch.
(Prentice) 1543 ; Shortt, 475 et seq. ; Annual County Court Practice Index,
tit. " Peoitibition."
By the County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 43), s. 127, any Judgs of
the High Court, as well during sittings as in vacation, may hear and deter-
mine appUcations for writs of proliibition to any County Court, and make
such orders as might have been made by the High Court.
By sect. 128, when an application is made to the High Court or a Judge
thereof for a writ of prohibition to be addressed to a County Court Judge,
the matter shall be finally disposed of by rule or order, and no declaration or
further proceedings in prohibition shall be allowed.
The County Court Judge is not to be served with notice of the apphcation,
nor, except by order of the High Court Judge, to be required to appear, or
liable to any order for payment of costs, but the application is to be heard in
the same manner as a County Court appeal. As to service of the order on,
or lodgment of the writ (if granted on an exp. application) with, the registrar
of the County Court, see sects. 129, 130.
By 0. Lix, 8a, every application for a prohibition to a County Court,
other than an application by the A. G., shall be brought by notice of motion
served on the parties to the proceedings in the County Court, or such of
them as may not be applicants for the prohibition. The mode of procedure
under this rule is alternative to that of applications in Chambers under
sect. 127, sup. : King v. Charing Cross Bank, 24 Q. B. D. 27.
A prohibition was granted against proceedings in the County Court to
restrain an amalgamation of a friendly society under 38 & 39 V. c. 60, before
any special resolution had been passed founding the jurisdiction under the
Act : Jones v. Slee, 32 Ch. D. 585, C. A. ; and for cases in which prohibition
788
Prohibition of Proceedings, [chap, xxxiil.
Appeal.
City of Lon-
don Court.
Salford
Hundred
Court.
went in respect of excess of jurisdiction by a County Court, see Eeg. v.
Lincolnshire County Court, 20 Q. B. D. 167 ; Beg. v. Shropshire County
Court, 20 Q. B. D. 242 ; Beg. v. Greenwich County Court, 37 W. R. 132 ; 60
L. T. 248 ; Kenyan v. Eastwood, 57 L. J. Q. B. 455.
Under the Cos. (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 131, sub-s. 6, the
County Court Judge in a winding-up has the powers of the High Court,
and therefore prohibition will not lie for an alleged excess of jurisdiction
by Mm : New Par ConsoU, Ld., [1898] 1 Q. B. 669, C. A.
An appeal lies without leave from the decision of a divisional Court upon
an application for a prohibition to a County Court, as sect. 128, sup., is to
be read as referring solely to applications to the High Court : Lister v.
Wood, 23 Q. B. D. 229, 0. A.
And by sect. 132, if the writ be refused by one Court or Judge, no other
Court or Judge may grant it ; but the right of appealing from the Judge
to the High Court itself is not affected, nor the right to make a second
application to the same Court on different grounds.
The decision of the Judge in Chambers, if not appealed from, is conclusive
in the County Court on the question of value : Symons v. Bees, 1 Ex. D.
416.
The City of London Court, notwithstanding the County Courts Act, 1888,
has jurisdiction to try an action when the Deft has employment within the
city though he does not dwell or carry on business there : Kutner v. Phillips,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 267.
As, to the jurisdiction of the Salford Hundred Court, where the want of
jurisdiction is not pleaded under the Salford Hundred Court of Record Act,
1868 (31 & 32 V. c. cxxx.), see Payne v. Hogg, [1900] 2 Q. B. 43, C. A
MAYOB S COUKT, LONDON.
Jurisdiction. As to jurisdiction and prohibition of proceedings in the Mayor's Court,
see Glyn and Jackson on the Mayor's Court Practice, 3rd ed.
The Superior Court is not bound to prohibit an action in the Mayor's
Court unless satisfied that no one entire cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction : Taylor v, Nicholls, 3 C. P. D. 242 (explaining Evans v.
Nicholson, 32 L. T. 778 ; Wallace v. Allan, 23 W. R. 703) ; and see Josolyne
V. Boberts, [1908] 2 K. B. 349.
When the Mayor's Court is proceeding without jiirisdiction — notwith-
standing the interpretation put upon the Mayor's Court Procedure Act,
1857 (20 & 21 V. c. clvii.), s. 15, in Manning v. Farquharson, 30 L. J. Q. B.
22 ; Baker v. Clark, L. R. 8 C. P. 121— the Deft in the Mayor's Court may
plead to the jurisdiction or may obtain a writ of prohibition : Jacobs v.
Brett, 20 Eq. 1 ; Mayor of London v. Cox, L. R. 2 H. L. 259 ; and see
Bridge v. Branch, 34 L. T. 905.
In cases within the Mayor's Court Procedure Act, 1857, s. 12 (debt under
£50, and Deft carrying on business and cause of action arising within the
City), the jurisdiction of the Mayor's Court is extended so as to exclude
prohibition : Hawes v. Paveley, 1 C. P. D. 418, C. A.
After the abandonment by Pit in the Mayor's Court of items in the action
not arising within that jurisdiction, the jiroliibition may be discharged, but
without costs : Ellis v. Fleming, 1 C. P. D. 237.
An action having been brought in the Mayor's Court and a counter-claim
set up which is beyond the jiirisdiction of that Court, that Court has no
power to deal with the counter-claim to the extent of the amount of the
Pit's claim : Davis v. Flagstaff Silver Mining Co., 3 C. P. D. 228 ; and
see Glyn and Jackson's Mayor's Court Practice.
Appeal. Sect. 89 of the Jud. Act, 1873, empowering inferior Courts to grant in any
proceeding relief, redress, or remedy as fully as the High Court might in
the like case, refers to the judgment, and not to the means of obtaining it.
Thus, the Mayor's Court cannot, on motion for a new trial, cUreet judgment
to be entered as a Judge of the High Court can under O. xl, 10 ; and where,
Proldbition of Proceedings. ' '89
judgment having beon so entered in the Mayor's Court, there was an error
on the face of the proceedings, appeal lay to the Court of Appeal (as
successors of Exch. Chamber) : Pryor v. Citij Offices Co., 10 Q. B. D. 504,
C. A.
And as to the practice in prohibition to the Mayor's Court, see also Chit.
Archb. 1546 ; Shortt, 471.
COSTS.
The costs of proceedings in prohibition were regulated by 1 W. 4, c. 21,
s. 1 (repealed by 46 & 47 V. c. 49). It was held that where the rule for a
prohibition was made absolute without pleadings, there was no " judgment "
within that section, so as to entitle to costs : Exp. Everton Overseers, L. K. 6
C. P. 245 ; Bex v. Keeling, 1 Dowl. 440 ; but see Evans v. Wills, 1 C. P. D.
229 ; and though the Court was not bound to award costs on making
absolute or discharging the order, it might do so if it thought proper :
Wallace v. Allen, L. R. 10 C. P. 607 ; Shortt, 497-
The right to grant prohibition not being a jurisdiction belonging ex-
clusively to the Crown side of the K. B. D., the High Court, in making a rule
absolute for a prohibition without pleadings, may make an order for costs :
Reg. V. Justices of County of London and London County Council, [1894]
1 Q. B. D. 453, C. A. ; Dan. 1393.
( 790 ) [chap. XXXIV.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
TRANSFER, CONSOLIDATION, AND REMOVAL.
Section I. — Transfer of Causes and Actions in the High
Court.
1. Order for Transfer of Cause or Action from one Judge to another
in Chancery Division — by Consent of Parties — 0. xlix, 1.
Upon the petition of &c. this day preferred unto his Lordship
and the solrs for &c. having subscribed the said petition signifying
their consent to the prayer thereof, Order that this action, which has
been assigned to Mr. Justice A., be transferred to Mr. Justice B.,
and that the same, when so transferred, be hereafter considered as
an action originally assigned to Mr. Justice B.
The petition for transfer is headed " In the High Court of Justice,
Chancery Division. The Lord Chancellor," and is left with the Lord
Chancellor's Secretary at the House of Lords to obtain his Lordship's fiat.
The petition is then lodged with the Senior Chancery Registrar by whom
the order is drawn up.
For order with costs, on the motion of Pit in the first of two creditors'
admon actions, for a transfer of the second action to the Judge by whom
the decree had been made in the first action, see Be Sharp, Bentall v. S.,
L. C, 16 Nov. 1876, B. 1738.
For various forms of application for transfer, see D. C. F. 989 et seq.
2. Transfer from one Judge to another of the Chancery Division on
Motion before the Lord Chancellor.
Upon motion &c., unto the Eight Hon. the Lord High Chancellor,
by counsel for the Deft, and upon hearing counsel for the Pit,
Order that this action, which has been assigned to Mr. Justice A.,
be transferred to Mr. Justice B. ; And it is ordered that the same
when so transferred be hereafter considered as an action originally
assigned to Mr. Justice B. — Hine-Haycock v. Hamerton, L. C, 16
Feb. 1888, A. 158.
Where such an order is granted or refused with costs the order ought not
to direct an immediate taxation, but should direct that the costs are to be
the costs of the successful party in any event.
3. Transfer from one Division to another Division — 0. xlix, 3.
Order that this action, commenced in the ( — ) Division of the
High Court of Justice, be transferred to the ( — ) Division of that
Court, if the President of that Division shall consent thereto.
SECT. I.J Transfer of Causes and Actions. 791
4. Transfer from King's Bench Division to Chancery Division,
where an Order has been made in the C. D. for Winding-up or
Administration — 0. xlix, 5.
Order that the action of A. v. B., 18 — &c., commenced in the
King's Bench Division, be transferred to the Chancery Division of
this Court, and be assigned to {name of Judge).
5. Transfer under 0. xlix, 6, of Summons issued under 0. lv,
3 and i.
Order that the summons issued on the — day &c., in which A. B.
is Pit and C. D. is Deft for the administration &c., the reference
to the record of which summons is &c., and is improperly marked with
the name of Mr. Justice A., be transferred to Mr. Justice B. — And
the costs of the said A. B. of the said action are to be dealt with in
this action. — Re Bright, Smith v. Bruce, Kay, J., at Chambers, 22
July, 1884, A. 1365.
6. Transfer from the Chancery Division to County Court —
Bankruptcy.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for A. B. and C. D., creditors of E. F.,
deceased, and upon hearing counsel for the Deft, This Court doth,
pursuant to section 125 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, without
prejudice to any application in Bankruptcy in respect of the rents
of the estate, received by the said A. B. and C. D. since the death of
the testator, E. F., order that this action, which is attached to the
Court of Mr. Justice A., be transferred to the County Court of &c.,
holden &c., and that all original documents filed herein be trans-
mitted to the said County Court. — Costs in action. — Re York,
Atkinson v. Powell, Stirling, J., 2 July, 1887, B. 945.
For a like order, see Re Edwards, Lovell v. E., 24 Sept. 1886, A. 1404.
7. Removal of Action from District Registry — 0. xxxv, 16.
Upon motion &c. by counsel for the Pit, This Court doth order that
this action be removed from the district registry at Derby to London.
—Buckston V. Rose, M. R., 18 Jan. 1876, A. 42.
8. Transfer by Court of Appeal from Lancaster Palatine Court to
High Court of Justice, Chancery Division — Jud. Act, 1873,
s. 18.
Order that this action be transferred to the Chancery Division
of the High Court of Justice, and be assigned to the Court of Mr.
Justice A., and the Defts T. and B. are to be at liberty to apply to
the Vice-Chancellor of the Court of the Chancery of the County
Palatine of Lancaster for an order directing the payment out of that
792 Transfer, Consolidation, and Removal, [chap, xxxiv.
Court to them of tte money standing to the credit of this action,
they by their counsel undertaking to pay the same into Court to the
credit of this action when so transferred. — And the costs of this
application and of such application to the Vice-Chancellor are to be
costs in the action.— PMyps v. Tod, C. A., 10 Nov. 1886, B. 1260.
NOTES.
TBANSFEK OF CAUSES AND ACTIONS.
The transfer of causes is provided for by Jud. Act, 1873, s. 63, and by
Jud. Act, 1875, s. 11, and 0. xlix.
By sect. 36, any cause or matter may at any time and stage, and with or
without application from any party, be transferred, by such authority and
in such manner as the rules may direct, from one Division or Judge of the
High Court to any other Division or Judge, or may be retained in the
Division in which the same was commenced, though not the proper Division
to which it should have been assigned.
By order By O. XLix, 1, causes or matters may be transferred from one Division to
of L. C. another of the High Court, or from one Judge to another of the Chancery
Division by an order of the L. C, but no transfer is to be made from or to
any Division without the consent of the President of the Division.
Transfer from By r. 3, " any cause or matter may, at any stage, be transferred from one
one Division Division to another by an order made by the Court or any Judge of the
to another. Division to which the cause or matter is assigned : provided that no such
transfer shall be made without the consent of the President of the Division
to which the cause or matter is proposed to be transferred."
Applications for the transfer of an action from one Division of the High
Court to another (which are usually made under r. 3) should be on notice,
and the sanction of the President of the Division to wliich the action is to be
transferred must be obtained before actual transfer : Humphreys v. Edwards,
45 L. J. Ch. 112.
Transfer after By r. 5, after an order foradmon of the assets of any testator or intestate
admon order, the Judge, in whose Court the admon shall be pending, has power, without
any further consent, to order a transfer to such Judge of any cause or
matter pending in any other Court or Division by or against the exors
or admors of the testator or intestate, whose assets are being so ad-
ministered.
As the rule only applies when the order " has been made," the order for
transfer should not be comprised in the judgment for admon : Re Poole,
Poole V. Poole, 55 L. T. 56.
Originating Byr. 6, " when any summons under 0. LV, 3, 4, shall have been marked
summons with the name of a Judge other than the Judge by r. 11 of the same order
improperly prescribed, such last-mentioned Judge shall, unless cause shall appear to
marked. \ava. to the contrary, without any further consent, order the transfer to such
Judge of the summons so improperly marked."
By r. 7, " any cause or matter transferred from any other Division to the
Chancery Division shall, by the order directing the transfer, be assigned to
one of the Judges of that Division to be named in the order."
By r. 8, " causes or matters pending in the same Division may be con-
solidated by order of the Court or a Judge in the manner in use before thft
commencement of the Jud. Act, in the Superior Courts of Common Law."
Jurisdiction The jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Court of Appeal in Chancery to
of Court direct a transfer from one Judge of the Court to another no longer exists,
of Appeal. even as to suits or matters pending before the new procedure : Re Hutley,
Re Boyd's Trusts, 1 Ch. D. 11, 12, C. A. ; and see Ooddard v. Thompson, 47
L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 38 L. T. 166 ; 26 W. R. 362.
Whether the Court of Appeal can order a transfer without the consent of
the Presidents of both the Divisions, i.e., from and to which the transfer is
made, qucere ; Storey v. Waddle, 4 Q. B. D. 289, C. A.
SECT. I.J Transfer of Causes and Actions. 793
In the ease of a transfer to tlie Chancery Division, the L. C. will direct Procedure,
the transfer on a written application to his secretary, aooompanied by the
written consent of all parties. When the parties do not consent, the
application must be made to the L. C. personally : see Memorandum,
1 Ch. D. 41.
The application is usually in the form of a petition to the L. C, which is
left with the secretary after the written consents of all parties have been
obtained. When the L. C.^s flat has been obtained, the petition is taken to
the senior registrar, who draws up the order, which is then left at the Writ
Department, Central Office, for entry in the cause book. Where the
application is opposed it is usually made by motion : see Dan. 1615 ;
D. C. F. 990, 991.
On transfer from the K. B. Division the proper officer of the Writ Depart-
ment will, on production of the order, send a receipt to the Master, who will
file the order and receipt, and transmit the proceedings filed with him to be
filed in the Chancery Division.
A similar course will be pursued on a transfer from the Chancery to
another Division.
On an application under O. xlix, 1, for the transfer of an action in the
Chancery Division to another Judge of that Division, the L. C. has not
jurisdiction to stay the action, but simply to determine whether or not it
is to be transferred : Re Sharp, Bentall v. S., L. C, 16 Nov. 1876, Reg. Min.
Fo. 112.
Although it was stated (2nd Nov. 1876) that a transfer from the Chancery Grounds for
to the K. B. Division would not be ordered merely because the action application.
was one for trial by jury, or for damages only (see Cannot v. Morgan, 1 Ch.
D. 1), actions involving questions of fact proper for the decision of a
mercantile jury will not, it seems, be retained in the Chancery Division : see
China, &c. Co. v. Marine Insurance Co., 1881, W. N. p. 89. So also,
actions for an account, being properly triable in the Chancery, will not be
transferred to the K. B. D. : Ladd "v. Puleston, 31 W. R. 539, 802 ; 52
L. J. Ch. 816 ; but a petition for revocation of patent, where an action
between the parties was pending in the K. B. D., was transferred to that
Division : Re Edge, 38 W. R. 698 ; 63 L. T. 370.
The fact that the action is by A. G. does not preclude transfer, as the
choice of forum is primd facie left to the relator : A. 0. v. Wilson, 1901,
W. N. 5, C. A. ; 83 L. T. 646 ; 49 W. R. 195.
A transfer from the K. B. D. to the Ch. D. has been ordered in an action
by a purchaser for a return of deposit where there was a counter-claim by
Deft for specific performance involving an inquiry as to title : Holloway v.
York, 2 Ex. D. 333, C. A. ; London Land Co. v. Harris, 13 Q. B. D. 540 ; in
an action to recover land where Deft counter-claimed for specific perform-
ance of a contract to grant a lease : Hillman v. Mayhew, 1 Ex. D. 132 ;
though the mere fact that there is a counter-claim for specific performance is
not a sufficient ground for ordering a transfer : Storey v. Waddle, 4 Q. B. D.
289, C. A. ; and in an action against an exor for devastavit : Re Timms, 47
L. J. Ch. 831 ; 38 L. T. 679 ; 26 W. R. 692 ; in an action for accounts and
winding-up of partnership : Leslie v. Clifford, 50 L. T. 590 ; but see contra.
Warns v. Dell, 1875, W. N. 259 ; and against a married woman on a
guaranty to charge her separate estate : Anon., 1876, W. N. 22.
But in an action by represve of deceased mortgagee for balance of money
lent, a transfer was refused on the ground that the accounts could be more
conveniently taken before the official referee than before the chief clerk :
NewbouU V. Sleade, 49 L. T. 649.
That the ground of action and the principles on which it is to be decided
are not altered by the transfer, see Noble v. Edwardes, 5 Ch. D. 378, 393,
C. A. ; The Gertrude, 13 P. D. 105, 109, C. A.
By O. Liv, 12 (c), the removal of actions from one Division or Judge to Jurisdiction
another is excepted from the jurisdiction of the Masters of the K. B. D., and of Masters
from that of the registrars of the Probate, &c. Division, and probate
registrars.
794 Transfer, Consolidation, and Removal, [chap, xxxiv.
Palatine The jurisdiction to transfer from the Palatine Court of Lancaster to the
Court. High Court is vested in the Court of Appeal by the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 18.
A transfer from the Palatine Court to the High Court was ordered where
the principal Deft, whose conduct was specially impeached, had ceased to
reside within the jurisdiction of the former Court : Coohe v. Smith, 44 Ch. D.
72, C. A.
Bankruptcy. By the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, s. 125 (4), where proceedings Iiave been
commenced for the admon of a deceased debtor's estate, jurisdiction is
conferred without the application of any creditor (see Bankruptcy Act,
1890, s. 21), on proof that the estate is insolvent, to transfer the proceedings
to the Court exercising jurisdiction in bankruptcy.
Jurisdiction The exercise of this jurisdiction is discretionary : Re Baker, Nichols v. B.,
discretionary. 44 Cli. D. 262, C. A. ; and serrible, the applicant must, before the order can
be made, have proved his debt : Be Weaver, 29 Ch. D. 236 ; but the transfer
may be ordered after judgment for admon : Be York, Atkinson v. Powell, 36
Ch. D. 233 ; Senhouse v. Mawson, 52 L. T. 745.
The existence of an exor's right of retainer, or the fact that he has
exercised his liberty not to plead the Statute of Limitations, are not grounds
for ordering a transfer : Be Baker, 44 Ch. D. 262, 271, C. A.
COMMERCIAL CATJSES.
The (so-called) Commercial Court was established not for the trial of all
commercial causes, or of short causes only, but of causes which are likely
to be more speedily, economically, and satisfactorily tried by a Judge
specially versed in mercantile transactions ; accordingly, a, cause will not
be transferred from the Ch. D. to the K. B. D. merely because it is a com-
mercial cause : BaerleinY. Chartered MercamtileBanh, [1895] 2 Ch. 488, C. A.
The Court has not originated under the authority of the Rule Committee,
but by a practice agreed upon by the Judges of the K. B. D., who have the
right to deal, by convention amongst themselves, with the mode of disposing
of the business of their Courts : see judgment of Esher, M. R., Barry v.
Peruvian Corp., [1896] 1 Q. B. 208, C. A., at p. 209.
An appeal will lie against an order for entry of a cause in the commercial
list : »9ea Ins. Co. v. Carr, [1901] 1 K. B. 7, C. A.
REMOVAL or ACTION FEOM DISTRICT REGISTRY.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 65, any party to an action in which the writ shall
issue from any district registry may apply to the Court, or a Judge of the
Division to which the action may be assigned, to remove the proceedings
from such district into the High Court ; and the Court or Judge may grant
such application, and any proceedings or documents filed therein shall, on
receipt of such order, be transmitted by the district registrar to the proper
oifice of the said High Court, and the action shall thenceforth proceed there.
As to the circumstances under whiuh an action proceeding in the district
registry may be removed as of right, see O. xxxv, 13.
When the proceedings are commenced by originating summons an order
to remove the action from the district registry to London is discretionary
under r. 16 : In re Thwaites, Yerburgh v. Aston, 1890, W. N.' 218 ; 63 L. T.
747 (in which case, an important part of the property being in Lancashire,
and three of the trustees appointed by the will being Lancashire men,
transfer to London was refused).
Chancery actions commenced in district registries ought to be tried in
London before the Judge of the Division to whom they have been assigned :
Be Smith, Hutchinson v. Ward, 6 Ch. D. 692 ; and, except under special
circumstances, the costs of such actions will be taxed by the taxing master
in London : Day v. Whitaker, ib. 734 ; Be Wilson, W. v. Alltree, 27 Ch. D.
242 ((/. V. at p. 244 as to the practice where an order for taxation in the
district registry was made).
SECT. II.] Consolidation and Stay of Proceedings. 795
Section II. — Consolidation and Stay of Proceedings.
1. Common Form oj Order for Consolidation.
Order that these actions be consolidated and do proceed as one
action.
2. Order to stay One oj Two Creditors' Actions, with Leave to prove
in the other, and as to Costs.
Order that all proceedings in the second action be stayed ; And
it is ordered that the costs of the Pit A., of the said second action,
up to the time he had notice of the judgment in the first action,
dated &c., including his costs of this application, be taxed &c. ;
[If assets not denied by affidavit, And it is ordered that such costs when
taxed be paid to the said A. by the Deft B., the exor [or admor] of
the testator [or intestate] C, out of the assets of the said C. (in a due
course of admon) ; And it is ordered that the said A. be at liberty to
go in under the said judgment, and prove his claim against the assets
of the said C. ; If assets denied, And it is ordered that the said A.
be at liberty to add his costs to his claim against the assets of the
said C, and to go in and prove the same, and the amount of his said
costs, when taxed, under the said decree, dated &c.]. — Deft's costs
of the application to be costs in the first action. — See Canham v.
Neale, M. R., 7 July, 1858, A. 1798 ; S. C, 13 Dec. 1858, A. 397 ;
26 Beav. 266 ; West v. Swinburne, V.-C. K. B., 6 Dec. 1849, B. 478 ;
19 L. J. Ch. 81 ; Duffort v. Arrowsmith, 7 D. M. & G. 434 ; and see
Re Clark, Cumberland v. Clark, V.-C. S., 24 Jan. 1867 ; 4 Ch. 412.
In this case on appeal the words " in a due course of administration "
were treated as being expressed. See judgment of L. J. Selwyn, 4 Ch.
p. 413.
For forms of application, see D. C. F. 986, 987.
3. Proceedings stayed in First Action after Judgment in the Second
■ — Carriage of Judgment given to Pit in the First.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the Pits in the first action, and
upon hearing counsel for the Pits in the second action, and for the
Defts (executors) in both actions, and upon reading the judgment
dated &c., in the second action, and an affidavit of &c.. This Court
doth order that all further proceedings in the first action be stayed ;
and that the Pits in that action be at liberty to attend all proceedings
under the judgment in the second action ; and that the carriage of
the said judgment and of the said second action be committed to
the Pits in the first action ; And it is ordered that the costs of the
Pits and Defts in the first action of that action, including their costs
of this application, and the costs of the Pits in the second action of
this application, be costs in the second action. — See Drury v. Thorn,
V.-O. W., 26 June, 1873, A. 1669.
For order staying a creditor's admon action, and giving the conduct of
the admon to the exors, who had first obtained in a subsequent action a
796 Transfer, Consolidation, and Removal, [chap, xxxiv.
full admon decree, with liberty for the creditor to come in and establish his
claim in the exors' action, see Be Smith's Estate, M'Murray v. Mathew,
V.-C. B., 27 Jan. 1876, B. 283 ; 33 L. T. 804.
For order staying proceedings in an action by an equitable mortgagee, to
establish a charge on testator's estate, but giving the conduct of the admon
decree which had been obtained in a creditor's action (subsequent in date)
to Pit in the first action, see Matthews v. M., Willyams v. M., V.-C. B.,
26 May, 1876, 45 L. J. Ch. 711.
For order to stay creditor's suit, after decree in suit by residuary legatees,
and the exors not making affidavit of no assets to pay the creditor's costs up
to notice of the decree, see Golder v. (?., 9 Ha. 278 ; 8.C., note.
For order giving Pit in first action (in Palatine Court) the conduct of the
second action (in the High Court), and in which a decree was first obtained
for admon of the same estate, he giving an undertaking to stay proceedings
in the first action, see Re Swire, Mellor v. S., 19th April, 1882, B. 895 ;
21 Ch. D. 647, C. A.
i. On Motion for Stay and Motion for Judgment— Order for Con-
solidation of Causes — Additional Inquiry.
Upon motion by Defts for stay of the second action, and that the
Pit in that action might attend the proceedings in the first action —
and upon motion for judgment in the second action. — ^Direction
that the trusts of the testator's will be performed ; And it is ordered
that the judgment made in the first action, dated &c., and the
accounts and inquiries thereby directed, and the several proceedings
thereunder, be carried on and prosecuted in the first action, and in
the second action at the same time ; And it is ordered that in addition
to the inquiries directed by the said judgment, the following further
inquiry be made, that is to say, — ^An inquiry in whom the shares of
the children or grandchildren of the testator, or any interest therein,
are now vested. — ^Adjourn further consideration ; And it is ordered
that both actions be heard on further consideration together. —
Costs of motion (to stay) to be costs in both actions. — ^Liberty to
apply. — Hoskins v. Campbell, and Gibbon v. Campbell, V.-C. W.,
9 Feb. 1864, A. 280 ; 2 H. & M. 43.
The additional inquiry should be numbered so as to follow those in the
judgment, 0. xxxiii, 7.
5. Parties consenting to Add an Inquiry in County Palatine Action,
Conduct of Inquiry given to Plaintiff in High Court Action
and proceedings in High Court Action stayed.
The said S. (Pit in Palatine Action), by his counsel imdertaking to
procure, and the Pit and the Defts in this action by their counsel
undertaking to assent to the addition of the following inquiry to
the judgment in S. v. T., that is to say, — ^An inquiry whether &c.. This
Court doth order that the Pit in this action do have the conduct of
the said inquiry ; And it is ordered that all proceedings in this action
be stayed. — ^All costs to be dealt with by the Judge of the Palatine
Comt.—Tou-nsend v. T., C. A., 23 Feb. 1883, B. 293 ; 23 Ch. D.
100, C. A.
SECT. II.] Consolidation and Stay of Proceedings. 797
6. Test Action — Enlargement of Time for Statement of Claim.
Upon motion &c., by counsel for the Pits in all the above-mentioned
actions, and upon hearing counsel for the Defts in the said actions,
and the Pits in all the said actions by their counsel undertaking that,
so far as they are respectively concerned, the above-mentioned action
of A. V. B. shall be treated as a test action, and decide their rights in
all the other actions respectively as against themselves, but if the
Defts in any of the other actions decline to accept the judgment in the
said action of A. v. B. as deciding the said other actions, or any of
them, as to any other of such of the said other actions in which the
said Defts shall decline to accept the judgment in the said action of
A. V. B., such other actions are to go to trial respectively, and the Pits
and Defts are both to be at liberty, if they think fit, to use as evidence
at the trial of such actions respectively any evidence used at the trial
of the said test action, and the Pits in the said test action, and in the
action of C. v. D., by their counsel undertaking that the said actions
shall be prosecuted with due diligence, This Court doth order that
the time for the delivery of the statement of claim in the above-
mentioned actions (other than the said test action and the action
of C. V. D.) respectively be enlarged untU fourteen days after the
judgment shall have been given in the said test action on the trial
thereof.— ^wos v. Chadwick, V.-C. M., 23 Feb. 1877, A. 585 ; and see
BennM v. Lord Bury, 5 C. P. D. 339, at p. 340.
NOTES.
JURISDICTION.
The efiect of the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 24 (5), is to take away the right Consolida-
formerly exercised in Chancery of granting an injunction to stay proceedings tion.
at law, or in another Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction : see Oarbidt v.
Fawcus, I Ch. D. 155, C. A. ; and, under the present practice, when two
actions relating to the same subject-matter liave been commenced in
different Divisions, they will be consolidated in that Division to which the
real question at issue has been assigned by Jud. Act, 1873, h. 34 : Holmes v.
Hervey, 25 W. E. 80 ; 35 L. T. 600 ; Hillman v. Mayheiv, 1 Ex. D. 132 ;
Holloway v. York, 2 Ex. D. 333, C. A.
But in winding-up cases, the power given by the Companies (Consolida- Winding-up
tion) Act, 1908, ss. 140, 149, 193, to stay proceedings against a co. by eases.
creditors after the presentation of a winding-up petition, or after the
commencement of a voluntary winding-up, is unafEected by tlie proliibition
contained in sect. 24 (5), and falls within the subsequent proviso which gives
power to stay proceedings upon some ground which is unconnected with
the cause of action or counter-claim {e.g., a winding-up order) : see Garhiilt
v. Fawcus, 1 Ch. D. 159, C. A. ; Needham v. Rivers Protection Co., 1 Ch. D.
253 ; Re Stapleford Colliery Co., 24 W. R. 173 ; United Kingdom, &c. Co.,
24 W. R. 546, 693.
And the exercise of this power is not confined to the Ch. D. : Rose v.
Garden Lodge Co., 3 Q. B. D. 235 ; Walker v. Banaghar, &c. Co., 1 Q. B. D.
129 ; Moore v. City and County Bank, 1875, W. N. 240.
The application for a stay of proceedings is to be made to the Division in
which the action or proceeding to be restrained is ponding : Re Artistic
Colour Printing Co., 14 Ch. D. 502 ; Buckley, 328 ; and this rule has not
been altered by the Cos. (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (now replaced by the
798 Transfer, Consolidation, and Removal. [cnAP. xxxiv.
Coys. (Consolidation) Act, 1908) : In re General Service Co-operative Co.,
[1891] 1 Ch. 496. In actions other than those in the High Court the
application is to be made to the winding-up Judge : Companies
(Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 140.
As to the power generally of restraining proceedings against the co. after
the presentation of a winding-up petition (Companies (Consolidation) Act,
1908, S3. 140, 265, 270), or after the commencement of a voluntary winding-
up (ss. 186, 193), see Buckley, 327.
Where an order has been made under sect. 120 of the Companies (Con-
solidation) Act, 1908, for meetings of the creditors and shareholders of a
CO., a stay of execution by a judgment creditor against the co. was refused,
the CO. not being in liquidation and the meetings not having been held :
Booth V. Walkden, [1909] 2 K. B. 368.
WINDIKG-UP OF COMPANY.
Orders by By O. XLix, 6, where an order has been made by any Judge of the
Judge in Chancery Division for the winding-up of any co., the Judge in whose
\rinding-up Court such winding-up shall be pending shall have power, without any
ot CO. further consent, to order the transfer to such Judge of any cause or matter
pending in any other Court or Division brought or continued by or against
such CO.
As to the alteration effected by this rule, which substitutes " cause or
matter " for " action " in the former rule (0. li, 2a), so as now to enable a
Judge who has made an order on one petition to direct the transfer to his
own branch of the Court of a petition pending in another branch of the
Court, see Buckley, 348.
And see Winding-up Rules, 1909, r. 42, which permits a transfer of an
action by a mortgagee or debenture holder for realizing his security or of
an action not brought to enforce payment of a debt or demand provable
in the winding-up.
Transfer or stay of an action against a liquidator personally, though in
respect of the business of the co., will not be ordered : Ee Original Hartlepool
Collieries Co., 51 L. J. Ch. 508 ; Be Thames Steam Ferry Co., 27 W. R. 503 ;
40 L. T. 422 ; secus, an action in respect of a rent-charge affecting land
vested in liquidators in their official names, under an order of the Court :
Graham v. Edge, 20 Q. B. D. 683, C. A.
On an application to stay proceedings in an action against a co. in volun-
tary liquidation, the Judge and the Master in Chambers have jurisdiction
to order the Pit to pay the costs of the application : Freeman v. General
Publishing Co., Ld., 42 W. R. 539.
PEOCBEDIKOS IN CEIMINAL COUET.
Proceedings in a criminal Court would not be restrained by the Court of
Chancery, unless the criminal proceeding was of the same nature, and for
the same identical purpose, as the suit in Chancery: Saull v. Browne, 10 Ch.
64 ; Kerr v. Preston Corp., 6 Ch. D. 463 ; nor proceedings before magis-
trates, when by the legislature they have been appointed the special tribunal
for determining the matter in hand : Standard v. St. Giles' Vestry, 20 Ch. D.
190, C. A. ; unless in very special circumstances : Grand Junction Water-
works Co. V. Hampton Urhan District Council, [1898] 2 Ch. 331 ; Lord
Auckland v. W. District B.W.,7 Ch. 597.
But under the Cos. (Consolidation) Act, 1908, s. 140, the Court has power
to restrain proceedings at the police court to recover penalties under the
Cos. (Consolidation) Act, 1908, and Life Assur. Cos. Act, 1870, pending a
petition for winding up the co. : Briton Mutual Assce. Assoc., 32 Ch. D. 503.
PEACTICE QENEEALLY.
With respect to staying and consolidating causes, the practice, which in
this respect is not substantially altered, has been that where two or more
SJ5CT. II.] Consolidation and Staij of Proceedings. 7^19
suits relating to the same subject-matter are pending in different branches
of the Court, proceedings in one or more of tliem have been stayed : see
Dan. 1664 ; Morg. 446.
Or a suit commenced in one branch of the Court, when another relating
to the same subject-matter is pending in another branch, will be transferred
to the latter. And the Pit who, knowing of the first, has instituted the
second suit, must pay the costs of the application to transfer ; but, before
moving, the Pit in the first should apply for a consent to the transfer :
LycM V. Weldhen, 9 Ch. 287 ; Sayers v. Oorrie, ib. 52 ; Orrell v. Busch,
5 Ch. 467. And the application of this rule is not affected by the circum-
stance that a decree has been made in the second suit : Lucas v. Siggers,
7 Ch. 517.
So also a party who refuses on insufficient grounds to consent to the
transfer from one Court to another may be ordered to pay costs, if the
notice of motion asks for them : Cocq v. Hunasgeria Co., 4 Ch. 415 ; Be
Sharp, S. v. Bentall, sup. pp. 790, 793 ; Houseman v. H., 1 Ch. D. 535.
Where both the consolidated actions proceed, the titles of both are
retained, but only one set of pleadings is delivered : see Martin v. Martin
6 Co., [1897] 1 Q. B. 429.
When by general order a cause has been transferred from one Judge (of
the Chancery Division) to another, a retransfer will not be ordered, except
by consent, where it would delay the hearing : Piatt v. Walter, 1 Ch. 471.
The application to consolidate is by motion or under the summons for
directions : Dan. 26.
ADMBSnCSTRATIOJSr ACTIONS.
The question of consolidating concurrent actions in respect of the same Concurrent
subject-matter by a transfer to the same branch of the Court (Division), or actions,
by directing wliich action shall proceed, and of staying the others, arises
most frequently, in the Chancery Division, in admon proceedings. A
decree for admon of assets being in the nature of a judgment for all the
creditors, under which they may all come in and obtain payment, a creditor
was stayed from proceeding at law to recover his debt : Paxton v. Douglas,
8 Ves. 521 ; Jackson v. Leaf, IJ. & W. 231 ; Drewry v. Thacker, 3 Swa. 541 ;
but a creditor who has obtained judgment against the exor before judgment
in an admon action cannot be restrained from enforcing his judgment : Be
Womersley, Etheridge v. W., 29 Ch. D. 557 ; the receiver in that action being,
however, directed to pay the debt and costs, without prejudice to the
question whether they were to be allowed to the exor : 8. 0. ; and see
Pennell v. Boy, 3 D. M. & G. 126 ; Carron Co. v. Maclaren, 5 H. L. C. 416,
440, for a statement of the principles on which a creditor's action after admon
decree was stayed. And similarly, to prevent the estate from being wasted
by a multiplicity of litigation, more than one action for admon of the same
estate will not be allowed to proceed.
The practice has been to allow that action in which a decree has first been Practice as
obtained to proceed, and to stay the other unless such decree has been to staying
" snapped " or unfairly obtained, or the second action has been improperly proceedings,
instituted : Harris v. Oandy, 1 D. P. & J. 13 ; Frost v. Ward, 2 D. J. & S.
70 ; Shades v. Barret, 12 Eq. 479 ; or unless more complete and beneficial
relief is sought by and can be obtained in the second action : Be McBae,
Forster v. Davis, 25 Ch. D. 16 ; Budgen v. 8age, 3 M. & Cr. 683 ; Taylor v.
Southgate, 4 M. & Cr. 203 ; Underwood v. Jee, 1 Mac. & G. 276 ; Pickford v.
Hunter, 5 Sim. 122 (in which case the decree in the first suit, being less
beneficial than that which could be obtained in the second, was not allowed
to be pleaded in bar) ; Plunkett v. Lewis, 11 Sim. 379 ; Be Yates, 3 D. J. &
S. 402 ; Hoskins v. Campbell, 2 H. & M. 43 ; Be Smith's Estate, M' Murray
V. Mathew, 33 L. T. 804 ; or unless questions other than those of simple
admon, e.g., breaches of trust or charges of wilful default, are raised in the
action in which a judgment has not been first obtained : see Zarnbaco v.
Cassavetti, 11 Eq. 439.
800
Transfer, Consolidation, and Removal, [chap. XXXIV.
Infants Pits.
Palatine
Court actions,
Admon and
partnership.
Admor
displaced.
A second and more comprehensive suit has been stayed upon the Deft in
the first (the admor) undertaking not to object to any additions to the decree
thought fit to be made by the Judge in Chambers : Qwyer v. Peterson, 26
Beav. 83 ; Matthews v. Palmer, 11 W. R. 610 ; and see Vanrenen v. Piffard,
13 W. R, 425 ; 11 L. T. 766 ; and Form 5, p. 796.
And where infants are Pits, that suit will, cwteris paribus, be preferred in
which the mother is next friend : Harris v. //., 10 W. R. 31 ; or that which
is most for their benefit : Virtue v. Miller, 19 W. R. 406 ; and see Frost v.
Ward, 2 D. J. & S. 70.
Two admon suits having been instituted, one in the Palatine Court in
which a decree was first made, and the other in the Court of Chancery, the
latter Court refused to stay the proceedings before it, as the entire property
to be administered was not within the jurisdiction of the Palatine Court,
though if it had been, a staj' would, it seems, have been granted : Wynne v.
Hughes, 26 Beav. 377 ; and see Bradley v. Stelfox, 1 N. R. 221.
Where an admon action and a partnership action by testator's surviving
partner were in difierent branches of the Court, the partnership action was
transferred : Davis v. -D., 48 L. J. Ch. 40.
An admor whose title after obtaining an admon decree has been displaced,
will be liable, by not submitting to an application to stay proceedings in his
suit, to the costs of such application, and will not get the costs of his own
suit : Houseman v. H., 1 Ch. D. 535.
CONDUCT OF ACTION.
After consolidation of actions for the same object, and difference of
opinion between the joint Pits as to the course to be adopted, the conduct
was given to those of the Pits who had not been the first to take steps for
severance, though their interest in the subject-matter was smaller : Holden
V. Silkstone Co., 30 W. R. 98 ; 45 L. T. 531.
If the first action is stayed by reason of a decree in a second action first
obtained, the conduct of the proceedings will generally be given to the Pit
in the first action : Zamhaco v. Cassavetli, 11 Eq. 439 ; Kenyan v. K., 35
Beav. 300 ; Belcher v. B., 2 Dr. & S. 444 ; Frost v. Ward, 2 D. J. & S. 70 ;
and this rule applies though the first action was in the Palatine Court, and
the second (in which the decree was obtained) in the Chancery Division :
Re Swire, Mellor v. S., 21 Ch. D. 647, 655, C. A. ; and see Townsend v. T.,
23 Ch. D. 100, C. A. : Be Connolly Bros., Ltd., [I91I] I Ch. 731.
And the order has been made upon terms of adding to the judgment
inquiries in respect of questions raised in the action stayed : see Matthews v.
M., 34 L. T. 718 ; Townsend v. T., 23 Ch. D. 100, C. A. ; Form 5, mip.
p. 796 ; Drury v. Thorn, sup.. Form 3, p. 795.
In applying the rule, special circumstances will be regarded, e.g., the
amount of the interest of the Pit in the first action, and his object in bringing
it : Be Swire, sup. ; but the fact that the first Pit was a purchaser of rever-
sionary interests, and that some of the purchases were disputed, was not
ground for depriving him of the conduct. But where the claim of the second
Pit is admitted and that of the first Pit bona fide disputed, conduct of the
proceedings was refused to the first Pit : Be Boss, [1907] 1 Ch. 483.
Or the first suit may be partially stayed, with liberty to Pit to prove
under the decree in the second for what he might eventually establish in
the first : Dryden v. Foster, 6 Beav. 146 ; see also Smith's Estate, M^Murray
v. Mathew, 33 L. T. 804 ; Crowle v. Bussell, 4 C. P. D. 186.
And see, on this question, " Administeation," Chap. XLIV., inf. p,
1461.
In the case of cross actions, there is no inflexible rule in favour of the
first Pit : Thomson v. S. E. By. Co., 9 Q. B. D. 320, C. A., where the action
by the Pits, on whom the burden of proof lay, was allowed to proceed.
For form of summons for conduct of action, see D. C. F. 538.
SECT. III.] Removal of Causes and Actions. 801
TEST ACTION.
The practice of selecting which of several actions shall proceed has been
also adopted in patent cases, su'p. p. 640 ; and when the patentee is
suing several infringers simultaneously, one action has been selected as a test
action, and proceedings in the others stayed upon an undertaking by the
several Defts to abide the result of the selected suit : Foxwell v. Webster, 4
D. J. & S. 77 ; Amos v. Chadwick, 4 Ch. D. 869, sup. p. 797. Although the order
contained no express provision to that effect, the Court has power to sub-
stitute another of the actions as the test action, where the original action
has by some accident failed to be a real trial of the matters in issue therein :
S.C.,9 Ch. D. 459 ; followed in Bennett v. Ld. Bury, 5 C. P. D. 339, where
thirty-eight actions had been brought against the Defts as directors of a co,
in respect of sums deposited for investment ; and see Colledge v. Pike,
56 L. T. 124.
Upon neglect of Deft in a test action to appeal, another Deft in another
action was substituted : Briton Medical Life Assur. Soc. v. Jones, 60 L. T,
637. And see Bovill v. Crate, 1 Eq. 388.
PBEVAIENCE OP PEAOTICE.
The practice of consolidating proceedings has also been adopted :
• — ^in the House of Lords : Re Ooregum Gold Mining Co. of India, Roper v.
Wallroih, Wallroth v. Roper, [1892] A. C. 125 ;
— ^in the Privy Council : see Re A. O. of Victoria, L. R. IP. C. 147 ;
Hiddingh v. Denysaen, 12 App. Ca. 107 ;
—in the K. B. D. ; see Chitty's Arch. 407 ;
— ^in the Probate and Admiralty Division : see The Melpomene, L. R.
4 A. & E. 129 ; The Helen R. Cooper, L. R. 3 A. & E. 339 ; The
Never Despair, 9 P. D. 34 ;
— in the Court of Bankruptcy : see Exp. Mackenzie, 20 Eq. 758 ; and
B. Act, 1883, s. 106 ; Wace, 322, 364 ; Wms. on Bkcy. 323.
Section III. — Removal op Causes and Actions feom and to
Inferior Courts — Certiorari.
1. Order for Writ of Certiorari to remove Action from Mayor's
Court into Chancery Division of High Court.
Order that a writ of certiorari do issue directed to the Lord Mayor
of the City of London and his brethren the Aldermen thereof, to
certify and remove the plaint in the above-mentioned action now
depending on the common law \or equity] side of the Mayor's Courts
London, with the process and all proceedings therein from out of the
said Mayor's Court into the Chancery Division of this Court ; And it
is ordered that the proper officer do receive and file the same ; And
it is ordered that the said action when removed be assigned to
Mr. Justice A., and be continued and prosecuted in this Court in the
same manner as if it had been originally commenced therein and
assigned to the said Judge.
VOL. I. 3 F
802 Transfer, Consolidation, and Removal, [chap, xxxiv.
2. Transfer from High Court to County Court under County Court
Act, 1888.
Order that this action, which has beea assigned to Mr. Justice A.,
be transferred to the County Court of &c., holden &c.
There is no necessity to direct transmission of documents to the County
Court, as this is provided for under the Practice Master's Rules.
For forms of application, &c., see D. C. F. 994 et seq.
3. Re-transfer from High Court to County Court.
Order that this cause {or action), which was instituted in the
County Court of — , holden at • — , and which was transferred to this
Court by the order dated the — day of — , be re-transferred to the
said County Court of — , holden at — , and be carried on and prose-
cuted in the said County Court [{if so) notwithstanding the subject-
matter thereof exceeds the limit in point of amount to which the
jurisdiction of the County Courts is Kmited].
It is not necessary to add a direction to the Masters to return the papers :
Hartley v. Barber, V.-C. M., 23 Jan. 1873, A. 61.
4. Certiorari to remove Plaint from County Court to the
High Court.
This Court {or the Judge) being of opinion that it is desirable that
the said matter should be tried in the High Court, doth, pursuant to
51 & 52 V. c. 43, s. 126, order that a writ of certiorari do issue to
remove the said plaint. No. &c., between &c., from the County Court
of &c., holden at &c., into the Chancery Division of this Court ; And
the Masters of the Supreme Court of Judicature are to receive and
file the same ; And it is ordered that the said plaint when removed
be assigned to Mr. Justice A., and be continued and prosecuted in
this Court in the same manner as if it had been originally commenced
therein and assigned to the said Judge. — Haytnen v. Cooper, Chitty,
J., 20 May, 1890, A. 758.
5. Certiorari Absolute in the First Instance to remove Action after
Judgment from County Court to High Court.
Order that a writ of certiorari do issue to remove the plaiut between
the said C. and B. as Pits against E. as Deft, from the County Court
of Sussex, holden at Brighton, together with the record of the judg-
ment thereon obtained in the said Court, into the Chancery Division
of this Court, and the Masters of the Supreme Court of Judicature
are to receive and file the same. — OMpperfield v. Rilst, M. K. at
Chambers, 18 Nov. 1879, A. 2174.
SECT. iii.J Removal of Causes and Actions. 803
6. Cause to proceed in County Court notwithstanding Subject-matter
exceeds Limit.
By consent, Order that this suit be carried on and prosecuted in
the County Court of &c., holden at — , notwithstanding the subject-
matter thereof exceeds the limit in point of amount of which the
jurisdiction of the County Courts is limited by the (County Court
Act, 1888).— Tiffin v. Mains, V.-C. M., at Chambers, 7 March, 1876,
B. 566.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 1001,
NOTES.
REMOVING PEOCEEDINGS PKOM INFEKIOR COURT — CERTIORARI.
For the practice as to bills of certiorari in Chancery where an equitable
right was sued for in an inferior Court, and by reason of the limited juris ■
diction the Deft could not have complete justice, or the cause was not within
such jurisdiction, see Dan. 1628 ; L. Red. p. 60 (ed. 1847).
And as to the bond to be entered into, and where the facts did not appear,
the inquiry whether the suggestions of the bill were proved, see Dan., 5th
ed., p. 1431 ; and as to obtaining the certiiicate enlarging the time, and
appljdng to vary it, see 76. 1432, and Davies v. MacHenry, 3 Ch. 200, and
cases there cited ; and see Lord Bacon's Orders, r. 19 ; 1 Sanders, 112.
Under the Jud. Acts the proceeding by bill of certiorari is abolished by Jud. Acts.
0. 1, 1 ; and the practice as to issuing this writ in Chancery is now similar
to that of the other Divisions of the High Court : see Re Royal Liver Friendly
Soc, 25 Ch. D. 332.
For the practice liitherto followed as to issuing this writ, the effect of Practice,
which is instantly to suspend the power of the inferior Couit in the cause
which it removes ; and the proceedings under it in the Superior Courts of
Common Law at Westminster ; and for the form of the writ, and in what
cases bail is required, and when leave to issue the writ is necessary, see lb.
Chit. Arch. 1557, &c.
As to the removal of plaints from the County Courts by certiorari or other-
wise, see Chit. Arch. 1562 ; Annual County Court Practice, Pt. IV., Chap.
v., 172.
And as to removing causes from inferior Courts after judgment for the
purpose of obtaining execution only, see Chit. Arch. 1569 ; 51 & 52 V. c. 43,
s. 151, inf. p. 807.
When so removed, the superior Court has no jurisdiction to inquire into
the merits or the regularity of the proceedings below : Williams v. Bolland,
1 C. P. D. 227.
For the forms of the affidavit to obtain a certiorari from a superior to an
inferior Court, and of the writ, and other proceedings thereunder, see
Chitty's Forms, 810-830 ; D. C. F. 999 et seq.
As to the removal of a cause from an inferior Court by writ of Jiabeaa
corpus, where the Deft is in custody, see Chit. Arch. p. 1555.
As to quashing the writ of certiorari and awarding a procedendo, which is a Quashing
judicial writ issuing from the superior Court commanding the Judge of the writ.
County Court to proceed with the cause, see Chit. Arch. 1560.
Proceedings in an action commenced against a friendly society in the Friendly
County Court by members for a declaration that a payment was ultra vires Societies,
were removed by certiorari, the provisions in the Friendly Societies Act,
1875, ss. 22 (d) and 30, sub-s. 10, as to reference of disputes to the County
Court, being held to be permissive only : Re Royal Liver Friendly Society,
35 Ch. D. 332.
804 Transfer, Consolidation, and Removal, [chap. XXXIV.
AS TO THE mayor's COTJRT.
By the Mayor's Court of London Procedure Act, 1857 (20 & 21 V. o. clvii.),
s. 16, no cause in which the debt or damages shall not exceed £50 is to be
removed by Deft before judgment into any of the superior Courts, except by
a Judge's order, or on giving security : but the Judge may direct a certiorari
to issue without security ; and as to such removal, see sects. 17, 18, 19.
By sect. 54, " superior Courts " mean any of His Majesty's Superior
Courts of Common Law at Westminster ; but by the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 16,
this jurisdiction is transferred to the High Court of Justice, and may be
exercised by any Division thereof.
By the 20 & 21 V. u. clvii. s. 20, no suit on the Equity side of the Mayor's
Court is to be removed into Chancery without the special order of the L. C,
M. R., or one of the V. C.'s, on application for that purpose ; nor then, if the
Judge considers the question fit to be tried in the Mayor's Court.
By sect. 52, no cause is removable from the Court otherwise than by
certiorari, or by the order of a Judge of a superior Court, or by special order
of the L. C, M. R., or one of the V.-C.'s ; and every writ of certiorari is to be
returnable immediately. For the practice as to the removal of causes
from, and generally as to proceedings in, the Mayor's Court, see Glyn and
Jackson, 3rd ed.
Under clause 12 of the schedule to 35 & 36 V. c. 86 (applied to the Mayor's
Court by Order in Council of June 26, 1873), a Deft cannot have his action
removed merely because it is " fit to be tried in the Superior Court." He
must satisfy the Judge that it ought to be so tried, or is more fit to be so
tried than in the inferior Court : Banks v. Hollingsworth, [1893] 1 Q. B. 442,
C. A.
The Pit, upon obtaining the writ of certiorari, was put upon an under-
taking to justify the issuing the writ ; and an inquiry was directed whether
Pit had proved the suggestions in his bill : Davies v. MacHenry, 3 Ch. 202.
But if the want of jurisdiction as to parties or subject-matter appears on the
face of the proceedings in the inferior Court, the writ of certiorari will, it
seems, be granted, and an order made ex parte, without further evidence or
any reference to Chambers, that the suit in the Mayor's Court be retained in
Chancery : Tracy v. Open Stock Exchange, 11 Eq. 556 ; Jones v. Hey, 17
W. R. 996. The more convenient course, however, under the above Act is
to move at once for the removal of the cause, and the motion should be
on notice.
Under the old practice, and also in Davies v. MacHenry, sttp., the writ of
certiorari issued from the Petty Bag Office (now merged in the Central
Office : R. S. C, Jan. 1889), the proceedings in which were regulated by
the 12 & 13 V. c. 109 ; but in Jones v. Hey, and Tracy v. Open Stock Exchange,
sup., the writ issued from the Record and Writ Office.
As to removal of a judgment in the Mayor's Court, whether under or
over £20, into the superior Court for the purposes of execution, see sect. 48
of the 20 & 21 V. c. clvii. ; Paine v. Slater, 11 Q. B. D. 120, C. A. ; Glyn and
Jackson, 145.
And see Dan. 1635 et aeq.
COUNTy COURT — TRANSFEE PROM HIGH COURT TO COUNTY COURT.
By County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. o. 43), s. 69, any action or matter
pending in the Chancery Division which might have been commenced in a
County Court, may, on the application of any of the parties in Chambers to
the Judge to whom the action or matter is attached, be transferred to the
County Court in which the same might have been commenced, and the pro-
ceedings are thereupon to be carried on in the County Court, with the usual
right of appeal.
After an order for transfer has been made the High Court retains juris-
diction until the transfer has been completed by all necessary steps : David
SECT. iii.J Removal of Causes and Actions. 805
V. Howe, 27 Ch. D. 533, C. *A. ; but thenceforward the jurisdiction of the
High Court is at an end : Duke v. Davis, [1893] 2 Q. B. 107 ; [1893] 2 Q. B.
260, 0. A. ; Harris v. Judge, [1892] 2 Q. B. 565, 567, 568.
The action remains in the High Court until the Pit has lodged the original
writ and the order with the registrar of the County Court in accordance with
the section ; and consequently until that has been done the High Court still
has jurisdiction to make an interlocutory order in the action : D'Errico v.
Samuel, [1896] 1 Q. B. 163, C. A. ; and ses Delobbel-FUpo v. Variy, [1893]
1 Q. B. 663.
By the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 67 (and the County Courts Act, 1888, s. 187),
sects. 65, 66, and 69 of tlie County Courts Act, 1888, are rendered applicable
to " all actions commenced or pending in the High Court of Justice in which
any relief is sought which can be given in a County Court."
The enactment is to be construed so as to extend, rather than limit, the
powers of the Court : see Stokes v. S., 19 Q. B. D. 419, C. A., where it was
held that an action of slander, though it could not be commenced in the
County Court, might be remitted there.
Where, in any action of contract brought in the High Court, the claim Action of
indorsed on the writ does not exceed £100, or where such claim, " though it contract,
originally exceeded £100, is reduced by payment, an admitted set-o£E, or
otherwise, to a sum not exceeding £100," either party may at any time, on
application in Chambers, obtain an order that such action be tried in the
County Covirt, unless there is good cause to the contrary (51 & 52 V. c. 43,
s. 65).
The "payment" reducing the claim must be payment before action
brought : Hodgson v. Bell, 24 Q. B. D. 525, C. A. ; and see Foster v. Usher-
wood, 3 Ex. D. 1 ; secus, under the repealed Act (19 & 20 V. c. 108), where
the words were " payment, payment into Court, admitted set-off, or other-
wise " : Gray v. Hopper, 21 Q. B. D. 246, C. A.
The set-off, being admitted on the writ by the Pit, is an admitted set-off :
Lovejoy v. Cole, [1894] 2 Q. B. 861.
Any action of tort, upon affidavit by any person sued, " that the Pit has Action
no visible means of paying the costs of the Deft should a verdict be not of tort,
found for the Pit," may be sent to the County Court, unless the Pit gives
full security for costs, or satisfies the Judge that he has a cause of action fit
to be prosecuted in the High Court : 51 & 52 V. c. 43, s. 66 ; Edwards v.
Mallan, [1908] 1 K. B. 1002, C. A.
The Court has power to remit although there is a counter-claim for
unliquidated damages : Guildford v. Lambeth, [1895] 1 Q. B. 92, C. A.
Wherean action has been remitted to the County Court, sect. llSdoesnot Costa,
affect a solr's right to recover the costs previously incurred in the High
Court : Oubison v. Mayo, [1896] 1 Q. B. 246, C. A. And sect. 65 does not
take away the general discretionary power of the County Court Judge over
the costs of a remitted action : Everall v. Brown, [1906] 2 K. B. 884,
C. A.
And see Dan. 1622 et seq.
The County Court has no jurisdiction to make a vesting order as to stock Vesting order
standing in the name of a lunatic : Re Noyce, [1892] 1 Q. B. 642, in lunacy.
TRANSFER FROM COUNTY COTTET TO HIGH COURT.
By the County Courts Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 43), s. 67, the jurisdiction County Court
of the County Court in actions or matters for admon of estates, execution ^^^ juris-
of trusts, foreclosure, redemption, or enforcement of charges, specific diction,
performance, or reformation, delivery up, or cancellation of agreements
for sale, purchase or lease, under the Trustee Acts, as to the maintenance
or advancement of infants, as to partnership, or relief against fraud or
mistake, extends to cases in which the subject-matter as defined by the Act
does not exceed £500 in amount or value, as the case may be : see The King
V, Jtidge Whitehorne, [1904] 1 K. B. 827, where an agreement to purchase
806
Transfer, Consolidation, and Removal, [chap, xxxiv.
Transfer to
Ch. Div.
Mode of
application.
Instances.
for £75 property which was worth more than £500, but was subject to a
heavy charge, was held to be within the jurisdiction of the County Court,
the test being the actual purchase money to be paid, but in the case of a
lease, se.mble, the words " value of the property " in sub.-sect. 4 of this
section mean the value of the fee simple : Angel v. Jay, [1911] 1 K. B. 666.
By sect. 6S, if during the progress of any such action or matter, 'it is
made to appear to the Judge that the subject-matter exceeds the prescribed
limit, the validity of any order already made is not to be affected, but it
becomes the duty of the Judge to direct the action or matter to be trans-
ferred to the Chancery Division ; and the whole of the procedure in the
action or matter when so transferred is to be regulated by the rules of the
Supreme Court. But any party may apply to a Judge of the Chancery
Division at Chambers for an order authorizing and directing the action or
matter to be carried on and pro.secuted in the County Court, notwithstanding
such excess in amount, and the Judge, if he shall deem it right to summon
the other parties, or any of them, to appear before him for that purpose,
after hearing such parties, or on default of appearance of all or any of them,
shall have full power to make such order.
A transfer will not be ordered under the section where the administration
has been substantially completed in the County Court : Prangnell v. P.,
62 L. J. Ch. 346.
By the County Courts Act, 1888, s. 124, no judgment or order of a County
Court Judge, nor action or matter in his Court, is to be removed by certiorari
or otherwise into any other Court whatever, except in the manner in the Act
mentioned. By sect. 126, the High Court or a Judge thereof is empowered
to order the removal into the High Court, by writ of certiorari or otherwise,
of any action or matter commenced in the County Court, if it is deemed
desirable that the action or matter should be tried in the High Court, and
any terms may be imposed as to payment of costs, giving security or other-
wise. The test to be applied in determining whether it is "desirable"
within the meaning of this section is whether it is more fit to be tried in
the High Court than in the County Court, and the party applying for the
order for removal must establish this point: Donhiny. Pearson, [1911] 2
K. B. 412. By sect. 129, the grant of an order or summons to show cause why
a writ of certiorari should not issue, is, if the High Court or Judge so directs,
to operate as a stay of proceedings, until determination of such order or
summons or further order. By sect. 132, when the grant of a writ of
certiorari has been refused by the High Court or Judge, no other Court or
Judge may grant such writ, but this does not affect the right of appealing,
or of making application for the writ on different grounds.
By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 90, it is provided that where in any proceeding
before any inferior Court any defence or counter-claim of the Deft involves
matter beyond the jurisdiction of such Court, it shall be lawful for the High
Court, or any Division or Judge thereof, to order that the whole proceeding
be transferred from such inferior Court to the High Court, or to any Division
thereof ; and in such case the record in such proceeding shall be transmitted
by the registrar or other proper officer of the inferior Court to the High
Court ; and the same shall thenceforth be continued and prosecuted in the
High Court as if it had been originally commenced therein. Accordingly,
after transfer from the County Court to the Chancery Division, the Pit is
not entitled to discovery and production except according to the rules and
practice of the High Court : Davies v. Williams, 13 Ch. D. 550 ; and service
out of the jurisdiction is thenceforth regulated by O. xi, and not by the
County Court Rules, 1889, O. li, 23 : Wood v. 'Middletm, [1897] 1 Ch.
151. As to jurisdiction of inferior Courts in counter-claims, see Jud. Act,
1873, s. 18.
The practice as to the transfer of proceedings from the County Court to
the High Court under these provisions is now regulated by County Court
Rules, 1889, 0. xxxm.
For instances of a transfer from the County Court to the Court of
SECT. III.] Removal of Causes and Actions. 807
Chancery, under 28 & 29 V. c. 99, s. 3, see Baher v. Wait, 9 Eq. 103 j Birks
V. Silverwood, 14 Eq. 101 ; Thomson v. Flinn, 17 Eq. 415.
The effect of the order of transfer is to put an end to the jurisdiction of Effect
the County Court Judge, who cannot, after directing a transfer, go on to of order
give directions as to the costs : Hares v. Lea, 10 Eq. 683.
So, also, when a testamentary cause had been transferred from the
Probate to the County Court, the Probate Court had no power to make an
order as to costs incurred before the transfer : Maoleur v. M., L. R. 1 P.
M. 604.
By the County Courts Act, 1888, s. 151, if a Judge of the High Court is Judgment
satisfied that a party against whom a County Court judgment for more than for more
£20 has been obtained has no goods or chattels which can be conveniently than £20.
taken in satisfaction, he may order a writ of certiorari to issue to remove the
judgment into the High Court, and when so removed it is to have the same
force and effect, and the same proceedings may be had thereon, as in the case
of a judgment of the High Court.
Certiorari does not lie to bring up an order of a County Court Judge made Bankruptcy
when exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction : Skinner v. Northallerton County proceedings.
Court Judge, [1899] A. C. 439, H. L. ; [1898] 2 Q. B. 680, C. A.
As to the transfer of winding-up proceedings from the County Court under Winding-up
the Cos. (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (53 & 54 V. c. 63), s. 3 (now substituted by proceedings,
the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 133), see Ec
Laxon & Co., [1892] 3 Ch. 31,
( 808 ) [chap. xxxv.
CHAPTEE XXXV.
CASE SENT FOR THE OPINION OP A FOEEIGN COURT-
22 & 23 V. c. 63, or 24 & 25 V. c. 11.
1. Where directed to be settled in Chambers.
Oedeb, that a case be prepared setting forth the facts ; And it
is ordered that such case and the questions of Scotch law arising out
of the same be settled by the Judge, for the purpose of ascertaining
whether &c. ; And it is ordered that such case and questions, when so
approved and settled, be remitted to the Court of &c. ; And the
said Court is hereby desired to give its opinion on such questions
upon the law administered by the said Court as applicable to the
facts to be set forth in such case. — Adjourn &c.
For order directing case on questions of Scotch law to be settled, and
remitted to the Court of Session, being the Superior Court of Scotland, see
Lord V. Colvin, V.-O. K., 12 June, 1860, B. 1237, 1 Dr. & S. 24 ; 8 W. R.
201.
And for similar order as to further questions, without prejudice to the
former order, see Lord v. Colvin, V.-C. K., 3 March, 1865, B. 463.
Tor like order as to the validity of a deed of appointment according to
Scotch law, see Topham v. D. of Portland, 1 D. J. & S. 578 ; and further
order, lb. 580.
For form of application, see D. C. F. 982.
2. Where Questions under Order arose in Chambers.
This Court doth order that the case and questions of (Hindoo) law
arising out of the same which have been approved and settled by
the Judge, and are set forth in the schedule to this order, be remitted
to (His Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature in Bengal) ; And
the said Court is hereby desired to pronounce its opinion on the
questions contained in the said schedule upon the law administered
by the said Court as applicable to the facts set forth in the said case.
For order directing case for opinion of High Court of Judicature, Bengal,
see Login v. Princess of Coorg, 30 Bcav. 632, 15 Feb. 1862.
The above forms apply also to foreign Courts.
3. The like — where Order made in Chambers.
Order that the case and questions of Scotch law arising out of
the same, which have been approved and settled by the Judge, and
Case for Opin'wn of a Foreign Court. S09
are identified by the signature of the Master, together with a print of
the pleadings, the judgment, dated &c., and copies of the contract
of marriage dated &c., and of the will of B., and two codicils thereto
referred to in such case, and respectively identified by the initials
of the Master, and by the signature of the solrs to the parties, be
remitted to the Court of Session in Scotland ; And the said Court
(acting by either of its divisions) is hereby desired to pronounce its
opinion on such questions upon the law administered by the said
Court as applicable to the facts set forth in the said case. — Heron-
Maxwell V. Stopford-Blair, 13 Nov. 1871, B. 2884.
For similar order on petition, and the further hearing to stand over till
after the return, with liberty to apply, see Cooper v. Benn, V.-C. Hall
19 Nov. 1875, A. 1998 ; Dykes v. Jamieson, M. R., 10 Nov. 1875, A. 1680.
4. Order remitting Case bach for Error.
This action coming on for further consideration &c., and upon
hearing the judgment &c., and the opinion of the High Court of &c.,
in &c., upon the case and questions of (Hindoo) law submitted to the
said Court pursuant to the said order dated &c., read ; And it being
suggested that an error has by accident crept into the answer con-
tained in such opinion to the 8th of such questions, and that the words
" her heirs " have, by a clerical error, been substituted for " his
heirs"; Order that the hearing of this action on further consideration
do stand over ; And it is ordered that the said case and opinion
be remitted back to the said Court of &c., in &c. ; And the said
Court is hereby requested to pronounce a further opinion on the
8th of such questions upon the law administered by the said Court
as applicable to the facts contained in the said case. — Login v.
Princess ofCoorg, M. R., 29 April, 1864, B. 1086.
5. Order on Case sent from Scotland — 22 & 23 F. c. 63, s. 1.
Upon the petition of A. B., C. D. &c., and upon hearing counsel fo
the Petr and for the respondents, and upon reading the said petition,
the case approved by the Lord Ordinary in an action of multiple
poinding and exoneration, in the first division of the Court of Sessions
at the instance of A. B., pursuer and real raiser, and E. F., defender,
and an interlocutor dated &c. in the same action, remitting the same
to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in order that
an opinion of the Court might be obtained upon the questions of law
stated in the case. — Declare &c. — Re Sprot, Chitty, J., 30 March,
1887, B. 505.
NOTES.
By the British Law Ascertainment Act (22 & 23 V. c. 63), s. l,in any action
within H. M.'s dominions, the Court. ma3' have a case prepared setting forth
the facta, and settle the questions of law, and make an order remitting the
same to a superior Court in any other part of H. M.'s dominions for its
UO Case for Opinion of a Foreign Court, [ohap. xxxv.
opinion ; and any party may by petition obtain the opinion of such Court ;
by sect. 2, copies of such opinion are to be certified by its officer ; by sect. 3,
any party may lodge such copy with the Court sending the case, and give
notice of motion to act upon it ; and such Court may act on it, as on a case
reserved or special verdict, or, if before trial, submit it, as there mentioned,
to a jury ; by sect. 4, if such action is appealed to H. M. in Council, or the
House of Lords, such opinion may be reviewed, if a judgment of the Court
may be ; sect. 5 defines " action " and " superior Courts."
Under this Act the Court has declined to decide on a case sent from
Scotland on a point on which the Scotch law was the same : Brodie v.
Johnson, 30 Beav. 129.
The Foreign Law Ascertainment Act, 1861 (24 & 25 V. c. 11), is a similar
Act, for better ascertaining the law of any foreign State or country with
whom H. M.'a Government may have made a convention for that purpose,
when pleaded in Courts within H. M.'s dominions.
The Court takes judicial cognizance of the boundaries of foreign States :
Foster v. Olobe Venture Syndicate, [1900] 1 Ch. 811, sup. p. 154.
For formal parts of case and opinion, see D. C. P. 982, 983.
( 811 )
CHAPTEE XXXVI.
APPEALS.
1. Order on Appeal.
Upon motion by way of appeal, this day [or, if standing for judgtmnt,
ott the — day of — ] made uuto this Court by counsel for &c., from the
judgment [or order], dated &c. [or if from part only — that the judg-
ment [or order], dated &c., or that so much of the judgment &c., as
directs &c., might be varied by &c.] ; And upon hearing counsel
for the respondent, And upon reading the said judgment [or order].
This Court [if standing for judgment — did order that the said appeal
should stand for judgment ; And the same standing this day in the
paper for judgment in the presence of counsel on both sides, This
Court] doth order —
If tJie judgment &c. is affirmed, i.e., appeal dismissed — that the said
judgment [or order], dated &c., be afiirmed.
If the judgment &c. is discharged, i.e., appeal allowed — that the said
judgment [or order], dated &c., be reversed ; And it is ordered &c.
[add consequent directions, if any].
If the judgment &c. is materially varied in form — ^that the said
judgment [or order], dated &c., be varied, and, as varied, be as
follows, that is to say &c.
If the judgment &c. is partially varied — that the said judgment [or
order], dated &c., be varied so far as the same directs &c. ; And it is
ordered that instead thereof &c. [or be varied by omitting the (declara-
tion) that &o.] ; And it is ordered that &c. [add any consequent direc-
tions'] ; And it is ordered that with this variation the said judgment
[or order], dated &c., be afiSrmed.
If accounts or inquiries are varied — that the said judgment [or
order] be varied ; And instead of the accounts and inquiries thereby
directed [or specify any account or inquiry to he omitted], it is ordered
that the following accounts and inquiries be taken and made, that is
to say &c.
If accounts or inquiries are added — that the said judgment [or order],
dated &c., be varied; And it is ordered that, in addition to the
directions therein contained, the following further accounts and in-
quiries be taken and made, that is to say &c. And the further
consideration &c. is adjourned.
Costs. — And it is ordered that (the Deft) do pay to (the Pit) his
)12 Appeals. [chIp. xxxvi.
costs \if so, of this action and] occasioned by this appeal [if so,
including his costs of the said order], such costs to be taxed by the
taxing master [or if deposit made hy way of security, It is ordered
that (the Deft) do pay to (the Pit) the residue of his costs {as above)
after deducting the funds by the schedule hereto directed to be paid
to him ; And it is ordered that the funds in Court be dealt with as
directed in the schedule hereto.]
{Insert in Payment Schedule.)
Pay cash
Pit A. or Deft B
£ 8. d.
If the appeal is in a matter proceeding in the Liverpool or Manchester
District Registry the costs are to be taxed by the district registry taxing
officer unless the Court otherwise directs. Direction of Lindley, M. R.,
22 Jan. 1900.
For form of order for security for costs of appeal see p. 27, ante.
2. Appeal dismissed. Appellant not appearing.
The appeal of (the Pit) from the judgment [or order], dated &c.,
standing this day in the paper to be heard before this Court in
presence of counsel for (the Deft), And no one appearing for (the Pit)
in support of the said appeal. And upon hearing counsel for the said
Deft, This Court doth order that the said appeal do stand dismissed
out of this Court with costs, to be taxed by the taxing master, and
paid by (the Pit) to (the Deft).
3. Appeal from an Order mMe in the Chancery of the County
Palatine of Lancaster.
Upon motion by way of appeal this day made unto this Court by
counsel for &c. from the order dated &c., made in the Chancery of the
County Palatine of Lancaster (Manchester District), And upon
hearing &c.. This Court doth order &c. [Form 1, ante].
The costs of the hearing in the County Palatine Court are taxed by the
district registrar of that Court ; but the costs of an appeal are taxed by the
taxing master of the Supreme Court ; and the practice on such an appeal
is in all respects regulated by O. LVin : Lee v. Nuttall, 12 Ch. D. 61, C. A.
i. Order on Cross-Appeal — 0. lviii, 6.
Upon motion by way of appeal this day made unto this Court by
counsel for H. that the judgment dated &c., made on the hearing of
this action by the Vice-Chancellor of the County Palatine of Lancaster
might be varied by &c., And upon hearing &c., And the Defts C. and
E., his wife, having given notice to the said Pit and to the Defts F.
and H., pursuant to 0. LViii, 6, of the Eules of the Supreme Court, of
their intention to contend that the said judgment should be varied by
&c., This Court doth order that the said judgment be varied &o.
Appeals. 8 ' ^
For an order on appeal, with direction to tax the Pit's (appellant's) costs
of suit and of the appeal, including therein the costs of transcribing the
shorthand writer's notes, and of printing such notes and the evidence for the
purposes of the appeal, the Deft to pay such costs when taxed, see Bigsby v,
Dickinson, C. A., 20 Nov. 1876, A. 2033 ; 4 Ch. D. 24, C. A.
Where costs of shorthand notes are given by the Court of Appeal, the
order should extend to " costs of the appeal and of shorthand notes of the
evidence and judgment " : Singer, tfec. Co. v. Loog, 31 W. R. 392 ; 52 L. J.
Ch. 288 ; 49 L. T. 484.
As to when costs of shorthand notes will be allowed on taxation, see
ante, p. 297, and post, p. 834.
5. Order extending Time for appealing.
This Court dotli order ttat notwithstanding that the time limited
by 0. Lvni, 15, of the Eules of the Supreme Court for giving notice
of appeal from the said judgment [or order] has expired, (the Pit)
be at liberty on or before the — day of — to give such notice of
appeal. — [Add directions as to costs, if any.]
For form of application, see D. C. F. 731.
For order where the time for appealing was extended at the hearing,
formal notice of a motion for that purpose being waived, see JRe Baillic's
Trusts, C. A., 10 Feb. 1877, A. 599 ; 4 Ch. D. 785, C. A.
For order refusing a motion for special leave to appeal after the proper
time, see Craig v. Phillips, C. A., 19 Dec. 1877, A. 2280 ; 7 Ch. D. 249,
C. A. ; Esdaile v. Payne, 40 Ch. D. 52, C. A.
For order dismissing an appeal not set down in due time, see Re Mansel,
Rhodes v. Jenkins, C. A., 20 Feb. 1878, B. 379 ; 7 Ch. D. 711, C. A.
And for subsequent order refusing a motion to extend the time for
bringing a fresh appeal, see ;S. C, C. A., 27 Feb. 1878, B. 399 ; 7 Ch. D.
712, C. A.
For order dismissing an appeal which had been set down after the proper
time bj special leave, and without prejudice to any objection, see Re
National Funds Assurance Co., C. A., 6 Dec. 1876, B. 1988 ; 4 Ch. D. 305,
C. A.
And for order refusing a motion to advance the hearing of a fresh appeal,
and to stay proceedings in the meantime, the second appeal having been set
down bv a similar order, and the objection of time being taken on the
hearing"'of the motion, see 8. C, C. A., 13 Dec. 1876, B. 1968 ; 4 Ch. D.
308, C. A.
6. Order of Court of Appeal discharging Order as to Costs made on
wrong Principle.
This Court doth order that the said judgment be reversed so far
as it ordered that it should be referred to the taxing master to tax
the costs of theDefts of this action, including the costs, charges, and
expenses of the late Deft F. B. as trustee as between solr and client,
and that the funds ia Court should be dealt with as directed by the
Payment Schedule thereto ; And it is ordered that instead thereof
the Defts do pay to the Pit his costs of this action and of this appeal
to be taxed ; And the Defts by their counsel alleging that the Deft
F. B., deceased, incurred as trustee of the sum of £ — in the said
judgment mentioned certain costs, charges, and expenses, not being
!i4 Appeals. [chap, xxxvi.
costs of this action, which were properly payable out of the said
sum or the funds representing the same ; Tax such costs, charges,
and expenses (if any) ; Deal with the funds in Court as directed in the
Payment Schedule ; With this variation affirm the said judgment. —
—[AM Payment Schedule directing sale of consols, payment of costs,
charges, and expenses (if any) to be taxed under the order, and pay-
ment to Pit of residue of funds and interest after payment thereout
of such costs (if any), or of whole funds if no such costs.] — See Bew v.
Bew, C. A., 2 Aug. 1899, A. 1134 ; [1899] 2 Ch. 467, C. A.
7. Appeal Withdrawn on Payment of Costs.
Upon the application of A. (the appellant), who alleged that on
the — day of — he served B. (the Eespondent) with notice of appeal
from the order dated &c., and that on the — day of — the same was
entered in the lists of appeals but has not been in the paper for
hearing, and that the appellant is now desirous of withdrawing such
appeal, and the said B. having consented to this order. It is ordered
that upon payment by the said A. to the said B. of his costs occasioned
by the said appeal, such costs to be taxed by the taxing master, the
said A. be at liberty to withdraw his said appeal.
8. Abandoned Appeal dismissed with Costs.
Upon the application of B. (the respondent), who alleged that
on the — day of — he was served with notice of appeal by A. (the
appellant) from the order dated &c., but the same has not been
entered in the list of appeals [or if so, that the same has been entered
in the list of appeals but has not been set down in the paper for
hearing], and that the said A. has now abandoned such appeal and
has consented to this order. It is ordered that the said appeal do
stand dismissed, and that the said A. do pay to the said B. his costs
occasioned by the said appeal.
The following directions were given by the Court of Appeal on the 26 Feb.
1904, namely : Where an appeal from a judgment or order in the Ch.
Div. is withdrawn by consent, providing for payment of the respon-
dent's costs, the consent will be initialled by the President of the Court,
and thereupon the registrar will draw up an order for leave to withdraw
the appeal on payment of the respondent's costs as in Form 7, above.
Where an appeal is abandoned, and the respondent is entitled to the
costs occasioned by the appeal, the parties may consent to an order dis-
missing the appeal, and directing taxation and payment of the respondent's
costs, and on such consent being initialled by the President of the Court,
the registrar may draw up an order dismissing the appeal, and directing
taxation and payment of costs as in Form 8 above. In each of the above
cases the order will bear a £1 stamp.
NOTES.
JURISDICTION OP THE COUBT 01? APPEAL.
By the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 4, the Court of Appeal is to have and exercise
appellate jurisdiction, with such original jurisdiction as after mentioned as
Appeals. 815
may be incident to the determination of any appeal. By sect. 18, there is
transferred to this Court all jurisdiction and powers of the L. 0. and Court
of Appeal in Chancery in the exercise of his and its appellate jurisdiction,
and of the same Court as a Court of Appeal in Bankruptcy ; of the Court of
Appeal in Chancery of the County Palatine of Lancaster ; of the Court of
the Lord Warden of the Stannaries and his assessors ; of the Court of
Exchequer Chamber ; and of the Privy Council on appeal from any
judgment of the High Court of Admiralty ; or from any order in
Lunacy.
And by sect. 19, the Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals
from any judgment or order of the BQgh Court, or any Judge or Judges of
it, subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules of Court, and for the
purposes of the hearing and determination of any appeal, and of the amend-
ment, execution, and enforcement of any judgment or order made on any
such appeal, has all the power, authority and jurisdiction vested by the Act
in the High Court of Justice.
As to the meaning and effect of the section, and the jurisdiction conferred Habeas
by it in cases of habeas corpus, see Oox v. Hakes, 15 App. Ca. 506, 528, 529 ; corpus.
Reg. V. Bamardo, Jones' Case, [1891] 1 Q. B. 194, C. A. ; 8. C. \nom. Bar-
nardo v. McHugh, [1891] A. C. 388 ; Barnardo v. Ford, Qossage's C(Me,[1892]
A. C. 326).
Where a person has been discharged from custody under an order for a
habeas corpus, there can be no appeal : Cox v. Hakes, sup. ; but an appeal
lies from an order of the K. B. Division for habeas corpus to bring an infant
before the Court, in order to determine the right to custody : Reg. v.
Bamardo, Jones^ Case, sup.
By the Jud. Act, 1899 (62 & 63 V. c. 6), seot. 1 : " Notwithstanding any- Before two
thing in sect. 12 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1875, or in sect. 1 Judges,
of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1890, if all parties to an appeal or
motion before the hearing file a consent to the appeal or motion being heard
and determined before two Judges of the Court of Appeal, the appeal or
motion may be heard and determined accordingly, subject nevertheless to
the same right (if any) of appeal to the House of Lords as if the hearing and
determination had been before three Judges. Provided that in all causes or
matters to which any infant or person of unsound mind, whether so found
by inquisition or not, or person under any other disability is a party, no
such consent shall be given by the next friend, guardian, committee, or
other person acting on behalf of the person under disability, so as to have
the same force and effect as if such party were under no disability and had
given such consent, unless with the previous consent of a Court or a Judge,
nor so as to make such consent valid as between any committee of a lunatic
and the lunatic, unless with the previous sanction of the Lord Chancellor or
Lords Justices sitting in Lunacy."
" And provided also that if two Judges having heard an appeal or motion
shall differ in opinion, the case shall, on the application of any party to the
appeal, be reargued and determined by three Judges of the Court of Appeal
before appeal to the House of Lords."
For the first case heard before two Judges of the Court of Appeal under
this Act, see Re Hope, De Cetto v. Hope, [1899] 2 Ch. 679 ; 1899, W. N. 113,
C. A. For form of consent, see D. C. F. 733.
As to whether decisions of the Lord Chancellor sitting alone are to be L. C. sitting
taken as decisions of the Court of Appeal and bind the Court, see Re Lloyd, alone.
[1903] 1 Ch. 385, C. A.
The original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is purely incidental to Original
its appellate jurisdiction : Flower v. Lloyd, 6 Ch. D. 297, 301, C. A. ; Olover jurisdiction.
V. Oreenbank, dkc. Co., 1876, W. N. 157 ; Falcke v. Scottish Imperial Ins. Co.,
57 L. T. 39 ; 35 W. R. 794 (where the question was considered whether the
jurisdiction of the old Court of Chancery to entertain an application for
leave to institute proceedings by way of bill of review has been taken away);
and accordingly on an appeal from a winding-up order, the Court of Appeal
816
Appeals.
[chap, xxxvi.
Rehearing.
Effect of
cnrolmeut.
Mistakes.
Action of
review.
Previous
decisions
of C. A.
Judgment
by default.
Arbitration
Act, 1889.
Chancery of
Lancaster
Act, 1890.
Palatine
Court of
Durham Act,
1889.
Railway
Commis-
sioners, &c..
Act, 1893.
Liverpool
Court of
Passage Act,
1893.
Supplemental
irder.
cannot hear an original winding-up petition by another creditor together
with the appeal : Re Dunraven, dkc. Co., 24 W. R. 37 ; 33 L. T. 371 ; and
see Brown v. Collins, 25 Ch. D. 57.
By 0. Lvni, 1, all appeals are to be by way of rehearing. The power of
rehearing is now part of the appellate jurisdiction, and no Judge of the
High Court has any power to rehear an order : Re St. Nazaire Co., 12 Ch. D.
88, 0. A. ; Preston Banking Co. v. Allsup, [1895] 1 Ch. 141, C. A.
And when an order has been perfected and expresses the real decision of
the Court, the C. A. has no jurisdiction to alter it by way of rehearing on
the ground of misrepresentation : Preston Banking Co. v. Allsup tb Sons,
[1895] 1 Ch. 141, C. A.
The appellate jurisdiction is wholly unaffected by the enrolment
of any judgment or order, as enrolment no longer affects the right of
appeal : Hastie v. H., 2 Ch. D. 304, C. A. ; and the Court of Appeal
has no jurisdiction to order an enrolment to be vacated, tliis power
now belonging to the L. C. alone : Allan v. El. Telegraph Co., 24 W. R. 898 ;
45 L. J. Ch. 336 ; 34 L. T. 707.
As to the power of the Court to rectify mistakes in judgments or orders,
V. sup. p. 187 et seq.
Since the Judicature Act the Court has no jurisdiction to discharge its
order on the ground of error apparent on the face of the order : Charles
Bright and Co. v. Sellar, [1904] 1 K. B. 6, C. A.
The Ch. Div. of the High Court has still jurisdiction to entertain
actions in the nature of Bills of Review in certain cases, e.g., where a judg-
ment has been obtained by fraud : Birch v. Birch, [1902] P. 130 ; or where
fresh evidence has been procured, which could not previously have been
obtained : Boswell v. Coaks, 6 R. 167. And an action of review can now,
it seems, be commenced without leave : Re Scott and Alvarez, [1895] 1 Ch.
596, per Kekewich, J. ; Charles Bright and Co. v. Sellar, sup.
The Court of Appeal does not regard itself as bound by a previous decision
as to which the Judges of Appeal were equally divided : The Vera Cruz, 9
P. D. 96, 0. A.
The Court of Appeal grants relief according to the law in force at the
time of the hearing of the appeal : Quilter v. Mapleson, 9 Q. B. D. 672,
C. A.
Appeals from judgments by default will not in general be entertained,
as the party against whom judgment has been given in his absence can
apply to the Court of first instance : Vint v. Hudspith, 29 Ch. D. 322, C. A.
By the Arbitration Act, 1889, s. 17, the Court of Appeal has all the
powers conferred by the Act on the Court or a Judge as to references under
orders of the Court.
By the Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1890, s. 3, the jurisdiction of the
Lancaster Chancery Court is assimilated to that of the High Court, and by
sect. 4, the Court of Appeal is, as to all' judgments and orders of the
Lancaster Chancery Court, to have the like appellate and original juris-
diction as the Court of Appeal now has or may have under any future Act of
Parliament not enacting to the contrary with respect to judgments and
orders of the High Court or any Judge thereof.
As to appeals from the Court of Chancery of the County Palatine of
Durham, see Palatine Court of Durham Act, 1889, and as to appeals from
the Railway Commissioners, Railway and Canal Trafiic Act, 1888, and
R. S. C, 10th April, 1889.
Under sect. 10 of the Liverpool Court of Passage Act, 1893 (56 & 57 V. c.
37), an appeal from the judgment in an action in that Court lies to the
C. A. : Anderson v. Dean, [1894] 2 Q. B. 222, C. A. And an application
lies to the C. A. for a new trial of an interpleader issue tried in that Court :
Coates V. Moore, [1903] 2 K. B. 140, C. A.
As to the jurisdiction of the Court to make a supplemental order imposing
conditions as to costs or otherwise, see Re Seowhy, 8. v. 8., [1897] 1 Ch. 741,
C. A., sup. p. 126.
Appeals.
817
An appeal will lie from an order entering a cause on the commercial list, Commercia
see Sea Ins. Co. v. Carr, [1901] 1 K. B. 7, C. A., sup. p. 794. list.
As to appeal from decision of Revising Barrister on admissibility of Revising
evidence, see Storey v. Bermondsey Tmm Clerk, [1910] 1 K. B. 203, C. A. Barrister.
By the Jud. Acts (see Jud. Act, 1873, s. 19, and Jud. Act, 1894, s. 1), an
appeal is given from every judgment or order of the High Court, with the
following exceptions (see B. v. Walsall, 3 Q. B. D. 457, 460, C. A.) : —
1. Jurisdictions final by Statute. — By the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, Instances of
1876 (39 & 40 V. c. 59), s. 20, no appeal is to lie from the High Court or no appeal,
any Judge thereof to the Court of Appeal in cases where it is provided by
Act of Parliament that the decision of any Court or Judge, whose jurisdic-
tion is transferred to the High Court, shall be final.
By Jud. Act, 1881 (44 & 45 V. c. 68), s. 9, appeals under the Divorce Act Under the
(20 & 21 V. c. 85), s. 55, are to be brought to the Court of Appeal (thereby Divorce Act.
substituted for the full Court of Divorce), whose decision is to be final,
except when the decision is upon the grant or refusal of a decree on petition
for dissolution or nullity, or for a declaration of legitimacy, or upon a
question of law on which the Court of Appeal gives leave to appeal.
2. Appeals from Inferior Courts.— By the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 45, the inferior
determination of appeals from inferior Courts by a Divisional Court is to be Courts,
final, unless special leave to appeal is given by the Divisional Court.
The provisions of tliis section are not afiected by the Appellate Juris-
diction Act, 1876, s. 20 : Crush v. Turner, 3 Ex. D. 303, C. A. ; Thomas v.
Kdly, 13 App. Ca. 506.
The Mayor's Court being an inferior Court {Mayor, <S:c. of London v. Cox, Mayor's
L. R. 2 H. L. 239), no appeal lies from the decision of a Divisional Court Court,
on an appeal from the Mayor's Court, unless by special leave : Appleford v.
Judkins, 3 C. P. D. 489, C. A.
As to appeals from the Mayor's Court, see Glyn and Jackson, 3rd ed.
An appeal will lie with the leave of the K. B. D. from an order of that Quarter
Division upon a writ of certiorari, affirming an order of quarter sessions as to Sessions,
the validity of a rate : Walsall Overseers v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 4 App. Ca.
30, reversing R. v. Walsall, 3 Q. B. D. 457, C. A.
There is no appeal from an order of quarter sessions made under sect. 11
of the Police Act, 1890 : Kydd v. Watch Committee of Liverpool, [1908]
A. C. 327.
An appeal will not lie from an order of tlie Divisional Court refusing leave County
to appeal from a County Court : Kay v. Briggs, 22 Q. B. D. 343, C. A. Court.
By the Jud. Act, 1894, s. 1, sub-s. 5, " in all cases where there is a right Divisional
of appeal to the High Coui-t from any Court or person, the appeal shall be Court,
heard and determined by a Divisional Court constituted as may be pre-
scribed by Rules of Court ; and the determination thereof by the Divisional
Court shall be final, unless leave to appeal is given by that Court or by the
Court of Appeal."
This sub-section has reference only to appeals from inferior courts and a Official
judgment entered in pursuance of the directions of an Official Referee is Referee,
a judgment of the High Court which is not within the section : Wynne
Finch V. Chaytor, [1903] 2 Cli. 475, C. A., overruling Daglish v. Barton,
[1900] 1 Q. B. 284; and semble, the same rule applies in the case of a judgment
entered in pursuance of the directions of a Master : Fraser v. Fraser, [1905]
1 K. B. 368, C. A. ; see also Blair v. Clark, [1908] 2 K. B. 548.
3. Criminal Matters. — By the Jud. Act, 1873, s. 47, no appeal lies from
any judgment of the High Court in any criminal cause or matter, except for
some error of law apparent on the record, as to which no question shall have
been reserved.
The provision has reference not to the criminality of the act which
originates the proceedings, but to the fact of the cause or matter in which
the order is made being in the nature of a criminal proceeding : Beg. v.
Barnardo, 23 Q. B. D. 305, C. A.
VOL. I. 3 G
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
Instances
of criminal
matters,
within s. 47.
What are not
criminal
matters.
Court of
Criminal
Appeal.
" The intention of the Jud. Act was that the Court of Appeal should not
interfere in the criminal matters of the country " : Exp. Schofteld, [1891]
2 Q. B. 428, 432, per Bowen, L. J.
This section is not confined to appeals from the High Court when sitting
as a Court for the consideration of Crown cases reserved, but extends to all
criminal cases ; and therefore it has been held that there is no appeal from
an order of the K. B. Division, discharging a rule to review a taxation of
the costs of the Defts upon a criminal information : B. v. Steel, 2 Q. B. D.
37, C. A. ; or discharging a rule for a certiorari to bring up to be quashed a
summary conviction for trespass in pursuit of game : B. v. Fletcher, 2
Q. B. D. 43, C. A. ; or from a decision of the Divisional Court, reversing a
conviction for keeping a common gaming-house, even though the Divisional
Court has granted leave to appeal in accordance with sect. 45 : Blake v.
Beech, 2 Ex. D. 335, C. A. ; or refusing to grant a mandamus to compel a
magistrate to state a case in proceedings as to a nuisance under the Public
Health Act, 1875 : Exp. Schofleld, [1891] 2 Q. B. 428, C. A. ; or to hear a
summons under sect. 25 of the Weights and Measures Act, 1878 (41 & 42
V. c. 10) : Reg. v. Young, 61 L. J. M. C. 42 ; or from a decision of the
Divisional Court upon a case stated by justices as to a complaint under
sect. 2 of the Distress (Costs) Act, 1817, against a certificated bailifl for
unlawfully retaining certain charges exceeding those allowed by statute :
Bohson V. Biggar, [1908] 1 K. B. 672, C. A. ; or from an order of justices
under the Public Health Act, 1875, directing works to be done for the
abatement of a nuisance : Beg. v. Whitchurch, 7 Q. B. D. 534, C. A. ; or an
information for contravening the bye-laws of a school constituted under the
Elementary Education Act, 1870 (33 & 34 V. c. 75) : MeUor v. Denhcm, 5
Q. B. D. 467, C. A. ; or an order for attachment for contempt in publishing
comments calculated to prejudice the fair trial of an action : O'Shea v.
as., 15 P. D. 59, C. A.
But informations in the nature of quo warranto (B. v. Collins, 2 Q. B. D.
30), or an information under the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866 (29 V. c.
19), s. 5, to recover penalties (A. O. v. Bradlaugh, 14 Q. B. D. 667, C. A.) ; an
order for attachment for disobedience to a writ of habeas corpus {Beg. v.
Barnardo, 23 Q. B. D. 305, 0. A.) ; S. G. (nom. Barnardo v. McHugh), [1891]
A. C. 388 ; Barnardo v. Fwd, Oossage's Case, [1892] A. C. 326 ; or, semblc,
for disobedience to an order to attend before an examiner : Be Evans, E. v.
Noton, [1893] 1 Ch. 252, C. A. ; or an order striking a solr off the roll made
under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court {Be Hardwick, 12 Q. B. D.
148, C. A.) ; or under 6 & 7 V. c. 73, s. 32, for permitting his name to be
used ofl account of an unqualified person {Be Eade, 25 Q. B. D. 228, C. A.) ;
or an order discharging a rule for certiorari to remove an order of justices
for maintenance of a pauper into the High Court {Beg. v. Pemberton, 5
Q. B. D. 95, C. A.) ; or an order to enforce payment of a general district
rate under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 256 {Southwark and Vauxhall
Water Co. V. Hampton Urban District Council, [1899] 1 Q. B. 273, C. A.) ;
or an order discharging a person from custody under a writ de contumace
capiendo issued in a suit against a clerk for ecclesiastical offences under the
Church Discipline Act {Cox v. Hakes, 15 App. Ca. 506), are not criminal
matters within the exemption ; and an appeal has been entertained from
a decision of the Divisional Court, on a conviction in a penalty, at the
instance of the Inland Revenue Board, for breach of the excise laws :
Howes V. Inland Bevenue Board, 1 Ex. D. 385, C. A.
As to the right of a bankrupt to appeal under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883,
ss. 24, 103, 104, from an order committing him for contempt, see Oenese v.
Lascelles, 13 Q. B. D. 901 ; Be Ashwin, 25 Q. B. D. 271, C. A.
As to the constitution of a special Court of Criminal Appeal, and the right
of appeal thereto by persons convicted on indictment, see now the Criminal
Appeal Act, 1907 (7 Edw. 7, c. 23).
4. Order as to Costs and Consent Orders.— By the Jud. Act, 1873,
Appeals. 819
s. 49, no order of the High Court or any Judge of it made by consent, or
as to costs only, which by law are left to the discretion of the Court, is
subject to appeal except by leave of the Court or Judge making it.
As to appeals from orders made by consent, v. sup. pp. 124 — 127. Consent
The rule against appeals for costs only applies especially to the dis- orders,
missal of an action without costs : Harris v. Aaron, 4 Ch. D. 749, C. A. ; Application
even though, by reason of a cross appeal or other matter, the whole case of rule for
has been heard before the Court of Appeal : Graham v. Campbell, 7 Ch. D. costs.
490, C. A. ; and to orders in interpleader proceedings : Harimont v. Foster, 8
Q. B. D. 82, C. A. ; where an action is dismissed for want of prosecution :
Snelling v. Pulling, 29 Ch. D. 85, C. A. ; to an order for inspection of Deft's
property, with costs to be paid by Pit : Mitchell v. Darley Main Colliery Co. ,
10 Q. B. D. 457, C. A. ; or giving out of a fund in Court the costs of an
unsuccessful application reasonably made for the purpose of ascertaining
the fund : Butcher v. Pooler, 24 Ch. D. 273, C. A. ; or ordering a third party
to pay the costs of an unsuccessful Deft : Hornby v. Cardwell, 8 Q. B. D.
329, C. A. ; or depriving of costs a Pit who has recovered 40s. damages :
Florence v. MalUnson, 65 L. T. 354 ; or as to costs of examination of judg-
ment debtor under 0. XLn, 34, and of garnishee proceedings : Adlington v.
Conyngham, [1898] 2 Q. B. 492, C. A. ; and where the whole of an action is
referred by the Court to an Official Referee without any direction as to
costs, his decision as to costs cannot be appealed against except by leave :
Minister and Co. v. Apperley, [1902] 1 K. B. 643.
But where the appeal is for substantial reUef, the Court of Appeal may
make any such order as might have been made by the Court below, in-
cluding an order as to the costs of the original hearing : see Powell v.
Jewesbury, 9 Ch. D. 34, C. A., and Form 1, sup. p. 811 ; Davy v. Garrett,
7 Ch. D. 472, 490, C. A. ; Kevan v. Crawford, 6 Ch. D. 29, 40, C. A., and see
Form 4, sup. p. 812, O. Lvm, 5 ; and an appeal will be entertained if the
Court of Appeal is satisfied that the Judge has not exercised his discretion
but has applied some rule which he considered as excluding it : Bew v. B.,
[1899] 2 Ch. 467, C. A., Form 6, p. 813 (following The City of Manchester,
6 P. D. 221 ; and not following Charles v. Jones, 33 Ch. D. 80).
And an order allowing costs, charges, and expenses to a trustee is not Where appeal
within the rule, inasmuch as it deals with distinct claims between trustees will lie.
and c. q. t., not merely with costs necessarily incident to proceedings in the
High Court, and therefore in its discretion : Re Chennell, Jones v. C., 8 Ch.
D. 500, C. A. ; nor an order directing Deft executor to pay costs on the
ground that he has caused litigation by refusing accounts : Be Pugh, Lewis
V. Pritchard, 57 L. T. 858 ; or allowing a trustee costs of incidental litiga-
tion, being substantially charges and expenses in the admon of the trust :
Re Beddoes, Dovmes v. Cottam, [1893] 1 Ch. 547, C. A. ; or depriving a Pit
residuary legatee of his right (prior to Rules of 1883) to costs of admon
action out of the estate : Farrow v. Austin, 18 Ch. D. 58, C. A. ; Re
M'Clellan, M. v. M., 29 Ch. D. 495, C. A. ; secus, in the case of a hostile
action seeking to charge Deft with costs, on the ground of misconduct :
Williams v. Jones, 34 Ch. D. 120, C. A. ; and that a trustee is entitled
ex debitojustitice to his costs out of the trust fund, unless some special ground
is shown for depriving him of them, see Turner v. Hancock, 20 Ch. D. 303,
C. A. ; disapproving Re Hoskins' Trusts, 6 Ch. D. 283, C. A. ; and see
Be Knight's Will, 26 Ch. D. 82, C. A. ; 32 W. R. 336, 417.
But an appeal from an order for payment of " costs, charges, and ex- Charges and
penses " will not lie as to " costs " only, if the order is right as to " charges expenses,
and expenses " : Bew v. B., [1899] 2 Ch. 467, C. A. (following Charles v.
Jones, 33 Ch. D. 80; and not following In re CJiennell, 8 Ch. D. 492).
So also costs properly incurred by a mortgagee in enforcing or in relation Mortgagee's
to his security, are not within the rule : Re Rio Grande del Std Co., 5 Ch. D. costs.
282, C. A. ; Cotterell v. Stratum, 8 Ch. 295; Johnstone v. Cox, 19 Ch. D. 17,
C. A. ; Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham, 33 Ch. D. 76, C. A. ; but if the Court
allows them there can be no appeal by the mortgagor : S. C. ; and an
820
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
Parties in re-
presentative
character.
On motion
to commit.
Irregular
orders as
to costs.
As to special
allowances.
Leave to
appeal, not
overruled.
appeal lay from an order against Deft mortgagees to pay the costs of
beneficiaries improperly made parties by the Pits : Be Cooper, O. v. Vesey,
20 Ch. D. 611, C. A. ; and from an order determining priorities of incum-
brancers, but directing costs of all parties to be first paid out of the fund :
Johnstone v. Cox, 19 Ch. D. 17, C. A. ; and see Butcher v. Pooler, 24 Ch. D.
273, C. A.
And where persons are made parties to an action in a purely representa-
tive character, arid no relief is claimed against them personally, they may
maintain an appeal for costs : Etherington v. Wilscm, 1 Ch. D. 160, 167,
C. A.
And an appeal will lie to the Court of Appeal from an order of the Lords
Justices directing that the costs of an inquiry into the mental condition of
an alleged lunatic should be paid out of his estate : Be Caihcart, [1893] 1
Ch. 466, C. A.
An order, on a motion to commit for contempt, that the person alleged to
be in contempt pay the costs of the motion may be appealed against by him
as involving a decision that he is in contempt : Witt v. Corcoran, 2 Ch. D.
69, C. A. ; and as being " an appeal against the finding by which the Judge
clothes himself with jurisdiction to inflict costs " : Stevens v. Met. Disl. By.
Co., 29 Ch. D. 60, C. A. ; and see Be Milton, 53 L. J. Q. B. 65 ; 50 L. T. 170 ;
32 W. R. 238 ; Be Bradford, Thursby and Parish, 15 Q. B. D. 635, C. A. ,-
but not by the applicant, when costs are to be costs in the action, as this is
not an appeal against a decision, but is either an appeal for costs only, or an
appeal against the Judge's discretion : Ashworth v. Outram (No. 2), 5 Ch. D.
943, C. A.
An appeal will lie from an order making Deft pay the whole costs of an
action, although the Pit has no right to sue : Dicks v. Yates, 18 Ch. D. 76,
C. A. ; or imposing payment of costs as the condition of a new trial : Met.
Asylum District v. Hill, 5 App. Ca. 581 ; or ordering costs of application to
be paid by the solr personally : Be Bradford, dkc, sup. ; or exor to pay
costs of admon action, as having been caused by his refusal to furnish
accounts : Be Pugh, Lewis v. Pritchard, 57 L. T. 858 ,• or an order of a
Master in interpleader proceedings dealing extra jur. with costs of action :
Hansen v. Maddox, 12 Q. B. D. 100 ; or an order of a County Court Judge
making successful Deft pay the costs of the Pit : Andrew v. Grove, [1902]
1 K. B. 625.
And an appeal vt'ill lie upon the question whether special grounds exist,
arising out of the nature and importance, or out of the difficulty or urgency
of a case, to justify the allowance of costs on the higher scale under O. Lxv,
9 : Paine v. Chisholm, [1891] 1 Q. B. 531, C. A.
Where the Judge gives leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal will still
regard liis discretion, and not overrule it, except for disregard of principle
and misapprehension of facts : Be Gilbert, G. v. Hudlestone, 28 Ch. D. 549,
C. A.
Time to
5. Orders in Chambers. — By Jud. Act, 1873, s. 50, every order made by
a Judge in Chambers (except in exercise of such discretion as is mentioned
in s. 49, s^ip.) may be set aside or discharged upon notice by any Divisional
Court, or by the Judge in Court, according to the course and practice of the
particular Division, and no appeal shall lie from any such order, to set aside
or discharge which no such motion has been made, unless by special leave
of the Judge by whom such order was made, or of the Court of
Appeal.
Sect. 50 does not give a right to appeal from an order in Chambers under
an Act which provides that there shall be no appeal : Dodds v. Shepherd,
1 Ex. D. 75.
In the K. B. Division (except in matters of practice or procedure, as
to which V. inf.) an appeal from a Judge in Chambers is to be to a Divisional
Court (0. Liv, 23) by motion within eight days after the decision appealed
against ; or if no Court to which such appeal can be made shall sit within
Appeals. 821
such eight days, then on the first day on which any such Court may be
sitting after the expiration of such eight days.
If the Divisional Court sits within the eight days, but not for the purpose
of hearing motions on the eighth day, the motion must be made within the
eight days : Stirling v. Du Barry, 5 Q. B. D. 66, C. A. ; the last clause of
the rule being only intended to give relief where no Court is sitting to which
an application can be made for extension of time (under O. lxiv, 7) : 8. C.
When no Court is sitting within the eight days, the extension of time
should be almost as of course : Wallingford v. Mutual Society, 5 App. C.
685.
Two clear days' notice of motion being required by O. ui, 5, the notice
must be given within five days after the decision ; and it must be for a day
within the eight days, although no Divisional Court sits within such days :
Steedman v. Hakim, 22 Q. B. D. 16, 21, C. A.
Notice for a day out of sittings is good : Re Goulton, Hamling v. Elliott,
34 Ch. D. 22, C. A. ; Maullin v. Rogers, 55 L. T. 121 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 377 ;
34 W. R. 592 ; overruling Daubney v. Shuttleworih, 1 Ex. D. 53 ; and see
Williams v. De Boinville, 17 Q. B. D. 180, where amendment of such a
notice was allowed.
If a party appeaUng to a Divisional Court does not appear, he cannot
afterwards appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judgment given in his
absence : Walker v. Budden, 5 Q. B. D. 267, C. A.
By Jud. Act, 1894 (57 & 58 V. c. 16), s. 1, sub-s. 4, " in matters of practice Practice and
and procedure, every appeal from a Judge shall be to the Court of Appeal." procedure.
The following are respectively matters of practice and procedure within
the section : —
A summons for review of taxation of a solr's bill of costs : Re Oddy, [1895]
1 Q. B. 392, C. A. ; an appeal from a Judge at Chambers making a garnishee
order absolute : Hockley v. Ansah, 44 W. R. 666 ; an appeal against an
order of a Judge at Chambers giving leave to Pit to enter final judgment
under O. xiv, r. 1 : Cannon Brewery Co. v. Oilby, 75 L. T. 407 ; an appeal
from an order of a Judge at Chambers upon an application to enforce an
award on a, submission to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889 :
Re Colman and Watson, [1908] 1 K. B. 47, C. A., a summons asking for an
interim injunction until the trial of the action : McHarg v. Universal
Stock Exchange, [1895] 2 Q. B. 81 ; and a summons in Chambers for leave to
revoke a submission to arbitration : Re Portland Urban District Council and
Tilley <fe Co., [1896] 2 Q. B. 98 : secus, an application to a Judge in Chambers
for a prohibition to restrain an inferior Court from exceeding its jurisdiction,
as the words " practice and procedure " mean practice and procedure in the
High Court : Watson v. Petts, [1899] 1 Q. B. 54, C. A. See also Lang v.
The Great Northern die. Ry. Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 813 (apphcation to a Judge
in Chambers for an order that the question arising on a case of compensa-
tion under the L. C. C. Act, 1845, should be tried in the High Court) ; and
see Re Frere and Staveley Taylor Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 366 (order of a Judge
at Chambers directing an arbitrator to state a case pending an arbitration) ;
and Re Marchant, [1908] 1 K. B. 998, C. A. (order of a Judge at Chambers
upon an originating summons directing payment to the Pit of a sum of
money specified in the summons) : Yonge v. Toynbee, [1910] 1 K. B. 215,
C. A. (order of Judge in Chambers striking out appearance and subsequent
proceedings and refusing an order as to costs). An application by a Deft
to discharge an order at Chambers, made ex parte, giving leave to serve
the writ upon him out of the jurisdiction, or to set aside the service, should
be made by a summons at Chambers and not by motion in the Divisional
Court or in the Court of Appeal : Black v. Dawson, [1895] 1 Q. B. 848, C. A.
Notwithstanding the above enactment an unsuccessful litigant in Chamber
Chambers in the Ch. D. has still three alternatives, viz., either (1) to move orders in
before the Judge in Court to discharge the order made in Chambers, or (2) Ch. Div.
to have the matter adjourned into Court, or (3) to obtain leave from the
Judge to go to the C. A. direct upon his certificate that no further argument
822
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
is required ; but with a view to preventing delay and expense, the Court
will, as far as possible, discourage motions to discharge orders made in
Chambers : Boake v. Stevenson, [1895] 1 Ch. 358.
Where either or both parties do not intend to accept the decision of the
Judge in Chambers as final, the proper course is to ask at once to have the
summons adjourned into Court for argument, and thus save time and avoid
having arguments both in Chambers and in Court : Forrester v. Jones,
1899, W. N. 78.
Motion to In the Chancery Division the motion to discharge should be made within
discharge. fourteen days after the order was pronounced, or the moving party first had
notice of it, by analogy to 0. Lvrn, 15, as to appeals from interlocutory
orders : Heatley v. Newton, 19 Ch. D. 326, C. A. ; Re Lewis, L. v. Williams,
31 Ch. D. 623, C. A. ; lie Norwich Equitable Co., BrasneU's Case, 33 W. R.
270 ; Re Hardwidge, 1884, W. N. 204 ; 52 L. T. 40 ; Re Elham Valley Ry.
Co., Dickson's Case, 12 Ch. D. 298 ; Dickson v. Harrison, 9 Ch. D. 243, C. A. ;
and this whether such order was interlocutory or final : Re Giles, Real and
Personal Advance Co. v. Mitchell, 43 Ch. I). 391, C. A. ; Re Johnson,
Manchester Bank v. Beales, 42 Ch. D. 505.
Following the same analogy, the fourteen days are to be computed from
the date of refusal, when no order is made, or from the date of signing and
entering or otherwise perfecting the order : Heatley v. Newton, 19 Ch. T>. 326.
Notice of motion to discharge an ex parte order for public examination
under sect. 8, sub-sect. 3, of the Cos. (Winding-up) Act, 1890 (now substi-
tuted by sect. 175, sub-sect. 1, of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908),
ought to be given within a reasonably short time : Re Civil, Naval and
Military Outfitters, Ld., [1899] 1 Ch. 215, per Wright, J. ; whether the
time for giving such notice is fixed by O. Lvin, 15, quaere : 8. C.
A motion to discharge an order made in Chambers is not an " appeal,"
but a re-hearing : Boake v. Stevenson, [1895] 1 Ch. 358.
Whether a Judge can rehear in Chambers an order previously made
there, but not drawn up, quaere : Re Eyton, Ex parte Charlesworth, 36
C. D. 299, C. A. ; and see A. 0. v. Llewellyn, 1888, W. N. 88 ; 58 L. T. 367.
In Rhodes v. R., 1 Ch. 483, an appeal as to the rejection of evidence on
an inquiry in Chambers was ordered to stand over to come on with any
motion to vary the certificate.
Further After a summons has been fully heard by the Judge personally in
evidence. Chambers, further evidence will not be received on motion to discharge :
Re Munns and Longden, 50 L. T. 356 ; 32 W. R. 675.
The order on motion to discharge is in all Divisions subject to appeal
like any other interlocutory order : Dickson v. Harrison, 9 C. D. 243,
245, C. A. ; and see Fox v. Wallis, 2 C. P. D. 45, C. A..
Appeals. Appeals from an exercise of discretion by a Judge in Chambers will not be
entertained by the Court of Appeal : Golding v. Wharton, dkc. Co., 1 Q. B. D.
374 ; 24 W. R. 423.
Where the only objection to an order is as to whether it can be made on
summons under a particular rule, its validity must be questioned at the
time when it is made : Dyott v. Neville, 1887, W. N. 35 ; Horton v. Bosson,
1899, W. N. 38.
As to appeals in interpleader proceedings, v. sup. Chap. XXIX. p. 497.
6. Extension of Time.— By the Jud. Act, 1894 (57 & 58 V. c. 16), s. l,
sub-s. 1 (a), " no appeal shall lie from an order allowing an extension of
time for appealing from a judgment or order."
This sub-section applies to an order of a Divisional Court in Bankruptcy
extending the time for appealing from an order of the County Court : Re
A Debtor (No. 20 of 1910), [1911] 1 K. B. 841.
7. Interlocutory Orders or Judgments. — Leave to appeal.— By the Jud.
Act, 1894, s. 1, sub-s. 1 (b), no appeal lies " without the leave of the Judge,
or of the Court of Appeal, from any interlocutory order or interlocutory
judgment made or given by a Judge, except in the following cases, namely : —
Appeals. 823
(i.) Where the liberty of the subject or the custody of infants is con-
cerned ; an order refusing to commit for breach of an undertaking
does not " concern the liberty of the subject " within sect. 1,
sub-sect. 1 : Bowden v. Yoxall, [1901] 1 Ch. 1, C. A.
(ii.) Cases of granting or refusing an injunction or appointing a receiver ;
(iii.) Any decision determining the claim of any creditor, or the liability
of any contributory, or the liability of any director or other officer
under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, in respect of
misfeasance or otherwise ; and
(iv.) Any decree nisi in a matrimonial cause, and any judgment or order
in an Admiralty action determining liability ; and
(v. ) Any order on a special case stated under the Arbitration Act , 1 889 ; and
(vi.) Such other cases, to be prescribed by Rules of Court, as may, in the
opinion of the authority for making such rules, be of the nature of
final decisions."
By sub-sect. 2, "an order refusing unconditional leave to defend an action
shall not be deemed to be an interlocutory order within the meaning of this
section."
By sub-sect. 3, " No appeal shall lie from an order of a Judge giving
unconditional leave to defend an action."
By sub-sect. 6 " an application for leave to appeal may be made ex parte
or otherwise, as may be prescribed by Rules of Court."
By O. Lvni, 15, no appeal from an interlocutory order is, except by special
leave of the Court of Appeal, to be brought after the expiration of fourteen
days, to be calculated from the time at which it is signed, entered, or other-
wise perfected, or in case of the refusal of an application, from the date of
such refusal.
There is no right of appeal to the House of Lords from the refusal of the
Court of Appeal to give special leave under this order : Lane v. Esdaile,
H. L., 40 W. R. 65.
A motion to discharge an order of a single Judge of C. A. is not an
" appeal " : Boyd v. Bischoffsheim, [1895] 1 Ch. 1, C. A.
8. Judgments obtained by Fraud.— Where a decision of the Court of
Appeal is impeached as having been obtained by fraud, the proper course is
not to apply for a rehearing, but to commence an original action in the
High Court to set aside the judgment on the ground of fraud : Flower v.
Lloyd, 6 Ch. D. 297, C. A. ; Oole v. Langford, [1898] 2 Q. B. 36 ; and it
seems that a judgment will be set aside merely on the ground of perjury
or falsification of evidence : S. C, 10 Ch. 327, C. A. ; Baker v. Wadsworth,
67 L. J. Q. B. 301.
9. Orders within the Discretion of the Judge. — In matters within the
discretion of the Judge of the Court below, the Court of Appeal has complete
jurisdiction, but deoUnes to interfere except in extreme cases, or where the
Judge has clearly proceeded on a wrong principle : Watson v. Rodwell, 3
Ch. D. 380, 383 ; Be Martin, Hunt v. Chambers, 20 Ch. D. 365, C. A. ; Wal-
ling ford V. Mutual Society, 5 App. Ca. 685 ; Bew v. B., [1899] 2 Ch. 467, C. A.,
sup. pp. 818, 819 ; and therefore appeals will not, in general, be entertained
from orders on applications to strike out pleadings : Exp. E. <t- W. India
Dock Co., Be Clarke, 17 Ch. D. 759, C. A. ; Oolding v. Wharton Co., 1 Q. B. D.
374, C. A. ; Watson v. Rodwell, 3 Ch. D. 380, C. A. ; and see Cashin v.
Cradock, 3 Ch. D. 376, C. A. ; unless the pleading is embarrassing, so that
the order is ex dehito justitice : Davy v. Oarrett, 7 Ch. D. 473 ; nor from an
order that the question at issue be stated in the form of a special case :
Met. Bd. of Works v. New Biver Co., 2 Q. B. D. 67, C. A. ; or tried in a
particular manner : Buston v. Tdbin, 10 Ch. D. 558, C. A. ; Be Martin,
Hunt v. Chamibers, sup. ; Mangan v. Metropolitan Electric Supply Co.,
[1891] 2 Ch. 551, 0. A. ; explaining Jenkins v. BusKby, [1891] 1 Ch. 484,
C. A. ; or referred to an official or special referee : see Ormerod v. Tod-
morden Mill Co., 8 Q. B. D. 664, C. A. ; nor from an order for security on a
824
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
debtor's summons : Ex'p. Marshall, 5 Ch. D. 873, C. A. ; nor from a refusal
to commit for contempt : Ashworth v. Outram (No. 2), 5 Ch. D. 943, C. A. ;
nor an order for examination of persons deemed to be capable of giving infor-
mation under sect. 174 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 : Re. Oold
Co., 12 Ch. D. 77 ; nor an order refusing to displace debenture-holders'
receiver by the liquidator of the co. : Re Stubbs, Barney v. 8., [1891] 1 Ch.
475, C. A. ; nor an order by a Judge in Chambers for the trial with assessors
of an issue requiring scientific investigation : Swyny v. North Eastern Ry. Co.,
74 L. T. 88, C. A. ; nor an order reviewing the decision of a taxing master,
where no principle is involved : Real and Personal Advance Co. v. McCarthy,
18 Ch. D. 362 ; nor an order allowing taxation of a bill after payment on
the ground of " special circumstances," where the amount involved is
small: iJe OAeesmara, [1891] 2 Ch. 289 ; 39W. R.497; and see iJeffamsow,
33 Ch. D. 52, C. A. ; Exp. Stevenson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 609, C. A.
Committal As to the competency of appeals from committals for contempt, see Reg.
for contempt, v. Jordan, 1888, W. N. 152 ; 57 L. T. Q. B. 483 ; 36 W. R. 796 ; Jarmain v.
Chatterton, 20 Ch. D. 493, C. A. ; Ashworth v. Outram (No. 2), 5 Ch. D. 943,
C. A. ; or from a direction for trial by an official referee, see Ormerod v.
Todmorden Mill Co., sup. ; Dan. 1045.
Privilege for On a question of privilege for documents, no appeal will be allowed from
documents, a decision of the Judge at Chambers to whom the documents have by
consent been submitted : Bustros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 423, C. A.
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords on a question of discretion will not
be granted : Re Clarke, Exp. E. and W. India Dock Co., 17 Ch. D. 759, C. A.
10. Order in exercise of consultative jurisdiction. — No appeal lies
from a decision of the High Court of Justice upon questions submitted to it
under sect. 29 of the Local Government Act, 1888 (51 & 52 V. c. 41), the
jurisdiction underthat section being consultative only, and not judicial : Exp.
County Council of Kent, [1891] 1 Q. B. 725, C. A. ; and where a special case
raises for decision questions of fact only, the judgment of the Court is in
the nature of an arbitrator's award, and an appeal will not lie : Burgess v.
Morton, [1896] A. C. 136, H. L. (where H. L. reversed the judgment of C. A.
on such a special case as extra cursum curice).
On the question whether an appeal will lie from the opinion of the K. B. D.
on a case stated by an arbitrator under the C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 5 (now
sect. 7 of the Arbitration Act, 1889), see Jones v. Victoria Dock Co., 2
Q. B. D. 314, C. A.
Pirties
to suit.
Pit against
co-Pit.
One of a
class.
Person not
party to a
rcoorfl.
WHO MAY APPEAL.
In the absence of any special provisions in the Jud. Acts and Rules of
Court the former practice remains unaltered on this point.
In the case of suits in the Court of Chancery, all persons parties to the
suit, or served with or bound by the decree, might appeal from it : Bruffy.
Cobbold, 7 Ch. 217 ; Ellison v. Thomas, 2 D. J. & S. 18 ; Giffard v. Hort,
1 Sch. & L. 386, 409 ; CrawcourY. Salter, 30 W. R. 329 ; and see Osborne v.
Usher, 2 Bro. P. C. 314 ; Dan. 1041.
One of several Pits can appeal against his co-Pits: Jopp v. Wood,
2 D. J. & S. 323 ; and alone without his co-Pits : Beckett v. Atiwood, 18
Ch. D. 54, C. A.
In a representative action, a dissentient member of a class represented
by the Pit cannot appeal from an order in favour of the class, but, semble,
should apply in the Court below to be made a Deft : Watson v. Cave, 17
Ch. D. 19, C. A.
Where the appellant is not a party to the record, he can only appeal by
leave to be obtained on motion ex parte from the Court of Appeal : Parmeter
v.P.,2 D. P. & J. 526 : Hodgson v. Clarke, 1 D. P. & J. 394 ; 2 D. P. & J.
526 ; Re Markham, M. v. M., 16 Ch. D. 1, C. A. ; and see Bruffv. Cobbold,
7 Ch. 217 ; Dan. 1054 ; D. C. P. 732 ; In re Securities Insurance Co.,
Appeals. ^25
[1894] 2 Ch. 410, C. A., where the leave was refused to creditors who had
not opposed a scheme under the Joint Stock Cos. Arrangement Act, 1870
(33 & 34 V. c. 104), now substituted by the Companies (Consolidation)
Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 69), s. 120, at the meeting of creditors, nor
appeared before the Judge when the order sanctioning it was applied for.
Leave to appeal will not be given to a person not a party, unless his
interest is such that he might have been made a party : Orawcour v.
Salter, 30 W. R. 329 ; Be Madras Irrigation Co., 23 Ch. D. 248, C. A. ;
Be Youngs, Doggett v. Bevett, 30 Ch. D. 421, C. A.
An executor of a deceased party who has given notice of appeal may Executor of
prosecute the appeal under the common order of revivor : Banson v. deceased
Patton, 17 Ch. D. 766, C. A. party-
A Deft who has since the trial become bankrupt may appeal from an Bankrupt,
order for an injunction without the trustee : Deuce v. Mason, 41 L. T. 573.
Under the present practice an uncertificated bankrupt cannot appeal
against an order establishing a money demand which had been proved
against his estate : Vale v. Oppert, 5 Ch. D. 969, C. A.
An appeal involving a question of status was allowed to proceed not-
withstanding the appellant's bankruptcy: Gordon v. Merricks, 10 App.
Ca. 171 (Sc).
Where a trustee has not been appointed, a notice of appeal by the
receiver in bankruptcy was ordered to be amended by adding the petition-
ing creditor, and the debtor : Exp. Chalmers, 11 Ch. D. 911, C. A.
As to the principles upon which leave to appeal has been granted to Liquidators,
liquidators under the winding-up of cos., see Be Silver Valley Mines, 21
Ch. D. 381, C. A. ; Be City and County Investment Co., 13 Ch. D. 475, C. A. ;
Buckley, 417.
A person summoned as a witness under sect. 174 of the Companies
(Consolidation) Act, 1908, has [sewhle) no locus standi to appeal against
the order directing his attendance : Be Gold Co., 12 Ch. D. 77, C. A.
In a test action on neglect of Deft to appeal, a Deft in one of the other Test action,
actions mav be substituted : Briton Medical and General Life Assce. Soc.
v. Jones, 60 L. T. 637.
MODE OT APPEALING AMOTIONS BEFOKB THE COTJET OE APPEAL.
By O. Lvm, 1, all appeals are to be by way of rehearing, and are to be Appeal
brought by motion in a summary way, and no formal proceeding is neces- motions,
sary other than notice of the motion, thus substituting a uniform mode of
appeal for the several modes by wliich appeals were brought before the
Jud. Acts — i.e., petition of rehearing in the case of a decree or decretal
order, appeal petition in the case of an order on petition, and appeal
motion on a two days' notice in the case of an order on motion or in
Chambers.
Appeal motions under the new practice are perfectly distinct from appeal
motions before the Jud. Acts and from original motions, and are solely
regulated by the subsequent rules of O. lviii. For form of notice, see
D. C. F. 732.
As to cross appeals under the new practice, v. inf. p. 837.
Applications in pending appeals are to be made by original motion under Original
O. Lvm, 17, 18. motions in
By r. 17, every application which under these rules may be made either to pending
the Court below or a Judge thereof, or to the Court of Appeal or a Judge appeals,
thereof, is to be made in the first instance to the Court or Judge below ;
and by r. 18, every application to a Judge of the Court of Appeal is to be
by motion under the provisions of O. lii.
Motions under these rules which are to be made before the Court of
Appeal in the first instance, and in respect of which the Court therefore
has original jurisdiction, have been distinguished from applications which
are to be made first before the Court or Judge below, in respect of which
826
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
the Court of Appeal has an appellate jurisdiction ; but in both cases the
practice in the Court of Appeal is the same as that on original motion :
see A. Q. v. Swansea Co., 9 Ch. D. 46, C, A. ; Cooper v. C, 2 Ch. D. 492,
0. A. ; Form 10, inf. p. 839.
Ex parte By 0. Lvm, 10, it is provided that when any ex parte application has been
applications, refused by the Court below, an application for a similar purpose may be
made to the Court of Appeal ex parte within four days from the refusal,
or such extended time as a Judge of the Court below or of the Appeal Court
may allow.
NOTICE OF APPEAL.
By 0. LVlll, 1, the appellant may, by notice of motion, appeal from the
whole or part only of any judgment or order, and the notice of appeal is
to state whether the whole or part of the judgment or order is complained
of, and if part only, is to specify such part.
Under this rule service of the notice constitutes the appeal : Exp. Viney,
4 Ch. D. 794.
What suffi- Mere communication of an intention to appeal is not a sufficient notice of
oient notice, appeal : Be New Callao Co., 22 Ch. D. 484, C. A. ; Be Blyth and Young, 13
Ch. D. 416, C. A. ; and see Be Manchester Economic Building 8oc., 24
Ch. D. 488, C. A.
A notice otherwise regular is not bad because the solrs are inaccurately
described, and whether the notice should be signed by solrs, qu. : Kettlewell
V. Watscm, 52 L. J. Ch. 818 ; 48 L. T. 840 ; 31 W. R. 709.
The above rule applies only in cases of original appeals, cross appeals
being provided for by rr. 6, 7 : v. inf. p. 837.
A notice of appeal may be withdrawn and a fresh notice given if within
time : Norton v. L. & N. W. By. Co., 13 Ch. D. 268, C. A. ; and see Waism
v. Cave, 17 Ch. D. 19, C. A. As to withdrawal of appeal by consent, see
Dan. 1064.
Notice of discontinuance of an action ipso facto vacates an appeal by the
Pit : Conybeare v. Lewis, 13 Ch. D. 469, C. A.
By r. 3, notice of appeal from any judgment, whether final or inter-
locutory or from a final order, is to be a fourteen days' notice, and notice
of appeal from an interlocutory order is to be a four days' notice.
Where a four days' notice of appeal was given instead of a fourteen days'
notice, the time for appealing was extended, the applicant having given
in proper time a distinct notice of appeal : Be Grosley, Munns v. Burn, 34
Ch. D. 664, C. A. ; and see Be Stockton Iron Furnace Co., 10 C. D. 335, C. A.
By r. 2, the notice is to be served on all parties directly affected by the
appeal, and it is not necessary to serve parties not so affected ; but the
Court of Appeal may direct notice of the appeal to be served on all or
any parties to the action or proceeding, or upon any person not a party,
and in the meantime may postpone or adjourn the hearing upon such
terms as may seem just, and give such judgment or make such order as
might have been given or made, if the persons served had been originally
parties.
An order for substituted service of a notice of appeal may be made in a
proper case : Ex pm-te Warburg, Be Whalley, 24 C. D. 364, C. A. ; Be
London County Council, 1901, W. N. 7, C. A.
Third party. A third party who has been served by a Deft, and has obtained leave to
appear at the trial, was held not to be a person directly affected: Be
Salmon, Priest v. Uppleby, 42 Ch. D. 351, C. A. ; diss. Cotton, L. J. The
Court, however, in its discretion, directed service on the third parties :
S.G.
As to the meaning of the expression " directly affected," see Be A Debtor,
[1901] 2 K. B. 354, C. A.
Notice of appeal from a refusal to annul an adjudication must be served
on the trustee in bankruptcy as well as the petitioning creditor : Ex
parte Ward, Be Wa/rd, 15 C. D. 292, C. A.
Withdrawal.
Time.
Extending
time.
Service.
Appeals. 827
A party afieoted, but not served with notice, may appear gratis on the
appeal, and obtain his costs if the appeal is dismissed, though for irregu-
larity ; Be New Cailao Co., 22 Ch. D. 484, C. A.
Under this rule it was held that where a Deft appealed against an order Co-Dcfts.
discharging a rule for a new trial after a verdict against him and in favour
of his co-Deft, the Court could not entertain the appeal in the absence of
the co-Deft, and had jurisdiction to order service on him : Purnell v.
G. W. Ry. Co., 24 W. R. 720, 909.
So, too, where any one of three persons might, according to the con-
struction to be put on a will, be entitled to a fund, the notice of appeal of
one of them was ordered to be served on the others : Hunter v, H., 24
W. R. 504.
The usual practice in these cases is not to draw up any order ; when Order for
service has been effected the appeal is replaced in the paper by the proper service,
officer, or, if necessary, on appUcation to the Court.
By r. 2, any notice of appeal may be amended at any time as to the Court Amendment
of Appeal may seem fit : and, accordingly, where a four days' notice of of notice,
appeal had been given, instead of fourteen days, which the Court held to be
required under r. 3, the notice was amended at the hearing : Re Stockton
Iron Fvmace Co., 10 Ch. D. 335, C. A.
FINAL OB INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENTS OR ORDERS.
Every decision of the High Court is, for the purpose of appeal, either
final or interlocutory : Standard Discount Co. v. Lagrange, 3 C. P. D. 67, 69,
C. A.
The distinction between "final" and "interlocutory" judgments and Final or
orders is important, under O. Lvni, with reference (1) to the time for appeal- interloou-
ing (r. 15) ; (2) to the length of the notice of appeal (r. 3) ; (3) to the tory.
composition of the tribunal before which the appeal is heard (Jud. Act, 1875,
s. 12) J and (4) to the admissibility of further evidence on the appeal (r. 4).
A precise definition of the meaning of these terms cannot be given (see Re
Lewis, L. V. Williams, 31 Ch. D. 623, C. A. ; per Chitty, J., at p. 627).
The true test for determining the question is : Does the order as made
finally dispose of the rights of the parties ? If it does, then it is a final
order ; if it does not, it is an interlocutory order ; Bozon v. Alirincham
V. D. C, [1903] 1 K. B. 547, C. A., per Lord Alverstone, C. J., following
Sherbrook v. Tufnell, 9 Q. B. D. 621, C. A., in preference to Salaman v.
Warner, [1891] 1 Q. B. 734, C. A.
But orders which do not determine rights (Re Stockton Iron Furnace Co.,
10 Ch. D. 349, C. A.), or which merely direct how declarations of right
already given are to be worked out (Blahey v. Latham, 43 Ch. D. 23, C. A.),
or wliich, though in fact finally determining the action, would, if a contrary
decision had been given, have not determined it (Salaman v. Warner, [1891J
1 Q. B. 734, C. A.), are interlocutory.
And a judgment or order may be final within 0. Lvm, r. 3 or r. 4, as to the
length of notice of appeal required or the admissibility of further evidence,
but not so within r. 15 as respects the time for appealing ; e.g., an order
adjudicating on a claim against the estate in an admon action : Re Crosley, .
Munns v. Burn, 34 Ch. D. 664, C. A. ; Be Compton, Norton v. C, 27 Ch. D.
392, C. A. ; Be Lewis, L. v. Williams, 31 Ch. D. 623, C. A. ; Pheysey v. P.,
12 Ch. D. 305, C. A.
Orders on demurrer, under the former practice : Trowell v. Shenton, 8 Instance of
Ch. D. 318, 321, C. A. ; Fitzgerald v. Dawson, 24 W. R. 129 ; an order final orders,
striking out a statement of claim on the ground that it discloses no cause of
action : Jones v. Insole, 64 L. T. 703 ; 39 W. E. 629 ; judgments at
the hearing : Internal. Soc. v. City of Moscow Gas Co., 7 Ch. D. 241, C. A. ;
judgments in default of pleading under 0. xxvn : Whistler v. Hancock,
3 Q. B. D. 83 ; Wallis v. Hepburn, 3 Q. B. D. 84, n. ; but see Gossett
V. Campbell, 1877, W. N. 134 ; or on admissions in the pleadings under
828
Appeals.
[chap, xxxvr.
0. XXXII, 6 : A.G. v. 0. E. Ry. Co., 11 Ch. D. 449 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 428 ; Re
Emmet, E. v. E., 13 Ch. D. 484, 489 ; and see Jenkins v. Davies, 1 Ch. D.
696 ; Gilherl v. Smith, 2 Ch. D. 686, 689, C. A. ; and orders on further
consideration : Cummins v. Herron, 4 Ch. D. 787, C. A. ; but see Re
Johnson, 42 Ch. D. 505 ; an order on a summons in an admon action
to adjust loss from breach of trust : Chillingworth v. Chambers (No. 2),
1895, W. N. 136 (6) ; • and order under 0. xv in form of a foreclosure
judgment : Smith v. Davies, 31 Ch. D. 695, C. A. ; on special case stated by
an arbitrator, where the decision necessitated the entering of final judgment :
Shubrook v. Tufnell, 9 Q. B. D. 621, C. A. ; an order confirming chief clerk's
certificate as to damages by trespass : A. G. v. Tomline, 15 C. D. 152, C. A. ;
an order at a trial by jury depriving a successful party of costs : Mareden v.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry. Co., 7 Q. B. D. 641, C. A. ; are final.
An order made under the L. C. Act declaring the construction of a will
and directing inquiries, was held to be a final order for the purposes of
appeal, but as the parties were out of the jurisdiction, the time to appeal was
enlarged, to give time to communicate with them : Re Leonard Jacques, 18
Ch. D. 392, C. A.
As an originating summons under 0. LV, 3, is an action, an order on
such a summons, equivalent to judgment in the action, is appealable within
three months : Re Fawsitt, Qalland v. Burton, 30 Ch. D. 231, C. A. ; Dan.
1057.
So an order dismissing on originating summons for delivery of a bill of costs
by a solr and taxation is a final order : Re Reeves, [1902] 1 Ch. 29, C. A.
Instances of Orders on applications for leave to sign judgment under 0. xiv, 1 :
interlocutory Standard Discount Co. Y.La Grange, 3 C. P. D. 67, C. A. ; dismissing an
orders. action upon the hearing of a point of law under O. xxv, 2, 3, before trial :
Salaman v. Warner, [1891] 1 Q. B. 734, C. A. ; findings on interpleader
issues : McAndrew v. Barker, 7 Ch. D. 701, C. A. ; orders on creditors'
claims in admon actions : Trail v. Jackson, 4 Ch. D. 7, C. A. ; allowing set-
off of costs consequent upon the dismissal of an appeal with costs : Blakey v.
Latham, 43 Ch. D. 23, C. A. ; in a creditor's action directing distribution of
funds, but made on application of Deft administratrix with a view to pay-
ment to her costs : Re Lewis, L. v. Williams, 31 Ch. D. 623, C. A. ; on
summons by Pits, after further consideration in an admon action, declaring
certain annuities to be charged on the residue : In re Gardner, Long v.
Gardner (No. 2), 1894, W. N. 159, C. A. ; 71 L. T. 412 ; (semble) by a Judge
of the Ch. D. holding the claim of a person claiming to be a creditor of a
testator, and to administer his estate, to be valid : In re Abdy, Rabbeth v.
Donaldson (No. 1), 1895, W. N. 12, C. A. ; upon a special case stated by an
arbitrator preliminary to his making an award : Collins v. Vestry of Padding-
ton, 5 Q. B. D. 368," C. A. ; setting aside the award of an arbitrator on
the ground of misconduct : Re Crossdell and Cammell and Laird, [1906] 2
K. B. 569, C. A. ; or refusal to set aside or remit an award : Re Delagoa
Bay Ry. Co. and Tancred, 37 W. R. 578 ; 61 L. T. 343 ; upon case stated
under sect. 19 of the Stamp Act, 1870: Onslow v. Inland Revenue, 2^
Q. B. D. 465, C. A. ; in a winding-up, and an action, quA a person having
no such interest in the action as that he could have been made a party to it :
Wood V. Madras Canal Co., 23 Ch. D. 248, C. A. ; in Chambers, on further
consideration, leaving part of the fund to be subsequently dealt with, and
reserving liberty to apply : Re Johnson, Manchester Bank v. Beales, 42 Ch.
D. 505 ; on motion to vary special referee's report : Dunkirk Colliery v.
Lever, 9 Ch. D. 20 ; 26 W. R. 841 ; directing review of taxation : Exp.
Phillips, 19 Q. B. D. 234, C. A. ; dismissing a summons to review taxation ;
Re Jerome, [1907] 2 Ch. 145; dismissing an action as frivolous and
vexatious : Re Page, Hall v. Fladgate, [1910] 1 Ch. 489, C. A., are inter-
locutory.
Orders on motion for trial by jury : Swindell v. Birm. Syndicate, 3 Ch.
D. 127, C. A. ; or on motion for new trial after trial by jury in a Common
Law Division : Booth v. M. S. cfe L. Ry. Co., 39 L. T. 412, n. ; Highton v.
Appeals. ^29
Treherne, 27 W. R. 245 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 167 ; 39 L. T. 411 ; even though the
action be pending in the Ch. D. ; or findings on a trial by a Judge of the
Common Law Division without a jury : Krehl v. Burrell, 10 Ch. D. 420,
C. A. ; or on interpleader issues : McAndrew v. Barker, 7 Ch. D. 701, C. A. ;
or an order empowering Pit to sign judgment on writ specially indorsed :
Standard Discount Go. v. La Grange, 3 C. P. D. 67, C. A., are interlocutory ;
and see Oastler v. Henderson, 2 Q. B. D. 575, C. A. ; Hunt v. London Real
Property Co., 3 Q. B. D. 19, C. A.
A finding of fact by a Judge of the Ch. D., if prior to his judgment, even
though only one order is drawn up, is interlocutory : Krehl v. Burrell, 10
Ch. D. 420, C. A. ; but this only applies where at the commencement of the
trial it is arranged that distinct issues of fact be tried : Lowe v. L., 10 Ch. D.
432, C. A. ; Sugden v. 8t. Leonards, 1 P. D. 154, 212, C. A.
Orders in bankruptcy, or in any proceeding under the Companies (Con- Bankruptcy
solidation) Act, 1908, including the original winding-up order : Ee National and ^vinding-
Funds Assurance Co., 4 Ch. D. 305, C. A. ; or in any other matter not "P orders,
being an action, including orders under the statutory jurisdiction of the
Ch. D. : Be Baillie's Trusts, 4 Ch. D. 785, C. A. ; Re National Funds
Assurance Go., 4 Ch. D. 305, 314, C. A. ; are treated as interlocutory with
reference to the leave for appealing : O. Lvm, 9 ; and inf.
But an appeal from a winding-up order must be entered in the final list :
Re Globe, &c. Co., 29 S. J. 66.
Interlocutory decisions are either interlocutory judgments or inter- Distinction
locutory orders : see O. LVIII, 3, sup. p. 827. between
Under r. 3, orders upon appeal from a judgment of a County Court on an interlocutory
interpleader issue : Hughes v. Little, 18 Q. B. D. 32, C. A. ; and under r. 4, judgments
an order on summons by a creditor in an admon action : In re Compton, * orders.
Norton v. C, 27 Ch. D. 392, C. A., were held final ; secus, under r. 4, a
refusal by a Judge to order a writ of sequestration to issue against Deft co.
for breach of injunction : Spencer v. Ancoats Vale Rubber Co., 58 L. T. 363 ;
1888, W. N. 86.
An order in a matter, and therefore treated as interlocutory under
O. Lvm, 9, which is final as to the rights of the parties to it, is an inter-
locutory judgment within 0. Lvm, 3, so as to require fourteen days' notice
of appeal : Re Stockton Iron Furmxce Co., 10 Ch. D. 335, 342, C. A. ; and see
Memorandum, 1 Ch. D. 41 ; which, however, is not to be regarded as
defining what is meant by an interlocutorv order : see Phesey v. P., 12
Ch. D. 305, C. A.
Orders on points of practice, or procedure, or interim injunctions, or
orders for receivers, not finally deciding questions of right, are interlocutory
orders.
The following table may be of use as indicating broadlj the chief points of
difference between the several classes of decisions with respect to the
practice on appeals under 0. Lvm : —
1. In the case of a. final judgment or order —
(o) three months are allowed for appealing, if in an action ; if not,
fourteen days : r. 15 ;
(b) fourteen days' notice of the appeal is required : r. 3 ;
(c) not less than three Judges must sit to hear the appeal : Jud. Act,
1876, s. 12 ; except by consent, under 62 V. c. 6, v. sup. p. 815 ;
(d) further evidence is admissible only as to subsequent matter or by
special leave : r. 4.
2. In the case of an interlocutory judgment — ■
(a) fourteen days are allowed for appealing : r. 15 ;
(6) fourteen days' notice of the appeal is required : r. 3 ;
(c) in some, if not in all, cases three Judges must sit to hear the appeal :
Jud. Act, 1875, s. 12 ; except by consent as above ;
{d) further evidence is apparently admissible only as to subsequent
matter or by special leave : r. 4.
830
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
3 In the case of an interlocutory order —
(a) fourteen days are allowed for appealing : r. 15 ;
(5) four days' notice of the appeal motion is required : r, 3 ;
(c) not less than two Judges must sit to hear the appeal : Jud. Act,
1875,8.12;
(d) further evidence is admissible : r. 4.
On the history and meaning of the term "interlocutory "under the former
practice of the Court of Chancery, see Seton, 4th edit. p. 2.
Matter not
being an
action.
Vendor and
purchaser.
Bankruptcy
appeals.
TIME FOB APPEALINO.
By 0. Lvxri, 9, the time for appealing from any order or decision in the
matter of the winding-up of a oo., or in the matter of any bankruptcy, or in
any other matter not being an action, is to be the same as that limited
for appeal from an interlocutory order under r. 16.
This includes original winding-up orders, and any order under the
statutory jurisdiction of the Court : Re National Funds Assurance Co., 4
Ch. D. 305, 431, C. A. ; Re Baillie's Trusts, 4 Ch. D. 785, C. A.
By r. 16,subject and without prejudice to the power of the Court of Appeal
under O. lxiv, 7, no appeal to the Court of Appeal from any interlocutory
order or from any order whether final or interlocutory in any matter not
being an action shall be brought after the expiration of fourteen days, and
no other appeal shall be brought after the expiration of three months.
Every decision, not being a final judgment or order in an action, is, or
under r. 9 is to be treated as, an interlocutory order within the meaning of
r. 15, so as to be subject to appeal during the shorter period only, though it
is combined with a final order, or though it may decide a question of right,
or even the substantial question at issue between the parties : Standard Co.
V. La Orange, 3 C. P. D. 67, C. A. ; McAndrew v. Barker, 7 Ch. D. 701,
C. A. ; White v. WiU, 6 Ch. D. 589, C. A. ; Cummins v. Herron, 4 Ch. D.
787, C. A. ; McNair v. AudensMw Paint Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 502, C. A. ;
Austen Friars Steamship Co. v. Strack, [1906] 2 K. B. 497, C. A. ; so as
to be an interlocutory judgment within r. 3 ; but under O. Lvin, 15a, the
time of appealing against an order made on further consideration of a cause,
and on the hearing of a summons to vary the certificate on which such
order is made, is to be the same as the time for appealing against the order
on further consideration ; and this rule applies although two orders are
drawn up instead of one : Mdrsland v. Hole, 40 Ch. D. 1 10, C. A. ; Blahey v.
Latham, 43 Ch. D. 23, C. A. But r. 15a does not apply to a motion to vary
the report of an official referee : Saunders Davies v. Baillie, 1907, W. N.
237.
An appeal from an order or summons under the Vendor and Purchaser
Act, 1874, must be brought within the fourteen days : Re Bichetts and
Avent, 1890, W. N. 16.
In all cases the material date is the date of service of the notice of appeal ;
but on appealing from an order made by a Bankruptcy Court the appeal
must be entered and the deposit paid, and the notice of appeal given
within the time limited for bringing an appeal by r. 130 of the Bankruptcy
Rules, 1886 : Re Taylor, [1909] 1 K. B. 103.
COMPUTATION OF TIME.
In calculating the time, Sundays, and days when the offices are closed,
are to be reckoned : Fxp. Viney, 4 Ch. D. 794, C. A. ; Fxp. Saffery, Re
Lambert, 5 Ch. D. 365, C. A. ; Christopher v. Croll, 16 Q. B. D. 66, C. A. ;
and see O. txiv, 2.
By O. Lvni, 15, the respective periods of fourteen days and three months
are to be calculated, in the case of an appeal from an order made in
Chambers, from the time when such order was pronounced, or when the
appellant first had notice thereof, and in all other cases from the time at
which the judgment or order is signed, entered, or otherwise perfected, or,
in the case of the refusal of an application, from the date of such refusal.
Appeals. °^
The time runs from the refusal of an application, even though there is an Refusal of
order as to costs, which must be drawn up and entered ; for this makes no application,
difference in the refusal of the application, whereas the exact terms of the
order when an application is granted may be very material : Swindell v.
Birm. Syndicate, 3 Ch. D. 127, 133, C. A. ; and see Berdan v. Birm, Small
Arms Co., 7 Ch. D. 24, 25, C. A. ; Be Smith, Hooper v. S., 26 Ch. D. 614,
C. A. ; but an order containing an expression of opinion binding the rights
of the parties is not a simple refusal : Be Clay and Tetley, 16 Ch. D. 3, C. A.
If the appeal is from the refusal of part of an application, or from an order
which is silent as to that part in respect of which the appeal is brought, the
time runs from the date of the refusal : Berdan v. Birm. Small Arms Co.,
7 Ch. D. 24, C. A. ; Trail v. Jackson, 4 Ch. D. 7, C. A. ; secus, where the
part refused is not clearly separable from the rest, e.g., appUcation for un-
sealing twelve classes of documents refused as to nine : Jones v. Andrews,
58 L. T. 601.
Where the order appealed against directed payment of a fund in moieties
to the appellant and respondent, and the appellant's title to Ms moiety was
not disputed, it was held that the appeal was not from the refusal of an
order, but from an order with which the appellant was dissatisfied : Be
Michell's Trusts, 9 Ch. D. 5, C. A.
The dismissal of a suit at the hearing is the " refusal of an application "
within the rule : Internal. Society v. City of Moscow Oas Co. , 7 Ch. D. 241 , C. A.
A refusal of leave to amend at the trial forms part of the judgment, and it is Befusal of
unnecessary to appeal separately from it : Laird v. Briggs, 16 Ch. D. 663, C. A. leave to
A disallowance of a creditor's claim in answer to advertisements is a amend,
refusal : Be Claggett, Fordham v. C, 20 Ch. D. 134, C. A. Disallowance
The order of a Judge settling the form of a conveyance is subject to of creditor's
appeal : Pollock v. BabbiU, 21 Ch. D. 466, C. A. claim.
Appeals from the County Palatine are subject to the limitations of time Order settling
provided by O. Lvm, 15 : Lee v. Nuttall, 12 Ch. D. 61, C. A. ; and by conveyance,
virtue of the Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1890, s. 4, to the provisions of the Palatine
Jud. Act, 1894 (v. sup. p. 822) : Dowson v. Drosopher, 39 S. J. 262, C. A. Court.
From divorce cases appeals to the House of Lords under Jud. Act, 1881, Divorce cases.
44 & 45 V. c. 68), s. 9, are to be brought within one month after the decision
appealed from has been pronounced by the Court of Appeal, if the House of
Lords is then sitting, or within fourteen days after it next sits.
EXTENSION OF TIME.
Where the time has expired, leave to appeal must be obtained on motion Form of
after notice : Be Lawrence, Evennett v. i., 4 Ch. D. 139, C. A. application.
Extension of time for appeal cannot be granted by a Judge at Chambers :
Sellar v. BrigU, 91 L. T. 9, C. A.
On the expiration of the time limited for appealing, the successful litigant Special cir-
acquires a right to his judgment : Collins v. Paddington Vestry, 5 Q. B. D. cumstances.
368, C. A. ; and special circumstances must be shown in order to induce the
Court to extend the time ; S. C. ; but it is not essential that such circum-
stances should arise out of the conduct of the respondent : Be Crosley, Munns
V. Burn, 34 Ch. D. 664, C. A. ; Be Manchester Economic Building Society, 24
Ch. D. 448, C. A. ; Be Blyth and Young, 13 Ch. D. 416, C. A. (disapproving
McAndrewY. Barker, 7 Oh. D. 701, 705, 0. A.) ; Be New Calkco Co., 22 Ch. D.
484, C. A. ; and the matter is one of judicial discretion : Be Manchester
EconomicSoc, sup. ; Cusacky. L. & N. W. Bij. Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 347, 0. A.
The mere fact that the intention to appeal has been communicated is not Instances of
a ground for extension of time : Be New Oallao Co., 22 Ch. D. 484, C. A. ; leave refused.
Be Blyth and Young, 13 Oh. D. 416, 0. A. ; nor that other Judges had ex-
pressed views at variance with the decision appealed from, nor that the
appellant was an infant : Re Bradshaw, 1906, W. N. 86 ; nor that a
declaration was made as to future rights, all parties interested being adult
and before the Court : Curtis v. Sheffield, 21 Ch. D. 1, 0. A. ; and see
Fussell V. Dowding, 27 Ch. D. 237, 241 ; nor that the appeal was dismissed
832 Appeals. [chap, xxxvi.
through non-appearance of the appellant : Re Lamb, 23 Q. B. D. 477, C. A. ;
nor a mistake as to the construction of the rules of the Court : International
Society v. Moscow Gas Co., 7 Ch. D. 241, 247, C. A. ; Highton v. Treherne,
48 L. J. Ex. 176 ; 27 W. R. 245 ; 39 L. T. 411 ; nor that of a registrar's
clerk misleading the solr as to the time allowed : Exp. Viney, 7 Ch. I). 794 ;
nor a mistake of counsel as to the effect of the rules of Court : Re Doles and
Ravenshear, [1907] 1 K. B. 1, C. A. ; see also Nicholson v. Piper, 24 Times
Rep. 17 ; but see Rumhold v. L. 0. C, 100 L. T., 250, C. A., and Baker v.
FcAer, 1908, W. N. 9 (where an extension of time was granted under
0. Lxiv, r. 7, and Coles v. Ravenshear, sup., was distinguished on the ground
that the decision in that case was under O. Lvni, r. 15, and see now 0. Lvm,
r. 15, as amended, p. 830), but see Re A Debtor, 1910, W. N. 224, C. A.
An extension will not be granted when an order deciding rights has been
acted on for many years : Peareth v. Marriott, 22 Ch. D. 182.
The fact that the decision appealed from has been overruled by a subse-
quent decision of the Court of Appeal is not in itself sufficient ground for
extending the time for appeal, unless the subsequent decision is clear, and
special circumstances are shown : Craig v. Phillips, 7 Ch. D. 249, C. A. ;
and see Re Lawrence, Evennett v. L., 4 Ch. D. 139, C. A. ; and though a
judgment of the Court of Appeal determining the applicant's rights was
subsequently reversed by the House of Lords on an appeal by another
litigant, yet, under the circumstances' (a compromise having been carried
out by Act of Parliament), an extension was refused : Esdaile v. Payne,
40 Ch. D. 520; C. A.
Instances of But the leave has been granted where there was a bond fide mistake as to
leavegranted. the validity of a resolution for a voluntary winding-up : Re Manchester
Economic Building Soc, sup. ; where a notice of appeal was withdrawn by
mistake and immediately renewed : Taylor^ s Case, 8 Ch. D. 643, C. A. ;
where a final order made on petition was within the letter but not within
the spirit of r. 15 : Re Leonard Jacques, 18 Ch. D. 392, C. A. ; where a
person not a party but affected by the order, applied as soon as he became
aware of it : Re Padstow Total Loss Assoc, Exp. Bryant, 20 Ch. D. 137,
C. A. ; where the decision which had been followed was overruled and the
fund in question was still under the control of the Court : Re Normanton
Iron and Steel Co., 29 W. R. 300 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 223 ; and where, several
persons having been held liable, those who primd facie were primarily
liable appealed on the very last day without the knowledge of the others :
Re Clayton Mills Co., 37 Ch. D. 28, C. A.
As to extending the time for appealing from an order made on a misfeas-
ance summons in the winding-up of a co. notwithstanding that the appli-
cation is made after the expiration of the time see. Re Brazilian Rubber
Estates Co., 1911, W. N. 13.
Where a fund still remains in Court undistributed, or otherwise the
rights of the parties are unaffected, an extension of time may be granted on
less cause, at least in cases where the shorter period only is allowed : M. R.,
in Craig v. Phillips, 7 Ch. D. 261, C. A. ; Re Baillie's Trusts, 4 Ch. D. 785,
C. A. ; Re Normanton Iron Co., 29 W. R. 300 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 223.
And that clients ought not to be allowed to suffer through a bona fide mis-
take of their legal advisers, where the other side can be replaced in tlieir
former position, see Highton v. Treherne, 27 W. R. 245 ; 48 L. J. Ex.
176; 39 L. T. 411 ; and observations of Bramwell, L. J., in Collins v.
Paddington Vestry, 5 Q. B. D. 368, 378 ; see also Coles v. Ravenshear,
[1907] 1 K. B. 1, C. A.
SETTING DOWN APPEALS.
When the notice of appeal has been duly served the appellant must
proceed to set down the appeal for hearing as provided by O. Lvm, r. 8.
This must be done before the day named for the hearing in the notice,
and in default the appeal will be dismissed as an abandoned motion ; and
such dismissal is not a ground for extending the time for bringing a fresh
Appeals. °'^^
appeal : Ra Mansel, Rhodes v. JenUns, 7 Ch. D. 711, C. A. ; Re National
Funds Assurance Co., 4 Ch. D. 305, 308, C. A. ; Donovan v. Brovm, 4 Ex.
D. 148.
By O. LVin, 8, the party appealing from a judgment or order is to pro-
duce to the proper officer the judgment or order, or the office copy of it ;
and is also to leave with him a copy of the notice of appeal to be filed, and
the officer is thereupon to set down the appeal by entering it in the proper
list of appeals ; and it is to come on to be heard according to its order in such
list, unless the Court of Appeal or a Judge thereof shall otherwise direct,
but so as not to come into the paper for hearing before the day named in
the notice of appeal.
The respondents having the carriage of the order appealed from cannot Delay in
under this rule take advantage of their own delay in drawing up the order : drawing up
Re Harker, Goodbarne v. Fothergill, 10 Ch. D. 613. The Court can dispense order,
with the production of the order, and can require the case to be put in
the list for hearing, where the hearing has been intentionally delayed by
non-production of the order : Sherwell v. Combined, cfcc. Syndicate, 1907,
W. N. 211.
If after service the appeal is not set down, the respondent must make an Original
original motion for his costs, there being no appeal before the Court : motion for
Webb V. Mansel, 2 Q. B. D. 117, C. A. ; Re Oahwell Collieries, 7 Ch. D. 706, costs.
C. A. ; and see Rep. of Costa Rica v. Strotisberg, 21 March, 1879, Reg. Min.
fo. 261 ; but the costs of such a motion will not be allowed unless it has
been preceded by a demand for the costs of an abandoned appeal : Qriffin
V. Allen, 11 Ch. D. 913, C. A.
If the notice of appeal was not served in due time, and leave has not been Setting dowTi
obtained to appeal after the time, the appeal may still be set down without without leave
prejudice to any right of the respondents to raise the objection ; and if after time,
necessary an order for this purpose may be obtained on an ex parte appli-
cation : Re National Funds Assurance Co., sup. ; Norton v. L. cfc N. W. Ry.
Co., 11 Ch. D. 118, C. A.
Three copies of all material documents, the construction of which is Copies of
involved in the appeal, must be supplied for the use of the Court : Cannot v. documents.
Oppenheim, 38 W. R. 1 ; Re Randell, 56 L. T. 8 ; Notice 21 Nov. 1881 ;
1881, W. N. 501, Misc. ; Mem., 1897, W. N. 8.
If leave to appeal is necessary, proof of such leave having been given
must be produced : Dan. 1062.
Where the continuance of an injunction which may cause irreparable Advancing
damage, or the dissolution of an injunction restraining such damage is appeal,
involved, the hearing of an appeal will be advanced : Lazeriby v. White,
6 Ch. 8^> ; L.C. & D. Ry. Co. v. Imp. Merc. Credit Assoc, 3 Ch. 231. For
form of notice of motion, see D. C. P. 739.
And as to a stay of proceedings on similar grounds, v. inf. p. 839.
HEABINO or APPEALS.
By the Jud. Act, 1875, s. 12, every appeal is, when the subject-matter is Number of
a final order, decree, or judgment, to be heard before not less than three Judges on
Judges of the Court sitting together, and when the subject-matter is an liearing of
interlocutory order, decree, or judgment, is to be heard before not less than ^PP^*!^-
two Judges of the Court sitting together.
For the provisions of the Jud. Act, 1899 (62 V. o. 6), as to the hearing of
appeals by two Judges of 0. A. by consent of parties, v. sup. p. 815.
By the Judges' Memorandum, 1 Ch. D. 41, " all summonses finally settling
the rights of parties, such as summonses in winding-up orders, or in admon
suits, are to be heard before the full Court of Appeal."
The distinction here taken appears to approximate very closely to that
make in 0. LVin, 3, between interlocutory judgments and interlocutory
orders : v. sup. p. 827.
VOL. r. 3 H
834
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
Postpone-
ment.
Appellant not
appearing.
Respondent
not appear-
ing.
Appearance
gratis.
Kespondent
supporting
appellant.
Decision
on facts.
Postponement of an appeal set down will not be granted as of course
because all parties agree : Bird v. Andrew, 1887, W. N. 181 ; 36 W. R. 1.
See Dan. 1068.
If, when the appeal is called on, the appellant does not appear, the
respondent is entitled to have the appeal dismissed with costs, without
proving service of the notice of appeal upon him : Exp. Lows, 7 Ch. D. 160 ;
and see James v. Crow, 7 Ch. D. 410, C. A.
But if the respondent does not appear, it is presumed that the appellant
must prove service upon him, as in the case of non-appearance of a Deft
at the trial of an action : see Oockshoti v. London Cab Co., 26 W. R. 31 ; 47
L. J. Ch. 120 ; 1897, W. N. 24.
A party affected, but not served with notice, may appear gratis on the
appeal, and obtain his costs if the appeal is dismissed, though for irregu-
larity : Be New Callao Co., 22 Ch. D. 484, C. A.
The rule that a respondent cannot be heard by counsel in support of the
appellant's case was relaxed in favour of a trustee supporting an appeal by
tenant for life under sect. 10 of the Settled Land Act, 1890 : Be Marquis of
Aiksbury's Settled Estate, [1892] I Ch. 606, C. A.
The rehearing on appeal of a case tried by a Judge without a jury is not
governed by the rules applicable where there has been a trial and verdict by
a jury. The Court of Appeal must act on its own considered conclusion on
questions of fact as well as law : Coghlan v. Cumberland, [1898] 1 Ch. 704,
C. A. ; but see Colonial Securities Trust Co. v. Massey, [1896] 1 Q. B. 38,
C. A., to the effect that in cases of doubt the Court of Appeal will presume
that the decision of the Judge on the facts was right, and will not disturb it
unless the appellant can satisfactorily make out that it was wrong ; and see
The Gairlock, [1899] 2 I. R. 1, C. A.
EVIDENCE ON APPEAX.
By 0. Lvni, 11, the evidence taken in the Court below bearing on any
question of fact involved in an appeal, is to be brought before the Court of
Appeal, as to printed affidavits, by the production of printed copies, as to
affidavits not printed, by the production of office copies, and as to oral
evidence, by production of a copy of the Judge's notes, or such other
materials as the Court may deem expedient.
By r. 12, where evidence has not been printed in the Court below, the
Court, or a Judge below, or the Court or a Judge of Appeal, may order the
whole, or any part of it, to be printed, for the purpose of the appeal. Any
party printing evidence for the purpose of an appeal without such order is to
bear the costs of it, unless the Court or a Judge of Appeal shall otherwise
order.
Shorthand Costs of shorthand notes of the judgment of the Court below are allowed
notes. by the Court of Appeal in every case, and are only referred to in the order
when disallowed : Be Medland, Eland v. M., 41 Ch. D. 476, C. A. ; Hum-
phrey V. Sumner, 1886, W. N. 182 ; 55 L. T. 649 ; Ashworth v. Outram, 9
Ch. D. 483, C. A. ; The Swallow, 36 L. T. 231 ; Be De Falbe, [1901] 1 Ch.
523, C. A. ; notwithstanding that the case in the Court below has been
reported in the Law Reports : Be Cathcart, 1893, W. N. 107 ; and on
deciding as to the construction of a will, the Court, not being furnished
with any information as to the reasons given by the Judge in the Court
below, declined to make any order as to the costs of the appeal : Be
M'Connell, Saunders v. M., 29 Ch. D. 76, C. A.
Shorthand writer's notes of Judge's summing up were not allowed, the
case not being exceptional : Andrews v. Mochford, [1896] J Q. B. 372, C. A,
at p. 385, n.
Costs of shorthand notes of evidence in the Court below are not allowed,
except in very special cases : Kelly v. Byles, 13 Ch. D. 682, C. A. ; Glasier v.
Bolls, 38 W. R. 116 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 820 ; 62 L. T. 305 ; Yorkshire Laundries
v. Pickl-es, 1901, W. N. 28, C. A. ; or where taken by agreement with consent
Appeals. 835
of the Judge in the Court below : S. C. ; and see Castner Kdlner Alkali Co.
V. Commercial Development Corp., [1899] 1 Ch. 803, 0. A., where the costs of
transcript of shorthand notes of evidence were allowed in a difficult patent
case ; and application for such allowance should be made at the hearing,
and a special direction inserted in the order : Earl De la Warr v. Miles, 19
Ch. D. 80, C. A. ; Qlasier v. Rolls, sup. ; Ashworth v. Outram, 9 Ch. D. 483,
C. A.
Shorthand notes of evidence have been allowed in solr and client taxation,
as extra costs on appeal : Be Nation, N. v. Hamilion, 57 L. T. 648 ; and see
Bidder v. Bridges, 1887, W. N. 208.
A shorthand note of evidence taken by a clerk to the solr of one of the
parties cannot be used : Ellington v. Clark, 38 Ch. D. 332, C. A.
The costs of transcribing and printing, but not of taking the notes,
were allowed by the Court of Appeal : Bigsby v. Dickinson, 4 Ch. D. 24, 32,
C. A.
In ordinary cases the Judge's notes, supplemented by those of counsel. Judge's
are sufficient for the use of the Court of Appeal : Walker's Case, C. A., 16 notes.
Dec. 1878, Reg. Min. fo. 233 ; Krelil v. Burrell, C. A. 21 March, 1879, Reg.
Min. fo. 263 ; Earl De la Warr v. Miles, sup. ; Yorkshire Laundries v.
Pickles, 1901, W. N. 28, C. A. ; and see Be Gee, Laming v. G., 28 W. R. 217.
Judge's notes are obtained on a request lodged fourteen days at least
before the case is likely to be in the paper with the Judge's clerk (for form,
see D. C. F. 736), who sends the notes to the Scrivenery Department.
Copies for each Judge of C. A. are there made, returned to the clerk, and by
liim forwarded to proper officer of C. A. As to the former practice, see
Re Batt & Co.'s Trade Marks, Re Carter's Application, [1898] 2 Ch. 701,
C. A.
As to the duty of the appellant to procure such notes, see Ellington v.
Clark, 38 Ch. D. 332, C. A. ; and see Lumb v. Teal, 22 Q. B. D. 675.
By r. 13, on any question as to a Judge's ruUng or direction to a jury
or assessors, the Court of Appeal is to have regard to verified notes, or
other evidence, and to such other materials as the Court may deem
expedient.
By r. 4, the Court of Appeal has full discretionary power to receive Further
further evidence upon questions of fact, either by oral examination in Court, evidence,
by affidavit, or by deposition taken before an examiner or commissioner.
Such further evidence may be given without special leave upon inter-
locutory applications, or in any case as to matters which have occurred
after the date of the decision appealed from. Upon appeals from a judg-
ment after trial or hearing of any cause or matter upon the merits, such
further evidence (save as to matters subsequent as aforesaid) is to be
admitted on special grounds only, and not without special leave of the
Court.
Where an appellant gave notice of motion to call a new witness, but at
the hearing no special leave was obtained, and the witness was not called,
the costs of his attendance in Court were disallowed : Leeds Forge Co. v.
Deighton's Patent Flue Co., [1903] 1 Ch. 476.
Further evidence means any evidence whatever not used at the hearing
in the Court below : Be Chennell, Jones v. C, 8 Ch. D. 492, 505, C. A.
As to the power of the Court of Appeal to admit any evidence which
has been improperly rejected, see Dollman v. Jones, 12 Ch. D. 553, C. A.
Special grounds for admitting evidence on appeals are afforded by the
rejection of the evidence in the Court below on purely technical grounds :
Be Chennell, sup. ; or where the judgment of the Court below is founded
on mistake, misapprehension, or surprise : Bigsby v. Dickinson, 4 Ch. D
24, C. A.
But such further evidence is not by any means to be admitted without
strong reason : Re Chennell, sup. ; and see Sanders v. 8., 19 Ch. D. 373
C. A. ; Pooley's Trustee v. Whetham, 28 Ch. D. 38, C. A. ; Evans v. Benyon,
37 Ch. D. 345, C. A. ; and will not be admitted where there haie been no
836
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
After judg-
ment upon
the merits.
Affidavits
in reply.
Note of oral
evidence lost.
Further
evidence by
consent.
Technical
objections to
admissibility.
New issue.
Demeanour
of witnesses.
surprise, and the evidence has not been discovered since the hearing :
Exp. Carnforth Co., 4 Ch. D. 115, C. A. ; Weston's Case, 10 Oh. D. 579, C. A.
Where the proposed further evidence is documentary, the proper course
is to give notice to the other side that the Court will be moved at the
hearing of the appeal to give special leave to adduce further evidence :
Haslie v. H., 1 Ch. D. 562, C. A. ; Justice v. Mersey Co., 24 W. R. 199 ;
and see Be Chennell, sup. ; but where it is proposed to examine fresh
witnesses, the application for leave must be by motion before the hearing :
DicJcs v. Brooks, 13 Ch. D. 652, C. A. For form of notice, see D. C. F. 737.
Where at the trial witnesses have been examined orally, further affidavit
evidence by them will not, in general, be admitted on appeal : Taylor v.
Orange, 15 Ch. D. 156, C. A.
Where it was proposed to adduce affidavit evidence which the witness
declined to swear, the Court gave leave on motion to serve him with a
subpoena to attend at the hearing of the appeal without prejudice to any
question as to the admissibility of the evidence, and intimated that the
applicant must explain why it was not sooner adduced : Oover's Case, 24
W. R. 36.
The words " judgment after trial or hearing of the cause or matter upon
the merits," appear to include not only final judgments, but also inter-
locutory judgments, as distinct from interlocutory orders : v. sup. p. 829 ;
and that applications for such judgments are not within O. xxxvm, 3, as
to evidence on information and belief, see Qilhert v. Endean, 9 Ch. D. 259,
C. A.
An order on summons by a creditor in an admon action is final as regards
reception of further evidence : Re Compton, Norton v. C, 27 Ch. D. 392,
C. A. ; secus, a refusal by the Judge to order sequestration against Deft co.
for breach of injunction : Spencer v. Ancoats Vale Rubber Co., 58 L. T. 363 ;
1888, W. N. 86.
A respondent who objects to a further affidavit being used on appeal
should not file affidavits in reply, but wait till the hearing and then apply
for time : Mitchell v. Oondy, 1881, W. N. 83.
Whether the rule applies where the party seeking to adduce further
evidence adduced none in the Court below, qucere : Arnison v. Smith, 41
Ch. D. 98, C. A.
If a note of oral evidence has been lost, the Court may allow the evidence
to be re-taken : Exp. Firth, Re Cowburn, 19 Ch. D. 419, C. A.
For case in which further evidence was adduced by consent, and the
hearing of the appeal treated as the trial of the action, see Harris v. De
Pinna, 33 Ch. D. 255, C. A.
The Court of Appeal will not entertain technical objections to the
admissibility of evidence which were not taken in the Court below, and
which if so taken might have been met by the production of fresh evidence :
Bradshaw v. Widdington, [1902] 2 Ch. 430, C. A.
A new issue as to negligence was not allowed to be brought forward in
P. C. on appeal in a case grounded on fraud : Connecticut Fire Insurance Co.
V. Kavanagh, [1892] A. C. 473.
Notwithstanding the great weight due in oases of conflict of vivd voce
evidence to the decision of a Judge of first instance who has seen the manner
and demeanour of the witnesses, the Court of Appeal will act upon its own
view of conflicting evidence : Bigsby v. Dickinson, 4 Ch. D. 24, C. A. ; The
Olannibanta, 1 P. D. 287, C. A.
POWBKS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL.
By O. Lvm, 4, the Court of Appeal is to have all the powers and duties,
as to amendment and otherwise, of the Court of first instance, and is to have
power to give any judgment and make any order which ought to have been
made, and to make such further or other order as the case may require —
(including (r. 5) the power of setting aside the verdict and judgment, and
Appeals. ^^'
directing a new trial on the hearing of an appeal from a judgment on the
verdict or finding of a jury, or of a Judge without a jury, varying the
practice as stated in Yetts v. Foster, 3 C. P. D. 437, C. A. ; Etly v. Wilson, 3
Ex. D. 359, C. A. ; Davits v. Felix, 4 Ex. D. 32, C. A.),— and may exercise
these powers notwithstanding that the notice of appeal may be that part
only of the decision may be reversed or varied, or in favour of all or any of
the respondents or parties, although they may not have appealed from or
complained of the decision. And see A. G. v. Simpson, [1901] 2 Ch. 671,
C. A., where the Court varied a part of the order of the Court below which
was not appealed from.
Although the Court has the full powers of the Court below as to amend- Amendment
ment, they will not be exercised so as to allow an appellant to raise upon oi pleadmg.
appeal a case totally inconsistent with his original case : Exp. Reddish,
5 Ch. D. 883, C. A. ; Cropper v. Smith, 26 Ch. D. 700, C. A. ; Hipgrave v.
Case, 28 Ch. D. 356, 361, C. A. ; or a point not taken in the Court below,
and as to which contradictory evidence might have been adduced : Exp.
Firth, Re Gowbum, 19 Ch. D. 419, C. A. ; and see The Tasmania, 15 App.
Ca. 223, 225 ; nor where some of numerous Pits were unavoidably absent
at the trial, but it did not appear why they did not instruct their solr to give
such evidence as he could, or as would enable him to apply for adjourn-
ment : Amison v. Smith, 41 Ch. D. 98, C. A. ; and after judgment on appeal
the Court refused leave to amend so as to give relief against third parties,
wliich had not been asked for at the trial : Edison and Swan, &c. Co. v.
Holland, 41 Ch. D. 28, C. A. ; and quaere whether the Court of Appeal has
jurisdiction to give judgment for an injunction and damages against third
parties as if they were Defts : S. C.
Where an application at the trial for leave to amend pleadings is refused,
the Court of Appeal has power to give leave to amend : Laird v. Briggs,
16 Ch. D. 663, C. A.
Liberty to amend after the time for appealing had long expired was
granted under special circumstances on special terms : Kurtz v. Spence, 36
Ch. D. 770, C. A.
Where a jury found issues in favour of the Pit, for whom a general verdict Amendment
was given, and judgment was afterwards given for the Deft, the Court of of record.
Appeal, on affirming the judgment, amended the record by entering the
verdict for the Pit on the issues only : Clack v. Wood, 9 Q. B. D. 276, C. A.
As to rectification of accidental slip, whereby evidence really before the Rectification
Court on the hearing of the appeal was omitted from the order, see Exp. of slip-
Banco de Portugal, Re Hooper, 14 Ch. D. 1, C. A.
The Court will not readily allow an appellant whose notice of appeal Amendment
affects part of an order only, to ask that the whole may be discharged ; and of notice
in cases where such an application is allowed, the omission to give a proper of appeal,
notice in the first instance will usually be a ground for a special order as to
costs : per James, L. J., in Cracknall v. Janson, 4 March, 1879.
A judgment of the Court of Appeal must not be regarded for all purposes Effect of
as if it had been the judgment given in the Court below : Borthwick v. order on
Elderslie Steamship Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 521 (where damages given by the appeal.
Court of Appeal to a successful appellant were held to carry interest only
as from the date of the judgment of that Court).
CROSS APPEALS.
By 0. LVHi, 6, a respondent need not give notice of motion by way of Time of
cross appeal, but if he intends upon the hearing of an appeal to contend that notice,
the decision of the Court below be varied, he is to give notice (which is,
subject to special order, to be an eight days' notice in the case of an appeal
from a final judgment, and a two days' notice in the case of an appeal from
an interlocutory order : r. 7) of his intention to any parties who may be
affected by his contention. The omission to give such notice is not to
diminish the powers conferred by the Jud. Acts upon the Court of Appeal,
838
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
but may, in the discretion of the Court, be a ground for an adjournment of
the appeal, or for a special order as to costs. For form of notice, see
D. C. P. 735.
A notice by a respondent under r. 6 need not be given within the time
limited by r. 15 : Exf. Bishop, Re Fox, Walker & Co., 15 Ch. D. 400, C. A.
Separate A respondent seeking a variation of the order on a point in which the
notices. appellant has no interest, must give a separate notice of appeal : Re
Carander's Trusts, 16 Oh. D. 270, C. A. ; and where action and counter-claim
are founded on separate and distinct causes of action, the procedure by cross
appeals is applicable : National Soc. of Eleciriciiy v. Qihbs, [1900] 2 Ch.
280, C. A.
A respondent mav give notice under r. 6 to a co-respondent : Exp.
Payne, Re Cross, 11 Ch. D. 539, C. A.
Withdrawal Where an appellant withdraws his appeal, a respondent who has given
of appeal. such notice is entitled to elect whether he will continue or withdraw his
cross appeal : The Beeswing, 10 P. D. 18, C. A. ; if he continues, the
appellant may give a notice renewing his original contention : S. C.
COSTS OF APPEAL.
By 0. Lviii, 5, the Court of Appeal shall have power to make such order
as to the whole or any part of the costs of an appeal as may seem just.
Successful By the Judge's memorandum, 1 Ch. D. 41, the rule of the Court of
appellant. Chancery that a successful appellant is not entitled to costs, is no longer to
be acted upon ; and in all cases of appeals commenced under the new
practice, the successful appellant is. to be entitled to costs, unless in the
particular case the Court shall otherwise direct.
This rule is one of general application : The Batavier, 15 P. D. 37, C. A. ;
Olivant v. Wright, 45 L. J. Ch. 1 ; and includes salvage cases : The City of
Berlin, 2 P. D. 187 ; and has been adopted in the case of appeals to the
Chief Judge in bankruptcy : Exp. Masters, 1 Ch. D. 113.
Coats refused : But the Court has a discretion (see 0. r.xv, 1 ; Jud. Act, 1890, s. 5), and
to successful a successful appellant may be refused costs where he fails to prove allega-
appeUant ; tions of fraud : Exp. Cooper, 10 Ch. D. 313, C. A. ; or succeeds on a point not
raised in the Court below : Hussey v. Payne, 8 Ch. D. 670, C. A. ; Chard, v.
Jervis, 9 Q. B. D. 178, C. A. ; T)ye v. D., 13 Q: B. D. 147, C. A. ; or one
point only out of many : Elliot v. Lord Rolcehy, 7 App. Ca. 43 ; or on fresh
evidence : Exp. Hauxwell, 23 Ch. D. 643, C. A. ; Arnofs Case, 36 Ch. D.
702, C. A.
to successful And respondents whose conduct had justified the appeal were refused
respondent, costs: Paterson v. Provost of St. Andrews, 6 App. Ca. 833 (Sc.) ; and a
respondent who, having a preliminary objection, knowingly allows appellant
to incur costs in preparing for an appeal, may be deprived of his costs : Re
Blyth and Young, 13 Ch. D. 416, C. A. ; Re Speight, Exp. Brooks, 13 Q. B. D.
42 ; but see Exp. Stead, Re Miindy, 15 Q. B. D. 331, C. A.
An order as to costs was refused where the Court was not furnished with
information as to the reasons of the Judge below : Re McConnell, Saunders
V. M., 29 Ch. D. 76, C. A.
Trustee in Where a trustee in bankruptcy adopts the action and abandons an appeal,
bankruptcy, it will be dismissed with costs : Bornenum v. Wilson, 28 Ch. D. 53, C. A.
Joint appeal Where two Defts appealed jointly and one succeeded, both appellants
by Defts. were allowed their costs of appeal, a cross appeal having failed, and the
costs not having been increased by the joint appeal : Oraimm v. Campbell,
7 Ch. D. 490, 495, C. A.
Wife and And a wife, party to an appeal in respect of her separate estate, was
bankrupt entitled to her costs though joined with her husband in the appeal, in a case
husband. where the husband was bankrupt : Kevan v. Crawford, 6 Ch. D. 29, C. A. ;
but see Wright v. Chard, 4 Drew. 702.
Out of funds Cost of an unsuccessful appeal out of funds in Court will only be allowed
in Court. under very special circumstances : Re Batrlow, Barton v. Spencer, 36 Ch. D.
387.
Appeals. 839
Where an appeal has been abandoned, it will be dismissed with costs Abandoned
though not set down : Charlton v. C, 16 Ch. D. 273, C. A. ; but before appeal,
application for costs of an abandoned appeal is made, there should be a
previous demand for payment of them : Oriffin v. Allen, 11 Ch. D. 913,
C. A. See Dan. 1063.
An abandoned appeal will not be dismissed with costs on the ex parte
application of the appellant : Ormerod v. Bleasdale, 54 L. T. 343.
Where an appeal is dismissed on the objection of the respondent that the
notice of appeal is too late, the appellant will not be made to pay costs of
the respondent's afiSdavits filed after the appeal was set down : Exp.
Fardon's Vinegar Co., Re Jones, 14 Ch. D. 285, C. A.
Where an appeal is simply dismissed after a cross appeal by the respondent Cross appeals
the costs occasioned by the cross appeal are to be deducted : The Lauretta,
4 P. D. 25, C. A.
Por efiect of order dismissing both appeal and cross appeal with costs
and ordering set-off of costs, see Jones v. Stott, [1910] 1 K. B. 893, C. A.
Where one of two respondents gave a cross notice affecting liis co-respon-
dent, the appeal failing and cross appeal succeeding, costs were apportioned :
Harrison v. Cornwall Minerals By. Co., 18 Ch. D. 334, C. A. ; but where the
costs have not been materially increased by the cross appeal, there will be
no apportionment : Robinson v. Drakes, 23 Ch. D. 98, C. A.
Tliird parties, who in reality fought the Pits and failed, were ordered. Third party,
together with the Defts, to pay the costs both of appeal and in Court below :
Edison and Swan, <*c. Co. v. Holland, 41 Ch. D. 28, C. A.
In an admon action where several respondents to an unsuccessful appeal Several
were in the same interest, that Court allowed one set of costs against the respondents
appellant, and directed these costs to be paid to the respondent who had the ™ admon
conduct of the proceedings in the cause : Harbin v. Masterman, [1896] 1 Ch. *''"°'^-
351, C. A.
The common law practice to have only one taxation in an action does not Taxation and
apply where costs are given to a party on appeal, and if there is no direction payment,
postponing taxation and payment, the party is entitled to taxation and pay-
ment forthwith : Phillips v. P., 5 Q. B. D. 60, C. A.
The solr of an appellant may be ordered to indemnify his client against Solicitor's
the costs of an appeal, prosecuted not in the interests of the client, but for liability,
the purposes of the solr : Harbin v. Masterman, [1896] 1 Ch. 351, C. A.
As to costs of documents used in Court below, see Masson, Tempter & Co. Costs of
V. De Fries, [1910] 1 K. B. 535, C. A. documents.
9. Slay of Execution 'pending an Appeal on Payment into Court —
0. Lvni, 16.
The applicant A. by his counsel undertaking to lodge in Court
the sum of £ — , Order that the said A. do on or before &c., lodge
in Court, the said sum of £ — as directed in the Schedule hereto ;
And it is ordered that upon such lodgment being made, no proceedings
be taken to enforce the order dated &c., as to the said sum of £ — ■
pending the appeal of the said A. — [Add Lodgment Schedule.]
For form of notice of motion to stay, see D. C. F. 728.
10. Stay of Execution for Costs on payment into Court, after refusal
of the Application in the Court below on original Motion —
0. Lviii, 17, 18.
Order that the Deft C. do within (twenty-one days) after the
taxing master shall have made his certificate pursuant to the judgment
840 Appeals. [chap, xxxvi.
dated &c., lodge the amount of the costs thereby directed to be taxed,
including the costs of the Deft H., in Court, as directed in the schedule
hereto, instead of paying the same as directed by the said judgment ;
And it is ordered that upon such lodgment being made, all proceedings
Tinder the said judgment to enforce payment of such costs be stayed
until after the appeal of the Deft C. from the said judgment has been
disposed of. — Deft to pay to the next friend of the Pit the Pit's costs
of the application, to be taxed &c. — [AM Lodgment ScJiedule, directing
lodgment to the credit of" the taxed costs of the Pit and the Deft H."]
—See Cooper v. C, C. A., 12 April, 1876, A. 1049 ; 2 Ch. D. 492, C. A.
11. Appeal to the House of Lords — Stay of Execution for Costs
refused on Personal Undertaking of Solicitor to refund.
N., of the firm of B. & Co., the solr for the Defts, personally
undertaking, in the event of this order being reversed on appeal
to the House of Lords, to abide by any order which may hereafter
be made as to their refunding to the Pits the costs by this order
directed to be paid to them by the Pits, This Court doth not think
fit to make any order on this motion, but doth order that the Pits do
pay to the Defts their costs of this application, to be taxed by the
taxing master. — See Beattie v. Lord Ebury, L. JJ., 24 Feb. 1873,
A. 442 ; 28 L. T. 458.
For order on like motion that the Deft should pay into Court a sum
certified to be due in respect of the Pit's liabiUty in respect of ■ — shares in
the G. Co., and that the same should be invested in Cons. £3 p. c. Anns, and
the dividends as they accrued invested in hke sums ; and that all further
proceedings under the order appealed from should be stayed until after the
hearing of the petition of appeal to be presented to the House of Lords
pursuant to a notice served by the Deft on the Pit, and that the Deft should
pay the costs of the application, see Merry v. Nickalls, L. C. and L. JJ.,
29 Jan. 1873, B. 334 ; 8 Ch. 205.
And for subsequent order on summons, after dismissal of the appeal by
the House of Lords, directing the stock and accumulations to be sold, and
the proceedspaid to the Pit or his nominee, see S. C.,Y.-C. B., at Chambers,
5 Aug. 1875, B. 2013.
NOTES.
STAY OF PBOCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL GENBEALLY.
Applications to stay proceedings on appeal must be founded on two
points, which are essential : first, that a serious injury will result to the
party applying if the apphoation is not granted; secondly, that he has
come promptly to make it : Nawah Khan v. Rajah Oojoodhyaram Khan,
L. R. 1 P. C. 8, 12.
The principles on which such applications will be granted vary according
to the nature of the proceedings to be stayed, but as a general rule the
Court will stay all such proceedings as would render a successful appeal
nugatory : Wilson v. Church, 12 Ch. D. 454, C. A. ; Polini v. Qray, 12 Ch. D.
438, C. A.
Stay of Execution for Costs.
Where the order appealed from directs the appellant to pay costs, the
costs must be paid according to the order, on the personal undertaking, of
the respondent's solr to refund if the appeal is successful : Qrant v. Banque
Appeals.
Franco-JEgyptienne, 3 C. P. D. 202, C. A. ; Morgan v. Elford, 4 Ch. D. 352,
C. A. ; Merry v. Nickalls, 8 Ch. 205 ; Beattie v. Lord Ehury, 28 L. T. 458,
Form 11, sup. ; Gibbs v. Daniel, 4 Giff. 41, n. ; Polini v. Gray, 28 W. R.
360. The Court will not exact such an undertaking in every case, but will
be guided by the circumstances of each particular case : Schweppes v.
Gibhens, 1904, W. N. 208.
Under special circumstdnces, e.g., where the respondents are resident
abroad, so that the solr would be the only person liable to refund, his
personal undertaking has been held insufficient without satisfactory
security : Burdich v. Garrick, 5 Ch. 453.
If the undertaking is not given, or the security is not found, execution
will be stayed on payment of the amount into Court : see Cooper v. C, 2
Cli. D. 492, Form 10, sup. ; Burdich v. Garrick, 5 Ch. 453, 455 ; and if the
undertaking is refused, it is not of course to stay proceedings as to costs :
A. G. V. Emerson, 24 Q. B. D. 56, C. A.
And payment of costs will not be stayed with a view to a possible set-off
as the result of pending proceedings in the same action : Grant v. Banque
Franco-Egyptienne, 3 C. P. D. 202, C. A. ; or after an order of the Court of
Appeal has given the opposite party a present right to receive costs :
Auiomalic Weighing Co. v. Combined, <Ssc. Weighing Co., 58 L. J. Ch. 647 ;
61 L. T. 536 ; 37 W. R. 636.
The apphoation of these rules is not affected by a possibility of future
costs becoming payable by the respondent to the appellant at some sub-
sequent stage of the case : Grant v. Banque Franco-Egyptienne, 3 C. P. D.
202, C. A.
An application for a stay, unless made immediately after judgment, must
be supported by an affidavit showing special circumstances : Tuck v.
Southern Counties Deposit Bank, 42 Ch. D. 471.
Stay of Execution for Payment of Money.
The practice in error, or on appeal, as between the Court of Appeal and
the House of Lords, remains unaffected by the Jud. Acts and Rules : Justice
V. Mersey, &c. Co., 1 C. P. D. 576.
Therefore, in the case of an action pending in the K. B. Division, a stay of
execution, pending an appeal to the House of Lords, is, on bail being given
under the C. L. P. Act, 1852 (15 & 16 V. c. 76), s. 151, a matter of right :
8. C.
In the case of an action pending in the Chancery Division, the converse
practice on appeal from the Court of Chancery is still in force, whether the
appeal be to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords : Cooper v. C,
2 Ch. D. 492, C. A., Form 10, sup. ; Morgan v. Elford, 4 Ch. D. 352, C. A.
The amount is to be paid to the respondent on his giving security to refund
in case of the success of the appeal, or in default of security execution will
be stayed on payment of the amount into Court : Merry v. Nickalls, 8 Ch.
205 ; Burdich v. Garrick, 5 Ch. 453 ; Barrs v. Fewkes, 1 Eq. 392 ; Topham
V. D. of Portland, 1 D. J. & S. 603 ; Mackintosh v. G. W. By. Co., 11 Jur.
N. S. 705 ; 13 L. T. 155 ; 13 W. R. 1029 ; Mayor, cfcc. of Gloucester v. Wood,
1 Ph. 493 ; 3 Ha. 150 ; Touche v. Met. By. Warehouse Co., 40 L. J. Ch. 496 •
O'Reilly v. Walsh, 1. R. 7 Eq. 253.
But where an amount ordered to be paid by a judgment had been paid
into Court pending an appeal, and on appeal the judgment was reversed,
the fund was not retained in Court pending an appeal to the House of
Lords against the order reversing the judgment : Atherton v. British
Nation Co., 5 Ch. 720.
Stay of Proceedings in Chambers.
Generally speaking, the Court never stays the taking of an account, and
does not direct security for the result of an account, either on appeals to the
Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords : Gurynn v. Lefhbridge, 14 Ves.
84]
842
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
Irreparable
injury.
Injunctions.
Specific per-
formance.
Delivery of
chattels.
Discovery.
Applications
to Court
below.
506 ; Nerot v. Burnand, 2 Russ. 55, 58 ; Murray v. Clayton, 15 Eq. 117,
121 ; Coleman & Co., Ld. v. Stephen Smith <fc Go., Ld., [1911] W. N. 168 ;
unless irreparable injury would be caused, as by disclosing the liames
of customers : Adair v. Young, 11 Ch. D. 136, C. A.
But a sale will be suspended : Rowley v. Adams, 9 Beav. 348 ; Nerot v.
Burnand, 2 Russ. 55, 58 ; Dan. 1049.
Distribution of funds in Court, or payment of funds out of Court, will
not be stayed, pending appeal in the absence of special circumstances :
Bradford v. Yoy,ng, Re Falconar's Trusts, 28 Ch. D. 23, C. A. ; but the
persons to receive the money must, if required, give security to restore it if
the order is reversed, and in default of such security the money will be
retained in Court : Lord v. Colvin, 1 Dr. & Sm. 475 ; Swift v. Qrazehrook, 3
Mac. & G. 6 ; Way v. Foy, 18 Ves. 452 ; Waldo v. Cayley, 16 Ves. 213 ;
Bourne v. Buckton, 35 L. J. Ch. 851.
A sale of consols in Court was stayed on the undertaking of the appellant,
in case his appeal was unsuccessful, to make good the difference between the
income actually produced and interest at £4 p. c. ; and to pay the costs of
the sale and re-investment : Brewer v. Yorhe, 20 Ch. D. 669, C. A- ; and
where a Pit to whom funds had been ordered to be paid out had been
abroad for two years, and his address was not known, the money was retained
in Court on the applicants giving a similar undertaking : Bradford v. Young,
sup.
Where the order appealed from is for leave to do an act, e.g., for a trustee
in bankruptcy to disclaim a lease, application for a stay of proceedings must
be made immediately, as after the act is done there can be no withdrawal of
the leave : Exp. Sadler, Re Hawes, 19 Ch. D. 122, C. A.
SUSPENSION OF INJUNCTIONS AND OTHEE OKDBRS.
In these cases the usual course is to stay proceedings pending an appeal
only when the proceedings would cause irreparable injury (not mere incon-
venience or annoyance), as by destro3dng the goodwill of a business :
Walford v. W., 3 Ch. 812 ; Story v. Lmd Lennox, 1 My. & Cr. 685 ; and see
Flower v. Lloyd, 1877, W. N. 81 ; Hyam v. Terry, 29 W. R. 32 ; Re
" Carvino" Trade Mark, [1911] 2 Ch. 572.
The same principle applies in the case of dissolving or postponing in-
junctions : Walburn v. Ingilby, 1 My. & K. 84 ; Pann v. Bibby, 3 Eq. 308.
Where an injunction is suspended by Court of Appeal for a certain time
an application for its further suspension may be made to and disposed of by
the Judge of the Court below : Shelf er v. City of London Electric Light Co. ;
Meux's Brewery Co. v. Same, [1895] 2 Ch. 388, C. A.
A decree for specific performance will be enforced, with the exception of
the directions to execute the conveyance : Owynn v. Lethbridge, 14 Ves.
185 ; or if the conveyance is to be executed, notice of the pending appeal
will be indorsed on the deed : Wilson v. West Hartlepool Co., 34 Beav. 414 ;
and for a case in which the execution of the decree was suspended, see
Price V. Salusbury, 11 W. R. 1014.
An order for specific delivery of chattels will be enforced, pending an
appeal, on the undertaking of the respondent to restore them if the order
should be reversed : Harrington v. H., 3 Ch. 575, 576.
On the question when discovery or production of documents under the
practice of the Court of Chancery would be stayed, see Walburn v. Ingilby,
1 My. & K. 84 ; Drake v. D., 3 Ha. 528.
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEALS TO THE COUET OP APPEAL.
By O. LVTCT, 16, an appeal is not to operate as a stay of execution or of
proceedings under the decision appealed from, except so far as the Court or
a Judge below or the Court of Appeal may order ; and no intermediate act
or proceeding is to be invalidated except so far as the Court appealed from
may direct.
Applications for a stay of proceedings under the rule are to be made, in
the first instance, to the Court below : A. 0. v. Swansea Co., 9 Ch. D. 46,
Appeals. 8'^^
C. A. ; Goddard v. Thompson, 47 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 26 W. R. 362 ; 38 L. T.
166 ; by summons or motion on notice : see Form 9, sup. p. 839 ; Rep. of
Peru V. Weguelin, 24 W. R. 297 ; even though the action has been dis-
missed, if the application is for stay of proceedings under the order of
dismissal, e.g., for payment of costs : Oilo v. Lindford, 18 Ch. D. 394, 0. A. ;
but an application which the Court below, having dismissed the action,
cannot grant, as for an injunction to restrain interim dealings with property,
will be entertained by the Court of Appeal : Wilson v. Church, 11 Ch. D.
576, C. A. ; 12 Ch. D. 454, C. A. ; Polini v. Gray, 12 Ch. D. 438, C. A.
If this application is refused in the Court below it may be renewed by jurisdiction
motion in the Court of Appeal ; and in such cases the practice and the form of Court of
of the order is the same as on original motions, though the jurisdiction of Appeal,
the Court is properly appellate : Cooper y.C.,2 Ch. D. 492, C. A. ; Form 10,
sup. p. 839 ; A. 0. v. Swansea Co., 8 Ch. D. 46, C. A.
The application must be supported by special circumstances where a stay
has been refused by the Judge at the trial : Monk v. Bariram, [1891] 1
Q. B. 346, C. A.
The rule gives full discretion to the Court, against whose decision an appeal
is pending, to refuse a stay of proceedings : A. 6. v. Emerson, 24 Q. B. D.
56, C. A. The jurisdiction under the rule is concurrent, and an application
to the Court of Appeal for a stay refused by the Court below is an original
appUcation to be brought within a reasonable time, but not necessarily
witliin twenty-one days from the refusal : Cropper v. Smith, 24 Ch. D. 305,
C. A.
A master has jurisdiction to stay execution on a judgment pending an Jurisdiction
appeal to the Court of Appeal : Oppert v. Beaumont, 18 Q. B. D. 435, C. A. of master.
The Court of Appeal will not grant a stay of proceedings on reversing an
order refusing a rule for a new trial, in which case the stay of proceedings
should be obtained on summons in Chambers from the Judge of the Court
below : Goddard v. Thompson, 26 W. R. 362 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 38 L. T.
166.
The costs of such an application are, as a rule, to be paid by the applicant : Costs.
Cooper V. C, 2 Ch. D. 492, C. A. ; but the Court has a discretion : Adair v.
Young, 11 Ch. D. 136, 139, C. A. ; and the costs may be made costs in the
appeal or action.
A similar rule was followed under the practice before the Jud. Acts :
Richardson v. Bank of England, 1 Beav. 153 ; Topham v. D. of Portland, 1
D. J. & S. 603 ; Merry v. Nickalls, 8 Ch. 205 ; but not invariably : E.
Shrewsbury v. Trappes, 2 D. F. & J. 172 ; Walford v. If ., 3 Ch. 812 ; Burdich
V. Garrick, 5 Ch. 453.
Where the appeal was against a Scotch co., resident out of the jurisdiction, Scotch co.
stay of execution was refused, as the order of the Court of Appeal would be
enforceable in Scotland under sect. 122 of the Cos. Act, 1862 (now substi-
tuted by sect. 180 of the Companies (ConsoUdation) Act, 1908): Re
Queensland Merc. Co., Exp. Union Bank of Australia, 1891, W. N. 132.
STAY OF PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEALS TO THE HOUSE 01? LORDS.
The mode of application for a stay of proceedings pending an appeal to
the House of Lords is, in the case of a stay on bail in error under the C. L. P.
Act, 1852 (15 & 16 V. c. 76), s. 161, by summons in Chambers : Justice v.
Mersey, Sc. Co., 1 C. P. D. 575, C. A.
In the case of stay of execution for costs the application is to be made by Application
motion to the Court of Appeal : Grant v. Banque Franco-Egyptienne, 3 C. P. to Court
D. 202, C. A. ; Morgan v. Elford, 4 Ch. D. 388, C. A. ; Gibbs v. Daniel, 4 of Appeal
Giff. 41, n.
In the case of stay of execution or of proceedings under any order on
appeal from the Chancery Division, the application is to be made by motion
to the Court of Appeal : Merry v. Nickalls, 8 Ch. 205 ; Burdick v. Garrick
5 Ch. 453 ; Walford v. W., 3 Ch. 812 ; Harrington v. H., 3 Ch. 575 ; Toplmrn
V. D. of Portland, 1 D. J. & S. 603 ; Mackintosh v. G. W. By. Co., 13 W. R
844
Appeals.
[chap. XXXVI.
Dismissal
of action.
1029 ; The Khedive, 28 W. R. 364 ; Hamill y. Ulley, 19 Q. B. D. 83, C. A. ;
Dan. 1082. Tor form of notice of motion, see D. C. F. 739.
Tor cases in which similar motions were made to a Court of first instance,
see Prince v. Salusbury, 11 W. R. 1014 ; Rowley v. Adams-, 9 Beav. 348.
The appeal must be actually pending, or the applicants must give an
undertaking to present an appeal within a limited time : Orant v. Banque
Franco-Egyptienne, 3 C. P. D. 202, C. A.
The appeal must include the order under which the proceedings to be
stayed are being carried on : Rowley v. Adams, 9 Beav. 348.
Where the order appealed from dismisses an action, and it is sought to
preserve the benefit of the relief sought by the action, not merely to stay
execution for the costs of action pending the appeal, the order must be
drawn up so as to maintain the jurisdiction of the Court for this purpose,
notwithstanding the termination of the action' by dismissal : Oalloway v.
Mayor, dkc. of London (No. 2), 3 D. J. & S. 59 ; Oddie v. Woodford, 3 My. &
Cr. 625 ; this may now be done by the Court of Appeal under Jud. Act,
1873, s. 25 (8), and 0. lii, 3, on an appUcation, made before the order of
dismissal is passed and entered, to frame the order accordingly : Polini v.
Gray, C. A., 23 July, 1879 ; the decision in Price v. Salusbury, 11 W. R.
1014, not being followed.
Where success on appeal would be useless if interim protection were not
given an injunction will be granted or proceedings stayed : Polini v. Gray,
12 C. D. 438, C. A. ; Wilson v. Church, 12 C. D. 454, C. A. ; but the
appellants will be put on terms to speed the appeal, and the Court will not
interfere if the appeal appears to be not bond fide : Wilson v. Church, sup.
Issues of fact. Trial of issues of fact will not be stayed pending appeal to the House of
Lords on a question of law : Re Palmer, 22 0. D. 88, C. A.
A stay of execution will not be granted to enable a party dissatisfied with
the damages assessed by a jury to decide whether he shall appeal to the
House of Lords : Webber v. L. B. & 8. C. Ry. Co., 51 L. J. (Q. B.) 154.
Execution for costs pending appeal to House of Lords will not be stayed
unless it is shown that the respondent would be unable to repay : Barker v.
Lavery, 14 Q. B. D. 769, C. A.
If the application is refused by the Court of Appeal, it seems that it may
be renewed to the House of Lords, and that the House will in that case
exercise its jurisdiction to order a stay of proceedings until the appeal is
heard : see Qwynne v. Lethbridge, 14 Ves. 585, 586 ; Denison & Scott,
pp. 77, 78.
In the absence of special circumstances, the applicant must pay the costs
of the application, inasmuch as he asks for an indulgence : Grant v. Banque
Franco-Egyptienne, 3 C. P. D. 202, 205, C. A. ; Merry v. Nichalls, 8 Ch. 205 ;
Topham v. Z>. of Portland, 1 D. J. & S. 603.
But there is a discretion in the Court to order, under special circumstances,
the costs to abide the result of the appeal : Burdick v. Garrick, 5 Ch. 455 ;
Walford V. W., 3 Ch. 812, 815 ; 5 Ch. 455, n. ; and see E. Shrewsbury v.
Trappes, 2 D. F. & J. 172.
Execution
for costs.
Application
to House
of Lords.
Costs of
application,
12. Order of the House of Lords made an Order of the Court.
Whereas by an order, dated &c., made by the Kt. Hon. the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, after hearing
counsel on the — day of — (and also on the — day of — ), upon the
petition and appeal of &c., from the order dated &c., made on the
hearingof the appeal of the (Pit) in this action from the judgment &c.,
It was ordered and adjudged by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal
in Parliament assembled, that &c. [Recite order of the House of Lords] ;
Now upon motion &c., by counsel for &c., and upon producing the
Appeals. ^^'
said order of the House of Lords, This Court doth order, that the said
order be made an order of this Court ; [If the order of the House directs
accounts or inquiries, add, And it is ordered, that the following
accounts (and inquiries) be taken (and made) &c. ; And if costs are
to he taxed, here, And it is ordered, that the costs of &c. be taxed by
the taxing master, and be paid by &c., to &c.] — See Mann v. Richetts,
V.-C. K. B., 22 May, 1849, B. 1553 ; 3 D. & 8. 446 ; afEd. L. C,
26 Feb. 1852, B. 556 ; Blakemore v. L. & S. W. Ry. Go., V.-C. S.,
5 Dec. 1870, A. 2955; V. Holmesdale v. Sachvilk-West, V.-C. J.,
16 June, 1870, A. 1651.
For form of application, see D. C. P. 756.
NOTES.
If the order of the House of Lords reverses or varies the order appealed Order re-
from, it should be made an order of the Court, so that the order appealed versmg or
from may not remain as unrepealed on the records of the Court : see L., varying.
alias H. v. H., L. R. 1 P. & M. 294.
And if anything is ordered to be done under the direction of the Court Order
below, the order of the House must be made an order of Court before it can directory,
be carried into effect.
But where a judgment is simply affirmed, it is not necessary to make the Judgment
order an order of the Court : A. O.v. Scott, 1 Ves. 419. affirmed.
The order is to be obtained on motion as of course from the Court or the Form of
Judge where the action is pending, or to which or to whom it has been trans- application,
ferred : Man v. Richetts, 3 D. & S. 446.
The motion may be e.x parte : Wentivorth v. Lloyd, 13 W. R. 146 ; British
Dynamite Co. v. Krebs, 27 W. R. 575 ; 11 Ch. D. 448 ; on production of an
office copy of an order of the House signed bv the clerk of Parliament : but
see L., alias H. v. H., L. R. 1 P. & M. 293.
An order of the House annulling a bankruptcy may be made an order of Annulling
the Court in its appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy ; and the successful bankruptcy,
appellant was allowed his costs of an application for this purpose : Exp.
Harding, 14 W. R. 825.
Where the order of the House directs payment of costs, the order may be Payment
enforced by the House, if sitting : see Denison & Scott, 172 ; Wentworth v. of costs.
Lloyd, 13 W. R. 146 ; 11 L. T. 365 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1113 ; 6 N. R. 65.
If the order has been made an order of Court, it may be enforced by the
process of the Court : Man v. Richetts, 3 D. & S. 446 ; Wentworth v. Lloyd,
sup.
And an action may be brought on the order of the House for the costs
awarded by it without making it an order of the Court : Ma/rhella do. v.
Allen, 38 L. T. 815 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 601.
And where the costs are payable by an appellant who has entered into •
recognizances for payment of the respondent's costs, the recognizance may
be estreated, and, notwithstanding the Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 V. c. 62),
the appellant may be imprisoned on process issued by the K. B. Division :
Be Smith, 2 Ex. D. 47.
Where no order as to the costs of the proceedings was made by the House,
the Court below could not subsequently make any such order : L., alias H.
v. H., L. R. 1 P. & M. 293 ; and see OUnn v. Johnson, L. R. 6 0. P. 461.
And the Court below has no jurisdiction to make any order as to interest
upon the costs of an appeal to the House : Lane, tfc Yorhs. Ry. Co. v.
Oidlow, L. R. 9 Ex. 35 ; 7 H. L. 517.
No appeal lies to the House of Lords from an order of the Court of Where no
Appeal refusing leave to appeal : Lane v. Esdaile, 64 L. T. 666 ; or from an appeal lies.
846 Appeals. [chap, xxxvi.
interlocutory order of the K. B. D. in Ireland, or an order on appeal there-
from by the Court of Appeal in Ireland : E. ofOosford v. Irish Land Commrs,
[1899] A. C. 435, H. L. Ir. ; or from an order on a special case raising
questions of fact only: Burgess v. Morton, [1896] A. 0. 136, H. L.
Finding The House of Lords will not disturb a finding of fact in both Courts
of fact. below, unless clearly shown to be erroneous : The P. Caland v. Glamorgan
Steamship Co., [1893] A. C. 207 ; Mclntyre v. McGavin, [1893] A. C. 268,
275, 279 ; and there is a rule of practice that the House of Lords will not
entertain an appeal on a question of fact even where there have been
concurrent findings in the Courts below : Montgomerie v. Wallace James,
[1904] A. C. 73.
For forms of proceedings on appeal to H. L., see D. C. P. 739 et seq. ; and
as to procedure, Dan, 1082 et seq.
END OF VOL. I.
PRINTED BY WIILIAM CLOWES ANB SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLB3.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11