XXXI. VICTORIA. ment clear for the player. It is manifest therefore that judgment and taste are required on the part of the arranger for the pianoforte. And if a person should compose an opera without being able to play on the pianoforte he could not himself arrange it for the pianoforte. The person who arranges for the pianoforte must have a knowledge of the instrument: and it would be a bad arrangement if the passages did not lie well to the hand of the performer. If therefore instead of this musical composition being called a "pianoforte score" it had been called "an arrangement for the pianoforte and voices," it would have been manifest that Nicolai was not the author but Brissler was. It might indeed be prudent to state that Nicolai was the author of the opera and that Brissler arranged or adapted it to the pianoforte. It has been said that there is nothing original on the part of the person who makes the arrangement. It is true that he neither invents the tune nor the harmony, but there is invention or rather composition in the arrangement of which he is the author. If another person arranged this opera for the pianoforte, or even if Brissler himself arranged it over again, he would do it differently, for there is no rule by which it is to be done in a particular way. It is clear therefore that there is something in the nature of authorship in Brissler, and consequently, his name not having been stated in the register as the author, the plaintiff has not a copyright of the pianoforte score, and consequently cannot complain of this infringement. CHANNELL B., KEATING and SMITH JJ. concurred. 1868. WOOD V. BOOSEY. 1868. Saturday, February 1st. Action for non-delivery of goods. Delay by request of vendor. Damages. Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. 2. c. 3. s. 17. OGLE against Earl VANE. By bought and sold notes signed by brokers acting both for the plaintiff and the defendant, the last of which was dated April 25th, the plaintiff bought of the defendant 500 tons of iron, the delivery to extend over three months. None of the iron was delivered by the 25th July. A correspondence ensued between the brokers and the defendant's agent until February following, from which a jury might properly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff waited for the delivery of the iron at the request of the defendant; he then went into the market and bought, the price of iron being higher than at the end of July. Held that, as the plaintiff had not bound himself to wait, there was no alteration of the contract within the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. 2. c. 3. s. 17., and therefore in an action for breach of contract he might recover from the defendant the difference between the contract price of the iron and the market price in February. APPEAL against the decision of the Queen's Bench, reported, vol. 7, p. 855, which was heard before KELLY C. B., WILLES, KEATING and SMITH JJ., and CHANNELL B. T. Jones (C. Crompton with him), argued for the defendant, citing Brady v. Oastler (a) and Noble v. Ward on appeal (b). Holker, for the plaintiff, was not called on. THE COURT unanimously affirmed the decision. Judgment affirmed. (a) 3 H. & C. 112. (b) 36 L. J. Exch. 91; L. R. 2 Exch. 135. 1868. MARTIN'S PATENT ANCHOR Company (Limited) Tuesday, against MORTON. SAME against HEWITT. February 4th. Bankruptcy. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134. Joint Stock Company. A person who had taken shares in a Company incorporated and 25 & 26 Vict. registered under The Companies Act, 1862, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89., became c. 89. bankrupt under The Bankruptcy Act, 1861, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134. Calls. He however retained his shares, the assignees not having taken them, Assignees. and the Company was subsequently wound up. Held, that he was not discharged from liability to calls made after his bankruptcy. HESE cases were tried before Blackburn J. at the THESE Surrey Summer Assizes, 1867. They were actions brought by the liquidators of a Company registered and incorporated under The Companies' Act, 1862, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89. for calls on shares in the Company, which was being wound up under an order made for that purpose; to which the only plea in each case was that after the cause of action accrued the defendant became bankrupt. His assignees did not take the shares, but the bankrupt continued to hold them. In both cases the learned Judge directed a nonsuit to be entered, with leave to the plaintiffs to move to enter a verdict on the ground that the defendants were not discharged from liability by their respective bankruptcies. Philbrick, in Michaelmas Term, having obtained rules. accordingly, the cases were now argued and decided. -It may Brown shewed cause in the first case. be conceded that under the Acts in force before The 1868. MARTIN'S ANCHOR Company V. MORTON. SAME V. HEWITT. Bankruptcy Act, 1861, the liability to these calls would not be discharged by bankruptcy; The South Staffordshire Railway Company v. Burnside (a), The General Discount Company (Limited) v. Stokes (b). A new state of the law has however been introduced by "The Bankruptcy Act, 1861," 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134., taken in connection with "The Companies Act, 1862," 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89. Sects. 150-154 of the former Act entitle a bankrupt to be discharged from various debts from which he otherwise would not be discharged. Sect. 153 enacts that "If any bankrupt shall at the time of adjudication be liable, by reason of any contract or promise, to a demand in the nature of damages which have not been and cannot be otherwise liquidated or ascertained, it shall be lawful for the Court acting in prosecution of such bankruptcy to direct such damages to be assessed by a jury, either before itself or in a Court of law, and to give all necessary directions for such purpose; and the amount of damage, when assessed, shall be proveable as if a debt due at the time of the bankruptcy: Provided that in case all necessary parties agree, the Court shall have power to assess such damages without the intervention of a jury or a reference to a Court of law." And, by sect. 154, "If any bankrupt shall at the time of adjudication be liable by reason of any contract or promise to pay premiums upon any policy of insurance, or any other sums of money, whether yearly or otherwise, or to repay to or indemnify any person against any such payments, the person entitled to the benefit of such contract or promise may, if he think fit, apply to the Court to set a value upon his interest under such contract or promisc, and the Court is hereby (a) 5 Exch. 129. (b) 17 C. B. N. S. 765. 774. required to ascertain the value thereof, and to admit such person to prove the amount so ascertained, and to receive dividends thereon." The latter Act, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89., provides for the effect of the articles of association; sects. 7, 16, 38: and enacts as follows:-Sect. 16. The articles of association when registered "shall bind the Company and the members thereof to the same extent as if each member had subscribed his name and affixed his seal thereto, and there were in such articles contained a covenant on the part of himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, to conform to all the regulations contained in such articles, subject to the provisions of this Act; and all monies payable by any member to the Company, in pursuance of the conditions and regulations of the Company, or any of such conditions or regulations, shall be deemed to be a debt due from such member to the Company, and in England and Ireland to be in the nature of a specialty debt." Sect. 75, "The liability of any person to contribute to the assets of a Company under this Act in the event of the same being wound up, shall be deemed to create a debt (in England and Ireland of the nature of a specialty) accruing due from such person at the time when his liability commenced, but payable at the time or respective times when calls are made as hereinafter mentioned for enforcing such liability; and it shall be lawful in the case of the bankruptcy of any contributory to prove against his estate the estimated value of his liability to future calls, as well as calls already made." Sect. 76. "If any contributory dies either before or after he has been placed on the list of contributories hereinafter mentioned, his personal representatives, heirs, and devisees shall be liable in a due course of 1868. MARTIN'S Company V. MORTON. SAME V. HEWITT. |