9. (Standing over.) The fact of a petition being allowed to stand over at the application of a party, does not, in the absence of a special direction in the order, prevent that party from filing fresh affidavits.-Exp. Worthington, re Sutton, 332, 10. (Same.) Where a petition stood over for want of an affidavit of service, the Court would not allow it to retain its place, an objection being made by the counsel in the next petition,-Exp. and re Crossley, 404. 11. (Vivá voce examination.) The usual course is not to apply before-hand for an order to examine vivá voce on a petition, but if on the hearing the Court see occasion they will direct it.-Exp. Tate, re Odlin, 516. And see JURISDICTION, 1; SPECIAL Case. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. (Return of, after inspection.) Ths party who produces a document to the commissioners, either by compulsion of legal process, or through a threat of being committed, is entitled to have it returned to him after inspection, without reference to his title to retain the same, which the Court will not inquire into.Exp. Gilbard, re Malachy, 488. PROOF. 1. (Election-Estoppel.) Where a creditor who was entitled to elect whether he would prove against the joint estate or the separate estate of two partners, had proved against the separate estate of one, and had received a dividend upon his proofs: Held, that upon refunding such dividend he might retire his proof and prove against the joint estate.-Exp. Law, re Bailey, 541. 2. (Merger of securities.) The bankrupts, who were bankers, gave a joint and several promissory note to their bankers to secure advances up to 2000. When the advances had amounted to 19571., one of the bankrupts executed a mortgage to the bankers to secure that sum and all future advances up to 30007. ; and by the same deed all the bankrupts covenanted to pay the 19371. At the time of the bankruptcy the firm was indebted to the bankers 43651. The bankers sold the mortgaged property for upwards of 3000l., and then applied to prove against the estate of one of the partners upon the promissory note, for the balance still due: Held, that they might do so on the authority of Exp. Ladbroke, 2 G. & J. 81. Diss. Sir J. Cross, who thought the lesser security merged in the greater. - Eap. Bate, re Bishton, 358. 3. (Reduction by payment.) After proof of a debt, but before declaration of a dividend, the creditors received a large portion of the debt from a surety: Held, that his proof ought not to be reduced.-Exp. Coplestone, re Snell, 546. REPUTED OWNERSHIP. See ORDER AND DISPOSITION. SPECIAL CASE. The Court adverted to the inconvenience that had arisen from disregarding the terms of the General Order of 22d May, 1833, as to the mode of obtaining the judge's approval of a special case. -Exp. Woodward, re Turner, 294. And see APPEAL. STAT. 1 & 2 VICT. c. 110. See PRACTICE, 6. TRADING. (Farmer.) A farmer who was in the habit of buying at a time half as many more sheep as were required to stock his farm, for the purpose, as he alleged, of selecting those he liked best, and selling the remainder; upon its being shown that the selection was usually left to the buyer, and that in some instances, the whole lot had been sold without shearing or pasturing: Held to be a trader.—Exp. and re Newall, 333. TRUST. See BENEFIT SOCIETY. TRUST DEED. 1. (Notice of act of bankruptcy.) An assignee under a trust deed, who had previously struck a docket against the bankrupt, which (as it stated in his petition) he afterwards abandoned upon the trust deed being executed (and not by reason of any mistake as to the commission of an act of bankruptcy), was held, as against the assignee under a subsequent fiat, to have no lien on the property assigned to him for costs incurred and payments made in execution of the trusts of the deed of assignment.-Exp. Swinburne, re Field, 396. 2. (Partners.) The circumstance of one of several partners having been named as one of the trustees in a deed of composition, which he did not execute: Held not to disqualify the firm as petitioning creditor.-Re Wood, 514. UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS. (Executrix of assignee.) The Court, on the petition of executrix of surviving as. signee, ordered that she should pay certain unclaimed dividends into Court, but declined ordering a release.—Exp. Raikes, re Tuke, 494. HOUSE OF LORDS. [Containing cases in 4 Clark & Finnelly, Part 3, omitting Cases noticed in former Digests. ACCOUNT. Í. (Annual rests—Interest on balance of rent and debt.)—Where it was agreed between a debtor and his creditor that the latter should accept a certain rent in payment of his debt and the interest thereon, (which interest was not to commence till a certain period,) until debt and interest were satisfied, and that half-yearly rests should be taken, and the rent was in fact not paid for several years: Held, that the creditor was not, upon the construction of the agreement, even supposing it to be legal, entitled to interest upon the unpaid rents-Page v. Broom, 436.-(See Page v. Linwood, 399, and infra.) 2. (Compound interest.)—In the course of accounts taken upon the footing of an agreement allowing interest, a balance was struck of the sum acknowledged to be due, including an item for compound interest: Held, that this was not sufficient evidence of a settled dealing between the parties to found a charge for compound interest in the subsequent parts of the account.—S. C. EVIDENCE. (Entry on journals.)-Held, that an entry in the journals of the Committee of Privileges was, upon trial of a claim to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland, good evidence of the limitations in a patent of peerage.- In the matter of Lord Dufferin and Claneboye, 568.—(See Committee of Privileges.) MORTGAGEE. (Annual rests-Possession as lessee.)-Where the mortgagor and mortgagee of a house entered into an agreement with a builder 10 make certain alterations in the house, in consideration of a lease to be granted to him, and it was also part of the agreement, that he should grant an underlease to the mortgagee, at a certain rent and in consideration of a certain sum to be paid to him as the price of such lease, (the effect of such agreement being to postpone the right of the mortgagee to her mortgage money, to the right of the builder to his rent), and upon the completion of the works, the mortgagee entered into possession, but no lease was executed in pursuance of the agreement, either to the builder or the mortgagee, and the mortgagee never paid the 10007., or the annual rent agreed to be paid by her: Held, that in affirmation of decree of Lord Chancellor Brougham, that upon account taken between her and the representatives of the builder, who had subsequently purchased the equity of redemption from the mortgagor, the mortgagee was in possession as tenant, and not as mortgagee, and the accounts ought not to be taken as against her with annual rests. The suit related to a very complicated state of facts. See Page v. Broom, 4 Russ. 6, reported upon the hearing before Sir J. Leach, whose decree, except in the above point and also in the point mentioned supra in Page v. Broom, tit. Account, was confirmed. -Page v. Linwood, 399. PRACTICE. (Dismissing appeal on motion.)-Where an appellant, after receiving indulgence from the House, upon terms, fails to comply with such terms or to appear on the day appointed for the hearing, his appeal was dismissed with costs upon motion on behalf of the respondent, without requiring him to present a petition.-Mahon v. Irwin, 559. TIME OF APPEAL. 1. (Intentional absence.)—The indulgence, as to time of appealing which is allowed on account of absence, by the Orders of 24th of March, 1726, (No. 118,) as amended in 1829, was refused to a party who went abroad after the decree for the purpose, as the House thought, of avoiding its execution.-(Brooke v.Champernowne, 4 C. & F. 247; L. M. No. 44.)-De Burgh v. Clarke, 562. 2. (Time saved by subsequent orders.)—Where proceedings subsequent to the decree had been taken within the time allowed for appealing: Held, that an appeal might be brought against the subsequent orders and the original decree.—S. C. LIST OF CASES. COMMON LAW. Abernethy v. Paton, 5 Bing. N. C. 276; 6 Scott, 586 Landlord and Tenant, 1; Overseers Way Barnes v. The Bank of England, 7 D. P. C. 319 Belcher v. M'Intosh, 8 C. & P. 720 Brown and Croydon Canal Company, in re, 1 P. & D. 391 Burroughs v. Hodgson, 1 P. & D. 328 Master and Servant, 1 Costs, 4 Assumpsit, 1 Interpleader Act .. Usury Process, 2 Witness, 3 Amendment; Penalty Venue, 3 Infant Arbitration, 2 Pleading, 7 Habeas Corpus Carden v. The General Cemetery Company, 5 Bing. N. C. 253; 7 D. P. C. 275, Currie v. Almond, 5 Bing. N. C. 224; S. C. nom. Curry v. Arnott, 7 D. P. C. 249 |