« PreviousContinue »
trust funds to the firm, which appropriated several bonds of third persons as security. The bond debtors had no notice of the appropriations, and the bank became bankrupt.
Held, that the cestuis que trust might insist upon the trust in respect to those bonds; and that they were not goods in the possession of the bankrupts as reputed owners by consent of the true owners, under the bankrupt act.
Rolls' Court. March 7 and 14.
INGILBY V. AMcorts.
Will —Devisable interest. By the will of A. the H. estate was devised to B.; but in case B. should become entitled in succession to the K. estate, the testatrix devised over the H. estate to C. D. and E. as tenants in common. C. died, and F. was her heir at law; and F. died before the happening of the contingent event:
Held, that F. had a devisable interest in the H. estate, which would pass by a general residuary devise, and his devisees were entitled in preference to the heirs of C., although if he had died intestate, those heirs would have taken upon the happening of the contingency.
V. C. Stuart's Court. May 2 and 3.
PROWETT v. MORTIMER.
Injunction - Newspaper — Continuation of former newspaper by one not
proprietor. The plaintiff purchased and became the proprietor of a weekly newspaper called the Britannia, which he afterwards amalgamated with another weekly newspaper called the John Bull. The new publication was issued under the name of the John Bull and Britannia. The defendant M. had been printer, publisher, and sub-editor of the Britannia, in which was published a notice of the intended amalgamation. After the amalgamation, on the next usual day of the publication of the Britannia, the defendant M. issued a paper called the True Britannia, resembling the Britannia in size and type, and purporting to be a continuation thereof. Upon bill by plaintiff, to restrain the publication of the True Britannia, an injunction was granted.
Common Bench. April 22.
LAWSON v. THE BANK OF LONDON.
Pleading -- Action for trading under name of another. To maintain an action for trading in the plaintiff's name of business, it must be distinctly averred that the plaintiff carries on such business.
Thus, where the allegation was that the plaintiff "established” a bank with a certain name, and that the defendants afterwards used the name, &c:
Held, bad on dernurrer.
Whether such action will lie against a corporation which uses the name given it by act of Parliament, quære. It seems (Willes, J.) that it would.
Common Bench. April 24, and May 7.
CLOSMADUE v. CARROLL.
Eridence — Presumption — Burden of proof - Stamp on lost instrument.
Where an action was brought on a charter-party which had been put into the post-office at C., to be sent to London and stamped, and returned to C., but had not since been found.
Held, that the burden of proving the want of stamp was on the defendant, and as neither party could distinctly prove his allegation, secondary evidence of the contents of the paper should have been received.
Queen's Bench. May 26.
HUDSON V. Bilton.
Condition precedent — Vessel having sailed. A. drew an order, “ please pay to B., on the Royal Oak, having load and sailed, out of the advance, 731."
Held, the sailing of the vessel was a condition precedent, and that the vessel having loaded and proceeded over the bar, and standing off and on while the captain went ashore to get the clearance papers and sign the bills of lading, had not sailed.
V. C. Kindersley's Court.
EDWARDS v. Martin.
Mortgage — Foreclosure for non-payment of interest. Where a mortgage was conditioned to pay a certain sum at the expiration of five years, with interest in the meantime half yearly, and default was made in the payment of interest:
Held, the mortgagee was entitled to a decree of foreclosure.
Queen's Bench. May 31.
REYNOLDS v. BRIDGE.
Covenant — Liquidated damages. A deed contained a covenant that A. should not practise as a surgeon or see patients, or introduce any other medical man in the town of W., but should introduce B. to all the exclusive patients of the said A., and use his best endeavor to secure them for B.; and provided, that in case of default, A. should forthwith pay to B. 20001., not in the nature of a penalty, but as liquidated damages :
Held, liquidated damages, all the stipulations being of uncertain value.
Crown Cases Reserved.
April 26. Reg. v. Rush.
Misdelivery of letter - Larceny. A letter containing a post-office order for money was delivered by mistake to A., who, after ascertaining that it was not for him, appropriated the contents to his own use.
Held, upon the authority of R. v. Mucklow, 1 Moo. C. C. 100, that a conviction for larceny could not be sustained.
May 3. Reg. v. ROEBUCK.
False pretences - Misrepresentation of article offered as a pledge. A false and fraudulent statement to a pawnbroker that an article offered as a pledge is of silver, is indictable as a false pretence under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29; and upon the trial of such an indictrnent evidence is admissible of similar misrepresentations made to others about the same time, and of the possession of a considerable number of articles of the same kind.
Reg. v. Burgon.
False prelences — Misrepresentation that a house was built on land offered
as security. Where A. obtained money on the security of land by falsely representing that a house was built upon it :
Held, he was rightly convicted of obtaining money by false pretences.
Reg. v. GARDNER.
False pretences - Personation — Obtaining board.
Held, that he could not be convicted of obtaining specific articles of food by false pretences, because they were too remotely connected with the false representation.
Forgery - Intent to defraud. To constitute the crime of forgery, there must be an intent to defraud some one, although by a recent statute the intent to defraud any particular individual need not be alleged. Therefore, where the prisoner altered a diploma of the College of Surgeons, by substituting one name for another, but without intending to wrong any one in particular:
Held, he could not be convicted of forgery.
Court of Appeal in Chancery. April 29, and May 7.
MOLYNEUX v. RowE.
Will — Construction General words limited by context. A testator, by his will, appointed executors, and gave all his real and personal estate upon trusts for the benefit of his granddaughter. By a codicil he gave and bequeathed to his servant “ the whole of my estate, and all my household goods and furniture, linen, china, watches, and all other my personal property and effects that I may be possessed of at the time of my death, free from the control or interference of any person or persons whatsoever, for his absolute use and benefit, free from the legacy duty; such gift and bequest, however, I declare shall not prejudice any claim or demand he may have against me or my representatives for wages due to him from me;" and ratified his will in all other respects :
Held, (Turner, L. J., dissentiente,) that the gift in the codicil was only of the personal estate.
Rolls' Court. May 11 and 12.
Cox v. PARKER.
Derise — Trustee entitled on failure of trust and of heirs. A testatrix devised real and personal estate in trust for her son, and if he should die under twenty-one years of age and without leaving issue, her trustee was to stand seized of the property in trust to sell, &c., and pay certain legacies, and subject thereto she bequeathed the residue to the children of P. and E., which should then be living. The testatrix's son died during her lifetime, unmarried. The testatrix left no heir or next of kin.
Held, that the trustee was absolutely entitled to the residuary estate.
THOMAS v. BUTT.
Will Construction Estate tail. A testator, after giving the whole of his property to his wife for life, devised “to my grandson, R. P., that house and garden, &c.; to my granddaughter, A. P., this house I now live in, with the garden and orchard adjoining ;” and made in the same general clause several devises and bequests to his numerous other grandchildren by name. And added at the end of the bequests, " In case either of