« PreviousContinue »
Court and are so constructed that no
(6) was or were not present at any person seated further back than the second
meeting of trustees where the row can either hear or see the accused,
same was considered, or the witnesses, the counsel, the jury, the
(c) did not consent to or concur in the judge, or any of those engaged in conduct
granting of the deed, or ing the proceedings in the Court below.
on the ground of any other omission All the other rows of seats are quite useless
or irregularity of proceeding on for any purpose connected with the open
the part of the trustees or any administration of justice. The police have
of them relative to the granting found in practice that if the public are
of the deed. permitted to occupy the seats in the back All these subdivisions a, b, and c (which are rows of the galleries disorder is caused by my own for the sake of clearness) down to and the people in the back seats standing up including the last clause strike at the pronounceand stretching over to try to obtain a ment in Wyse's case, the ipsissima verba even view of the Court."
of that troublesome case being adopted for This passage would be spoilt by commenting practical subversion.
Two other important paragraphs follow, the one, inter alia, declaring that the section is
to apply to deeds granted before as well as after Letters to the Editor.
the Act, and the other emphasising the meaning
of “ quorum. EDINBURGH, 26th June 1924. Dear Sir,
In one case since 1921, I proposed, as the The Bank of England.
only trustee in this country (my co-trustee being
abroad), to execute a deed without troubling The letter from Mr Duncan of Aberdeen in him—the trust deed empowering a single your issue of 21st inst. referring to the cases trustee to act in the absence of the otherof Wyse and Darling is interesting, as shewing and Wyse's case was again trotted out. A the attitude of many practitioners prior to the reference, however, to section 7 settled the passing of the Act of 1921. They frequently matter. It is a valuable section, and gives a insisted upon getting the signatures of all the much-needed relief to the profession. trustees in a trust even in onerous transactions,
In the same number of the “ S.L.T." it was not feeling able to act on the plain meaning of a satisfaction--if I may be permitted to say the word “
quorum. Th case of Wyse has so—to find the Second Division of the Court been cited to me off and on for the last thirty in the case of Cunningham, p. 502, holding years, and no doubt it was a bit of a bugbear. “that War Stock was Imperial and British But it was really pressed much further than the and not English as distinct from Scots, that the venerable judge, whose opinion is quoted, ever bank (i.e. the Bank of England) was merely intended, its circumstances were so special.
a cashier, and that the lex domicilii regulated The Trust Act of 1921 came, I think, rather the succession to the stock.” suddenly upon the profession, as, on its appear
Now why should a cashier (I would not have ance, I did not recall having seen its provisions dared use the expression) not be required previously discussed. But it contained some to give effect to our plain Statute Law, which welcome sections, especially section 7. When enacts that any or ous deed in any.. trust not I read this I felt that the case of Wyse and all in favour of a beneficiary or co-trustee shall the quibbles it unintentionally aided and not be challengeable if executed by a quorum a betted had gone. Mr Duncan has, of course, of the trustees ?
D. M. G. read the section; but it is so splendidly comprehensive that it is worth a brief analysis. It runs :
18th June 1924. Any deed bearing to be granted by the
Dear Sir, trustees under any trust and in fact executed by a quorum of such trustees Surrender of Shares in Limited Companies. in favour of any person (other than a beneficiary or a co-trustee under the The profession will, I think, be indebted to trust) where such person has dealt the contributor of the article in your issue of onerously and in good faith shall not 7th inst. on this subject. I had myself, with be void or challengeable on the ground some diffidence, given a similar opinion to the that any trustee or trustees under the directors of a limited company some weeks ago, trust
and I was glad to have the confirmation afforded (a) was or were not consulted in the by the article. matter, or
To complete the reference to authorities bear
ing on the subject may I add Lord MʻLaren's
NOTICE. opinion in Gill v. Arizona Copper Co. Ltd. (1900, 2 T. 843) ? In that case the company intimated The sittings of the First Division of the Court certain claims against the vendors which were for the trial of causes by jury in the ensuing not admitted, but an arrangement was come to vacation will begin on Monday, 21st July whereby the vendors surrendered to the com
J. P. pany the whole of the deferred shares held by EDINBURGH, 26th June 1924. them for behoof of the preferred shareholders. In a dispute between the company and the Court for the trial of causes by jury in tbe
The sittings of the Second Division of the preference shareholders it was maintained by ensuing vacation will begin on Monday, 21st the company that the effect of the transfer to
J. A. the company was equivalent to a surrender of the shares to the company as a whole, and not
EDINBURGH, 26th June 1924. for the benefit of the preferred shareholders ;
Note.-With regard to the transmission of causes for and, alternatively, that if it was for the benefit trial at these sittings, agents are referred to the Codify
ing Act of Sederunt, Book F, chapter i., section 5. A of the preferred shareholders, the transaction copy of the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor allowing the was illegal on the ground that the company trial to proceed at the sittings, along with a print of the could not hold its own shares. The Court held closed record and of the adjusted issue or issues, njust that the shares in question were held in trust which the cause is to be tried, and that not later than
be handed to the Keeper of the Rolls of the Division in for the preferred shareholders.
twelve o'clock noon on Tuesday, 1st July, otherwise Lord MʻLaren's opinion contains the follow the cause will not be taken at the sittings. ing passage : Now, it is plain enough that a transfer of fully paid shares in a company to Box-DAYS-AUTUMN VACATION, 1924.the company itself or its nominees does not, in Edinburgh, 26th June 1924.- The Lords of fact, diminish the capital of the company avail- Council and Session appoint Thursday, 14th able for distribution among its creditors, be- August, and Thursday, 18th September, to be cause, according to the hypothesis, the shares the Box-days in the ensuing vacation. only represent a claim upon the income of the
J. A. CLYDE, I.P.D. company, and the holders of the shares are not liable to be made contributories in liquidation. THE Lord Ordinary officiating on the Bills I therefore cannot hold that the judgments in will sit in Court on Wednesday, 20th August, Trevor v. Whitworth and the other cases cited and Wednesday, 24th September, each day at have any application to the case of a transfer eleven o'clock forenoon, 'for the disposal of of fully paid shares. There may be a theo- motions and other business falling under the retical difficulty as to a company holding fully 93rd section of the Court of Session Act, 1868, paid shares in its own name; and in the case and the 3rd section of chapter i., Book A, of an unqualified transfer perhaps the correct Codifying Act of Sederunt; and Rolls will be view woulà be that the shares are extinguished, taken up
on Monday, 18th August, and Monday, as in the case of a transfer by an insolvent 22nd September, between the hours of eleven shareholder.”
and twelve o'clock. By the last observation I take it that his EDINBURGH, 26th June 1924. Lordship means the shares are extinguished ” as issued shares, but not cancelled ; since, as your contributor points out, the effect of surrender is
AUTUMN CIRCUITS, 1924. merely to change an issued share into an unissued share.
NORTH.-The Right Hon. the Lord JusticeI think the decision in the Arizona case and Clerk and The Right Hon. Lord Murray. the paragraph in Lord MʻLaren's judgment Perth-Tuesday, 2nd September, at 10.30. quite support the views of your contributor, Pleading Diet-Saturday, 23rd August. Service and I agree with him that there has been some -Saturday, 16th August. Dundee—Tuesday, confusion in other cases between reduction of 23rd September, at 10.30. Pleading Dietcapital and reduction of issued capital. Your Saturday, 13th September. Service--Saturday article, if carefully studied, will encourage practi- 6th September. Inverness—Tuesday, 30th tioners to carry out schemes of the nature September, at 10.30. Pleading Diet—Saturday indicated without the expense of Court pro- 20th September. Service-Saturday, 13th ceedings.--Yours truly,
September. Aberdeen—Tuesday, 7th October, PRACTITIONER.
at 10.30. Pleading Diet – Saturday, 27th September. Service-Saturday, 20th September. Alexander Maitland, Esq., AdvocateDepute; Messrs Alexander Rae and V. S. M. Marshall, Clerks.
EVIDENCE-ADMISSIBILITY-USE OF EVIDENCE IN A
ANOTHER DEFENDANT TO
WEST.—The Hon. Lord Skerrington and The
DECISIONS IN THE ENGLISH Hon. Lord Constable. Inveraray-Thursday,
COURTS. 24th July, at 10.30. Pleading Diet-Monday,
14th July. Service, Monday, 7th July.
British Thomson-Houston Company Limited v. Stirling — Tuesday, 5th August, at 10.30.
British Insulated and Helsby Cables Limited. Pleading Diet—Saturday, 26th July. _Service -Saturday, 19th July. Glasgow-Tuesday, 9th September, at 10.30. Pleading Diet
PREVIOUS ACTION AGAINST Saturday, 30th August. Service—Saturday,
CONTRADICT 23rd August. J. M. Hunter, Esq., AdvocateDepute ; Messrs Alexander Rae and V. S. M.
TENTION.—In 1916 the plaintiffs raised an
action against Duram Ltd. for infringement of Marshall, Clerks. SOUTH.—The Hon. Lord Ormidale and The
patent. In that action they led evidence to Hon. Lord Ashmore. Jedburgh-Thursday, prove that a filament of drawn tungsten wire 24th July, at 10.30. Pleading Diet--Monday, of a specification contained in a patent belonging
could be obtained by following the directions 14th July. Service-Monday, 7th July. Ayr to them dated 1906. The case was appealed to Tuesday, 19th August, at 10.30. Pleading the House of Lords, and the
evidence in question Diet-Saturday, 9th August. Service-Saturday, 2nd August. Dumfries-Tuesday, 26th was embodied in the case lodged by the plaintiffs. August, at 10.30. Pleading Diet-Saturday, contention that the 1906 patent was unworkable,
In the present case the plaintiffs put forward the 16th August. Service-Saturday, 9th August. and led evidence of experts, other than those A. C. Black, Esq., Advocate-Depute; Messrs called in the former case, to prove this. The Alexander Rae and V. S. M. Marshall, Clerks.
defendants claimed to treat the statements of the experts in the Duram case as admissions of the plaintiffs themselves. Russell J. refused
to admit the evidence, and the defendants EXTRACT FROM CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (ADAPTA- Sargant L.J.) that the evidence of third parties
appealed against his decision. Held (dissenting TION OF ENACTMENTS) ORDER, 1924, MADE used in a trial by a party in proof of any fact EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF
was not admissible in proof of such fact against IRISH FREE STATE.
that party in any subsequent suit in which he Section 9. Every provision contained in any was a litigant. Decision of Russell J. ([1924) British Statute and relating to :
1 Ch. 203) affirmed.—Court of Appeal (Sir
. (a) the endorsement and execution in Ernest Pollock M.R., Atkin and Sargant L.JJ.). Ireland of warrants issued by justices, -7th April 1924. Courts, or judges of Courts in England, Scotland, the Channel Islands, or the Isle
Gayler & Pope Limited v. B. Davies & Son of Man; and
Limited. (6) the service in Ireland of writs of subpoena of Superior Courts in England
REPARATION or Scotland, and to the punishment in Ireland of persons disobeying the same;
AND TRAP LEFT UNATTENDED-LIABILITY.-The shall apply respectively to:
plaintiffs carried business as drapers, (I.) The endorsement and execution in Saorstát Éireann of warrants issued by streets. These premises had a large glass
occupying premises at the corner of two justices, Courts, or judges of Courts in
milk England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the vendors. On 14th January 1923, about 6 a.m., England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the shop window. The defendants Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man; a pony and milk van belonging to the defendants and (II.) The service in Saorstát Éireann of large quantity of goods in the shop. The
dashed through the shop window and injured a writs of subpena of Superior Courts in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, pony was found a few minutes after the occur
still attached to the van, lying on the and to the punishment in Saorstát Éireann ground inside the premises. No servant of the of persons disobeying the same;
defendants was in sight at the time of the And every such warrant and writ of subpæna occurrence, and it was averred that the pony shall, in Saorstát Éireann, have the like effect and van had been left unattended in the street. and shall be dealt with in like manner as if it Held (1) following dicta of Lord Blackburn had originated in Saorstát Éireann.
in River Wear Commissioners V. Adamson DUBLIN,
(2 App. Cas. 743 at p. 767), that the owner This 15th day of March 1924.
of horses and cattle which have done damage
NEGLIGENCE HIGHWAY PREMISES ADJOINING HORSE
to property adjoining a highway along which carriage, and was therefore within the meaning they were being lawfully driven could only of the Railway Passenger Duty Act, 1842, and be liable on proof of negligence and not that the justices were wrong in dismissing the merely on proof of trespass; and (2) that in case.—K.B. Div. (Lord Hewart, C.J., Shearman the present case the proof of the facts averred and Roche, J.J.).—2nd May 1924. constituted a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the defendants.-K.B. Div.
Official Receiver and Liquidator of Jubilee (M'Cardie J.).-11th April 1924.
Cotton Mills, Ltd. v. Lewis.
COMPANY PROMOTER SECRET PROFITS
COMPANIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT, 1908 (8 EDW. CRIMINAL LAW-STATUTORY OFFENCE
VII. CAP. 69), SECTION 82 (1).—The promoter of MINES-PROCEEDINGS
a company received an allotment of debentures
ACCEPTING and shares, made in contravention of section RESPONSIBILITY DISMISSAL COMPLAINT 82 (1) of the Companies Act, 1908, which forbids AGAINST OWNERS-COAL MINES ACT, 1911 (1 allotment before a prospectus has been issued & 2 GEO. V. CAP. 50), SECTIONS, 44, 68, 101, AND
or a statement in lieu thereof has been filed. 102.—The appellant preferred two informations Held that he was liable to the company for the against the respondents under the Coal Mines amount of any secret profit made by him on Act, 1911. The alleged offences related to (1) the sale by him of the shares which he took.the absence of sufficient refuge holes in the mine, House of Lords (Earl of Birkenhead, Viscount and (2) the absence of a bore-hole. Two
Finlay, Lords Dunedin, Sumner, and Carson). separate informations for the same offences 9th May 1924. were laid against the manager, who undertook full responsibility. Accordingly the justices imposed what they considered an adequate
Attorney General v. Valentine and Others. penalty on the manager, and dismissed the
REVENUE -ENTERTAINMENTS' DUTY-CLUBcase against the respondent company. Held
MATCHES-FINANCE that the justices were bound to convict the (NEW DUTIES) ACT, 1916 (6 GEO. V. CAP. 11),
.-K.B. Div. (Lord Hewart C.J., Shear- SECTION 1.-The members of the Hurlingham man and Roche JJ.).—2nd May 1923.
Club had, in addition to certain club privileges,
the right to attend polo matches, and tennis, Dennis v. Miles.
and other tournaments provided by the club.
This action was brought against the trustees CRIMINAL LAW-STATUTORY OFFENCE-MOTOR
of the club for payment of entertainments' duty OMNIBUS OVERCROWDING ACT, 1832 (2 & 3 WILLIAM IV. CAP. 120)-RAIL
on the subscriptions of members. Held that a WAY PASSENGER DUTY ACT, 1842 (5 & 6 VICT. proportion of the subscriptions and entrance CAP. 79), SECTIONS 13, 15—CUSTOMS AND IN
fees of members of the club was chargeable with LAND REVENUE ACT, 1869 (32 & 33 VICT. CAP. 14) entertainments' duty.—K.B. Div. (Rowlatt J.). SECTION 39, SCHEDULE E-LOCOMOTIVES
-14th May 1924. HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896_(59 & 60 VICT. CAP. 36), SECTION 1 (1) (B).—This was an appeal on a stated case from the justices of the County of
CURRENT LAW LITERATURE. Norfolk. William Dennis had been charged under sections 13 and 15 of the Railway Notes on English Law as differing from Scots Law Passenger Duty Act, 1842, on the ground that
with special reference to questions on Com“ being the driver of a certain stage carriage,
mercial Law and Accountancy Practice. By
Hector Burn Murdoch. W. Green & Son. to wit a motor omnibus employed as a public
Price 10s. 6d. stage carriage for the purpose of conveying
and The Government of France. By Joseph Barthélemy, convey on or about the said carriage more
authorised translation by J. Bayard Morris. George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
Price 6s. passengers than the said carriage was structed to carry or the number allowed for Technical Costs and Estimates as applied to many that purpose by the statute.'
The justices different Industries, with forty-three Specimen dismissed the case, being of opinion that the and Explanatory Forms. By Andrew Miller, Norfolk County Council having failed to make Company Secretary, Fellow of the Institute of bye-laws under the Town Police Clauses Acts Costs and Works Accountants. Gee & Co. had no control over the number of passengers
Price 108. 6d. net. permitted to be carried in the said omnibus. The Minnesota Law Review. June, 1924. Law Held that upon the day in question the motor School of the University of Minnesota. omnibus was a light locomotive used as a stage
Price 60 cents.
passengers for hire "
redemption, however, was renounced in the
Act 1707, cap. 11, passed on the eve of the By WM. YEAMAN.
Union, so that the feu-duties might remain The trend of the times is towards relieving erection and those acquiring right from them.
irredeemably and for ever with the lords of land in Scotland from the burdens with which In the meantime, after the last suppression of it is at present affected, and in 1914 the legis- Episcopacy, an Act was passed, 1690, cap. 29, lature took a step in this direction by passing which annexed the superiorities of all lands the Feudal Casualties (Scotland) Act. It enacted that the casualties incident to any feu formerly held of the dignified clergy or any
beneficed created prior to the commencement of the Act
person to the Crown, and made it (1st January 1915) should be redeemable at between the Crown and the vassals in these
unlawful to interpose any other superior the instance of either the superior or the pro- lands. It thus came to pass that the vassals prietor of such feu at any time within the period in ecclesiastical grants held blench immediof fifteen years from and after such commence
ately of the Crown, but under the burden of ment, and provided machinery for the purpose.
Since 1915, so far as regards lands held of payment of their feu-duties to the lords of the Crown, the Crown receiver has been issuing
erection. By this means a statutory burden notices to vassals requiring them to redeem the or ground-annual was created in favour of casualties exigible in respect of the Crown's persons who were not the superiors of the estate of superiority in various lands throughout properties. Accordingly the Crown carries estate of superiority in various lands throughout through, and retains the compensation payable the country. These notices have been sent, for the redemption of, the casualties in virtue not only to owners of lands who pay feu
of the Feudal Casualties Act. duties to the Crown, but also to owners who, although they hold their estates of the Crown, as their charters shew, pay the feu-duties II. DEANS OF THE CHAPEL ROYAL. istipulated for in the Crown charters to certain
The foundation of the institution requires to donatories of the Crown. There are two kinds of Crown donatories, viz. lords of erection and be explained at greater length than in the case the institution known as the Deans of the of the creation of lords of erection. Like Chapel Royal. They were both created many feu-duties out of lands held of the Crown, but
lords of erection the deans draw and retain centuries ago and both still exist. Their creations are matters of interest in the history the casualties from these lands have always of Scotland, and in this article it is proposed to been paid to the Crown as superiors, and the explain their origin.
pensation payable in respect of, the redemption
of the casualties. I. LORDS OF ERECTION.
The history of the Chapel Royal of Scotland At the time of the Reformation in 1560, was compiled by the Rev. Charles Rogers, it was computed that a fourth part of the D.D., LL.D., and published in 1882. This territory of Scotland was the property of the article only professes to deal with that portion Church, in the administration and cultivation of the history to which it is necessary to advert of which, by means of feus, rental rights, and in order to explain (1) the grants of lands, kindly tenantry, the early agriculture of the feu-duties from which form part of the Scotland was chiefly promoted. After the revenues of the Chapel Royal, and the casualReformation, when all monasteries were sup- ties from which, and the redemption prices of pressed, their whole benefices reverted to the future casualties, belong to the Crown; and (2) king, jure coronce. The king donated or gifted how these feu-duties came to be enjoyed by the most part of these beneficies, both spiri- the donatories of the present day, who still tuality and temporality, to the nobility and retain the designation Deans of the Chapel gentry of the kingdom, presumably as rewards Royal." for loyalty to the throne, and secularised or The institution known as the Deans of the erected the same into temporal baronies and Chapel Royal is of a very special and exceplordships. The grantees of these temporal tional character. It has subsisted without lordships were called lords of erection, not interruption through the successive political because they belonged to the order of nobility, and ecclesiastical changes that have taken ibut merely because they were feudal lords. place since its original foundation. It owes In the beginning of the seventeenth century its inception to the love of music implanted in the lords of erection resigned or gave back King James III., a trait which he inherited their superiorities to the Crown, with the from his grandfather, James I., who, it is handed exception of the feu-duties, which the Crown down, played on all musical instruments and reserved power to redeem. This right of could, in singing, compete with the best vocalists