mother, for instance, taking concurrently and equally; and so all through.

It is plain enough that all the severe criticism of the Scottish Bill on the score of exceeding its function is itself open to retort and criticism. If it is a matter of words, it is easy to change the title so that it shall read as the title to the English Bill-the "Conveyancing and Law of Property (Scotland) Bill." If it is supposed to go deeper, then there are the analogies of the 1868 Act, which made heritable securities personal as regards succession, and abolished heirship moveables; of the 1874 Act, which made real burdens personal as regards succession and assimilated the descent of heritage and conquest; and of the present massive English Bill. As we have said, there is evidence that in the main the objections stated have not the ulterior motive of dislike of the idea of even a radical re-casting of succession law, and it will be difficult to be more radical in that respect than the proposals in the Lord Chancellor's Bill, nor of the particular succession proposals put forward in the Scottish Bill. On the contrary, it seems to us that the true explanation of the criticism is just the realisation of the truth that the time is both ripe and propitious for a thorough overhaul of our succession code. When that is undertaken -and the sooner the better-one (if not the) paramount question will be the continuation or abolition, the extension or curtailment, of the principle of fetters on the testamentary power. The Bill goes far in the direction of extending these fetters by making heritable securities, including ground annuals, subject to the legal rights of spouses and children. Viewing this on its merits the Faculty of Advocates condemn; the S.S.C. and the Aberdeen societies approve; and the W.S. Society supersede judgment as premature, but refer to "trenchant and divergent views," which no doubt indicates a current of thought towards ending, instead of mending, testamentary fetters.

It is interesting, however, to note that the objectors to the locus standi of any succession proposals in the Bill do not see eye to eye, nor are they all severely and logically consistent. Thus the Faculty of Advocates are prepared to sanction the inclusion of a clause making all personal bonds (unless specially destined) subject to the legal rights of husband and wife, because the present law is so anomalous, and indeed the Faculty suggest that it is not infrequently disregarded in ignorance, which is novel to us. The S.S.C.'s favour the retention in the Bill of the clause making heritable securities subject to legitim. Then, again, the Writers to the Signet exclude from their condemnation the clause which recognises des tinations of heritage to executors, because they say that this Bill is the proper place for it as being "of a purely conveyancing nature." This implies, and they expressly say, that they

approve of the idea, except the corollary that such property should become subject to jus relicte and jus relicti (in place of terce and courtesy) and legitim. The W.S. Society has the credit (or otherwise) of being the only body which supports this proposal. The Faculty of Advocates is out-and-out opposed. So is the S.S.C. Society, and we think we do not err in putting the Society of Advocates of Aberdeen in the same category. The main objections to the proposal seem to be-on principle, that it is only an anticipatory patch towards the assimilation of heritable and moveable succession; and on details, that elucidation is required of what "duly confirmed" means in the case of heritage, and that the jus gentium is infringed when personal successors are sought for in accordance with any law except that of the domicile. This latter is not really a detail, but both the points we have mentioned can easily be remedied without throwing out the clause. Meantime of course the official answer is that the property would remain heritage and subject therefore to the lex loci. Is not the W.S. Society right in saying that this is conveyancing and not succession, and is not a destination of heritage to executors or heirs in mobilibus competent at present?

Generally, it does distinctly appear that the cross-exceptions made by the various bodies go far to weaken the outcry against the succession part of the Bill.

PRESCRIPTION.

The subject of prescription is a stepping-stone between what is objected to as out of place in the Bill and what is admittedly within its ambit. This arises from prescription having two sides, positive and negative. We think we are right in saying that none of the legal bodies objects to positive prescription as being out of place. As regards negative prescription the Faculty of Advocates (alone) say that "the general objection to alteration of substantive law by conveyancing Act is peculiarly applicable." We confess that this does not read very convincing, and with the greatest respect it seems to us that the paragraphs of the learned Faculty's Report which deal with the two prescriptions significantly reflect the members' elevation above the level of the actual conduct of conveyancing business. It is enough to note that none of the other bodies has a word to say against those proposals. The S.S.C. Society attest that "the benefits in the reduction of labour in examination of title and the saving of expense in searches will be greatly appreciated." Most significant of all the W.S. Society, whose forte must be presumed to be conveyancing, and who are the very last body in the world to be suspected of any views or designs which could possibly endanger property rights, strongly

advocate a reduction of the positive prescription to ten years so far as regards third parties who have dealt in good faith and for value. This is supported by a pregnant analogy from the Presumption of Life Limitation Act, to which may be added the protection which the Bill proposes to give to purchasers on sales under bonds, and that in turn is merely the adoption of what has been law in England for many years, and an extension of the similar idea found in our 1894 Act. Reading between the lines one may perhaps infer that the W.S. Society have come to think that, after jettisoning the succession clauses, the only things which will make the Bill worth having are just this limitation of prescription, strengthened as proposed in their report, and the drastic curtailment of deeds of transmission and extinction of heritable securities.

Reverting to the accentuated objection by the Faculty of Advocates in the matter of the negative prescription we read elsewhere in the Faculty's Report the frank admission that "those engaged in the daily practice of conveyancing are necessarily in a much better position to judge," which is true, and applies potently to the subject of prescription. Why are searches at present for forty years, when a bond may affect the lands though it be fifty or one hundred years old? Because the negative prescription is forty years. Lessen the positive prescription as you please, searches will remain forty years long if the negative prescription is unaltered. Is not that material to the "daily practice of conveyancing," and is it not therefore pertinent in the Bill to deal with the negative prescription? Only those daily versed in the business know the immense relief which the shortening of prescription will bring, for it will exclude countless questions which have to be considered at present, and will justify practitioners in disregarding many others. The most valuable suggestion in all these Reports is the cautiously guarded recommendation of the W.S. Society for a ten years' protection to onerous third parties. It "would achieve a great additional simplification and "would not be calculated to involve any material prejudice to any one, keeping in mind that it presupposes as an essential condition at least ten years' continuous, open, and undisputed possession," and also that it would operate practically in favour only of purchasers and lenders..

PERSONAL SEARCHES.

There is no matter which causes more differences of opinion in practice than the extent of personal searches, and the confusion is carried into these Reports. The Faculty of Advocates accept the view that the Bill will "permit of a search in the personal register being confined in all cases to searching against the proprietors

for the last five years instead of for five years against all proprietors for twenty years previously." The Glasgow Faculty say that the Bill "aims at rendering a five years' personal search sufficient for all purposes," but a search against whom? The S.S.C. Society appear to think that the position is to be, as regards diligences generally, the same as under the 1874 Act in the case of inhibitions. The Aberdeen Society advise that certain amendments should be made, and if so "a search in the personal register might then be for twenty years only." These quotations prove our statement of the confusion which exists. The inspiration in this matter is believed to have come from Glasgow, and it is therefore with all the greater deference that we confess ourselves beaten by the following passage in the Glasgow report.

It will be noticed that this subsection does not

provide for the renewal of inhibitions, but of course, in the rare case in which a first inhibition is likely to run out, a second can be taken out.

The subsection referred to is (3) (a) of section 46, and it might have been added that renewal is not only not provided for, but is made impossible by the repeal (subsection (6)) of section 42 of the 1874 Act. We ask :

1. If additional debt has been contracted between the dates of the two inhibitions, how is the second inhibition any substitute for the first inhibition kept up by renewal?

2. The like, if in the interval the debtor has contracted to sell the property though the transaction has not been carried out at the date of the second inhibition?

3. If the debtor has been divested for over five years after the date of the inhibition, and if the inhibition is really to be kept in force in any manner, as of its original value, how is it possible to rely on a personal search which covers five years only, and only against the proprietors for that period? That would not disclose the inhibition.

TRANSMISSION OF SECURITIES, ETC.

We find something like a chorus of dissent from the proposal in the Bill to omit the description absolutely from deeds and notices transmitting and extinguishing heritable securities. We think the only exception is that of the W.S. Society who are strongly for the Bill in this respect and "cordially approve of these proposals." If they were to be dropped, would the Bill be worth having?

The Faculty of Advocates recommend that it be enacted that the description may be by reference in an instrument of disentail, but that has already been decided to be law in D. Hamilton, Petr. (1906, 14 S.L.T. 41).

IT is officially announced that the King has approved the honour of Knighthood being conferred on Mr George Arthur Harwin Branson on the occasion of his appointment to be a Judge of the High Court of Justice.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-The latest list of causes standing for hearing in the House of Lords includes the following Scottish appeals: Earl of Minto v. Galloway; Lamont or Chearnley v. Millar and Others; Caldwell V. Caldwell; M'Arthur or Blackwood v. Blackwood; Corporation of Glasgow v. Taylor; Mackenzie v. FraserMackenzie; and A. Sanderson & Son v. Armour & Co. Ltd.

LORD STRATHCLYDE has, owing to the state of his health, found it necessary to resign the chairmanship of the Scottish Savings Committee, which he has held since September 1916. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has, with regret, accepted the resignation and tendered the thanks of His Majesty's Government for his most valuable services rendered to the savings movement in Scotland. On the invitation of the Chancellor, Lord Strathclyde has, however, agreed to accept the appointment as president of the Committee. The Duke of Atholl has accepted the post of chairman of the Committee.

IT has been resolved to confer the freedom of Edinburgh on the Hon. Arthur Meighen, Prime Minister of Canada, who is at present in this country in connection with the Imperial Conference. The following letter of acceptance was received yesterday at the City Chambers:

My dear Lord Provost,-I am deeply honoured by your offer, on behalf of the Corporation of Edinburgh, of the freedom of that city.

As you are good enough to intimate that you will allow me to do so, I would venture to suggest that the date of the ceremony should be Monday, 18th July, or Tuesday, 19th July.

Please accept my very hearty thanks, and be good enough to convey the same to the Corporation. I shall hope to express them more fully on the occasion of my visit to Edinburgh.-Yours faithfully,

(Signed) ARTHUR MEIGHEN.

Mr Arthur Meighen, B.A., K.C., M.P., was born at the Anderson Post Office, Perth, Ontario, on 16th June 1874. He was educated at Toronto University, where he graduated with honours in mathematics. He has had a wide experience of industrial and commercial, as well as academic life. He taught in the Collegiate Institute, Caledonia, for a year, and was engaged in manufacturing business and educational work in Winnipeg until 1900, when he commenced the study of law. He was called to the Bar in 1903. He was elected to the House of Commons of Canada in 1908 and became Solicitor-General of Canada in 1913. He has also held office as Secretary of State for Canada and Minister of

Mines; as Minister of the Interior, and Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs in the Union Government.

On the request of Mr William Craig, county clerk, to he relieved of active executive duty, the County Council and District Committees of Dumbartonshire have agreed that the county offices shall be whole-time appointments, and that Mr David Cockburn, writer, be appointed county clerk, treasurer, and collector, and clerk and treasurer to the district committees. Mr Craig will continue to be available to the County Council in an advisory capacity.

WE regret to record the death recently of Mr Peter L. Morrison, of Messrs Nimmo & Morrison, solicitors, Wick. Mr Morrison was clerk to the Justices of the Peace for Caithness and Burgh Prosecutor of Wick.

THE death took place at Dunblane on Monday last of Mr D. L. Forgan, solicitor to the Caledonian Railway Co. Mr Forgan, who was well known and highly esteemed in legal circles in Glasgow, was in the service of the railway company for about thirty years, during the last seven of which he occupied the position of solicitor. For many years he also held the appointment of lecturer on railway law in the Athenæum Commercial College.

EDINBURGH, 16th June 1921.

The Lords of Council and Session, considering that difficulties have arisen in carrying out the provisions of C.A.S., Book A, Chapter v., regulating the transmission of unextracted processes by the Clerks of Session to the Lord Clerk Register's Department in so far as they refer to the productions in such processes, and that it is advisable that the provisions therein in this respect be amended and brought into conformity with the existing practice in regard to the transmission of extracted processes, do hereby amend said C.A.S., Book A, Chapter v., and enact and declare as follows:

(1) The words "or productions" wherever appearing in said C.A.S., Book A, Chapter v., are hereby deleted. (2) If any productions are unborrowed in a process which falls to be transmitted

to the Department of the Lord Clerk Register as an unextracted process, the Clerk to the process shall send by letter to the parties to the cause or their known agents an intimation in the terms of Schedule A hereto annexed; and if the productions or any of them are not borrowed up within the time specified in such intimation, they shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as may be directed by the Principal Clerk of Session, and a note that this has been done shall be put upon the Inventory of Process by the Clerk to the process prior to its transmission to the Department of the Lord Clerk Register.

(3) Further considering that there are lying in the offices of the Clerks of Court and of the Lord Clerk Register certain productions belonging to unextracted processes already transmitted to the Lord Clerk Register's Department, grant warrant to the Principal Clerk of Session to have such productions, other than principal documents, suitably disposed of, and that without any public

intimation other than this Act.

And the Lords appoint this Act to be entered in the Books of Sederunt and to be printed and published in common form.

DEAR SIR,

J. A. CLYDE, I.P.D.

SCHEDULE A.

M. v. N.

In terms of Act of Sederunt of 16th June

1921 amending C.A.S., Book A, Chapter V anent unextracted processes, I hereby intimate to you that the process in the above cause is about to be transmitted to the Department of the Lord Clerk Register, and that there are productions in the process which it is necessary for you to borrow up within one calendar month from the date hereof, under certification that any productions remaining unborrowed after expiry of said month will be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as may be directed by the Principal Clerk of Session.I am, yours faithfully,

CASUALTY BALES OF WOOL
WATER WOOL ORDINARILY

DAMAGED
CARRIED
THEREFORE EXEMPTED FROM RULE THAT DECK
CARGO

DECK CARGO-USAGE-WHETHER

MUST BE INSURED SPECIFICALLY

VII.

MARINE INSURANCE ACT 1906 (6 EDW. CAP. 4), SECTION 30 (2), FIRST SCHEDULE, RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, RULE 17.-Bales of wool were bought f.o.b. at a foreign port and an assignment of relative insurance policies taken. These as enlarged by cover notes insured against perils described as "including all risk inland carriage by land and/or water, and all of craft, fire, coasters, hulks, transhipment, and risks from the sheep's back and/or station while awaiting shipment and/or forwarding and until safely delivered into warehouses in Europe." The wool had been carried to the port partly by land and partly by local steamers. By the usage of the trade, these steamers carried the wool on deck. On arrival in England it was found that many of the bales were injured by water. It was proved that the damage had occurred before shipment on the ocean steamer and that some of the damage must have occurred on board the local steamers and that the damage was quite abnormal. The above-cited rule provides: "The term goods means goods in the nature of merchandise. In the absence

of any usage to the contrary deck cargo . . must be insured specifically and not under the general denomination of goods.' In an action of a casualty and that in an "all risk" policy it on the policies, held (1) that there was evidence the casualty causing the loss; and (2) that the was not necessary to prove the exact nature of above-cited rule referred to a usage of the trade expression "usage to the contrary" in the and not of the insurance business, and that the and that a usage to carry wool on deck having rule was not intended to alter the common law; been proved to exist in this particular trade the underwriters were liable either at common law or under the rule, whether aware or not of the usage. Decision of Court of Appeal affirmed.-House of Lords (Lord Birkenhead L.C., Viscounts Finlay and Cave, Lords Atkinson and Sumner).-18th April 1921.

Niblett Ltd. v. Confectioners' Materials Co. Ltd.

CONTRACT-SALE OF GOODS-SELLER'S RIGHT TO SELL AND BUYER'S RIGHT TO QUIET POSSESSION IMPLIED CONDITION AND IMPLIED WARRANTY-LABEL ON GOODS BOUGHT INFRINGING