Page images
PDF
EPUB

SHERIFF.

failed to comply with section 25 of The Executions Act, by

Sale of goods under fi. fa.- advertising the amount realized Liability of sheriff for acts of and keeping the money to be his bailiff-Satisfaction of judg- distributed rateably, is no answer ment-Executions Act, R. S. to the defendant's claim to have M. 1902, c. 58, ss. 21, 25such amount credited upon the Credit sale by sheriff.]-(1) execution against him, when Notwithstanding the provisions nearly three years have elapsed of section 21 of The Executions and there is no evidence that any Act, R. S M. 1902, c. 58, a sale other execution against the deof goods by a sheriff's bailiff fendant has been placed in the under fi. fa. was, under the sheriff's hands.-Massey-Harris peculiar circumstances set forth Co. v. Mollond in the statement below, held to have been good, although made immediately after seizure and without the notice required by that section.

..

SHIPMENT.

See CONTRACT, 4.

SLANDER.

364

(2) A sheriff is responsible for all money realized by his bailiff by a sale under fi. fa. though the money be stolen. from the bailiff as a result of structions-Respective provinces his carelessness and never comes

to the sheriff's hands..

(3) A seizure by a sheriff of sufficient goods to satisfy a judgment in part will be a discharge to the debtor as to such part.

(4) When the goods seized are subject to a chattel mortgage the sale of the goods themselves, instead of only the equity of redemption, will be good unless objected to by the mortgagee.

(5) It is not an absolute rule that the sheriff's sale under execution must be for ready money; but, if the sheriff does not comply with such rule, he will be be responsible for the money if he fails to collect it.

(6) The fact that the sheriff

Words capable of two con

of judge and jury.]—In an ac-
tion for slander, if the words

used by defendant are capable of
being reasonably understood in
a slanderous sense, it should be
left to
left to the jury to find out
whether or not they were so
used, and the plaintiff should
not be non-suited on the ground
that the words did not neces-
sarily impute the commission of

a crime.

Richie v. Sexton, (1881) 64 L. T. 210; and Simmons v Mitchell, (1880) 6 A. C. 156, followed.-Cameron v. Overend 408

SOLICITOR.

See BREACH OF TRUST.

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

1.

to pay the money "on acceptance of title."

(4) Although accepting the findings of the trial judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, the Court in appeal may review the evidence and reverse the decision arrived at as to the legal conclusions to be drawn from the admitted facts.

Principal and agent Evidence to prove authority of agent to sell land Implied power of real estate agentAppeal from trial judge's find ings. (1) Although an agent for the sale of land, having only verbal authority from the owner, may sign for him a Rosenbaum v. Belson, [1900] contract of sale of the land 2 Ch. 267, commented on and which will be binding under the distinguished.-Gilmour Statute of Frauds, yet, if топ

disputed, the evidence of the

v. Si205

...

- –

agent should not be accepted as 2. Sale of land-Purchaser for sufficient proof of such authority value without notice-Contractwithout corroboration, unless it Cancellation-Service of notice. is of the clearest and most of cancellation-Costs-Further convincing kind and such as relief - Amendment.] The bears overwhelming conviction plaintiff made an agreement in on its face. writing for the purchase of the (2) The authority ordinarily land in question from the deconferred upon a broker em- fendant Hough, paid $200 on ployed in the sale of land is account, went into possession limited to the duty of finding a and erected a good house on the purchaser ready and willing to lot. The title to it was under buy the property at the named The Real Property Act. The price and on specified terms and plaintiff did not register his to introduce him to his principal, agreement. and, without a clear and express provision, such authority does not warrant the agent in signing a contract of sale so as to bind the principal.

Hamer v. Sharpe, (1874) L R. 19 Eq. 108; Prior v. Moore, (1887) 3 T. L. R. 624, and Chadburn v. Moore, (1892) 61 L. J. Ch. 674, followed.

Some time afterwards, the defendant Robinson procured an assignment from Hough to himself of the agreement, and also a transfer of the title to the lot. The trial Judge found that these transfers were obtained by fraudulent promises on the part of Robinson or his solicitor to protect the plaintiff's interests. (3) Where the owner has Robinson afterwards transferred authorized his agent to sell on the lot for value to the terms requiring payment of defendant Parker, who was not $1,000 cash, this will not author- proved to have had any notice ize him to sign an agreement of or knowledge of the plaintiff's sale by which the purchaser is rights or that he was in

possession of the property. Held, that the vendor migh Held, that the plaintiff could elect to adopt one or other of not have specific performance of such modes of cancellation; that, the agreement as against Par- if he elected to cancel without ker, but should be allowed to giving notice, he could not do remove the house from the lot so by a mere operation of his if he desired. mind, but must do something by In his statement of claim, the which he gives the purchaser plaintiff had asked only for clearly to understand that he specific performance of the decides to avoid the contract, agreement, but, under the power and that the relation of vendor conferred on the Court by and purchaser no longer exists sub-section (k) of section 38 of between them, or do some act The King's Bench Act and directly affecting the vendee in rules 344 and 346 as to his position or interest, as. for amendment of the pleadings if example, a sale to another: found necessary, the Court, McCord v. Harper, 26 U. C. C. having found the defendant P. 104; and on the other hand. Robinson guilty of fraud, gran- if he adopts the mode of ted the plaintiff further relief cancellation by notice he must against him by ordering him to conform strictly to the mode pay the plaintiff, by way of prescribed.-Czuack v. Parker damages, what he had paid to Hough on the lot with interest.

Action dismissed as against the defendants Hough and Par-| ker.

Held, as to costs, that the defendant Robinson should be:

ordered to pay not only the plaintiff's costs, but also those of his co-defendants directly to! them: Daniel's Ch. Pr., 7th ed.. p. 980.

See SALE OF LAND.

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

See SALE OF LAND.

456

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

Rudow v. Great Britain Mu. See FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. tual Life Assurance Society, 17

Ch. D. 600, followed.

There were two clauses in

the agreement providing for

STATUTES.

cancellation in case of default: Assignments Act, R. S. M.

the first saying that, after such default, the vendor might cancel with or without notice, the

1902, c. 8, ss. 40, 48.

See FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE,

second providing for the man- Bank Act, 1890, ss. 80, 81.
ner of giving the notice of
default.

See INTEREST.

Builders' and Workmen's Act. King's Bench Act R. S. M
R. S. M. 1902, c. 14.

1902, c. 40.

[blocks in formation]

s. 585. See CONTEMPT OF

COURT.

s. 611. See CRIMINAL LAW, 2.

County Courts Act, R. S. M.
1902, c. 38, s. 213.

See REGISTERED JUDGMENT.
Dominion Lands Act, R. S. C.
c. 54, s. 42.

See DOMINION LANDS ACT.
Dominion Lands Act, R. S. C
c. 54, s. 90, as re-enacted by
62 & 63 Vic. c. 16, s. 4.

See REPLEVIN.

Rule 40. See PARTIES TO

Rule 258. See PLEADING, 1.

Rule 290. See PLEADING, 2.
Rule 306. See PLEADING, 2.
See WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
FOR INJURIES ACT.

Rules 309, 313, 326. See
PLEADING, 2.

Rule 387. Sec PRACTICE, 5.
Rule 433. See ALIMONY, 2.

Rules 442, 449. See PRACTICE,
6.

Rule 453. See DEMURRER.

Executions Act. R. S. M. 1902, See WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

panies' Act, R. S. M. 1902, c. Public Parks Act, R. S. M.

30, s. 68.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1902, c. 141, s. 44.

See PUBLIC PARKS ACT.

Railway Act, 1888 (D) s. 246,
s-s. 3.

See RAILWAYS, 1.

Railway Act, 1903, s. 199.

See RAILWAYS, 3.

Real Property Act, R. S. M.
1902, c. 148, s. 71.

See MORTGAGE, 2.

ss. 127, 140. See REAL
PROPERTY ACT.

Real Property Limitation Act,
R. S. M. 1902, c. 100, s. 20.

See MORTGAGE, 1.

Municipal Act R. S. M. 1892, s. 24. See RECTIFICATION OF

c. 100, s. 607.

See MUNICIPALITY, 1.
Muncipal Act, R. S. M. 1902, c.
116, ss. 425, 426.

See MUNICIPALITY, 2.

DEED.

Sale of Goods Act, R. S. M.
1902, c. 152, ss. 15, 16.

See SALE OF GOODS.

s. 26. See CONDITIONAL SALE.

« PreviousContinue »