they cannot all be made defendants, some may be chosen to represent the others, and the bill be filed on behalf of all the owners and occupiers, except the defendants and the persons stated to be represented by the defendants. Such a bill is not demurrable, though of course relief can only be obtained by it against the parties before the Court. Ibid. See Stock Exchange. DEBTOR AND CREDITOR-Debtors Act, 1869: default in payment of money]-A solicitor was ordered to pay the costs of an unsuccessful appeal against a common order to tax his bill of costs, which had been obtained by his client:--Held, that the non-payment of the costs of the appeal was not a default in payment of money within the meaning of sub-section 4 of section 4 of the Debtors Act, 1869. Re Hope, 797 voluntary settlement. See Settlement. Limitations, Statute of. Voluntary Settlement. DECEIT Misrepresentation in law. See Fraud. DEED-option to purchase]—Under various deeds and Acts of Parliament certain waterworks became vested in a municipal corporation, the company to whom the works originally belonged being secured payment of interest on their share capital. The corporation had power to pay off the share capital on giving six months' notice. Notice to pay off was given, but the money was not paid:-Held, that the option to pay off could be exercised again. Ward v. The Wolverhampton Waterworks Company, 308 Estate pur autre vie, or in fee. See Specific Performance. DEMURRER-creditor's deed: non-execution by creditors]-To a bill filed by a trustee under an assignment for the benefit of creditors to recover from third parties property alleged to be vested in plaintiff by virtue of the deed, a demurrer will not lie, either on the ground that the creditors are not alleged to have executed the deed, or on the ground that they are not made parties to the suit. Observations on Garrard v. Lord Lauderdale, 3 Sim. 1; s. c. on appeal, 2 Russ. & M. 451. Glegg v. Rees, 243 setting down. See Practice. And see Cus tom. DEVISE. See Alien. DISCOVERY action for libel] - A person complaining of a libel in a newspaper may file a bill against the printer and publisher to ascertain the names of the proprietors, for the purpose of bringing his action against the proprietors alone. Dixon v. Enoch, 231 See Trade-Mark. DISTRIBUTIONS, STATUTE OF-grandchildren and great-grandchildren: division per stirpes]—If an intestate leaves no children, but grandchildren and great-grandchildren only, they take per stirpes and not per capita. Re Ross's trusts, 130 DOMICIL. See Administration of Estate. Legacy Duty. DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA-delivery of cheque and banker's pass book]-An uncle upon his death bed delivered to his nephew a cheque for 4,000l., and with it his banker's pass book. The cheque was not presented until after the donor's death: -Held, that the intended gift failed. In re Beak's Estate, Beak v. Beak, 470 ELEGIT. See Receiver. ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS-the Meyricke fund, Jesus College, Oxford: power to require information: district]-Wales is a district of England within the Endowed Schools Act, 1869; and if a college holds a fund in trust for exhibitioners to be selected from a particular district of England, and whose exhibitions are tenable at the university, such college must give the endowed schools commissioners any information they may require as to the fund-so held by the full Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of WICKENS, V.C., reported page 187. In re the Meyricke Fund, 553 EVIDENCE admissibility of statement made by witness contradictory to his evidence] The solicitor for the defendant stated in an affidavit that a witness for the plaintiff had stated to him facts which were put in writing signed by the witness, and he made the writing an exhibit. The statements in the writing were contradictory to the evidence of the witness as given in the suit-Held, that the writing was not admissible in evidence in the way in which it was put in, the witness having had no oppor tunity of explaining it. Hemming v. Maddick, 522 of death. See Bank of England. under Companies Act, 1862. See Contributory. And see Foreign Law. See Practice. EXECUTO3—power to mortgage : building society]—An executer mortgaged three small leasehold houses to a building society. The deed, which was in the usual form of a building society's mortgage, recited the will and probate, and that the money was wanted for executorship pur poses; it incorporated by reference the rules and byelaws of the society, and made the mortgage a security not only for the moneys advanced, but for any moneys at any time due by the executor in respect of any shares held by him in the society. The deed contained also personal covenants by the executor for payment of the mortgage money, &c.:-Held, that the mortgage was a good one, and that a title derived under it might be forced on a purchaser. Cruickshank v. Duffin, 317 An executor may create a mortgage of his testator's property, with power of sale.-Sanders v. Richards, 2 Coll. 568, is no longer law. Ibid. EXECUTOR (continued)-of mortgagor: balance of money accruing from mortgaged property]— After death of a mortgagor insolvent, the mortgagees of a policy on the life of the mortgagor, taken in their names, received the policy moneys. After satisfaction of their mortgage debt, they had a balance in their hands: this they claimed to retain against the executor of the mortgagor, to satisfy an unsecured simple contract debt due from the mortgagor to them:-Held, that they were entitled to do so. In re Hazlefoot's Estate: Chauntler's Claim, 286 power to charge estate: personal contract]An executor or administrator borrowing money in that character, does not give the lender any claim against the testator's or intestate's estate. The contract simply creates a personal liability on the part of the executor or administrator. Farhall v. Farhall, 146 The decision of BACON, V.C., reversed, Ashby v. Ashby (7 B. & C. 444) explained. Ibid. retainer of assets for specialty debt: surety for mortgage debt]-The right of an executor to retain assets for the payment of his own specialty debts, extends to a debt in which the executor is beneficially interested as cestui que trust, but not to a mortgage debt for the payment of which the executor has become surety by a mortgage of his own property, but which he has not paid before bill filed. Ferguson v. Gibson, 610 FALSE REPRESENTATION. See Fraud. FELONY-Assignment of property. See Trust and FOREIGN COMPANY. See Corporation. FOREIGN LAW-evidence]-An opinion of a Scotch advocate was in evidence. The judge considering that there was implied therein an opinion on a question of Scotch law raised in the suit, decided the question on that evidence. Macdonald v. Macdonald, 566 FORFEITURE-by bankruptcy. See Tenant for Life. FRAUD-settled account: composition deed: Bankruptcy Act, 1861: jurisdiction]-A Court of Equity will, at the suit of the debtor, entertain a bill to open an account settled between a debtor and creditor, although the debtor has registered a composition under the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, and entered the creditor for the amount settled, and the composition has been paid, if it be shewn that the creditor was guilty of overcharges. Decision of the MASTER OF THE ROLLS (40 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 450) affirmed. Pike v. Dickinson, 171 Misrepresentation. See Company-Beattie v. Eury; and Peek v. Gurney. FRAUDS, STATUTE OF-conveyance on undisclosed trust: pleading: illegality of transaction ground for not giving relief] -The statute of frauds is not available as a defence to a suit to establish a trust where it would be fraud to deny the trust. Haigh v. Kaye, 567 The defence that the transaction under which the plaintiff claims was illegal, must be pleaded in distinct terms. Ibid. See Specific Performance. GIFTS. See Donatio Mortis Causa. GUARANTIE agreement under seal: continuing HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Marriage Settlement. Married Woman. Will-Taylor v. Cartwright. INFANT-contract to take shares: repudiation]— Shares in a company having been purchased by C. from H., he in October, 1865, obtained the consent of B., then an infant of nineteen years, to allow them to be placed in his name, which was done. The company was ordered to be wound up, and in December, 1867, B.'s name was placed upon the list of contributories. B., who attained the age of twenty-one years in September, 1867, wrote a letter in February, 1868, repudiating the shares. The official liquidator in March, 1868, took out a summons to remove B.'s name from the list and place that of H. in its place. This summons. apparently with B.'s consent, was not proceeded with. B., at the request of the liquidator, in April, 1871, gave liberty to file a bill in his name against C. Afterwards B. applied to have his name removed:-Held, affirming the MASTER OF THE ROLLS, that he was entitled to an order. In re The Contract Corporation; Baker's Case, 275 See Legacy. Partition. Will. INJUNCTION Secret preparation not patented use of name of original inventor]-After the death of Lieutenant Robert James-the inventor of a blister ointment, known as Lieut. James's blister, the recipe for making which was a valuable trade secret, but not patented, while his successors in title were carrying on the business of selling it-his nephew, R. J. James, who had discovered the recipe under circumstances which did not make it a breach of duty to avail himself of his discovery, made and sold the ointment under the name of the original inventor, signed with the signature R. James, and advertised his ointment as the only genuine :Held, on bill filed against him by the successors of the original inventor, that he was entitled to make and sell the article as Lieut. James's blister, but not to do anything which was calculated to make the public think that he was the original inventor or the successor of the inventor, or to represent that his was the only genuine preparation. James v. James, 353 - patent: presumption of validity]-There is no such prima facie presumption of the validity of a patent as to entitle a patentee, by publishing threats of proceedings for infringement to injure a rival's trade, without by substantive proceedings establishing the validity of his patent. Rollins v. Hinks, 358 sale of goodwill: right of former partner to solicit the old customers] Although the fact that a man has sold the goodwill of a business does not prevent him from setting up again immediately in the same trade, the Court will nevertheless restrain him from sending special solicitations to the customers of the old house asking them to deal with him at his new place of business, and it will not justify his conduct that he is not in any way holding himself out as continuing to carry on the old busiLabouchere v. Dawson, 427 ness. covenant in restraint of trade by infant: ratification]-An infant entered into the service of a milk-seller, and covenanted not to carry on the same trade, and after he came of age he continued in the same service for eighteen months without repudiating the contract :Held, that this conduct amounted to a ratification of the contract in equity, and an injunction to restrain a breach of the covenant was granted. Cornwall v. Hawkins, 435 damage to property by libel]-Circumstances under which an injunction to restrain the publication or sale of a book as libellous will or will not be granted. Mulkern v. Ward, 464 public body: Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866] The Metropolitan Board of Works purchased a metropolitan common. They agreed that if within a stipulated time the common should not be devoted to the public, having no part of it sold or let on building or other lease, that plaintiff, who had been bereficially entitled to part of the common, should repurchase his share. The Board prepared a scheme for the Inclosure Commissioners under the above Act, which provided for the sale or letting of a part of the common, which scheme was promulgated by the Commissioners. The Court restrained the Board of Works from promoting such scheme. Telford v. The Metropolitan Board of Works, 589 trade name: birthday text-book] — Plaintiff was publisher and proprietor of a book called "The Birthday Scripture Text-Book." Defendants published a book of the same nature called "The Children's Birthday Text-Book": Held, that plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to restrain defendants from publishing their book by that name or by any other name containing the words "Birthday Text-Book" as a portion thereof. Mack v. Petter, 781 - parol understanding not to sue on written agreement implied covenant to restrain action at law]-Written agreements relating to the working of some quarries contained (inter alia) the following provisions That defendants should allow and pay to plaintiffs for two years, from the 7th of December, 1870, the sum of 400/. for each year, by equal quarterly sums of 1007.; that the sums of money which should be paid to plaintiffs under that clause, should be added to a debt of 7,0357. then due from plaintiffs, and that the whole amount of such debt should bear interest from time to time at the rate of 51. per cent. per annum; that the said sum of 7. (meaning the 7,0357.) and all additions thereto, whether by means of the two sums of 4001. above-mentioned, and all interest upon the said debt, should be a first charge upon the purchase money which should become payable to plaintiffs under the sixth clause of the last agreement." Defendants had advanced the above sum of 7,0351. and other moneys to plaintiffs on their personal account and also on the security of the working of the quarries which were managed by plaintiffs. Defendants considered the workings were not successful; and in June, 1872, they sued plaintiffs at law for their debt. Plaintiffs then filed their bill in this suit for the specific performance of the agreements, an account, and an injunction to restrain the action. A motion for the injunction was made on the 1st of August, but refused by WICKENS, V.C., mainly on the grounds that there was no implied covenant by the defendants not to sue for their debt before the expiration of the two years from the date of the agreements; and that a parol understanding to the contrary, relied on by plaintiffs, could not be allowed to control the written contract. On appeal, however, to HATHERLEY, L.C., the injunction was granted until the expiration of the two years, and the costs of the two motions were ordered to be costs in the cause; with liberty to apply. Curteis v. Fenning, 791 [N. S. terrogatories. Hill v. The Northern Railway of Buenos Ayres, 69 INVESTMENT-practice as to interim investment by accountant general]-An order was made for the payment of 1,2001. (proceeds of a sale under the Settled Estates Act) into Court, and for reinvestment thereof in land, and for interim investment in Consols:-Held, that the Accountant General was not bound to invest the money in Consols without a written request of the solicitor who paid it in. Re Woodcock's Settled Estates, 22 See Lands Clauses Consolidation Act. Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act. JOINT TENANTS. See Will. JUDGMENT CREDITOR-railway company: separate undertaking: petition for sale of superfluous lands]-A railway company being indebted to the contractor for its original line, in a sum of 5,734., obtained an Act of Parliament for the making of an extension line, which Act authorised the raising of 85,000l. by shares to be called " extension shares" and of 28,000l. by mortgage, and enacted that the works thereby authorised should for financial purposes form a separate undertaking, and that the capital and new shares should constitute a separate capital, and that the money to be raised by mortgage should be applied only to the purposes autho rised by the Act. The contractor having obtained judgment for the amount due to him, extended certain surplus lands acquired under the extension Act, and then petitioned the Court for a sale:-Held (affirming the decision of WICKENS, V.C.), that the judgment creditor was entitled to his order for sale; for that, whatever might be the equities of the shareholders inter se, that could not affect the rights of the creditor to have the lands sold to pay the debt due to him. In re Ogilvie, 336 JURISDICTION-chancery or lunacy: ecclesiastical estates]-Where the sanction of the Court is required to the sale of an ecclesiastical lease to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, by reason of a beneficiary being of unsound mind, the application should, under 23 & 24 Vict. e. 124. s. 38, be made in chancery, and not in lunacy. In re Cheshire's Estate, 208 sale by auction by chief clerk]-The Court has jurisdiction to direct an estate to be sold by auction by the Chief Clerk, without the employment of an auctioneer. And, Semble, this jurisdiction will be exercised, if all parties interested are before the Court, and concur in desiring the sale so to be made. Pemberton v. Barnes, No. 2, 209 petition: mortgagor and mortgagee: sale of land apart from minerals] - Mortgagees of real property, except the minerals, were allowed upon petition to exercise their power of sale by selling apart from the minerals, although a bill for foreclosure had been filed by them, and subsequent incumbrancers and persons interested in the equity of redemption opposed the petition. In re Wilkinson's Mortgaged Estates, 392 foreign government: suit affecting the interest of: non-appearance]—If a foreign government or state having notice of a suit instituted in this country for the administration of a fund in which it is entitled to claim an interest, does not appear, and submit its rights to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will proceed in its absence. Lariviere v. Morgan, 746 In November, 1870, the French Government instructed their bankers in London to open a special credit in favour of the plaintiff for 40,000l., to be paid to him rateably as certain goods contracted to be supplied by the plaintiff should be delivered. Part of the contract was performed, and a proportionate part of the money was paid to the plaintiff, but a dispute having arisen as to the rest of the contract, the plaintiff filed his bill against the bankers and the French Republic, for a declaration and performance of the trusts of the residue of the 40,000l. The French Republic did not appear :-Held, that the Court had jurisdiction over the fund, and in the absence of the French Republic would proceed to ascertain, as it best could, the rights of the parties who appeared. Ibid. See Administration of Estate. Appeal. LANDLORD AND TENANT-lease for seven or fourteen years: option of lessee: mistake of law: principal and agent]-It is a settled rule of law that an agreement for a lease for seven or fourteen years means a lease for fourteen years determinable by the lessee, but not by the lessor at the end of seven years. Powell v. Smith, 734 A land agent having no power to grant leases without reserving to his principal the power of determining them at the expiration of every seven years, entered into an agreement for a grant to an intending tenant of a lease for seven or fourteen years. The tenant was put into possession of the farm, and took the stock on it from the outgoing tenant at a valuation. The lessor, who did not know the rule of law abovementioned, refused to grant a lease without reserving to himself the right to terminate it at the end of seven years, as well as giving such right to the tenant:- Held, that the lessor was not entitled to have a power of determining the lease at the end of seven years; for his ignorance of the law was no excuse, and he could not repudiate his agent's act after letting the plaintiff take possession of the farm on the faith of it. Ibid. LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION Aor-petition for investment: several companies: costs] - Lands were taken by four railway companies, two of which were absorbed by the third, the G. W. Co. The purchase moneys in respect of their three purchases were paid by the G. W. Co. to three separate accounts, namely, of itself and of the two original companies:-Held, that the costs of re-investment of the whole must be borne in moieties by the G. W. Co. and the fourth company. Re Maryport Railway Act, 32 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) Chanc. 811, disapproved of. Ex parte Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 170 -purchase of land: award: costs: lien of vendor on land purchased]—When land is taken by a railway company under the Lands Clauses Act, and the price is settled by arbitration, the costs of the arbitration and award payable to the vendor under section 34 of the Act do not stand on the same footing as the purchase money, and the vendors have no lien on the land for such costs. Ferrers v. The Stafford and Uttoxeter Rail. Co., 362 compulsory purchase of leasehold: contract: indemnity]-Notice by a railway company to take land under their compulsory powers, and the subsequent fixing of the purchase and compensation money by arbitration together constitute a contract for sale and purchase, which the Court will enforce at the instance of the vendor. And where the lands so contracted for are leasehold the company must enter into the usual covenants by the purchaser to indemnify the vendor against the rents and covenants reserved and contained in the lease. Harding v. The Metropolitan Rail. Co. 371 leaseholds: reinvestment: costs]-Where all parties interested were sui juris, a railway company was ordered to pay the costs of investing the purchase-money of a leasehold in freehold estate. Re Parker's Estate, 473 · payment out of Court: persons absolutely entitled: trustees for sale]-Where the purchase moneys of property subject to a trust for sale for the benefit of infant cestuis que trust and taken by a railway company were paid into Court by the company under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the Court upon a petition by the trustees for sale and cestuis que trust for payment out to the trustees for sale, declined to treat the trustees for sale as persons "absolutely entitled" within the 69th section of the Act, and ordered the fund to be carried over to the separate account of the infants, directing the dividends to be paid to the trustees. In re Reaston's Estate, 832 |