stock, informing him the fund was trust property; broker sold for cash and paid in proceeds to his own account at bank, and bought the railway stock for settling day; before paying for the railway stock, broker was declared defaulter and afterwards filed liquidation petition: Held that broker's balance at bank must be appropriated to replacing the trust money.-Ex parte Cooke, Re Strachan, 35 L.T. 649; 25 W.R. 171. (lxiv.) C. J. B.-Proof-Loan to Trader.-A., a trader, married his deceased wife's sister, who paid over to him a sum of £3,000 upon the understanding that he should, when called upon, execute a proper settlement or declaration of trust thereof: A. having filed petition for liquidation: Held that proof could not be admitted until after payment in full of the trade creditors -Ex parte Corbridge, re Beale, 35 L.T. 768.

(lxv.) C. J. B.-Proof-Partnership.-To secure advances by a bank to A., trading as A. & Co., B. guaranteed payment of balance to become due on joint account opened by A. and B. to extent of £1,000; A. having become bankrupt, the bank proved for whole balance due. B. paid to bank £1,000 and was released from all claims in reference to his guarantee or in connection with A. & Co.; two years afterwards the trustee rejected the proof. Held that the proof must be admitted because (1) the trustee was precluded from rejecting it by laches, (2) there was no part. nership between A. & B., (3) there was no right of A. to contribution by B. so that release of B. did not operate as release of A.-Ex parte Halifax Joint Stock Banking Co., Re Armitage and Co., 35 L.T. 554; 25 W.R. 83.

(lxvi.) C. J. B.-Secured creditor-Receiver-Priority-Notice.-A receiver appointed on dissolution of a partnership was a secured creditor of one of the partners, and subsequently received notice of assignment by such partner to a third person of his interest. Held that the receiver did not by omitting to give notice of his charge, lose his priority.-Re Lewer, Ex parte Wilkes, L.R. 4 Ch. D. 101; 35 L.T. 557; 25 W. R. 64.

(lxvii.) Ex. Div.—Trustee-Action-Estoppel.—A trustee who, under Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, s. 142, has refused to proceed with an action brought by debtor before insolvency, is not thereby estopped from bringing a fresh action for the same cause.-Bennett v. Gamgee, L.R. 2, Ex. D. 11; L.J. 46, Bpcy. 33; 35 L.T. 764; 25 W.R. 81.

(lxviii.) C. A.-Trustee-Appointment.-A debtor trading in England and Scotland filed liquidation petition in England on 12th July: the creditors held first meeting, but adjourned to await result of proceedings in Scotland they met again on 10th February, and passed resolution for liquidation and appointed trustee: Held that the appointment, being more than six months after filing of petition, was void.-Ex parte Fenning, Re Wilson and Armstrong, L.R. 3, Ch.D. 455; 25 W.R. 185. (lxix.) C. J. B.-Trustee-Bond.-A County Court Judge has jurisdiction to enforce a trustee's bond in which name of Chief Judge in Bankruptcy was inserted as obligee.-In re Parry, 35 L.T. 768; 25 W.R. 128.

(lxx.) C. A.-Trustee-Disclaimer.-Trustees, after notice to decide as to disclaimer, continued debtor's contracts for two years, and then abandoned them: Held, affirming decision of C. J. B., see Bankruptcy (xxxi.), that the only remedy of persons aggrieved was to prove against debtor's estate for damages. Ex parte Davis, In re Sneezum, L.R. 3, Ch.D. 463; L.J. 45, Bpcy. 137; 35 L.T. 389; 25 W.R. 49.

(lxxi.) C. A.-Trustee--Disclaimer-Penalty.-A firm of builders contracted to build a school by a certain date, and on default to pay £1000 as liquidated damages; they subsequently went into liquidation, and the trustee disclaimed the contract: Held, reversing decision of C.J.B. (35 L.T. 558; 25 W.R. 100), that the governors of the school were only entitled to prove for the damage actually caused by breach of contract.Ex parte Capper, R Newman, 35 L.T. 720.

(lxxii.) C. A.-Trustee-Solicitor's Lien.-Where a change of trustee and solicitor had taken place, Held that the solicitor had a lien for his costs on the papers in the suit, and that the old trustee was not liable to discharge such costs.-In re Austin, Ex parte Yalden, 35 L.T. 620; 25 W.R. 134.

(lxxiii.) C. A.- Trader. A professional nurse, who keeps a lodging and boarding house for invalids, is an hotel keeper, and therefore a trader within the Bankruptcy Act, 1869.-Ex parte Thorne, In re Jones, L.R. 3 Ch. D. 457; L.J. 45 Bpcy. 158; 35 L.T. 532; 25 W.R. 186.

(lxxiv.) C. J. B.- Voluntary Settlement.-A., in 1858, not being a trader, settled £1,000 on himself for life or till bankruptcy, with remainders for benefit of wife and children; in 1873 he engaged in trade, and in 1875 was adjudicated a bankrupt: Held that the settlement was void against creditors. In re Pearson, ex parte Stephens, 24 W.R. 236.

Bill of Exchange:

(iii.) C. A.-Notice of dishonour.-Indorser of accommodation bill is entitled to notice of dishonour, unless he clearly would not have, if he paid the bill, any remedy against any other party thereto.-Turner v. Samson, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 23; 35 L.T. 537.

(iv.) C. P. Div.-Notice of dishonour.-To statement of defence setting up absence of notice of dishonour, plaintiff replied that neither when bill was drawn, nor afterwards, nor when it became due and on presentment, had the acceptor or drawer or any indorser prior to defendant any effects of defendant in his hands, and the bill was drawn, accepted, and endorsed by defendant and prior indorsers to raise money for defendant, the drawer, the acceptor, and the prior indorsers jointly, and defendant was in no way damnified even if there was no notice: Held a bad reply, Foster v. Parker, L.R. 2 C.P.D. 18; L.J. 46 C.P. 77.

(v.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Specific Appropriation.-Y. a Costa-Rican merchant, shipped coffee to M. & Co., London, for sale, " on the strength of which," he drew bills on them: there was an agreement between Y. and E. & Co., of Panama, to share profit and loss of the transaction; the bills having come into plaintiff's hands were dishonoured by M. & Co.; Y. wrote to S., requesting him to honour the bills, and to obtain bills of lading of the coffee from M. & Co ; S., on receipt of the warrants, informed plaintiff's that he could dispose of the coffee as instructed by the sender; M. & Co. obtained attachment of the coffee in Mayor's Court for a debt owing by E. & Co.: S. sold the coffee, and paid proceeds into Court: Held that there was no specific appropriation of the coffee to meet the bills.— Ranken v. Alfaro, 85 L.T. 664.

Bill of Sale :

(iv.) Ex. Div.-Afidavit-Mistake.-Where the affidavit was by mistake dated 17th of February, 1806 (for 1876), and the attesting witness was merely described as a clerk: Held that the bill of sale was valid.-Lamb v. Bruce, L.J. 45, Ex. D. 538; 35 L.T. 425; 21 W.R. 645.

(v.) Q. B. Div. -Afidavit-Mistake.-A variation between bill of sale and alidavit as to one of Christian names of giver of bill, Held to be immaterial.-Corbett v. Rowe, 25 W.R. 59.

(vi.) Ex. Div.-Registration.-17 & 18 Vict. c. 36.-W. being indebted to M., agreed to sell to him certain furniture, and a document was drawn up giving a list of goods and prices, and comprising a memorandum acknowledging the sale and payment of the consideration under the agreement arranged with respect to the rent owing; no money then passed, and the goods remained in W.'s possession: Held that the document did not require registration under Bill of Sales' Act.-Graham v. Wilcockson, L.J. 46, Ex. 55; 55 L.T. 601.

Building Society :(i.) C. A.-Winding-up.-Held that "realised" members of a benefit building society who had paid up the full amount of their shares, and "withdrawal" members who had not paid in full, but had given notice to withdraw, were, on the construction of the rules, entitled to share in distribution of assets of the society in winding up, in priority to "investing" members who had not paid in full nor given notice of withdrawal.-Re Norwich and Norfolk Provident Building Society, Ex parte Rackham, L.J. 45, Ch. 785.

Canada, Law of :

(iii.) P. C.—Marriage contract-Clause of reprise.-A married woman may consent to hypothecation of property in community, and renounce in favour of husband's creditors her claims, under a clause of reprise in her marriage contract: an interlineation, necessary to sense of context, does not require notary's initials or certificate.-Hamel v. Panet, 35 L.T. 741. (iv.) P. C.— Quebec Elections Act, 1875-Right of Appeal.-The Prerogative of the Crown to entertain appeals can only be taken away by express words, but the jurisdiction of Colonial Courts in election petitions is special, and does not involve right of appeal to the Crown.-Theberge v. Laudry, 35 L.T. 640; 25 W.R. 216.

Company :

(xvi.) C. A.-Contract-Fraud.-Defendant company agreed to sell to plaintiff for £15,000 exclusive right to use at Berlin a process patented in England: plaintiff was then aware, but not directors of defendant company, that by German law no such exclusive user could be obtained; plaintiff's intention was that ostensible grant of exclusive user might float a company to work process at Berlin. Held that plaintiff paid the £15,000 for purposes of fraud, and could not recover on ground of failure of consideration.-Begbie v. Phosphate Sewage Co., L.R. 3, Q.B.D. 679 ; 35 L.T. 350; 25 W.R. 85.

(xvii.) C. A.-Director-Qualification-Sci. fa.-By Special Act defendant and other promoters of company were appointed directors till first general meeting: no such meeting was held, nor was there any register of members or allotment of shares to defendant: Held, affirming decision of C. P. D., that defendant was liable, under a sci. fa., as a shareholder in respect of his full director's qualification.-Portal v. Emmens, L.R. 1, C.P.D. 664. (xviii.) C A.-Meeting of Creditors-Declaration of insolvency.-Directors called a meeting of principal creditors, and stated that company was embarrassed for want of working capital, and requested extension of credit: Held that this was not a declaration of insolvency such as to entitle a creditor, who had agreed to supply goods on credit, to refuse to deliver except for cash.-Re Phoenix Bessemer Co., ex parte Carnforth Hematite Co., 25 W.R. 187.

(xix.) C. A.-Meeting of Shareholders.-Held in the case of a company under the Stannaries Acts where no quorum was required to constitute a meeting, that there was no meeting where only one shareholder attended. -Sharp v. Dawes, L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 26; 25 W.R. 66.

(xx.) C. A. — Misrepresentation.-Directors issued stock as "No. 1 preference stock" in bona fide belief that such issue was within their powers, and it was so described on the certificates; it subsequently appeared that directors had no power to issue such stock, and that the stock issued was really of little value: Held that no misrepresentation had been made by directors so as to render them liable to a transferee of the issued stock. -Eaglesfield v. Marquis of Londonderry, 25 W.R. 190.

(xxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.--Misrepresentation-Promoters' Sale.-Defendants bought property for £55,000, and sold to the company promoted by them for £110,000; the prospectus contained misrepresentations as to value, which might have been detected by examination of documents referred to,

and stated that provisional contract for purchase had been entered into by the directors, whereas, out of five directors, only three had been present at the meeting, and two of these were nominees of vendors: Held that the company were not entitled to set aside the contract nor to demand repayment of the difference.-New Sombrero Phosphate Co. v. Erlanger, 35 L.T. 309; 25 W.R. 18.

(xxii.) Ex. Div.-Registration of Shareholders-Rectification.-25 & 26 Vict. c. 89, s. 35.-The jurisdiction of a judge at chambers under Companies' Act, 1862, to rectify register by ordering the omission of one or two parties, and insertion of name of the other, is discretionary, and will not be exercised in a case which is really an action for specific performance.In re Shaw, L.J. 46, Ex. 65; 25 W.R. 213.

(xxiii.) C. A.—Registration-Fully paid-up Shares.—30 & 31 Vict. c. 131, s. 25.— Where a contract for allotment of fully paid-up shares was not filed with Registrar, but a transfer thereof was registered as of fully paid-up shares: Held that the transferee was liable as a contributory.- Re Heaton Steel and Iron Co. Blyth's Case, 25 W.R. 200.

(xxiv.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Registration-Mortgage.-A Company mortgaged chattels to two of its Directors, who gave particulars to Secretary, and requested him to register the mortgages, but he omitted to do so; the Directors having realised their security, the Company was subsequently wound up: Held that they were entitled to retain proceeds of security.In re Borough of Hackney Newspaper Co., L.R. 3, Ch. D. 669.

(xxv.) C. A.-Resolutions-Ultra vires.-Held affirming decisions of V.C.B. (35 L.T. 623; 25 W.R. 67,) that a Company passed a resolution for diminishing the capital by buying up shares; the articles did not provide for such diminution, but did provide that any shareholder instituting legal proceedings against the Company should forfeit his shares: plaintiff having commenced action to restrain the Company from carrying out the resolution, Held that the resolution was invalid, and that the forfeiture did not deprive plaintiff of his right of action.-Hope v. International Financial Society, 25 W.R. 203.

(xxvi.) Ch. Div. V. C. H.—Winding-up—Advertisements.—Winding-up

order, notwithstanding error as to name of Company in first advertisement of petition, corrected by fresh advertisements on the following day.-Re Consolidated Minera Lead Mining Co., 25 W.R. 36.

(xxvii.) Ch. Div. M.R.-Winding-up-Contributory.-Articles of Association of Company, registered 6th of November, 1874, provided that qualification of director should be twenty-five shares, that M. and others should be original directors, that they should hold office till 1876, but should vacate office on ceasing to hold qualifying shares; the articles also provided that in consideration of services, each original director should receive twentyfive fully paid-up shares, to be forfeited on ceasing to be director: M. attended directors' meeting on 10th November, 1874, but resigned on the 12th, and never applied for shares, or took further part in affairs of Company; he was registered as owner of twenty-five shares held that the last provision, above referred to, entitled M. to be removed from the list of contributories, but that otherwise he would have been liable.-Miller's Case. Re Australian Direct Steam Navigation Co., L.R. 3, Ch. D. 166. (xxviii.) Ch. Div. V. C. B.- Winding-up-Contributory.-A shareholder in an English company, resident at Bombay, became insolvent, and obtained discharge under an Indian Act: Held that the liability in respect of the shares was not proveable in the insolvency nor barred by the discharge, and the name was ordered to be placed on the list of contributories -In re East India Cotton Agency. Furdoomjee's Case, L.R. 3, Ch. D. 264. (xxix.) C. A.-Winding-up- Marshalling assets.-G. & Co., creditors of an unlimited insurance company, were under an order of Court, paid in full out of the limited assets: Held that the order could not be varied on the

application of another creditor entitled to the surplus of the limited assets, there being no equity to have the assets maishalled.-Re International Life Assurance Society, L.R, 2, Ch. D. 476; L.J. 45, Ch. 766; 34 L.T. 782; 24 W.R. 627.

(xxx.) C.

A.-Winding-up-Proof.-Creditor holding debentures of company bearing £6 per cent, interest, obtained a judgment in respect of the debt, and was admitted to prove for the same with £4 per cent. interest: Held that the creditor was not entitled to prove for additional interest. - Re European Central Rail. Co., Ex parte Oriental Financial Corporation, L.R. 4, Ch. D. 33; L.J. 46, Ch. 57; 35 L.T. 583; 25 W.R. 92.

(xxxi.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Winding-up—Rent-Distress.—The landlord of an insolvent company is not entitled, under Judicature Act, 1875, s. 10, to levy distress, after commencement of winding-up, for rent accrued due previously.-Re Coal Consumers' Association, 35 L.T. 729.

Copyright :

(i.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Assignment. -5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, s. 22.-An assignment of a copyright must be in writing.-Layland v. Stewart, 25 W.R. 225. (ii.) C. A.-Infringement.-To support action under 3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 15, s. 2, there must be a substantial infringement.-Chatterton v. Cave, 35 L.T., 587; 25 W.R. 102.

(iii.) Ch. Div. M. R.-Periodical—Registration.—The registration of the first number of a periodical protects articles in subsequent numbers.— Henderson v. Maxwell, L.J. 46, Ch. 59; 25 W.R. 66.

(iv.) C. A.—Publication-Drama.-Held, affirming decision of V.C.M. (33 L.T. 541), that a drama which had been first represented in America, and afterwards in England, but never printed, had been "first published ont of Her Majesty's dominions," within 7 Vict., c. 12, s. 19, and that plaintiff had no exclusive right of representing it in England.-Boucicault v. Chatterton, 35 L.T. 745.

County Court:

(iii.) App. Div. Ct.-Appeal-Jurisdiction.-A judge at Chambers has no power on a day when this Court sits to grant order to show cause why a County Court Judgment should not be set aside; an appeal having been struck out as being so granted, this Court has no power to give costs to party appearing to show cause.-Brown v. Shaw, L.R. 1, Ex. D. 425.

(iv.) Ch. Div. V. C. M.-Appeal-Jurisdiction.-21 and 22 Viet., c. 74, s. 4. -An application that a County Court judge sign a case for an appeal should be made to the "Superior Court," not to a single judge thereof. Clarke v. Roche, 35 L.T. 705.

(v.) App. Div. Ct.-Ejectment-Value.-Defendant, in action of ejectment, applied for prohibition on ground that the property was of greater annual value than £20; the summons was dismissed by judge of Superior Court: Held that County Court judge at trial of action rightly refused to admit evidence of value as being "res judicata."-Symons v. Rees, 25 W.R. 116; L.R. 1, Ex. D. 416.

Crimes and Offences:

(vii.) C. A.-Appeal in criminal cases-Costs.-The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction in a question relating to taxation of costs of a criminal information given under Lord Campbell's Act, s. 8.—Regina v. Steel, L.J. 46, M.C. 1; 35 L.T. 534; 25 W.R. 34.

(viii.) C. A.-Appeal in Criminal Cases-Jurisdiction.-An application for certiorari to quash conviction for want of jurisdiction of convicting justice is a "criminal cause or matter," and no appeal lies from decision of Q. B. Div.-Reg. v. Fletcher, Ex parte Birnie, L.J. 46, M.C. 4; 35 L.T. 538; 25 W.R. 149.