Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association. Notices of New Books.

171 · The Manchester Guardian, from which the which it is altered by the General Orders preceding report has been extracted, contains of the 8th of May, 1845, it is a necessary the following summary of the scope of the new adjunct to the standard works of practice so association :

“An association, called “The Metropolitan long established as guides to the practitioner and Provincial Law Association," has been in our courts of equity. To those praclately formed by a union of metropolitan and titioners who devote themselves to cases provincial solicitors, the committee of which is in Chancery it is needless to observe, that to consist of an equal number of each of these the effect of the Orders of 1845 has been classes of the profession. The new association very largely to alter the practice of the originated in the Provincial Law Association, courts ; nor is it necessary to remind them the office of which is in Manchester.

An of the uncertainty of which those orders address from the committee, upon which will be found the names of some of the most highly.

were the parent, and the consequent mulrespectable solicitors, either in London or the titudinous decisions which within the brief country, was issued early in the last month, space of two years have taken place upon which proposes to direct the attention of the them. Even in this short period the want profession to the removal of the following of such a work as the one before us has grievances :— The taxes on justice in the shape been materially felt, and the equity pracof fees; the present crude system of legislation; titioner is here supplied with much valuthe exclusion of attorneys from offices of honourable distinction and the solicitorship to able information and assistance. government boards ; the exclusive regulations of the Inns of Court; the abridgement of the right of attorneys to act as advocates; the ex- The Commercial and General Lawyer. istence of the class called certificated convey- By EDWARD Chitty, Esq. 5th edition. ancers, gentlemen under the bar who claim to R. Macdonald, 30, Great Sutton Street, transact conveyancing business for clients with- Clerkenwell. 1846. out having given any evidence of their fitness or capacity for so doing; the regulations by

This work is divided into four books, which persons are allowed to act as parlia. following the plan of Blackstone. In the mentary agents, by merely signing their names part which treats of real property the in the private bill office; the taxes in the way statute 7 & 8 Vict. c. 76, is mentioned as of stamp duties which are levied upon attorneys the last statute for amending the law of and solicitors; the establishment of a system of real property, and no notice whatever is remuneration for attorneys and solicitors, in taken of the statutes of the 8 & 9 Vict., proportion to the labour and skill employed ; and the deficient construction and inconvenient (1815) one of which repeals the 7 & 8 situation of the courts at Westminster. The

Vict. Of course it is expected that address recommends the extension of local law a book published in 1846 should notice the societies, improvements in education for the statutes of 1845. legal profession; that information should be

In the chapter “Of Barristers," p. 460, from time to time circulated respecting the past is the following statement of the law in and present state of the profession, and the 1846 :-" The serjeants had formerly great manner in which the public interest is thereby affected; and lastly, that the subjects alluded privileges in the Common Pleas, inasmuch to in this address should be pressed upon can- as no other counsel could plead in that didates at the approaching general election. court, except as junior to a serjeant. But, This society is entirely distinct from any other, by a warrant from the crown, that court though we believe it will most likely be worked has been thrown open since the commencethrough the medium of sub-committees in the ment of Trinity Term, 1843 ; so that any various law societies in the provinces. The barrister may now plead in the Common new society is to consist of all members of the Pleas as in the other courts of Westminster profession who contribute a donation of not less than 5l., or an annual subscription of not less Hall, while some additional advantages in than 11. to its funds."

respect of precedence are in recompence

given to the serjeants.” True it is that it NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

was directed by the warrant above-men

tioned that the exclusive privilege of the The Practice of the High Court of Chan-serjeants should cease, but the Court of

cery as regulated by the General Orders Common Pleas afterwards decided that the of the 8th of May, 1845. By John warrant was invalid. Case of the serjeants, ROGERSON, Solicitor. Sweet. 1847.

6 Bing. N. C. 235. And it required a

statute (9 & 10 Vict. c. 54,) to open that This work is well-timed. Though pur- court to the rest of the bar. The sentence porting to be merely the practice of the above-mentioned could not then have been Court of Chancery in the particulars in written or revised in 1846. But it must

c. 76.

172 Abolition of Public Office and Court of Review.-Costs in the County Courts. have been written before the serjeants', ferred to Insolvent Debtors' Court and to case, and never revised since.

County Courts. So far as we have been able to ascertain, 5. Jurisdiction of Insolvent Debtors' and no notice whatever is taken of any statute County Courts. passed in the 8 & 9 Vict. (1845): thus,

6. Acts to apply to the cases of persons pein bankruptcy, the important enactment titioning, although they may have been already escapes observation, by which a person in prison, &c. may make himself bankrupt on his own petition. It must be remembered that tliese

7. Petitions now pending in Insolvent things are not only serious omissions in Debtors' Court to be disposed of there.

8. Jurisdiction of Insolvent Debtors' Court themselves, but they shake the confidence of the practitioner in every statement in on circuit transferred to County Courts. the work.

9. Lord Chancellor to give directions for sit

tings of Court of Bankruptcy elsewhere than in ABOLITION OF THE PUBLIC OFFICE London. IN CHANCERY.

10. Travelling expenses provided for.

11. Vacancies in office of commissioner not The Bill introduced by the Lord Chancellor to be filled up till end of next session of parlia

ment. on the 11th inst., for the Discontinuance of the

12. Commencement of Act. Master in Ordinary of the High Court of Chancery in the Public Office, and for trans

13. Act may be amended, &c. ferring the Business of such Public Office to the Affidavit Office in Chancery, is a useful

COSTS IN THE COUNTY COURTS. measure ; and the Judges of the Common Law Courts should in like manner be relieved of the

We some weeks ago inserted a communicainterruption of swearing affidavits.

tion from an intelligent correspondent at ReadThe following are the clauses of the bill :

ing on the operation of the New County Courts 1. Attendance of Master in ordinary in pub. Act, in cases under 5l., exemplified in a recent lic office dispensed with.

case tried there. We trust the attention of the 2. Lord Chancellor may appoint a second profession will be drawn to the proper remedy assistant clerks of affidavits.

for the anomalous state of things which now 3. Appointment of, and saving of rights of,

exists. W. T. Smith, under the 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 56; 5

In all disputed cases under 51., the operation & 6 Vict. c. 103, and 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73.

of the act is practically a denial of justice alto4. Commencement of act

joth August

gether, as the right to proceed in the courts next.

above (where costs can still be obtained) is 5. Lord Keeper, &c. may act for Lord Chan- taken away, and it is futile to suppose, that a cellor for purposes of this act.

plaintiff will ordinarily expend a larger sum for 6. Act may be amended, &c.

professional aid than he is likely to recover in

a successful issue of the action. ABOLITION OF THE COURT OF RE

The question is virtually important as well VIEW, AND ALTERATIONS IN THE

to the public as the profession. A fair conJURISDICTION IN BANKRUPTCY

struction of the act would lead to the concluAND INSOLVENCY.

sion, that the costs limited by the act are those

of advocacy only, and that for labour otherwise We have elsewhere adverted to this bill.a

performed, the ordinary rules of costs, after The following is the substance of the clauses :

suit commenced, ought to prevail. Should this 1. Court of Review abolished.

not be the case, the profession generally must 2. Jurisdiction of court transferred to a Vice have in the country been hitherto attended by

abandon the practice of these courts, which Chancellor. 3. Laws and Orders to apply to Vice-Chan- fee alone cannot compensate them for investigat

most respectable practitioners, as the advocacy. cellor so sitting. 4. Jurisdiction of Court of Bankruptcy, doing which,

an attempt to conduct the case in

ing the case and preparing for trial,—without under 6 Vict. c. 116, and Vict. c. 26, trans- court can only terminate in delusion and • See Ante, page 162.

mockery.

1

AFFIDAVIT.

APPEAL.

Analytical Digest of Cases : Courts of Equity.

173 ANALYTICAL DIGEST OF CASES, and “the last of several answers,” used re

spectively in the several orders of May, 1845, REPORTED IN ALL THE COURTS.

numbered 16, (Art. 33,) 66 and 68, refer to the

answers put in by the last substantial defendant Courts of Equity.

who has been served with subpæna to appear

and answer. Therefore a plaintiff may obtain one PRACTICE.

order of course for leave to amend at any time ACCOUNr.

within four weeks after the last of several of such See Decree, 3; Elegit Creditor.

defendants has put in a sufficient answer; but

this indulgence does not extend to cases where ADMINISTRATION SUIT.

a defendant is merely nominal, or has not been Construction of 32nd Order of Aug. 1841.

served with subpæna to appear and answer. The 32nd Order of August, 1841, enabling a To discharge on merits, or otherwise than plaintiff to proceed against one or more persons for irregularity, an order of course to amend severally liabl·, does not apply to the case of a obtained at the Rolls in a cause attached to general administration suit. Hall v. Austin, 2 another court, application must be made to the Coll. 570.

Lord Chancellor. Arnold v. Arnold, 33 L. O. 566.

See Decree. See Foreclosure; Further Directions ; Serrice of Notice.

Amendments under the new orders. -The Lord AGENT.

Chancellor will not hear appeals from the MasSee Principal and Agent.

ter's office in the matter of amendments under AMENDING BILL.

the new orders. Coombes v. Ramsay, 33 L. O.

375. 1. General orders of May, 1845.-All appli

See Further Directions, 2. cations for leave to amend under the orders of May, 1845, are to be made in the first instance

APPEARANCE, to the Master. Coombe v. Ramsay, 2 Phill. 29th Order, 1845.– Where a subpæna had, 168.

by order of the court, been served upon the Case cited in the judgment: Christ's Hospital solicitor of a defendant out of the jurisdiction v. Grainger, 1 Phill. 634.

of the court, the plaintiff cannot, under the 29th 2. New orders (No. 46).— Indulgence.-Set- Order of May, 1845, obtain leave to enter his ting down demurrer. Costs. — Unless special appearance. Sewell v. Godden, 33 L. 0. 550. grounds for the required indulgence are shown, the court will not depart from its General

1. Irregular or erroneous order not a nullity. Orders; nor grant leave to a plaintiff to amend -- An order of the court of which the party upon payment of 20s., costs to the demurring affected by it has notice, though not formally party, where a demurrer to the whole bill is served upon him, is not to be disregarded or not set down for argument within twelve days treated as a nullity, however certain it may

be after the filing thereof. Matthews v. Chichester that the order is erroneous, and would upon a and others, 33 L. O. 403.

proper application for that purpose be dis3. Construction of 68th Order of May, 1845. charged. * Chuck v. Cremer, 2 Phill

. 113. - Due diligence. After an application to Infant trustee. Process by attachment to amend, under the 68th Order of May, 1845, compel an infant to convey estates sold in a has been refused by the Master, and the Mas- creditor's suit. ter's decision has been affirmed on appeal, the It is contempt to interfere and prevent an plaintiff is at liberty to renew his application to infant obeying the order of the court to convey. the Master, on fresh evidence, and to appeal Thomas v. Gwynne, 8 Beav. 312. again to the court.

If a plaintiff can show a reasonable ground for delaying his application, in consequence of Trustees.- Payment of dividends.—The trushis expecting further information from some tees of a charity being numerous, an order was proceeding in another suit, the exigency of the made to pay the dividends of a fund in court, order, as to due diligence, will have been com- to the trustees or any two of thera. Attorneyplied with. Combes v. Ramsay, 33 L. 0. 303. General v. Brickdale, 8 Beav. 223.

4. 68th Order of May, 1845.-An order for amending the bill obtained exparte from the court in the first instance, held irregular, though, but being in contempt for want of answer, and

Pro confesso.-A defendant having appeared, under the circumstances of the case, the exigences of the 68th Order of May, 1845, could appearing at the bar pleading her poverty, the not be complied with. Po:ts v. Whetmore, 33 Master reported that she had not proved her

court directed a reference on that point. The L. 0. 375. See Appeal.

poverty; and, on the application of the plain

tiff, the court directed a writ of hubeas corpus ANSWER.

cum causis, to issue for bringing her to the bar, New orders. Construction. - Discharging and directed that the proper officer should atorder of course. --The terms “the last answer.

stend at the return of the writ with the record,

ATTACHMENT.

CHARITY.

CONTEMPT.

DEMURRER.

COSTS.

DECREE.

174

Analytical Digest of Cases : Courts of Equity. in order that the bill might be taken pro con- 4. Irregularity.-Entry nunc pro tunc.-Any fesso. Subsequently an order was made by proceedings, however inadvertently had, upon consent. Bull v. Falkner, 33 L. 0. 525. a decree or order not entered in the registrar's CREDITOR'S SUIT.

book, are irregular and voidable.

An attachment set aside, on the ground that Same estate.-A stranger to suit interfering. the order on which it was founded had not been -The court will not, on the ground of irregu- entered, through the mistake of the officer, and larity in a decree in a creditor's suit, take the not through any mistake of the party. An conduct of the suit from the plaintiff, and give order passed in May, 1837, was, without order, it to another creditor, though collusion be sug- entered in April, 1845 : Held, irregular. Tolgested.

son v. Jervis, 8 Beav. 364. Where decrees had been obtained in two 5. Judgment creditor.–Form of decree in a creditors' suits for the administration of the suit instituted by a judgment creditor, who had same estate, the court ordered that the plaintiff obtained a charge on the lands of his debtor in the suit in which the second decree had under the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. Quere, whether been made, should be at liberty to attend the the debtor_is entitled to an immediate sale ? proceedings under the first decree ; but on the Carlon v. Farlar, s Beav. 525. ground that he was a stranger to the suit, re- See Inrolment of Decree ; Interpleader Act. fused to give him the conduct of it. Smith v. Guy, 2 Phill. 159 ; see 33 L. 0. 302.

1. General orders.— Time.-Under the 33rd

Order of May, 1845, Art. 1, it is not necessary See Amendment of Bill, 2 ; Irregularity, 2, 3. Blenkinsopp, 8 Beav. 612.

to limit a time for demurring. Blenkinsopp v.

2. Construction of the 38th Order of August, 1. Inquiries upon a suggestion in an answer.

1841.-Where a bill is generally demurrable, a -Where at the hearing of a cause an inquiry 1841, decline to answer any parts of the bill

defendant may, under the 38th Order of Aug., is directed, founded on a suggestion in the answer, it ought to be strictly limited to the that he might not choose to answer, although specific case suggested.

he may have answered several other parts. Where an answer suggested, that the plaintiff Gatland v. Tanner, 34 L. O. 34. had for a certain time occupied a house, of

DISMISSAL OF BILL. which he was tenant in common with several 1. 16th and 114th Orders of May, 1845.-A others, and that by virtue of such occupation motion to dismiss may be made under the 114th rent became due to hiin to those parties, and Order of May, 1845, after the lapse of the time the bill thereupon amended by charging, that mentioned in the 45th section of the 16th Orthe plaintiff's occupation was not exclusive, der, and any further period allowed by an and no further answer was put in: Held, that order enlarging the time for setting down the the suggestion did not warrant an inquiry cause, notwithstanding such an order shall whether the plaintiff had been in occupation of have been obtained. Whitfield v. Lequentro, the premises during any and what time in re- 33 L. 0. 284. spect of such occupation. M*Mahon v. Bur- 2. Dismissal.- An order to dismiss the bill, chell, 2 Phill. 127.

with costs, against certain defendants who had 2. Legacy.-Rent. The executor of A. being appeared and demurred, but whose demurrer sued for payment of a legacy, set up as a de-, had been overruled : Held to be irregular befence that the plaintiff had for several years cause it had been obtained without mentioning occupied a house, a part of an estate of which the fact of the demurrer. Lewis v. Cooper, 33 he and A., and other persons, were tenants in L. O. 283. common under the will of B., and that A.'s 3. Dismissing bill. A plaintiff cannot obshare of the rent due from the plaintiff in re- tain an order of course to dismiss bis bill as spect of such occupation exceeded the amount against a defendant, pending an appeal by the of the legacy. Semble, the court will not, in a latter. Lewis v. Cooper, 33 L. 0. 451. suit so framed, direct inquiries as to the plain

ELEGIT CREDITOR, tiff's liability for rent, or as to the amount due from him to A.'s estate in respect thereof, al

Account.-A suit for an account against an though the other parties interested in such in elegit creditor in possession was heard on bill quiries be willing to be bound by them, but and answer; and the only evidence before the will decree immediate payment of the legacy in Master to charge the defendant with the rent question, without reference to the counter

of certain lands, was the admission in the anclaim. M*Mahon v. Burchell, 2 Phill. 127.

swer, which was accompanied by a statement 3. Account.- Arbitration. - Master's office.

that the lands were erroneously included Accounts being directed to be taken by the in the elegit, and belonged to a third person Master, liberty was, by consent, given to the with whom the defendant had accounted. Held, parties to submit to arbitration any question of that the Master was not bound to take the account. The court also gave liberty to the entire statement in the answer, but might on Master to adopt the conclusion, but would not, the admission charge the defendant with the even by consent, make it compulsory. Scale rent received, and find that the property bev. Fothergill, 8 Beav. 361.

longed to the debtor. M ́Donnel v. Alcock, s Ir. Eq. Rep. 127.

Analytical Digest of Cases : Courts of Equity

175

EXCEPTIONS TO REPORT.

INJUNCTION.

FORECLOSURE.

INROLMENT OF DECREE.

FURTHER DIRECTIONS.

EXECUTION, WRITS or,

without a reference where the real estate is sold Orders of May 10, 1839, (No. 1.)-Succes- under a decree of the court.

Coombe v. Chap sive writs of fi. fa.--Several writs of fi. fa. man, 33 L. O. 376. under the 1st of the Orders of the 10th May, See Attachment, 2. 1839, may be successively issued until the 2. Conveyance.-Order for a conveyance by whole of the money or costs ordered to be paid an infant, without a reference to the Master, shall have been levied. Spencer v. Allen, 33 upon petition by a purchaser. Coombe v. L. 0. 500.

Chapman, 33 L. 0. 405.

See Guardian, Form of.-Effect of allowing.- Every exception to a report ought to tender some proposition on which the court may decide.

Patent. In a patent case a motion for an inThe simple allowance of an exception by the junction was ordered to stand over for the court, unaccompanied either by an express de- plaintiff to bring an action to establish his claration or a reference back to the Master, im- right. The plaintiff obtained a verdict, but the plies an adoption by the court of the propo- could not be determined without some con

defendant tendered a bill of exceptions which sition tendered by the exception. Stocken v. Dauson, 2 Phill, 141.

siderable delay. Upon the motion being renewed, the court, under the circumstances,

ordered it to stand over till the bill of exAffidavit.-On a motion by a defendant in a ceptions had been disposed of. foreclosure suit to stay proceedings on payment Principles on which this court proceeds, upon of principal, interest, and costs, the defendant an application for an interim injunction in need not produce an affidavit to show that he patent cases. Bridson v. MI'Alpine, 8 Beav. is the only person entitled to redeem. Piggin 229. v. Cheetham, 2 Hare, 80, disapproved of. Reeves v. Glastonbury Cunal Company, 14 Sim. 351.

The proper course to prevent the inrolment

of a decree is to enter a caveat; in the absence 1. Affidavit.-An affidavit cannot be received of which the inrolment will not be vacated on further directions; therefore, where a plain- upon the grounds of concealment, surprise, and tiff on further directions produced an affidavit undue haste. Lewis v. Hinton, 34 L. 0. 10. that certain defendants, having no further in

INTERPLEADER SUIT. terest in the matters, had signed a consent

Decree before answer.

Collusion. - The waiving service on them of any subsequent court will not order a bill of interpleader to be proceedings, and asked that the decree might dismissed before all the defendants have put in be drawn up without an affidavit of service on their answers; nor will it infer collusion bethem, the court rejected such affidavit. At- tween the plaintiff and one of the defendants torney-General v. Gell, 8 Beav. 362.

in the absence of an affidavit to that effect. 2. Appeal.-Cause set down again for further Masterman v. Lewin, 33 L. 0. 353. directions on the petition of defendants out of the jurisdiction at the first hearing, who subse

IRREGULARITY. quently appeared, in order to enable them to

1. Service on party abroad.-An order for appeal from the decree. Prendergast v. Lush- leave to serve a party abroad is not irregular on ington, 5 Hare, 177.

the face of it, merely because the affidavit on GUARDIAN.

which it was obtained states only the place of Infant.-General Orders.—Notice of an ap- stances to warrant the order.

the party's residence, without any other circumplication under the 32nd Order of May, 1845,

Blenkinsopp.v. to appoint guardians ad litem to infants' whose Blenkinsopp, 2 Phill. 1. father was dead, was served at the house of the 2. Notice of motion.--Costs.-An order dismother and her second husband with whom the charged for irregularity with costs, though the infants were residing : Held, sufficient. Hitch notice of motion was general. An order may v. Wells, 8 Beav. 576.

be impeached for irregularity, although the

notice of motion do not specify that as the Mortgagor and mortgagee.-Construction of as to costs, and not always even as to them.

ground of it, the omission being material only 11 G. 4, and 1 W. 4, c. 60, 4 & 5 W.4, c. 23, Brown y. Robertson, 2 Phill, 173. and 1 & 2 Vict. c. 69.-Where the heir of a deceased mortgagee, to whose personal repre- May, 1845.—The court refused to strike out

3. Irregularity. -- Costs. 116th Order of is unknown, and a reconveyance is desired, the a cause from the registrar's book, on the ground petition should be presented under the acts 11 that it had been improperly set down before G. 4, and 1 W. 4, c. 60, and 4 & 5 W.4, c. 23, publication, inasmuch as an order of the Masas the act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 69, does not apply. In ter which was irregular and had been treated te Brown, 33 L. O. 586.

as a nullity, ought not to have been so treated, so long as it remained unchanged.

The defendant who had obtained the irregu1. Conveyance by infant will be ordered lar order was allowed his costs, having been

HEIR.

INFANT.

« AnteriorContinuar »