« AnteriorContinuar »
tefiore and Jos. B. Montefiore, Nicholas-lane, London, merJosiah Hall, Whitwick, Leicestershire, butcher, March 13 at chants, March 17 at 11, Court of Bankruptcy, London, fin. 10, County Court of Leicestershire, at Ashby-de-la-Zouch.div. sep. est. of J. B. Montefiore.-James Wiggins, Holborn, James Copley, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, shopkeeper, Middlesex, woollen draper, March 17 at 12, Court of Bank- March 1 at 10, County Court of Lancashire, at Ashton-underruptcy, London, fin. div.-George Streeter, Lisson-grove, Lyne.—Thomas Hodges, Flax Bourton, Somersetshire, black. Middlesex, draper, March 22 at 1, Court of Bankruptcy, Lon-smith, March 21 at 11, County Court of Gloucestershire, at don, div.-George Evans, Bristol, carpenter, March 20 at 11, Bristol.- John Vosper, Devonport, Devonshire, waiter, March District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol, div.-D. Moncrieff, 15 at 11, County Court of Devonshire, at Plymouth. Catherine-street, Strand, Middlesex, victualler, March 16 at Jane Cheek, Bristol, milliner, March 14 at 11, County Court 12, Court of Bankruptcy, London, div.-Richard Dawson, of Gloucestershire, at Bristol.-Edward Orchard, March 8 at Tborney, Isle of Ely, Cambridgeshire, grocer, March 19 at 11, 10, County Court of Shropshire, at Bridgnorth.-William Court of Bankruptcy, London, aud. ac.
Nicholas, March 8 at 10, County Court of Shropshire, at CERTIFICATES.
Bridgnorth.-Jon. Hannath, Kingston-upon-Hull, butcher, To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or
March 21 at 10, County Court of Lincolnshire, at Caisbefore the Day of Meeting.
tor.-John Stevenson, Chester, millwright, March 5 at 10, Francis Thompkins, Sydney-street, Fulham-road, Middle.
County Court of Cheshire, at Chester.–Alex. Litchfield, ser, bill broker, March 16 at half-past 12, Court of Bank
Hertford, out of business, Feb. 28 at half-past 10, County ruptcy, London.-M. Gaunt, Bradford, Yorkshire, grocer,
Court of Hertfordshire, at Saint Alban's.- Richard Reeves, March 20 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Leeds. --John
Abingdon, coach maker, March 10 at half-past 10, County Harrey, Weston-super-Mare, Somersetshire, builder, March
Court of Berkshire, at Abingdon.-Rev. H. Robinson, Didcot, 16 at il, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.--Edward
Berkshire, clerk, March 8 at half-past 10, County Court of Taylor, Perthyre Mill, Rockfield, Monmouthshire, miller,
Berkshire, at Wallingford.-Geo. Sawtell, Somerton, SomerMarch 20 at 11, District Court of Bankruptcy, Bristol.-H.
setshire, saddler, March 19 at 11, County Court of SomerCook, Stadley, Warwickshire, needle manufacturer, March 22
setshire, at Langport.-John George P. Chatterton, Brighton, at 12, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.-Joseph
Sussex, tutor, March 2 at 2, County Court of Sussex, at Jackson the younger, Shelfield, Walsall, Staffordshire, miller,
Brighton.- Charles Jenkinson, Caistor, Lincolnshire, horse March 20 at 10, District Court of Bankruptcy, Birmingham.
dealer, March 21 at 10, County Court of Lincolnshire, at To be allowed by the Vice-Chancellor of the High Court of
Caistor.-Samuel Smith, Bitton, Oldland, Gloueestershire,
mason, March 14 at 11, County Court of Gloucestershire, at Chancery, acting in Bankruptcy, unless Cause be shewn to
Bristol the contrary on or before March 16. Wm. Wall, Bridenbury, Herefordshire, cattle dealer.---J.
The following Persons, who, on their several Petitions filed Spence, Queen-street, Charles-square, Hoxton, Middlesex,
in the Court, have obtained Interim Orders for Protection dealer in china.-William Stephens, Leigh, Worcestershire,
from Process, are required to appeur in Court as hereinblacksmith.-Wm. Walker, London-wall, London, and Re
after mentioned, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street, gent-street, City-road, Middlesex, paper stainer.-William
Lincoln's Inn, as follows, to be examined and dealt with S. Martin, Brighton, Sussex, brush maker.—Thomas Ward, according to the Statute :Smethwick, Staffordshire, railway pin manufacturer.-James March 12 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. Thomas, Newport, Monmouthshire, apothecary.-John Borer, Noah Smith, St. George's-place, Commercial-road East, Exmouth-street, Clerkenwell, Middlesex, grocer.-William | Middlesex, coal merchant.-George Trigg, Newdegate, near Suoder, Thomas-place, Gravel-lane, Southwark, Surrey, Dorking. Surrey, farmer. stonemason.-Samuel Newton, Burnley, Lancashire, porter dealer.-George Greenstock, Weston-super-Mare, Somerset. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before shire, ironmonger.-C. B. Pearse, Bodmin, Cornwall, grocer. I the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt -Ayred Binyon, Taristock-street, Covent-garden, Middle.
with according to the Statute :ses, music seller.—John Lord, Cramshaw Booth, Lancashire, March 9 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner HARRIS. cotton manufacturer.-Fred. Clark, Baker-st., Portman-sq., Chas. S. Willis, Jermyn-st., St. James's, Middlesex, hair Middlesex, auctioneer.-C. T. Chapman, Cambridge, livery-dresser.—Thos. Wenham, John-st., Great Suffolk-st., Southstable keeper.- Fred. Elphick, Castle-street East, Oxford-wark, Surrey, gentleman. market, Middlesex, glass cutter.
March 10 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED.
Thos. Sillibourne, Hampton-terrace, Camden-town, MidRobert Watson, Francis Broughton, and Francis Broughton dlesex, coal merchant.-T. Cox, Westbourne-place, Bishop'sthe younger, Falcon-square, London, attornies at law and road, Paddington, Middlesex, carpenter.-James Graham, solicitors.
Brunswick-st., Cromer-st., Brunswick-sq., Middlesex, baker. Scotch SEQUESTRATIONS.
March 12 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. Margaret H. Somerville, Glasgow, lodging-house keeper. L. 0. B. Vaudeau, Phoenix-wbarf, Battersea, Surrey, re. Jeremiah M*Lachlan, Airdrie, sheriff officer.- Wm. Stewart, finer of oil.-Daniel Gladden, Artillery-passage, Spitalfields, Glasgow, merchant.
Middlesex, greengrocer.- William Ray, Bloomsbury-market, INSOLVENT DEBTORS
Middlesex, coal merchant. Who have filed their Petitions in the Court of Bankruptcy,
March 12 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner HARRIS. and have obtained an Interim Order for Protection from
John T. Brigg, Lamb's-passage, Chiswell-st., Saint Luke's, Process.
Middlesex, carpenter.- Edwin J. Kempster, Grosvenor-wharf,
Addington-square, Camberwell, Surrey, coal merchant.-W. Chas. Cooke, Leicester, watch repairer, March 15 at 10,
Pascoe, Riding-house-lane, Marylebone, Middlesex, greenCounty Court of Leicestershire, at Leicester.-Rob. Quirk, Higher Tranmere, Tranmere, Bebbington, Cheshire, out of
grocer.—John Railton, Mark-lane, London, ship broker. business, March 2 at 10, County Court of Cheshire, at Birk. The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before enbead.-Rob. Dean, Wallasey, Cheshire, beer retailer, March a Judge of the County Court, to be examined and dealt 2 at 10, County Court of Cheshire, at Birkenhead.- Henry with according to the Statute :Chancellor, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, grocer, March 7 at 10, At the County Court of Shropshire, at SHREWSBURY, March County Court of Norfolk, at Great Yarmouth.-Thos. Meek,
13 at 10. Gorlestone, Suffolk, fish merchant, March 7 at 10, County Richard Linell, Emstrey, Atcham, commercial traveller. Court of Norfolk, at Great Yarmouth.-W. Bennett the elder,
| At the County Court of Gloucestershire, at GLOUCESTER, Wrotham-common, Wrotham, Kent, farmer, March 21 at 10, County Court of Kent, at Sevenoaks. -John Jackson Hughes,'
March 12. Morice Town, Devonport, Devonshire, veterinary surgeon,
Wm. Baldwin, Ruardean, gamekeeper. March 15 at 11, County Court of Devonshire, at Plymouth. - At the County Court of Monmouthshire, at MONMOUTH,
March 16. B. Daries, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, out of employ, March 13 at 10, County Court of Shropshire, at Shrewsbury.-J. Webster,
John Brookman, Chepstow, rope maker. Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, shoemaker, March 7 at half. At the County Court of Kent, at CANTERBURY, March 14. past 9, County Court of Bedfordshire, at Leighton Buzzard.- Wm. Wilmshurst, Canterbury, baker.
At the County Court of Berkshire, at READING, March 12. II AW.-A GENTLEMAN, who passed his examination
ast Term, is desirous of an ENGAGEMENT as CONVEYANCFrancis Brangwing, Beenham, near Reading, out of busi ING CLERK, under the Superintendence of the Principal. Address, ness.
A.S. F., 32, Upper Norton-street, Regent's-park.
SHARES IN THE LAW LIFE. LAW FIRE. LEGAL AND GENE. Henry Wilson, Grove-lane, Camberwell, Surrey, grocer,
RAL, AND EQUITY AND LAW INSURANCE OFFICES. March 9 at 11, Court-house, Portugal-street, Lincoln's-inn IMR. HAMMOND will submit to AUCTION at his Great fields, London, pr. d.
11 Rooms, No. 28, Chancery-lane, on WEDNESDAY, February
28th, at 12 for 1 precisely, 220 SHARES in the above flourishing SIR EDWARD SUGDEN'S NEW WORK.
OFFICES. Auction Offices, 28, Chancery-lane. Just published, in 1 vol. royal 8vo., price 11. 11s. 6d. cloth bds., A TREATISE on the LAW of PROPERTY, as adminis. EXCELLENT BUSINESS AND RESIDENCE CHAMBERS. A tered by the HOUSE of LORDS. With an Introductory
MR. HAMMOND has Instructions to SELL by AUCTION Chapter on the Jurisdiction of the House of Lords. By the Right Hon.
at his Great Rooms, No. 28, Chancery-lane, on WEDNESDAY, Sir EDWARD SUGDEN.
February 28th, at 12 for 1, SIX excellent SETS of BUSINESS and RESIS. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane,
DENCE CHAMBERS, in Verulam-buildings, Gray's-inn-square, and
South-square, Gray's inn, producing 2541. per annum. Particulars and WILLIAMS'S PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF REAL
Conditions of Sale at the Steward's Office; of R. S. Taylor, Esq., 3, Field. PROPERTY
court, Gray's Inn; and at the Auctioneer's Offices, 28, Chancery-lane. Just published, in 1 vol., the Second Edition, price 16s. cloth, PRINCIPLES of the LAW of REAL PROPERTY, DEEDS for EXECUTION ABROAD.-Messrs. J. & R. 1 intended as a First Book for the use of Students in Conveyancing.
D M'CRACKEN, Foreign Agents, 7, Old Jewry, beg to inform the The Second Edition. By JOSHUA WILLIAMS, Esq., Barrister at
ister at Legal Profession that they undertake to forward Deeds for Execution by Law.
Parties Abroad, through their Correspondents on the Continent, for the
Costs of Transmission and a simple Commission,
List of Correspondents, and for further information, apply as above.
Messrs. J. & R. M'CRACKEN are also Agents to the ROYAL ACAPRINCIPLES of the LAW of PERSONAL PROPERTY: intended DEMY, and devote their attention to the Receipt of Works of Art, Bagfor the Use of Students in Conveyancing. By JOSHUA WILLIAMS, gage, &c. sent home by Travellers on the Continent for passing through Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law. In 1 vol., 8vo., price the Custom-house. They also undertake to ship Goods to all Parts of 148. bds.
the World. On Tuesday will be published, in 1 vol. 8vo., price 10s. 6d., OUESTIONS for LAW STUDENTS on the Seconá Edi. I LONDON AND PROVINCIAL LAW ASSURANCE b tion of Mr. SERJEANT STEPHEN'S NEW COMMENTARIES
SOCIETY. on the LAWS of ENGLAND. By JAMES STEPHEN, Esq., of the
No. 32, New BRIDGE STREET, BLACKFRIARS, LOXdox.
ADDAMS, RICHARD, Esq., Doctors' Commons. MR. SERJEANT STEPHEN'S NEW COMMENTARIES on the
ASHLEY, The Hon. ANTHONY JOHN, Lincoln's Inn. LAWS of ENGLAND, partly founded on BLACKSTONE. Second
BACON, JAMES, Esq., Q. C., Lincoln's Inn. Edition.
BELL, WILLIAM, Esq., Bow Church-yard.
BENNETT, ROWLAND NEVITT, Esq., Lincoln's Inn.
BOWER, GEORGE, Esq., Tokenhouse-yard.
BUTT, GEORGE MEDD, Esq., Q.C., Temple. of LORDS. Reported (by appointment of the House) by
CHOLMELEY, STEPHEN, Esq., Lincoln's Inn. CHARLES CLARK, Esq., and WILLIAM FINNELLY, Esq., M.A.,
CLARK, JOHN, Esq., Sessions House, London. Barristers at Law. Vol. 1, Parts I, II, and III.
EYRE, WAL POLE, Esq., Bryanstone-square. * These Reports having been so long before the Profession, the
PANE, WILLIAM DASHWOOD, Esq., Lincoln's Inn. Publishers are relieved from the task of pointing out their excellence,
FREEMAN, LUKE, Esq., Coleman-street. but appeal with pleasure to the numerous volumes of cases already re
GASELEE, Mr. SERJEANT, Serieants' Inn. ported by the same learned gentlemen, as a guarantee for the manner in
HOPE, JAMES ROBERT, Esq., Temple. which this New Series will be executed. Containing, as these Reports
HUGHES, HENRY, Esq., Clement's Inn. will, a review of the decisions of the very eminent persons who now fill
| JAY, SAMUEL, Esq., Lincoln's Inn. the judicial seats, as well as the arguments of the most eminent of the
JONES, JOHN OLIVER, Esq., John-street, Bedford-row. English Bar in the Courts below, the Publishers look forward with con
LAKE, HENRY, Esq., Lincoln's Inn. fidence to a large increase of subscribers to these Reports, which are now
LAW. HENRY SHEPHARD, Esq., Bush-lane. the only and the authorised Reports of the highest tribunal in the king
LEFROY, GEORGE BENTINCK, Esq., Piccadilly. dom. Part IV, pricells.6d., is now ready.
LOFTUS, THOMAS, Esq., New Inn. Spettigue & Farrance, Law Booksellers and Publishers, 67, Chancery.
MARTEN, GEORGE, Esq., Mincing-lane. lane.
PARKE, JAMES, Esq., Lincoln's-inn-fields.
PARNTHER, MICHAEL SMITH, Esq., Fenchurch-street.
PEACOCK, BARNES, Esq., Temple. (Dedicated. by permission. to The Right Honorable the Lord
PICKERING, EDWARD ROWLAND, Esq., Lincoln's Inn. COMMENTARIES on the LAWS of ENGLAND, by REEVE, PHILIP, Esq., Lincoln's Inn.
Sir WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, Knt. The Twenty-second Edition. ROLT, JOHN, Esq., Q. C., Lincoln's Inn. Edited by JAMES STEWART, Esq., Barrister at Law.
STEWARD, SAMUEL, Esq., Lincoln's-inn-fields. The peculiar features of this edition are as follow:
TILLEARD, JOHN, Esq., Old Jewry. 1. The whole of the original text of Blackstone is preserved, after a TURNER, FRANCIS, Esq., Lincoln's Inn. collation with the best editions; and the original authorities have been TYRRELL, TIMOTHY, Esq., Guildhall. carefully examined and verified.
VIZARD, WILLIAM, Eso.. 61, Lincoln's-inn-fields. 2. The alterations in the law by statute and decision are incorporated WHITE, THOMAS, Esq., Bedford-row. into the text.
WICKENS, JAMES STEPHEN, Esq., Mortimer-street, Cavendish-sq. 3. The arrangement of Blackstone's Commentaries is preserved, and WROTTESLEY, The Hon. WALTER, Lincoln's Inn. reference is made in the side margin to the original paging; thus giving
PHYSICIAN.-H. PITMAN, M. D., Montague-place. an easy mode of referring to any previous edition.
SOLICITORS. "Mr. Stewart, by incorporating the alterations of the laws with the text
H. D. WARTER, Esq., Carey-street, Lincoln's Inn. of Blackstone, and in all other respects leaving his original unaltered, has
ROBERT CURLING, Esq., Frederick's-place, Old Jewry. succeeded in making it a clear and uniform statement of the law at the present day; while it preserves all the merit and authority which belong
All the usual advantages given by other Assurance Societies will be to its illustrious author. Mr. Stewart throughout admirably preserves
found at this Office, and every variety of Proposal for Assurance and for the character of the book, as an elementary work designed to give one
Payment of Premiums entertained. clear definite impression to a person previously unacquainted with the
Annuities granted. subject. We are, therefore, not at all surprised to learn, that, notwith
Prospectuses, &c. may be had at the Office, or will be forwarded on standing the numerous editions of Blackstone published, a complete l application to the Secretary. Second Edition of Mr. Stewart's work has now been called for. At a
JOHN KNOWLES, Esq., Secretary. time when both legal and general education is occupying the public attention to an unprecedented degree, Mr. Stewart's work is peculiarly fitted ... Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman, or letter (postto aid the Inns of Court in their exertions to promote the study of the paid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY-LANE, or to STEVENS law, and to supply the Universities with a class book in carrying out the & NORTON, 26, BELL-YARD, and 194, FLEET-STREET, will insure system of more extended education. In concluding our notice of this, its punctual delivery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening the First Volume, (the last of the Second Edition), we must not omit to of publication, through the medium of the Post Office, to the Country. say, that, though Mr. Stewart had in this part of his work to write much calculated to provoke the controversial spirit, he has, nevertheless, Printed by LUKE JAMES HANSARD, PRINTER, residing at No. 7. rigidly abstained from offering any political opinions of his own, and stea Southampton Street, in the Parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, in the dily pursued the aim he set out with-to present the professional stu. County of Middlesex, at his Printing Office, situate in Parker Street, in dent and the gentleman of liberal education with the clearest and com the Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, in the County aforesaid; and Pub. pletest analytical view of the Law and the Constitution. We have only lished at No.3, CHANCERY LANE, in the Parish of St. Dunstan in the to add, that we think Mr. Stewart has been completely successful in at- / West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAI BOOKSELLER taining his end." See The Standard, Feb. 19, 1849.
and PUBLISHER, residing at No. 41, Great Coram Street, in the Parish Spettigue & Farrance, Law Booksellers and Publishers, 67, Chancery of St. George, Bloomsbury, in the County of Middlesex. Saturday lane.
February 24, 1849,
No. 634—Vol. XIII. MARCH 3, 1849. Price 1s., with Supplement, 28. * * The following are the Names of the Gentlemen who favour THE JURIST with Reports of Cases argued and
decided in the several Courts of Law and Equity:Honse of Lords ..
G.J.P.SMITH, Esq. of the Inner S Tenison EDWARDS, Esq. of the 1 Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.
li Court of Queen's Bench
J Temple; and
w. B. Brert, Esq. of Lincoln's CHARLES MARETT, Esq. of the Privy Council ...
l Inn, Barristers at Law. 1 Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.
SH. PELLY HINDE, Esq. of the
Queen's Bench Bail Court": The Lord Chancellor's | Tenison EDWARDS, Esq. of the
bau cours Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Court ..............1 Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.
Court of Common Pleas, W. PATERSON, Esq. of Gray's
including l Inn; and
Appeals under Registra- / J. R. BULWER, Esq. of the Inner
tion of Voters Act.... Temple, Barristers at Law.
SW.M. Best, Esq. of Gray's Inn, Vice-Chancellor of Eng-S CHARLES MARETT, Esq. of the Court of Exchequer ... Barrister at Law.
land's Court ........1 Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. Ecclesiastical and Admi. S J. P. DEANE, D.C.L. of Doctors' Vice-Chancellor Knight W.W. COOPER, Esq. of the Inner
ralty Courts ........1 Commons. Bruce's Court........l Temple, Barrister at Law.
W.W. COOPER, Esq. of the Inner
Cases in Bankruptcy.... Vice-Chancellor Wigram's SF. FISHER, Esq. of Lincoln's
S ROBERT R. PEARCE, Esq. of
Crown Cases Reserved.. Court ..............1 Inn, Barrister at Law.
do? Gray's Inn, Barrister at Law.
LONDON, MARCH 3, 1849.
| lected from the circumstances, whether the party made
the deed to hinder and delay his creditors. In that In a very recent case (Skarff v. Soulby, 13 Jur. 89) case it was proved, that the settlor was indebted, not to the question of the extent to which a man must be in- the extent of actual insolvency, but, as it is termed in the debted in order to make a voluntary settlement void judgment, he was distressed at the time, and no motive against creditors, was discussed; and it is to be gathered, could be shewn for the deed, but the apprehension that, that, in the opinion of the Court, it is not necessary to in default of it, his property would go to his creditors. shew that a party is indebted to the extent of insol. The statute, (13 Eliz. c. 5), it will be recollected, does Tency-it is enough to prove that he was indebted. not speak at all of the grantor being indebted or not, The cases on this subject are not very precise in their but avoids fraudulent deeds, which have been made of language; perhaps it would be difficult judicially to malice, &c., or to the end, purpose, and intent to delay, lay down any precise rule: but a principle may be col- hinder, or defraud creditors or others of their just and lected from them, and we shall endeavour to shew what lawful actions, &c. The question, therefore, indebted that principle is. . , ,
or not, and to what extent indebted, is material only as In Townsend v, Westacott (2 Beav. 340) it was con- evidence of the intention with which the deed was tended on the one side, that, if a man is indebted made. The language of Lord Hardwicke, in Townsat all when he makes a voluntary settlement, the hend v. Windham, (2 Ves. sen. 1), certainly would go deed is bad against creditors; this principle the Court the length of taking the mere fact of being indebted at wholly repudiated. It was contended on the other the time, as the test of the deed being good or not. “I side, that a party must be shewn to have been in- know no case,” he says, “on the 13 Eliz., where a man debted to the extent of actual insolvency; and this indebted at the time, makes a mere voluntary conprinciple the Court also repudiated, but the Court did veyance to a child without consideration, and dies innot lay down any positive rule. The facts were, that debted, but that it shall be considered as part of his. the settlor was, at the time of making the settlement, estate for the benefit of his creditors.” But then his largely indebted, and in less than three years afterwards Lordship explains, in a subsequent passage, what he he became insolvent, and there was no satisfactory means, when he says, “A man actually indebted, and evidence as to what was the actual state of his pro- conveying voluntarily, always means to be in fraud of perty at the time of the settlement. No decree, except creditors, as I take it.” So that Lord Hardwicke looks a mere decree for inquiries, was made, because the ex- at the fact of being indebted as the evidence that the istence of the settlor's debts was not sufficiently put in deed was made with intent to hinder. Now, Lord issue. In Richardson v. Smallwood (Jac. 552) it was Hardwicke could not have meant to say, that, if a man held, that it is not necessary to prove the party ac- l possessed of an estate worth 20,0001., owes 50001., and tually insolvent. The decision was not, on the other then settles voluntarily 50001., leaving 10,0001. clear, hand, put on the ground that it is sufficient to shew he his being indebted in 50001., and having 15,0001. to pay was simply indebted, but on this that it is to be col- l it with, iş evidence of the settlement being with
an intent to hinder creditors. His Lordship must | PRESENT STATE OF THE LAW OF JOINT. have meant by indebted, indebted to that extent, STOCK COMPANIES, COMPLETELY REGISthat, in the language of Richardson v. Smallwood, a TERED UNDER THE STATUTE 7 & 8 VICT. state of distress, or that state of circumstances, exists,
c. 110. in which a man must be supposed not to denude himself of property without incurring visible risk Until lately it was supposed, that, since as before of hindering creditors, if his deed should stand good. the passing of the Joint-stock Companies Registration If that were not so, it would be scarcely possible Act, (7-& 8 Vict, c. 110), all companies, whatever might for a man, in any state of circumstances, ever to make
be the number of the members or partners, and of what
ever nature or extent might be the object undertaken, a valid voluntary settlement; for, as observed by Lord
observed by Lord | which were not incorporated by act of Parliament or by Langdale, in Townsend v. Westacott, (2 Beav. 344), royal charter, or privileged by letters-patent, (under 1 “ There is scarcely a man who can avoid being indebted Vict. c. 73), were in law, as regarded the mode in to some amount. He may intend to pay every debt as which they should incur liabilities to the public, and soon as it is contracted, and constantly use his best en
the extent to which the funds of the individual mem
bers (within certain limits, relating to the direction deavours, and have ample means to do so, and yet may of
et may of such liabilities) should be affected, not materially be frequently, if not always, indebted in some small different from ordinary partnerships, consisting of two sum.” In all the cases, we believe, before Skarft v. or three partners, and undertaken for private purposes. Soulby, in which a voluntary settlement has been set It now appears, however, from some recent decisions, aside, the settlor has been considerably indebted-in- that a company, completely registered under the 7 & 8 debted to that extent, that great doubt of his actual or Vict, c. 110, may, by its agent, acting in the most re
gular way of ordinary business, incur the heaviest liacontinuing solvency must have been imputed to him; Bilir
| bilities, and yet, provided they can shew that the acts and the doctrine, that being merely indebted will avoid of their agent, who has been so acting for them in the a deed, is rather the result of dictum than of decision. face of the world, are not in strict conformity with the In Richardson v. Smalhoood there had been a continuing authority given by their deed of settlement, may be state of debt for a long time. So, in Whittington v. able to set up that act as a defence against being comJennings (6 Sim. 493); and in Lord Townshend v.Wind
pelled to meet them.
In the cases of Ridley v. The Plymouth Grinding Comham, it must be collected that the settlor was largely pa
at the settlor was largely pany, and The King's Bridge Flour-mill Company v. The indebted, and it does not appear that he had any con- Same, (12 Jur. 542, 545), in the Court of Exchequer, siderable means of providing for his debts, except the at the Sittings in Banc after Trinity Term, 1848, it very estate conveyed. The doctrine laid down in Kid- was, among other points of importance, decided, that ney v. Coussmaker, (12 Ves. 136), that a voluntary set
in an action against a joint-stock company, completely
registered under the stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, on a contlement is only void as against creditors who were cre
tract made in their name, the deed constituting the ditors at the time, qualified as it has been by subse- company, a copy of which has been delivered to the quent cases, to this extent, that the deed can only be registrar on complete registration, is receivable in eviset aside at the instance of persons who were creditors dence, to shew what persons have power to act for the at the time, (see Ede v. Knowles, 2 You. & C. 178). company; and that where, by the terms of such deed,
the management of the company is committed to a board supports the view that we are taking, that what the
me of eleven directors, (five of whom are to be a quorum Court looks for is proof that the settlor was so indebted, for the dispatch of business), the acts of the board are that an inference arises in favour of his having settled not evidence to bind the company, unless it be shewn his property with a view to delay creditors—an inference that at least five directors were present. In the same which justly arises, where it is found that, in fact, the cases it was held, that a contract, entered into by such debts which existed at the time of the settlement have
company, without all the formalities required by the
44th section of the act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, may be ennot been paid since, but which does not justly arise ifto
forced against the company, though not by them. It does the debts which then existed shave been paid in due not seem very easy to reconcile these two decisions, or course. We conceive, on the whole, that the true prin- to reconcile the former of them with the act in quesciple to be collected from the cases is this—that, in order tion. The result, however, is, that (unless it should to set aside a voluntary settlement under the 13 Eliz., it be
voluntary settlement under the 12 Elie it be held that all contracts, having the requisites enamemust be shewn that the settlor was at the time in such
rated in the 44th section, shall be valid and effectual)
the only safe mode of dealing with such companies will circumstances that inability to pay his debts was actu
be to inspect first their deed of settlement. This proally existent, or reasonably to be apprehended by him, ceeding would be attended with such a degree of trouble, so that a presumption arises that the settlement was expense, and loss of time, that, in the recent case of made with intent to hinder creditors; that indebted
Smith and Others v. The Hull Glass Company, at the or not indebted, and the extent to which the settlor was
Nisi Prius Sittings at Guildhall, on the 11th November indebted, are merely evidence from which the Court
last, Mr. Justice Cresswell, in charging the jury, (the will conclude that such a presumption arises; and that
above-mentioned case of Ridley v. The Plymouth Grinda trifling debt, due at the time of the settlement, and
| ing Company having been cited to him), said, “There remaining unpaid, if it were shewn that at the time
is a new mode of constituting joint-stock companies. of the settlement the settlor was abundantly solvent,
| The results of this case will make such companies rather would not be sufficient to set aside the deed.
worse than better off than they were before. It will now be very difficult to make a contract with any
joint-stock company, except with ready money." MASTERS IN CHANCERY.—The Lord Chancellor has ap- In the case cited above, (Smith and Others v. The pointed the following gentlemen Masters Extraordinary Hull Glass Company), the action was brought to recover in the High Court of Chancery :-William Foard Tribe, 1771. 8s. 6d., in respect of a quantity of zafres, & of Worthing, Sussex; Thomas Ames Hill, of Paulton, species of unrefined ore of cobalt glass, used in the Somersetshire; Arthur Parsons, of Nottingham. | manufacture of coloured glass, supplied to the defendants by the plaintiffs' agents at Hull. The working goods were contracted for by any person having commanager of the defendants gave certain orders to the petent authority to bind the company. agents, in pursuance of which the goods were removed CRESSWELL, J., (to the jury). - There is a new mode from the docks, and delivered to the defendants. The of constituting joint-stock companies. The result of elder of the Messrs. F., the agents, was then chairman this case will make such companies rather worse than of the Hull Glass Company, and both he and his son better off than they were before. It will now be very were shareholders, also, to a considerable extent. In difficult to make a contract with any joint-stock comNovember, 1847, the Messrs. F. failed, and at that time pany, except with ready money. Perhaps it will be both of them were in arrears to the company for calls a very good thing if they were all obliged to do that, upon their shares, the elder of them to the amount of for we should not then hear so much of joint-stock 20331. odd. On the part of the plaintiffs it was sought companies selling their shares at a discount. The to be established, that the Messrs. F., acting as their plaintiffs have not shewn that the goods were conagents, had disposed of the goods in question to the tracted for by any person having competent authority defendants. It was contended, on the other hand, on to bind the company; therefore, you must find for the behalf of the defendants, that they, the defendants, defendant.–Verdict accordingly. had had this transaction with the Messrs. F. alone, It can hardly be supposed that such a result was whom they treated as principals, and disclaimed any in the contemplation of the original framers of the dealing with the plaintiffs. It was proved, however, Joint-stock Companies Registration Act. The bill that Mr. S., the defendants' working manager, had was, we believe, drawn originally with much care, ordered the goods; that the company had never paid though without a due regard to the lex mercatoria, or for them to Messrs. F.; and that the secretary of the custom of merchants—a custom which is the growth of defendants had held a correspondence with the plain- long practical experience among men, who, without tiffs themselves, clearly shewing, in its terms, that he arrogating to them any extraordinary attributes, may considered the goods to have been purchased of them, l be admitted to understand their own business better Mr. F. the elder underwent a long cross-examination, than strangers; and of which custom or law the object with the view of establishing, on the part of the de is to insure rapidity and safety in the transaction of the fence, that he had, as chairman of the company, burned ordinary every-day business of men engaged in comor destroyed some of the correspondence relating to merce. The bill was then, with the fate which atthe transaction; but he strongly denied all recollec-tends most bills, thoroughly mangled in the House of tion of his having done so. He was also asked, if he Commons; and, instead of being afterwards revised by had not taken the invoices off the company's file re- competent lawyers, and its obscurities, ambiguities, lating to this transaction, and burned them; but this, and 'inconsistencies, at least in some degree removed too, he denied. He admitted, however, that he had or reconciled, it was passed in its present state, to be, taken the invoices relating to the goods in question while it so continues, an incessant source of insecurity off the file, and substituted others; but he explained and litigation, and a never-ending puzzle for the exerthat act in this way :- The goods in question were cise of the ingenuity of judges and lawyers. originally invoiced in his name; and he directed a clerk in the company's office, now the secretary, to
LEGACY-DUTY ON THE PROCEEDS OF REAL substitute other invoices, in which they were invoiced
ESTATE SOLD UNDER A DISCRETIONARY to the present plaintiffs. At the time he substituted the invoices he was chairman of the company; and he
POWER. also caused a corresponding alteration to be made in the company's books. This alteration and substitu- The long-deferred judgment in the case of The Attion, he said, he made, just in order to put the transac- torney-General v. Simcox has just been reported, (1 tion in its proper position, he and his partner having Exch. Rep. 749); and, as it is not likely that the prin., only held the goods in question in transitu, and disciple of that decision will be acquiesced in without furposed of them as agents of the plaintiffs.
ther litigation, it may be interesting to examine into Byles, Serjt., for the defendants, contended, that the the state of the authorities. plaintiffs had not shewn that the defendants had pro- By the stat. 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, Sched., part 3, legacymised, or were indebted; they had not shewn the com- duty is charged on “the monies to arise from the sale, pany was indebted. There was no evidence whatever mortgage, or other disposition of any real or heritable to shew that the numerous parties who did or might | estate directed to be sold, mortgaged, or otherwise discompose the company were liable. (Ridley v. The posed of by any will or testamentary instrument, ... Plymouth and Stonehouse Baking Company, 17 Law when the same shall be paid, retained, or discharged Joum., N.S., 252).
after the 31st August, 1815.” The stat. 36 Geo. 3, c. 82, Talfourd, Serit.—There was evidence that the com-contains the principal provisions by which the payment of pany, by their officer, (Mr. Stinger), ordered the goods. | legacy-duty is now regulated, and among others a clause
CRESSWELL, J., (to Talfourd, Serjt.)-There was no- | (sect. 22) directing the mode of ascertaining the duty thing to shew that Stinger had any authority to give on property not reduced into money, which makes no the orders. You have got an admission under the hand reference to real estate, because it was passed before the of some individual. What authority had he to make duty was imposed on money derived from real estate ; an admission? Had he an authority to make an ad- but which is now applicable to the real estate directed Inission for the company? You are suing something to be sold, if the legatee of the produce elects to take which is the creation of an act of Parliament; and the land in specie. Accordingly, it has been decided, that act of Parliament describes the mode in which that, if real estate is unequivocally directed to be sold, the business shall be conducted by a body so consti the legacy-duty will be payable on the value, if no salé tuted, and then of the authority which shall be neces- takes place by reason of the legatee's electing to take sary to bind the different integral parts of that body. the estate itself: Attorney-General v. Holford, (1 Price, Your judgment against the company in this action 426), (a case on the 48 Geo. 3, c. 149, Sched., would bind all the shareholders in it. It is right that part 3), where the Court rested its decision on the inthe shareholders should not be bound by an action telligible ground, that, by the effect of the direction in against the company, unless it is in conformity with the will, the property was in equity converted into an authority which is given in the deed. I shall tell personal estate, and, if the legatee had died before electhe jury, that, upon the first issue, you have not given tion, would have been held in trust for his personal evidence, fit for their consideration, to shew that the representatives. So, in Williamson v. The Advocates