Mr. Little, Q.C., and Mr. Winslow, for the Appellant, W. T. Charles:

The effect of sect. 59 is to attach to the London Bankruptcy Court a general jurisdiction, in case of the bankrupt residing or carrying on business within its limits. The petition proceeds on an allegation which is shewn by the evidence to be unfounded. Under the Bankruptcy Act of 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 106), s. 6, there was one Court in Bankruptcy; now the unity of the Court has gone, and instead thereof we have the several Courts created by the Act of 1869, under which Act great care has been taken to define in what Court the bankruptcy shall be carried on. Where there is a doubt as to the validity of the act of bankruptcy on which the adjudication is founded, the trustee will have difficulty in disposing of the property.

[They also referred to sect. 6 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, sub-sect. 4, Form 1; sect. 80, sub-sect. 6; sects. 125, 126; and to the Bankruptcy Rules, 1870, rr. 16, 17, 26, 252, 253, and Form 106.]

Mr. De Gex, Q.C., and the Hon. A. Thesiger, for Messrs. Bessemer and the trustee under the bankruptcy, were not called upon.

SIR JAMES BACON, C.J.:

I am of opinion that the occupation of rooms in Walbrook by an agent, on behalf of the Messrs. Charles is not a carrying on of business in the district of the London Bankruptcy Court within the meaning of the words of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. The words of the Act are plain and precise, and business, in the proper sense of the word, the bankrupts did not carry on in London. I am of opinion that the proceedings were rightly commenced in the County Court of Sheffield, and the appeal must be dismissed with

costs.

Solicitors: Messrs. Abrahams & Roffey; Messrs. Johnson & Weatheralls, agents for Messrs. Burdekin, Smith, & Pye Smith, Sheffield.

C. J. B.

1872

Ex parte CHARLES. In re CHARLES.

VOL. XIII.

END OF VOL. XIII.

3 A

2

INDEX.

cery

1

[281

See BUILDING CONTRACT.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT-Statute of Limitations
See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF.
ACQUIESCENCE-Breach of trust-Testamentary
guardian

See TESTAMENTARY GUARDIAN.

36

ADMINISTRATION—Liability of trustees for not
calling in investments

232

ACCEPTANCE OF SHARES-Contributory-Di- | ACCOUNT-Complication-Jurisdiction of Chan-
rector bound to take Qualification-Agency of Allot-
ment Committee.] H. allowed his name to be
advertised as a director of a company, and was
present at a board meeting at which an allotment
committee was appointed. The committee allotted
him fifty shares, which was the qualification for a
director; but he never applied for shares or re-
ceived a notice of allotment. He subsequently
signed a cheque of the company as a director, but
his signature was treated by the bank as insuf-
ficient, his name not having been sent in as au-
thorized to sign cheques:-Held, that by acting
as a director he became liable to take the
number of shares required as a qualification:-
Held, also, that the allotment committee were his
agents for the purpose of the allotment to him,
and it was not necessary to give him notice of the
allotment. In re GREAT OCEANIC TELEGRAPH
COMPANY. HARWARD'S CASE

30

2. Contract to take Shares-Letter of Allot-
ment Posted, but not Received-Erroneous Address
given by the Applicant.] A. applied for shares in
a company. Shares were allotted on the 15th of
March, 1866, and the letter of allotment posted on
the 16th, but owing to the applicant having omitted
to add the name of the post town "Dublin" to
his address, the letter miscarried, and was re-
turned to the company, who immediately for-
warded it through the brokers at Dublin on the
20th of March. The letter was delivered on the
21st, but in the meantime the applicant had
written on the 20th a revocation of his application
for shares, and subsequently repudiated the allot-
ment, and demanded a return of his deposit. No
steps were taken by A. to have his name removed
from the register of shareholders, and calls made
by the company were not enforced against him :-
Held, that the miscarriage of the first letter of
allotment being caused by the incorrect address
furnished by A. himself, the contract was complete
at the time when, but for A.'s fault, the letter
would have been delivered:-Held, also, that the
letter posted on the 20th of March was posted
within a reasonable time, and was a good notice
of allotment; and that A. was a contributory. In
re IMPERIAL LAND COMPANY OF MARSEILLES.
TOWNSEND'S CASE

148

-

218

-

493

327

See INVESTMENT BY TRUSTEES. 1.
Locke King's Act-Interest on land -
See LOCKE KING'S ACT. 1.
Locke King's Act-Vendor's lien
See LOCKE KING'S ACT. 2.
Mortgage by testator-Tacking
See TACKING BY MORTGAGEE.
Purchase-money of estate contracted to be
sold

See RESCINDED CONTRACT.

417

See BUILDING CONTRACT.
Lease-Letters - Statute of Frauds
See AGREEMENT BY LETTERS.
Mortgage-Specific performance

1

30

1

See AGREEMENT FOR MORTGAGE.
AGREEMENT BY LETTERS-Agreement for Lease
-Memorandum in Writing-Statute of Frauds.]
2

3 B

AGREEMENT BY LETTERS-continued.

APPLICATION FOR SHARES-continued.

A bill for specific performance alleged a verbal | the case was similar to that of an application for
agreement for the lease of a house by the Plaintiff shares in the name of a fictitious person, and that
to the Defendant for seven years from Michaelmas, the name of S. must be substituted for P. in the
1870, followed, first, by a letter from the Defendant list of contributories.-An application for shares
to the Plaintiff, which did not state when the term in a false name puts a man in the same position
was to commence, and, secondly, by another letter as regards liability, as a transfer into a false name.
of the Defendant to the Plaintiff, in which, after-Depositions taken under the 115th section of the
referring to the previous letter, the Defendant Companies Act, 1862, may be used as evidence on
stated that he thought it best to say that it was a summons against the party by whom they have
clearly understood on his part, that the Plaintiff been made; but, semble, notice of the intention to
agreed to let the house for seven years from read them should be given. In re HERCULES IN-
Michaelmas, 1870, upon certain conditions therein SURANCE COMPANY. PUGH AND SHARMAN'S CASE
mentioned, some of which the Plaintiff did not
[566
admit to form part of the alleged verbal agree- APPOINTMENT-New trustees-Trustee Act 333
ment :-Held, that neither the first letter, nor the
See TRUSTEE ACTS. 2.
two together, constituted a memorandum in writing
of the alleged agreement sufficient to satisfy the
requirements of the Statute of Frauds. NESHAM
v. SELBY

-

-

-

-

191

AGREEMENT FOR MORTGAGE-Specific Per-
formance.] Where the Defendant had agreed to
execute to the Plaintiff a mortgage of certain
leasehold premises in the usual form, containing
an absolute power of sale, in consideration of
money due, and had, when requested to do so,
failed to execute such mortgage: The Court made
a decree for specific performance. ASHTON v.
CORRIGAN
76
ALIENATION-Forfeiture-Annulment of bank-

-

|

Representative for purposes of suit-When

necessary

-

139

See APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE.

APPOINTMENT BY RESIDUARY GIFT-Direc-
tion to pay Debts-Bequest of Legacies and Residue
-Deaths of Residuary Legatees-Lapse-Next of
Kin-Wills Act, 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 27.] S. D., who
had, under the will of her late husband, a general
power of appointment over a moiety of his resi-
duary estate, by will, in 1869, after directing that
her debts should be paid, and giving pecuniary
legacies, bequeathed the residue of her personal
unto her brothers and sisters M., E., W., and J.
estate, which she had any title to or interest in,
equally, and appointed an executor.-M. and J.
died in the lifetime of the appointor:-Held, that
the next of kin of the husband were entitled to the
shares which M. and J. would have taken if they
had survived the appointor. In re DAVIES'
TRUSTS
APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE-Prac-
tice-Administration Suit-Death of Trustee-
AMENDMENT-Special case- -Marriage of female Representation-15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 44.] Where

ruptcy

-

413

See FORFEITURE CLAUSE, 1.
Forfeiture clause-Liquidation by arrange-
464

ment

-

-

-

See FORFEITURE CLAUSE. 2.

-

one of two trustees of an estate which was being
administered in Court died intestate and, as was
alleged, insolvent, after a decree for an account
against himself and his co-trustee, and after the
certificate made in pursuance thereof had been
settled by the Chief Clerk, except in some formal
particulars:-Held, that the proceedings ought
to be carried on in the absence of a representative
of his estate, although considerable balances were
proved to be due from the trustees, and although
one of the parties having the conduct of the cause
was entitled to take out representation to the
139
- 1

deceased trustee. MOORE v. MORRIS
ARBITRATION-Building contract

-

See SUBSTITUTED SERVICE. 1.
APPLICATION FOR SHARES-Contributory-Mis-
description-Application in Name of Married
Woman-Depositions under s. 115 of the Companies
Act, 1862.] S., who was a large shareholder in a
company, wished to take more shares, but the
directors refused to allow his name to appear for
any larger number. He then, at the suggestion
of the secretary and with the concurrence of a local
agent of the company, sent in an application for
shares signed by his daughter P., a married woman
residing elsewhere, but then on a visit to him.
Her condition was not stated in the application,
and the father's residence was given. The de-
posits on application and allotment were paid by
S., and he received the notice of allotment and a
dividend which was paid, and all the notices re-
lating to the company, which were posted to P. at
his address. P. signed the application without BANK OF ENGLAND-Evidence of death of

BANKING COMPANY—Shares-Liability of trus- | BREACH OF TRUST BY TESTATOR—continued.