VALUABLE LAW WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
STEVENS AND HAYNES,
BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR, LONDON.
V For full particulars of the following and other W orks, see
A COMPEI
EXECUTORS
lupins of refen
r, trriBter-at-Lay
Partition and of
THE LAW
TIONS IN CH
Clauses Art. Ti
\r.. \r. With
Lincoln's Inn, li
A SUMMAR
LESIASTIC
inn,
Nummary of tin-
SMITH'S SU
ADMIRALTY.
NG TO
annotated by
incoln's Inn,
â– I tin- Law of
SELF-PREP.
AMI NATION, at
»tudy, with -t .-t t
who have not y
"Self
UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
LIBRARY
PETI-
A.-t, Lands
tins, Infants,
Williams, of
IN THE
ination. By
aw," and " A
id others.
ICE IN
rE EX-
ete course of
tided clerks
it, Solicitor,
â– i of Common
VMINA-
iestions, and
iM'i :i:m m B,
other works.
SELF-PREP,
•| [< is ; i ontainfc
; tin-
I 'ilioi
One l o ■•■'■'i>',
A SELECTION OF PRECEDENTS OF PLEADING UNDER
THE JUDICATURE iCTS IN THE COMMON LAW DIVISIONS. With Notes Ex-
the DifTerenl Causes of Action and Grounds of Defence; and an Introductory
; Rules and Principles of Pleading, as illustrated by the various
,ii« down to ti..- present time. By John Cunningham, of the Middle Temple, Esq.,
i aw • tuthoi ol " I be Law Relating to Parliamentary and Municipal Elections
and Petitions;" and Mii.es Walkbb MaTtinson, of Gray'* Inn, Esq., Barriater-at-Law, late
Il,,;.i | identship of the Four Inns of Court, &c. <fcc.
[A Catalogue of New Law Works may be obtained gratis upon application to S. &H.
STEVENS AND HAYNES' LAW PUBLICATIONS.
In Svo, price 25s. i
A CONCISE TREATISE ON PRIVATE Inter-
national JURISPRUDENCE, BASED ON' THE DECISIONS IN' THE ENGLISH
COURTS. By John Alderson Foote, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law; Chancellor's
Legal Medallist, and Senior Whewell Scholar of International Law, Cambridge l niversity,
1878 ; Senior Student in Jurisprudence and Roman Law at the Inns of Court Exa mi nation;
Hilary Term, 1874.
Second Edition, in Svo, price 12s. cloth,
THE LAW ( )F N E< i LIGENCE. By Robert Campbell, of
Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, and Advocate" of the Scotch Bar,
"A new edition has appeared <>f Mr. Campbell's excellent work on the Law of Negligence, in
which no pains have been spared in collating cases, and the style of which is clear and easy." —
Saturday A'> v
In Svo, price 10s. cloth,
THE PRINCIPLES OF BANKRUPTCY. With an
Appendix-, containing the General Rules of 1870, 1*71, 1873, and l*7s, Scale of Costs, and
the Bills of Sale Act, ls?s. By Richard Ringwood, B.A., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-
at-Law, late Scholar of Trinity College, Dublin.
Third Edition, in royal Svo, 1879, price 32s. cloth,
THE LAW ANT) PRACTICE UNDER THE COM-
PANIES ACTS 1862, 1867, ls7o, & is77 ; and THE LIFE A88URANCE COMPANIES
Ai'Ts, is7o ro is7'J. Containing the Statutes, with toe Rules, orders, and Forms regulating
Proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, and full Notes of the
Decisions, &c, &C. By H. BURTON Bi lklev, M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law,
aud Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge.
In Svo, Fifth Edition, price 25s. cloth,
SNELL'S PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY. Fifth Edition,
to which is added AN' EPITOME OF THE EQUITY PRACTICE. By Archibald Brown,
of the .Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Author of "A New Law Dictionary," "The Law of
Fixtures," ".An Analysis of Savigny on Obligations," &c.
In Svo, price 10s. cloth,
A MANUAL OF THE PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME
court of Judicature in tup QUEEN'S BENCH, common PLEAS, EXCHEQUER,
ami CHANCERY Divisions; intended for the Use of students. By John Indermaur,
or, Author of "The Principles of the Common Law," and other works for Students.
In One Thick Volui , Second Editi . cloth,
THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACTS
1873, 1875, & 1877: the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, ls7t'.. With the Rules, Orders, and
Costs thereunder: Edited with Notes, References, and a Copious Analytical Index. Second
Edition, embodying all the Reported Cases to Michaelmas Sittings, is77, and a Time Table.
By William Dowses Griffith, oi the Inner Temple, Barrister-al Law, and a Judge of
County Courts, Author of "Griffith's Bankruptcy," Sec; and Riciiard LoyELAND Love-
land, of the inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Editor of "Kelyng's Crown Case. - ," and
" Hall's Essay on the Rights of the Crown in the Seashore," &C
In Svo, Third Edition, prir, 25 .
MAYNE'S TREATISE ON DAMAGES. Third Edition.
By John D. Maynk, of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law ; and Llmi.kv Smiui, of the
Inner Temple, Q.C.
" Few modern text-books have a higher authority than Mayne on Damages."— Solicitors'
Journal,
In One Volume, One Thousand Pages, 42s. cloth,
A TREATISE ON THE DOCTRINE OF ULTRA
VIRKS: Being an Investigation of the Principles which limit the Capacities, Rowers, and
Liabilities of Corporations, ami more especially of Joint stock Companies. Bj Seward
BRICE, M.A., LL.I)., London, of the inner Temple, Esq., Barrister atl, aw. Second Edition.
Revised throughoul and re-written, greatly enlarged, and containing the United States aud
Colonial Decisions.
A DIGEST
LAW OF PEACTICE
IWDElt THE
JUDICATURE ACTS AND KULES,
CASES DECIDED
IN THE CHANCEEY AND COMMON LAW DIVISIONS,
FEOM NOYEML'EB, 1875, TO AUGUST, 1830.
W. II. HASTINGS KELKE, M.A,
of Lincoln's inn, barribter-at-law.
L N D X :
STEVENS & HAY-N.ES,
T.nu publishers,
BE I.I. YAK D, TEMPLE BAR
1SS0.
LONDON
i â– â– > . & CO., PRINTERS, WHITEFB1AES.
^2. -Co
o
I
I
o
I
PREFACE.
The raison d'etre of this little book is twofold — (1) it
aims at recording all the important practice cases in the
Chancery and three Common Law Divisions decided with
reference to the Judicature Acts down to the present
moment in the briefest possible language, (2) of doing so
in immediate connection with the wording of the Acts and
Rules themselves. It is in no sense a "setting out" of
the Acts and Rules, of which many portions have been
omitted, some as purely transitional and now already of
little more than antiquarian interest, some as simply
directing official routine, others as not having given occa-
sion for any judicial interpretation, and as perhaps not
being likely to do so. After one half-decade of experience
of the working of the Acts, it has seemed to the writer
that the time had arrived for an endeavour to consolidate
the gist of the decisions along with the portions they in-
terpret, adding further an epitome of just so much of
other parts of the Acts and Rules ;is would form a con-
nected whole. In condensing the combination, it is not
vi PREFACE.
anticipated that any real difficulty can arise from tlie fre-
quent use of such abbreviations as e.g. " generally " =
"unless the Court or a Judge shall otherwise order," or
'• on temis" = " on such terms as to costs or otherwise as
to the Court or a Judge shall seem fit," &c. ; especially as
it is assumed that the reader possesses some edition of
the Acts and Rules.
The various subjects interlace at so many points, that
it is perhaps impossible to frame a perfectly scientitic
division ; hut it will be seen that the main lines of an
action have been followed, various miscellaneous points
being left to the concluding part. One innovation will
be noticed, in that counter-claim is made to follow directly
after claim, most of the regulations as to the one obviously
applying, mutatis mutandis, to the other. The writer is
not so sanguine as to suppose that he has been always
successful in his attempt at condensation and abbrevia-
tion. Where he lias tailed, he trusts that the notes will
at least serve as an index for the correction of his errors.
Where and 30 far as he may have succeeded in presenting
.1 li! ief primd facie view of the joint product of statute and
"judge-made " Law as at this moment existing, he is well
aware that in this, perhaps even more than in any other
branch of Law, the infinite possibilities of variation and
combination, together with that large discretion which
the elasticity of the A.cts and Rules allows to the Court,
PREFACE. vii
must prevent any chance oi' a finality where all points shall
be " concluded by authority."
The writer desires to acknowledge his obligations, as
to the earlier cases, to the various editions of the Acts,
particularly those of Mr. Wilson and Sir W. T. Charley.
It is hoped that the hook will he found complete as
regards cases reported in the Law Reports down to the
present moment. And it has been attempted I i combine
with these all the more important cases given in the
Weekly Notes, and in various other Reports.
W. 11. H. K.
77, Chancery Lank,
November, 1880.
CONTENTS.
Table of Cases xi
Taut I. Preliminary. The Acts 1
II. Writ to Close of Pleadings 12
III. EviDENCEj &C -17
IV. Trial to Execution 57
V. Appeal — Costs 74
VI. Miscellaneous 89
INDEX loi
TABLE OF CASES.
A.
A bud v. Riches
Adams, In re
Alforth v. Espinach
"Alina" ....
Allen r. Kcnnet
Allhusen v. Labouchere . 43,
Ambroise v. Evelyn . . 37,
Amirs v. Clark .
Amos v. Chadwick .
Anderson v. Bank of British Co
lumbia
Anderson v. Titmas
Anglo-Italian Bank v. Davies 6, 21,
Anstey ;•. North and South Wool
wich Subway Co.
Anthony v. Balstead .
Appleford o. Judkins
Arkwright v. Newbold .
Ashley r. Taylor
Ashnrst v. Outram
Associated Home Co. v. Whichcord
Aston r. Hunvit/.
Atherley v. Harvey .
Atkins' Estate, /" r< •
Atteuborough v. London and St
Catherine's Dock I !o.
Attorney-General
Birmingham
(Council of)
I lonstable
Metropolitan
Railwa
. Pagham Har-
bour Recla-
mation Co. .
Shrewsbury
Bridge Co. .
69
m;
lis
10
32
49
15
8
90
51
64
7>)
49
64
>, 8
85
27
77
30
13
in
28
33
26
99
PAGE
Attorney-General v. Swansea Im-
provement .V
Tramway Co. 82
V. Tomline . 68
Atwood v. Chichester . 45
B.
Back v. Hay .... 59
Bacon y. Bacon . . . . 51
! v. Carlton . . .72
. Easton . . 4, 30, 31, 43
Baigent v. Baigent ... 69
Baillie's Trusts, In re . . 80
Baker v. Oakes . . . . 96
Bam i de P alj E pa/rti . . 2
v. Waddell . 75
Bunk of Whitehaven v. Thompson. 15
Banque Franco - Egyptienne v.
Lutscher ... . . 55
Barber v. Mackrell . . . f>4
Barr v. Ban . .... 6
Bartholomew v. Freeman . . 91
Barton v. Titchmarsh . . . 3
Bates /-. Kiev .... 56
r. Elliott . . . . 22
Beckingham v. Owen . . .21
Beddington v. Beddington . . 14
BeiMow r. IV. 1 low 5
Begg r. Cooper . . . . 20
Bell v. North Staffordshire Railway
Co 94
— V. Wilkinson . . 41
. r. Grant ... 15
Belmonte o. Aynard . . v ">
Benbow v. Low .... 35
e v. Frost . . . 29
Xll
TABLE OF CASES.
Bennett ;•. Lord Bury .
r. Moore
Berdan v. Birmingham Small Ann
Co. .
r. Greenwood
Berkeley v. Standard Discount Co
Berridge v. Roberts
Berry v. Exchange Trading Co.
Beynon v. Sodden
Bidder r. Xorth Staffordshire Rai
way Co. .
I y r. Pirkinson . . 56,
Birmingham Estates Co. v. Smith
Waste Co. v. Lane
Blackburn Union r. Brooks
Blake r. Albion Life Assurance Co
r. Appleyard
/-. Beech
Blew iit v. Dowling
Blytfa and Young, In re .
Boddy o. Wall .
Bolivia (Republic of) v. Nationa
Bolivian Navigation Co.
Bolton v. l'.olton .
Bootli '•. Briscoe
Bordier v. Burrell
Bower r. Hartley
Bowey v. Bell
' 'lis
v. Bettwys Llantwit Collieri
Co
n v. Boynton
Braginton v. fates â–
Bramble, Ex parte
Bret >n v. Crockett .
• t r. Durrand
m /-. Smith
.. Campbell
h Dynamite Co. v. Krebs
Imperial Co., Tn n .
'â– â– bank r. K n 3ti am
Ship Co.
ffigg
Brown r. Trotman
ling V. Sal. in .
:. In re
v. Bull
Buckt
Bndd loch
i da Port
Railway Co p. Northern Rail-
way Co. of Bnenos Ayres
Bullock x. Corry ....
PAGE
90
67
7:<
43
48
21
93
83
'> 1
33,
98
55
43
12
n«;
6
28
62
93
37
66
67
28
93
16
84
54
72
68
68
6
39
42
16
Burgoine r. Taylor
Burke v. Rooney .
I anus v. Irving
Burnell v. Burnell
Bustros v. Bustros
v. White.
Butler r. Butler
Byrd v. Xiniu
PAGK
. 61
44
. 72
. 7,67
. 17
50, 51
30
. 36
C.
Caldwell v. Pagham Harbour Recla-
mation Co. .... 43
Caley v. Caley . . 24
Calland.er v. Hawkins ... 38
Campbell v. Fairlie ...... 8
v. Holyland . . . 93
Capes y. Brewer . . 14
Cargill r. Cower .... 42
"Cartburn" 30
Cartwright, Mary, In the goods of, 69, 93
Casey v. Arnott . . . .16
Cashin v. Cradock . . 43, 50, 52
Catling v. King . . . .4]
Central African Trading Co. v. Grove 30
< hamberlain v. Barnwell . . 77
Champion v. Formby . . . 38
Chapman v. Knight ... 7
v. Mason . . . . 90
- v. Midland Railway Co. . 86
v. Real Property Trust . 89
Chatfield v. Sedgwick . . . 35
I Ihe fcer v. Phillips . . . . 25
Chesterfield, Ac, Colliery Co. v.
Black . . • . . .49
Child r. Stenning . . 22, 23, 31
< 'hilton r. < 'c>i| k i:itinti of London . 66
Chorlton v. Dickie . . .29, CO
Church v. Perry .... 49
Clark v. < Jallow . . . . 36
r. < look son . . . 59
v. Roche . . . 3, 81
i lutton v. Lee .... 93
Id v. I'ykc . . . . Hi
Cockle v, Joyce . . . .61
Cocl l"' 1 1 v. London < leneral Cab
Co 60
Cole v. Firth 33
i !ol< I" iirne v. Coli bourne . . 5, 12
' lollette v. Goode . . . . 36
Collins v. Vesl ii ton, 74, 79, 80
v. Welch . . . .83
' lorn mi onei oi h ers, &c. v,
Gcllatly . ... 25
TABLE OF CASE?.
Sill
PAGE
Conington v. Gilliatt . . . 60
Conybeare v. Lewis ... 45
Cook v. Dcy . . . .14, 33
v. Enchmarch . .32
Cooper v. Blisset . . . . 25
v. Whittingham . . 5
Costa Rica (Republic of) v. Erlanger
48, 84
v. Strousberg 50
Cousins v. Lombard Deposit Uank 7
Cowan's Estate, In re
. 70,
71
Cox v. Barker
23
31
Cracknal! v. Janson
49, 76
86
Craig v. Phillips .
79
Crane v. Jullion
14
Credit Foncicr of Mauritius
v.
Paturau
Q
Creen v. Wright
83
Cremetti v. Crora
70,
71
Creswell v. Parker . ,
16,
17
Crom v. Samuels . , .
94
Crowe v. Baruicot .
,
35
Crowle v. Russell . ,
4
Crump V. Cavendish
20
Crush v. Turner .
t
7
Cummins v. Herron
.
78
D.
Dallinger v. St. Albyn
t ,
42
Darcy v. Whittaker .
27
Daubney v. Shuttleworth
,
93
D ran u. Simmins .
, ,
6S
Davies v. Felix .
,
63
v. Garland .
11
V. Williams
52
Davis v. Flagstaff Mining
Co. of
Utah .
35
v. Goodbehere
63
V. Spenee
20
Daw r. Garretl .
. ' 33,
43
Daw kins v. Lord Penrhyn
41
;>. Prince Edward of Saxe-
Weimar
4
Dawson r. Shepherd
31
Day v. Whittaker .
SS
Dean 'â– . Wilson
5, 7, 92,
'.'7
Dear r. Sworder . .
30
Do Hart t: Stevenson .
•27
Delmar v. Freemantle
' • 12,
'.-J
Deuce v. Mason
81
Dennis v. Seymour .
.
21
31
80
1
79
47
,
87
.
80
9, 32
»;:;
82
5, 23
96
ver Lead
7^;
41
37
jver .
62
24
42
15, 18,
33, 70
.
98
Dessilla v. Schunck & Co. and
Fels & Co. .
Diamond Fuel Co. , In re .
Dicks v. Brooks .
Dickson v. Harrison
Disney <'. Longbourne .
Ditton, Ex parte
Dix v. Groom
Dodds V. Shei>herd .
Dollman v. Jones
Donovan r. Brown .
Dowdeswell v. Dowdeswell
Doyle v. Kaufman .
Duchess of Westminster Silver Lead
Ore Co., In re
Duckett v. Gover .
Duckitt v. Jones .
Dunkirk Colliery Co. v. Lever
Dupuy v. Welsford
Durling v. Lawrence
Dymond v. Croft
Dyson v. Pickles
i-:.
Eade v. Jacobs . . . . 49
Eden v. Naish .... 4
Edmunds )••. Attorney-General . . 4
Edwards v. Edwards . . . 6, 63
Egremont Burial Hoard v. Egremont
Iron Ore Co. . . . . 50
Elam v. Vaughan . . .26
Eldridge v. Burgess . . 27, til
" Elijah Packer "... 84
Ellis v. Ambler . . . . 47
v. Munson . . . . :'.4
Emma Silver Mining Co. U.Grant 60, 82
English r. Tottie . . . . 51
Etty r. Wilson .... 63
Evans, Ex parte . . . . <i
V. Buck .... 22
' v. Puleston . . . . 92
Evelyn r. Evelyn ... 33
v. Hughes .... 3
Paithfoli 'â– . Ewen . . . 71
Pardon's Vin garGo., Bxparte . 77
Paund v. Wallace . . . . 64
Field V. Field .... 90
— p. Great Northern Railway Co. 83
XIV
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
PAGE
Finlay v. Davis .
,
39
H.
Rinney v. llinile
29,
7 -J
.
19
H. v. H
5
Fleming o. Manch
& Sheffield
Hagg v. Darley
41
Railway Co. .
9
Hall y. Eve
40
Flower v. Lloyd
75,
81
Hamer v. Giles
71
Forres! v. Davis .
94
Hamilton y. Davies
15
52
II imilton & Co. y. Johnson i: Co.
66
•
38
Hanco sk r. Guerin
47
y. 1! berts .
65
y. Lablache
24
Fox '•. Wallis
94
Hankins v. Turner
81
Fraser y. Burrows .
' 4,
52
Hanmer v. Flight .
67
l v. Loe
60
Harbord v. .Monk
47
Freeman v. i lox
54,
92
Harris y. Aaron
76
' i
&
w. Fleming
10
Dover I! lilwav Co.
51
v. Gamble .
35,
58
Fritz v. Hobson .
67
r. Owners of " Franconia '
16
Fryer a. Royle
25
v. Petherick
83
Furn ss v. Booth
30
v. Wane .
Harrison y. Bottenheim .
v. Wearing
Harry v. Davey
36
21
87
29
G.
1 [artley y. Dilke . â–
v. Owen
14
53
Cm \tti !>,
84
Hasker, Tn re
78
Garbett y. Fawcus
4
lie
74,
75
(Gardner, /« re
,
92
Halo y. Snelling .
45
y. Irvin
52
Hawksley v. Bradshaw .
39,
4:5
Garni 1 .Brad] iy .
8:3
Hawley y. Reade .
47
â–
Ii
Heap y. Marris
4:!
Gather cole y. Smith
74
y. Hates .
! 4, 6
22
Hennessy v. Bohmann, &c, & Co
5,
49
i ii here .
49
Hetherington v. Longrigg
07
ii Financial A
1 :-u Ii y. < bamberlain .
43
ciation
94
Higginbotbam v, Aynsley .
37
44
Gilbert v. V.
.
56
Higginson v. J Fall .
50
Smith
6 :
67
Higg 'â– . Scbrader
72
Gillott v. Kerr .
1 1
07
i: y. T •( herne
79
innibanta"
76
Hillman y. Maj bew . . 11
'n
,89
Gledhill v. H
32
Hill's Executors v. Managers
>f
Golding o. Wha
Co
43
Metropolitan A-; lum Di brici .
77
Graham y. Campbell
70
Hobb ''. Reid
25
.
Hoch y. Boor
'. 9
62
-Egyptienm
. • 1
y. Finch mi .
70
y. Holland
6
y. Hodges
37
â– Australian
Mining
Co
Ho ! ; "0 y. Fox
l 1
/â– . Martin
16
Hod on '}. Mochi .
35
39
i, y. York •
33
â– by .
37
Holmes v. II- n y
59
— - y. Pratt
24
Unit ?•. Jesse ....
8
r. Serin
35
Ho r v. Oylei
86
Cirili
86
Honduras tnti f- 1 (ceanic Railwt
y
r. Allen .
78
Co. v. Tucker .
23
Grills v. Dillon
81
Hool K Ind, < loope, & Co.
33
TABLE OF CASES.
\\
PAGE
39
1-1
11
Hoole a. Earnahaw .
Hopewell v. Barnes
Horwell v. London General I >]
Co
Hoskins' Trusts, In re .
Houseman w. I [ouseman .
Huckwell, In re .
Hnggons v. Tweed .
Hughes v. Mel ropolitan Railwaj Co
Humphreys v. Edwards
Hunt v. City of London Real Pro
perty Co.
Hunter v. Hunter
r. Young
Hutchins v. Glover
I! fde '". V\ arden
I.
International Fix w i w, Society
v. City of Moscow Gas Co. . 79
[reland, Ex parte ... 79
Irlam v. Trlam . . 54, 96, 97
Is:en-<, Ex parte . . . .81
Ivory, In re . . . 81
60, 62
75
30
51
til
Jacksox o. North Eastern Railway
Co. .
James v. Crow
Jenkins v. I 1
r. Morris
.'nil ,-. Job .
Johnasson ». Bonhote
Johns ''. Jam
Johnson v. Smith .
Jones, In re
v. Baxter
V. Chennel
0. .lollrs
r. Monte Video I ; :i- Co
ue, Ex partt .
Juill o. Green
" Julia Fisher "
Jnpp v. Cooper .
Justice o. Mersey Steel and Iron I !o
Kain c. Farrer
62,
51
PAGH
r. Phillips
•_'7
Kendall v. Hamilton .
25
Kelly v. Byles
7'i
King r. Corke
43
v. Davenport .
II. 96
/'. Sandeman
61
Kingchurcb y. People 3 Gard a Co
4
Kiie) r. Rudkin .
26
Kirkwood v. Webster
77
Knatchbull v. Fowler .
54
Knight v. Pursell .
87
Krehl >\ Burrell .
63
L.
La Grange v. McAndrew . . 44
" Lake. Mefantic " . . SO
Laming v. Wee .... 11
Landore Si-men Steel Co., In re . 90
Langley, //' a: . . 68
Langrid je v. < lampbell . . 39
Lascelles v. Butt . . .57, 62
" Laurella " . . . .76
Law renee, In re . 78
Lawrenson v. Dublin Metropolitan
Junction Railway Co. . . 15
Le Blanch v. Reuter's Telegraph
Co 8
Leo u. Xuft.ill . . . 11, 81
Lee Conservancy Board v. Button . 77
Pa â– 1 1 . . . 35
Lewis v. Nobbs . ' . . .24
Liberia R public of) ». Roye . 50
Little's Case . . . . . 74
Litton v. Litton ... 40, 67
Lloyd, In re . . . . • 6
r. Dimmack . . 23, 29
r. .lours . . . 59, 90
v. Lewis .... 65
Lloyd, Allen & Lloyd, In re . . 6
Lloyd's Banking Co. v. Ogle . . 20
63
London Joint Stock Hank v. Alder-
men of London . . . 7-
London Joinl Stock Bank v. Mayor
of London . . . . 7*2
London and Provincial Maritime
Insui.i Dai ies . 47
London Syndicate v. Lord . 5 1, '-'1
I ottom, Ex parte ... 8
Longman v, Basl . . . 9, 62
â– -. Lowe .... 63
61
XVI
TABLE OF CASES.
Luckie, In re ....
Luke v. South Kensington Hotel
Co
Lumli r. Whiteley
Lydall v. .Martinson
Lyon v. Twedddl . .
PAGE
16
25
98
61
49
M.
McAllister v. Bishop of Rochester 31.50
McAndrew v. Barker 9, 33, 63, 79, 80
McCorqaodale v. Hell . . 50, 51
MacDonald o. Cairington . . 32
v. Foster . . . 7, 97
McPhail v. Lowder ... 17
Machu r. (('Connor . . 77
Mackley v, Chillingworth . . 86
Manchester and Milford Railway
Co., //* re .... 6
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln
Railway Co. v. l'.rooks . . 22
Mansfield v. Childerhouse . . 4'.)
Maples v. Masini . . . . 33
Marner o. Bright . . .4, 30
Marriott v. Marriott . 42
Marsden v. Lancashire and York-
shire Railway ( !o. . . 83
Martano v. Mann . . 23
Martin r. Bannister . . .10
v. Gale . . 67
Mason v. Brentini ... 34
V. Wirral Highway Board . 72
Massey v. Allen . . 84
■•. Ex parte ... 77
Matthews v. Whittle . . . 32
May v. Head .... 61
Mayer V, Murray . . . . 11
Melloi v. Den ham ... 3
v. Bidebotham . . . 67
Mercantile Mntoal Insurance Co. v.
naith .... 47
Mercer 9 Co., Ex parte . . . 83
â– v. Cotton ... 47
iolitan A. \luni District v.
Hill .'.... 8
iolitan Bank o. Heiron . 63
Metropolitan Board of Works v.
New River Co. . . . 95
I t ,n Inner Circle Railway
o. Metropolis in Railway
58
Metropolitan Rail De-
fries 12
PAGE
Meyrick v. James ... 56
Michell r. Wilson . . . . 61
Michell's Trusts, In re . . 79
Mid.lleton v. Pollock . . . 27
Millard v. Burroughes ... 88
Mills V. Jennings . . . . 23
Millissich v. Lloyd's ... 66
Minton v. Metcalf . . . . 33
Molloy v. Kilby 48
Morgan v. Elford . . . . 82
Morton v. Miller .... 32
Mostvn v. West Mostyn Coal and
Iron Co 3, 7
Muirhead v. Direct United States
Cable Co 20
Mullins v. Howell . . . . 93
Murr v. Cooke .... 9
Mycock r. Beatson . . 31
Myers v. Defries . . . .83
N.
Nagle-Gillman v. Christopher . 57
Nathan v. Batchelor ... 40
National Funds Assurance Co.,
In re . . . 78, 80
\a\ Lor r. Farrer .... 34
Neale v. Clarke . . . 9, 33
Nelson, Ex parte ... 73
New British Mutual Investment Co.
v. Peed . . . 51
New River Co. v. Midland Railway
Co so
New Westminster Brewery Co. v.
Hannah . . . 54
Newbiggin-by-the-Sea Gas Co. v.
Arms! rong . . . 11, 14
Newcoraen v. Coulson . . .46
Newell v. Provincial Bank of Eng-
land 3, 35
Noad v. Murrow .... 36
Nobel's Explosive Co. v. Jones, &c. 42
Noel v. Noel . . . .23, 24
Norris v. Beazley . . .27
o] i bampton ( !oal and Iron Co. v.
Midland Waggon Co. . 42, 84, 85
Northumberland 'Duke of) v. Todd 56
Norton r. Florence Land, &c, Co. 16
r. London & North-Western
Railway Co. . . 79
N Cra ley . . 41
Nurse V. Duruford . . .14