66 sities will be men whose culture and experience as teachers will correct any tendency to make the school a mere school for practitioners. The Association has shown its wise determination to associate the law teaching of the Universities with its own, by providing in the suggested heads, that 'every person who has obtained a degree in arts at any of the Universities of the United Kingdom shall be exempted from the necessity for passing any preliminary examination, and by giving the Senate power to relieve any person, who has satisfactorily passed an examination in law at any such University, from the necessity of passing the intermediate examination, and to shorten his course of study in London.” Although the Association expressly states in its circular that it is not pledged to any details, it will be clear to our readers that the sketch it has drawn up has been the result of much careful consideration. We think that it contains the outline of a scheme which, with some modification, will fulfil the purpose for which the Association has been formed. Without attempting to destroy any existing institution, it proposes to bring together and unite, forces already in operation, in a harmonious and consistent organisation. That it may prosper in its mission must be the wish of every Englishman who thinks that the study and the practice of our law should not remain a reproach amongst civilised nations. For, to quote the words of their circular, "it is only by means of the establishment of some such Law College or University as is here proposed, and the succession of teachers and writers which it would ensure, that we can hope to see arise in this country a School of Jurisprudence, worthy to be placed side by side with the great schools of France and Germany." 141 DIGEST OF SCOTCH DECISIONS ON GENERAL POINTS OF LAW. No. 1. 25 Nov., 1868.-Murray v. Eglinton Iron Company.41 Jurist, 93. LEASE REPARATION. A LEASE by the proprietor of a mansion house, whereby a mineral tenant was entitled to sink a pit in a field, and to have access to the field from the road to the mansion house. Held the tenant had use of the road only so far as not inconsistent with its use as the approach to the mansion house, and, therefore, iron rails ordered to be removed, and damages found due; but no damage allowed for injury to house or garden from smoke and vapour. Per Lord President (Inglis) "I cannot imagine that it was in the contemplation of parties that the tenants were to have the exclusive use of the road, leaving the lessor without an approach to the house." No. 2. 27 Nov., 1868.-Hamilton v. Emslee-41 Jurist, 98. AGENT'S LIABILITY. A CREDITOR was found liable in damages for an illegal because an excessive poinding (distraint) of his debtor's effects. The excess was intended to cover the landlord's preferable claim for rent. The creditor thereon brought an action of relief against his agent, who was assoilzied. Per Lord Deas-" A law agent accepting employment does not guarantee that the advice which he gives, or the opinion he expresses, to his client shall turn out to be sound or correct. As things stand, it is no doubt necessary for a client to take care whom he consults, and it is not an unwholesome result that caution should be necessary in that matter. On considerations of that kind the law, I apprehend, is quite fixed, that in giving his advice in ordinary circumstances, the law agent sufficiently discharges his duty if he gives that advice according to the best of his judgment, subject to this qualification only, that if his opinion. and advice be so grossly erroneous as to be altogether inexcusable in any man pretending to be capable of exercising the profession, he shall be held liable for the result." Lord Kinloch (the Ordinary) had held the agent liable. No. 3. 2 Dec., 1868.-McNiven v. Charlton-41 Jurist, 104. PARTNERSHIP. A PARTNERSHIP and a lease of the company's premises terminated at same time. Held, that one of the partners could not renew the lease in his own name without communicating with his partner, who was entitled to participate in the subsequent profits. Per Justice Clerk (Patton). "It appears to me perfectly plain that a partner, and especially a managing partner, who goes to the landlord, and, behind the back of his partner, obtains a new lease of the partnership premises, is not entitled to retain the profits of that lease for himself. It follows, as the natural result of the plainest principles of equity applied to such a case, that a partner so acting must communicate the benefit of the lease so obtained to the co-partner, the interests of which he was bound to have attended to. effect of refusing the remedy would be that a valuable interest in the co-partnery that of good will-would be destroyed, and a private benefit secured by an act grossly wrong in itself." The No. 4. 9th Dec., 1868.-Watson v. Wilson.-41 Jurist, 124. OBLIGATION-REAL BURDEN. A DISPOSITION was granted of part of an estate binding the disponee to a certain style of building, and which obligation the disponer bound himself to insert in all the dispositions of other portions of the same estate. The disponee built according to the plan, and now applied to prevent the disponer disposing of other portions of the estate without imposing the same burden on the disponees. Held, the dispensee had right to enforce the obligation. Per Lord Neaves —“If an owner in making a feuing arrangement, inserts in his conveyances a clause like this, the object of which is to secure the respectability of the neighbourhood, he is clearly bound by it. The feuar must be held to have accepted the conveyance and built his house on the faith of the superior's obligation, and he has therefore a jus quæsitum in the condition, and is entitled to say that the superior shall not violate it. It is conceivable, however, that cases may arise in which the enforcement of his right by the feuar might be ruinous and oppressive, as not being calculated to protect any legitimate interest on his part, and where accordingly this Court, under its equitable powers, might be induced to relax or modify the superior's obligation. For example, it may, at some time or other, be most expedient for all concerned that a church, or other public edifice, should be erected on some part of this considerable estate, or that some part of the ground should be permanently left vacant." No. 5. 5 Jan., 1869.-Clark v. Clark.-41 Jurist, 198, BILL-BANKRUPTCY. A BANKRUPT obtained his discharge on a composition under the Sequestration Statute. His brother ranked on a bill and concurred in the discharge. Afterwards the bankrupt, of his own will, granted his brother a bill for the original debt. The acceptor disputed its validity as granted without value and as a preference. The Court, on the authority of the law as laid down by Lord Mansfield, in Hawks v. Saunders (1 Cowp. 290), held the bill good. Per Lord Benholme-"In one sense it is true that the debt had been extinguished by the bankrupt's discharge; for it then ceased to be legally exigible. And there still remained, after the discharge, a moral obligation incumbent on the suspender, and that obligation will be recognised by law if it has been recognised and acted on by the debtor in it." No. 6. 12 Jan., 1869.-Drummond v. Winter.-41 Jurist, 203. LEASE-ACCIDENTAL FIRE. A LANDLORD let a shop for five years; but in consequence of an accidental fire, the tenant could not get possession until a fortnight after the term. Held, that the tenant was entitled to abandon the lease. The authority referred to was 3 July, 1815, Walker v. Bayne, House of Lords, 3 Dow, 233. No. 7. 14 Jan., 1869-Paul and Thain v. Royal Bank of Scotland.-41 Jurist, 209. BANKER-RETENTION. Held, that bankers were not entitled to retain cash deposited on open account to meet a current bill discounted by them, no special agreement being alleged, or statement that the customer was vergeus ad inopiam. Per Lord Ormidale-" It is established as a general rule that in ordinary circumstances, such as occur in the present case, a party is not entitled to withhold payment of a debt presently due by him in security of an acknowledged debt that possibly may become due to him at some future time. I am of opinion that the bank had at the date no right to retain the balance due by them in the deposit account, or to refuse payment of the cheque for that balance." 66 No. 8. 19 Jan., 1869.-Strickland & Co. v. Nalson and CHARTER-PARTY-RE-EXCHANGE. A VESSEL was chartered by the plaintiffs from the defenders to proceed to two foreign ports. At the first port the crew mutinied and were discharged. The captain agreed with the agents for the charterers to deviate from the charter-party, and the latter agreed to advance money to send on the passengers and cargo to the second port. The captain drew bills on the owners for the advances as necessary disbursements." The owners refused to honour the bills, and an action being brought thereon-Held, 1st, that the deviation from the charter-party not being necessary for the safety of the ship, was ultra vires of the captain, and the expenses, therefore, not recoverable; and, 2nd, that the owners were not liable for re-exchange, the captain having exceeded his authority in granting bills. Per Lord Barcaple "It is well settled law that, except in special cases, the captain alone has power to act for the owners as to the disposal of the ship, and that in order to authorise him to deviate from the voyage agreed on in the charter-party, there must be a case of necessity. A prospect of advantage will not justify such a proceeding. There must be an over-ruling necessity, arising either from it being impossible to carry out the original voyage, or from the certainty of great loss accruing to the owners in the event of the voyage being persisted in." "The claim of re-exchange is an unusual one in our Courts, and I know of no case in which effect has been given to it in our Courts. At the same time it is a well-known claim among merchants, which is recognised by the Courts in England, and to which we must give effect where it properly arises. It admittedly arises at the instance of an indorsee against an indorsor upon a bill being dishonoured. It has been decided, however, that there is no claim of this kind against acceptors on refusal to accept-for this reason, that supposing the drawees declined to accept without good ground, the claim of the payees against them could only be for the amount of the bills which they were bound to accept and pay and legal interest, any claim for re-exchange being against the drawers, who alone guaranteed that the bills would be honoured." No. 9. 20 Jan., 1869.-Cameron v. Morrison-41 Jurist, 223. BILL WHEN ISSUED. A BILL was sent by two acceptors to the drawer with the sum in figures at the upper corner-the words, "four months after date". the names and addresses of the acceptors and their signatures. The drawer filled up the remainder of the bill and dated it. Summary diligence was sought to be suspended because issued without a date. The Court repelled the objection, and held the bill was not issued until filled up by the drawer. Per Lord President (Inglis)"What is the issuing of a bill? It appears to me that it cannot take place before the bill has become a competent obligation; in other words, before it has become a bill and been issued as such." Per Lord Deas (dis.)—" The view I take of the matter is, that a bill is issued in the sense of the enactment when it passes, as this bill did, out of the hands of the obligor into the hands of the obligee-out of the hands of the debtor into the hands of the creditor, so that the grantor has no longer any power over it. At that time, undoubtedly, this bill was blank in the date." No. 10. 22 Jan., 1869.-City of Glasgow Union Railway RAILWAY COMPENSATION. A JURY awarded compensation for value of property taken, and for damage to remaining property by noise, &c. The Company sought to set aside the verdict as contrary to the Statute on several grounds, as to the mode the jury computed value. The Court assoilzied. |