gage in fee was made, giving the
legal title to the mortgagee, and
the mortgagor remained in posses-
sion; if the mortgagee were de-
sirous of obtaining possession, and
making his title absolute, he could
only do so by an action of eject-
ment, and the mortgagor could,
during the pendency of such action,
come in, and by payment of the
money obtain a compulsory right
of redemption; but if the mort-
gagor abandoned that right, and
the mortgagee obtained possession,

the title of the mortgagee became
absolute and indefeasible.

The Canada Act, 7 Will. IV., c. 2,

established a Court of Chancery,
in Canada, and gave, as appurte-
nant to such jurisdiction, an equi-
table right of foreclosure to mort-
gagees, and an equitable right of
redemption to mortgagors. Sec-
tion 11, of that Act, after reciting
that, as to questions between mort-
gagors and mortgagees, a strict
adherence to the rules established
in England might be attended with
injustice, gave to the Court, power
and authority, in all cases of mort-
gage, where, before the passing of
the Act, the estate had become
absolute in law, by failure in per-
forming the conditions, to make.
such order and decree in respect
to foreclosure or redemption, and
with regard to compensation for
improvements, and generally with
respect to the rights and claims of
the mortgagor and mortgagee, as
might appear just and reasonable

under the circumstances of the case.

Bill filed in 1840, for redemption of
a mortgage, executed in 1810.
Judgment had been recovered, in
an action of ejectment, by the
mortgagee against the mortgagor;
and under an execution issued upou
such judgment, the Sheriff, in the
year 1825, sold and conveyed the
equity of redemption to a person
who had acquired the legal fee
from the mortgagee. The pur-
chaser took possession of the estate,
and sold and leased various parts
of it, and large sums of money
were expended by him, and those
claiming through him, in building
and other permanent improve-
ments upon the estate, whereby the
property had greatly increased in
value. Held by the Judicial Com-
mittee, affirming the decree of the
Executive Council in Canada,-

First, That by the 11th section of the

Act, 7 Will., c. 2, the right to re-
deem was in the discretion of the
Court of Chancery in Canada; and
Secondly, That, the mortgagor having
abandoned possession, giving up
the legal estate without enforcing
his right of redemption, and the
subsequent dealings with the pro-
perty by the purchaser, and those
claiming under him, did not pre-
sent a case sufficient to justify the
Court of Chancery in Canada to
proceed to enforce the right of
redemption on the part of the
mortgagor, and that such right was
properly held to be absolutely
extinguished. [Smyth v. Simp-
son]

205

1. In cases of extension of the term
of Letters Patent, the Attorney-Ge-
neral represents the Government
and the public generally.
An application by the Lords of the
Admiralty to enter a caveat, and
be heard against a petition for an
extension, such caveat not having
been filed within the time re-
quired by the rules of the Privy
Council Office, refused, as the At-
torney-General was present to
watch the interests of the Govern-
ment.

Extension of Letters Patent granted

for five years; the invention being
of great merit and public utility,
but the patentee and his grantees
had received no remuneration, in
consequence of the originality of
the patent being disputed at law.
In granting such prolongation, the
Judicial Committee imposed a con-
dition, that the Commissioners for
executing the office of High Ad-
miral should have the right of
manufacturing such invention, for
the service of Her Majesty, with-
out any licence from the patentee.
[In re Pettit Smith's Patent] 133

2. An importer of a foreign inven-
tion, by which the public is bene-
fited, is entitled to be put on the
same footing as an original in-
ventor, when applying for a pro-
longation for such foreign importa-
tion.

-

187

In a case, therefore, where the in-
vention was of considerable com-
mercial value, and the importers
had embarked a large capital upon
machinery in trying to introduce
it to general use, and incurred
considerable loss in so doing; the
Judicial Committee recommended
an extension of the Letters Patent,
for six years. [In re Berry's Pa-
tent]
3. To entitle an equitable assignee
to appear with the legal assignees
of a Patent, on a petition for a pro-
longation of the Letters Patent,
the name of such equitable as-
signee must appear with the other
Petitioners, in the advertisements,
required by section 4 of the Sta-
tute, 5th and 6th Will. IV., c. 83,
and rule 2, made in pursuance
thereof. [In re Noble's Patent]

191

4. The importer of an invention

from abroad is an inventor within
the meaning of the Statute, 5 & 6
Will. IV., c. 83, and entitled to
apply for an extension of the

term.

But the Judicial Committee will look

with jealousy into the merits of the
invention imported.
Application for an extension, by the

Trustees of a Joint Stock Com-
pany (the assignees of the pa-

c. 125, s. 55, by reason of having
a licensed Pilot on board, to prove
that the damage was occasioned by
the fault of the Pilot.
The 6th Geo. IV., c. 125, only re-

lieves owners of vessels from lia-
bility for damages done by their
ship, where the damage is occa-
sioned by the fault, negligence, or
misconduct of the Pilot alone.
A ship, having a licensed Pilot on
board, whilst at anchor in the
Downs, the weather being bad,:
was run into by another vessel,
and made to start from her anchor-
age, and was driven into a vessel
at anchor. Held, that she was to
blame, and liable to damages, be-

cause,

First, the ship, notwithstanding the
bad weather, and a large number
of vessels lying wind-bound in the
Downs, had neglected to send
down her top-gallant and main-
royal yards, and also her short fore
and mizen-top-gallant masts; and
Secondly, that she did not see her
stay-sail and jib, and so drag her
anchor off shore.
In such circumstances, held (affirm-
ing the Decree of the Admiralty
Court), that the neglect to set the
stay-sail and jib after she was
driven from her anchorage, was the
fault of the Pilot alone; but that
the neglect in not sending down
the top-gallant masts, &c., the
cause of damage, was the joint
fault of the Pilot and Master, and
that the Owners were not exone-
rated by the Pilot Act, 6 Geo. IV.,
c. 125, s. 55.

When the vessel came to anchor in
the Downs, the duty of the Pilot
ended, but as he did not quit the
ship, she continued under his
charge. [Hammond v Rogers]

160

The owners of a vessel having a duly
licensed Pilot on board are pro-
tected by the Pilot Act, 6 Geo. IV.,
c. 125, s. 55, from liability for
damage solely occasioned by the
fault of the pilot.

Aliter. If the blame is mutually
imputable to the pilot, and master
and crew.

When a collision was occasioned by
the improper sailing and steering
of a vessel, the exclusive act of the
pilot, the owners of the vessel were
held (reversing the judgment of
the Court below) entitled to the
exemption provided by the Statute,
6 Geo. IV., c. 125, s. 55.
lok v. McAlpin]

PILOT ACT.

-

(6 Geo. IV., c. 125, s. 55.)
See "PILOT."

PLEADING.

[Pol-

427

1. Parties having separate and dis-
tinct interests were joined together
as co-plaintiffs. Held, that as no
objection, for misjoinder or multi-
fariousness, had been raised by the
answer, or at the hearing in the
. Court below, to the frame of the
Bill, it could not be taken upon
appeal.

Some of the Plaintiffs had died in

1

the course of the appeal, and the
suit had not been revived against
their representatives. In such
circumstances, the appeal was al-
lowed to be prosecuted in the name
of the surviving Plaintiffs, as this
Court is not disposed to give effect
to technical rules in pleading,
which would prevent justice being
done. [The Marchioness of Bute
v. Mason]
2. The rule in pleading "Qui ponit
fatetur," must be received with
some modification. It must be
rigidly enforced with respect to
every averment made by a party
alleging within his own personal
knowledge, but the same rule must
be applied, less stringently and in
some instances rejected, when the
party states facts not within his
personal knowledge. [Greville v.
Tylee]
820
3. Although there is not so much
strictness required in pleadings in
the Courts in the Isle of Man as
in England, yet where a declara-
tion in an action for deceit contains
specific averments of fraud, such
averments must be established by
proof, to entitle the Plaintiff to
recover. [Moore v. Clucas] 352

See "LIEN."
"NONSUIT."

POWER OF ATTORNEY.

Power to "sell, endorse, and as
sign."

See "PRINCIPAL and Agent," 2.