Page images
PDF
EPUB

21 at 2, County Court of Staffordshire, at Oldbury.-Silvanus Watkins, Hereford, out of business, March 4 at 10, County Court of Herefordshire, at Hereford.-George Bishop, Aylesford, Kent, carrier, March 2 at 12, County Court of Kent, at Maidstone.-William Cole, Tenterden, Kent, bricklayer, Feb. 24 at 11, County Court of Kent, at Tenterden.-William Farrall, Bebbington, Cheshire, baker, Feb. 20 at 10, County Court of Cheshire, at Birkenhead.-John Fisher, Newarkupon-Trent, Nottinghamshire, butcher, March 6 at 11, County Court of Nottinghamshire, at Newark.

The following Persons, who, on their several Petitions filed in the Court, have obtained Interim Orders for Protection from Process, are required to appear in Court as hereinafter mentioned, at the Court-house, in Portugal-street, Lincoln's Inn, as follows, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:

-

March 3 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIOner. William Gardner, Providence-place, York-road, Lambeth, Surrey, assistant to a hosier.-Frances M. Crowley, Brunswick-place, Hammersmith, Middlesex, private governess.Wm. Girdlestone, Great Suffolk-st., Borough, Surrey, oil and colour man.

the younger, Truro, Cornwall, gardener: in the Gaol of St. Thomas the Apostle.-Joseph Lamb, Chelveston-cum-Caldecott, near Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire, in no business: in the Gaol of Northampton.-George Wills, Dover, Kent, clerk to an attorney: in the Gaol of Dover.-Nathaniel Bell, Macclesfield, Cheshire, silk manufacturer: in the Gaol of Chester.-George Grundy, Salford, Lancashire, butter dealer: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-William Hayward, Inkpen, near Hungerford, Berkshire, in no trade: in the Gaol of Reading. -Thomas Moss, Leeds, Yorkshire, general dealer in the Gaol of York.-John Parker, Worcester, dealer in tea in the Gaol of Worcester.-Richard Pool, Canterbury, Kent, boot closer: in the Gaol of Canterbury.-James Rogers, Pontypool, Monmouthshire, licensed victualler: in the Gaol of Monmouth. J. Baker, Mayfield, Sussex, bailiff: in the Gaol of Maidstone.-Charles Solomon Couves, Gravesend, Kent, newsagent in the Gaol of Maidstone.-John Hayward, Dartford, Kent, solicitor and attorney-at-law in the Gaol of Maidstone.-Thos. Darton, Seaham Harbour, Durham, sailmaker: in the Gaol of St. Thomas the Apostle. Richard Tonks Muckle, George-st., Woolwich, Kent, stationer: in the Gaol of Maidstone.—Joseph Mitchell the younger, Ossett, near Wakefield, Yorkshire, cloth manufacturer: in the Gaol of York. -Wm. Saxby, Edenbridge, Kent, land surveyor: in the Gaol of Maidstone.-George Hewitt, Heigham, Norfolk, ironwick, labourer in the Gaol of Warwick.-John D. Ranson, St. Ive's, Huntingdonshire, out of employment in the Gaol of Huntingdon.-Richard Banks, Hindley, near Wigan, Lancashire, retail dealer in ale: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-Jas. Greenslade, Blackmore Cliff, Bampton, Devonshire, farmer: in the Gaol of St. Thomas the Apostle.-Thos. Underwood, Bristol, warehouseman: in the Gaol of Wilton.-Robert Gowland, New Cassop, Durham, publican: in the Gaol of

:

March 3 at 10, before Mr. Commissioner Law. Charles Weight, High-st., Marylebone, Middlesex, oil and founder: in the Gaol of Norwich.-Samuel Potter, War

Italian warehouseman.

Saturday, Feb. 14.

The following Assignees have been appointed. Further particulars may be learned at the Office, in Portugal-st., Lincoln's-inn-fields, on giving the Number of the Case. Wm. Stevenson, Brimsworth, near Rotherham, Yorkshire, miller, No. 74,479 C.; Richard Baxter, assignee.-John Stevenson, Rotherham, Yorkshire, bookkeeper, No. 74,478 C.; Richard Baxter, assignee.-Michael Heming, Stoney Bridge, Bellbroughton, Worcestershire, farmer, No. 74,358 C.; Edw. Mackeson, assignee.-William Wilson, Hartlepool, Durham, grocer, No. 74,515 C.; James Davison, assignee.-G. Willis, High-st., Poplar, Middlesex, shoemaker, No. 42,141 T.; John Carter, new assignee, in the room of John August Weiblitz, deceased.

Saturday, Feb. 14.

Orders have been made, vesting in the Provisional Assignee the Estates and Effects of the following Persons:(On their own Petitions).

Robert Woodcock, High-st., Kensington, Middlesex, tailor: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-M. G. Smith, Great James-st., Bedford-row, Middlesex, attorneyat-law: in the Queen's Prison.-Joseph Manuel, Farmer-st., Shadwell, Middlesex, mariner: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Edwin Wickham, Long-lane, West Smithfield, London, brewer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-William Puddicombe, Windsor-place, Southwark-bridge-road, Surrey, clerk to wholesale ironmongers: in the Gaol of Horsemonger-lane.-Alfred Parr, London-road, Southwark, Surrey, dealer in music: in the Queen's Prison.-John Potter, Guildford-place, Lower Kenningtonlane, Lambeth, Surrey, clerk to an attorney: in the Queen's Prison. -William Jennings, Fore-street, Cripplegate, London, maltster: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Francis Dinsdale, Lower Queen-street, Rotherhithe, Surrey, assistant to a licensed victualler: in the Gaol of Horsemonger-lane.-John Richards, Margate, Isle of Thanet, Kent, grocer in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-George Brown, Jermyn-street, St. James's, Middlesex, tailor: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.Wm. Hayhow, Holderness-terrace, South Lambeth, Surrey, carver and gilder: in the Gaol of Horsemonger-lane.-James Butcher, Lower Marsh, Lambeth, Surrey, beer-shop keeper: in the Gaol of Surrey.-Wm. Key, Kirby-st., Hatton-garden, Middlesex, printer: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-George Hester, Spring-gardens, Elizabeth-st., Pimlico, Middlesex, maltster: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Wm. Davis, Bell-alley, Moorgate-st., London, chimney sweeper: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-Benjamin Brand, Duke-street, Spitalfields, Middlesex, mariner: in the Debtors Prison for London and Middlesex.-John Sykes, Lancaster, retail beer seller: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-John Pendlebury, Aspull, near Wigan, Lancashire, hatter: in the Gaol of Lancaster.-T. Lakeman

Durham.

The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before the Court, in Portugal-street, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:—

March 2 at 11, before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER. George Stride, Windsor-place, Southwark-bridge-road, Surrey, out of business.-Wm. Woodger, Aldersgate-street, fields, Middlesex, coachsmith.-James Welch the younger, London, farrier.-David Terras, Mansell-st., Goodman'sPratt-st., Camden-town, Middlesex, bricklayer.

March 4 at 11, before Mr. Commissioner PHILLIPS. John Augustus Payne, High Holborn, Middlesex, out of business.

The following Prisoners are ordered to be brought up before a Judge of the County Court, to be examined and dealt with according to the Statute:—

At the County Court of Kent, at MAIDSTONE, March 2

at 12.

[blocks in formation]

Cheltenham, chemist.
Thomas Ryland, Cheltenham, stonemason.-John Tily,

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' DIVIDENDS. John J. Hood Lingard, Trinity-square, Southwark, Surrey, master in the Navy: 48. 7d. in the pound.-Henry Lockyer, Southampton, leather seller: 38.54d. in the pound.-John Fraser Walker, Featherstone-buildings, Holborn, Middlesex, attorney-at-law: 18. 34d. in the pound.-Allen Hurrell, Crown-court, Aldersgate-st., London, clerk in the General Post-office: 38. 04d. in the pound.-Richard Lewis, Trafalgar-square, Stepney, Middlesex, clerk in the General Register

[ocr errors]

-The DIVIDEND on SHARES for the Year 1851, at the rate

EQUITY and LAW LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY.
of 41. 10s. per Cent. free from income duty, is in course of payment
at the Office daily, Wednesdays excepted, between the hours of eleven
and two.
26, Lincoln's-inn-fields, Jan. 22, 1852.

and Record Office of Seamen: 48. 3d. in the pound.-Benj. Land, Greenwich, Kent, out of business: 74d. in the pound. Wm. Hutchison, Acre-lane, Brixton, Surrey, grocer: 58. 4d. in the pound. Joseph Pates the younger, Manor-place, King's-road, Chelsea, Middlesex, baker: 18. 24d. in the pound.-Thos. Alesworth, Liverpool, general dealer: 8s. 6d. in the pound.—Arthur W. Twiss, Charlton, Kent, lieutenant EQUITY and LAW LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY, in her Majesty's Artillery: 18. 34d. in the pound.-James Churchill, Suffolk-place, Hackney-road, Middlesex, fancy cabinet manufacturer: 38. 74d. in the pound.-Robert John Lemay, Arbour-square, Commercial-road East, Middlesex, clerk to a brewer: 8d. in the pound.

Apply at the Provisional Assignees' Office, Portugal-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London, between the hours of 11 and 3.

MASTERS IN CHANCERY.-The Lord Chancellor has appointed the following gentlemen to be Masters Extraordinary in the High Court of Chancery :-Thomas Smith Wykes, of Croydon, Surrey; William James Tucker, of Chard, Somersetshire.

LAW.-A Gentleman, lately admitted, who was articled in

an office of extensive practice in the West of England, wishes to obtain a SITUATION in an OFFICE with a good CONVEYANCING PRACTICE in the COUNTRY, with a view to a Partnership. Address, K. G., Godwin's Library, Milsom-street, Bath.

AMERICAN AGENCY IN LEGAL MATTERS,

NASSAU-STREET, NEW YORK.

IRVING PARIS, Solicitor, Notary Public, and Commissioner to take Depositions and certify all Legal Instruments:

For the Prosecution and Recovery of Claims, and for Collections ge

No. 26, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London.

TRUSTEES.

The Right Hon. Lord Monteagle.
The Right Hon. Lord Cranworth.
The Right Hon. the Lord Chief
Baron.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Coleridge.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Erle.
Nassau W. Senior, Esq., Master
in Chancery.

C. P. Cooper, Esq., Q. C., LL.D.,
F. R. S.

[blocks in formation]

Policies do not become void by the Life assured_going_beyond the prescribed limits, so far as regards the interest of Third Parties, provided they pay the additional. Premium so soon as the fact comes to their knowledge.

Parties assuring within Six Months of their last Birthday are allowed a diminution of Half-a-year in the Premium.

The Tables are especially favourable to young and middle-aged Lives, and the limits allowed to the Assured, without extra charge, are unusually extensive.

Eighty per Cent. of the Profits are divided at the end of every Five Years among the Assured. At the first division, to the end of 1849, the addition to the amount assured averaged above 501. per Cent, on the Premiums paid.

NEMO SIBI VIVAT.

DISEASED, DECLINED, AND HEALTHY LIVES ASSURED.

nerally, embracing Debts, Legacies, and Inheritances, in the United MEDICAL, LEGAL, and GENERAL MUTUAL LIFE

[blocks in formation]

A

London: Charles Knight, Fleet-street.

RATING OF RAILWAYS.

In 12mo., price 4s. 6d. boards,

SUMMARY of the LAW as applied to the RATING of RAILWAYS and other Undertakings, extending through several Parishes, with the Judgments in the Cases of the London, Brighton, and South-coast; the South-eastern; and the Midland Railway Companies, delivered February 22, 1851. And Notes of all the Cases hitherto decided by the Court of Queen's Bench on the subject of Railway Rating; and some Observations on the Practical Mode of assessing a Railway. By HENRY JOHN HODGSON, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law, Recorder of Ludlow.

"To shareholders and ratepayers, as well as to lawyers, the work before us will be found to be useful, and we can recommend it as being an extremely clear and accurate statement of the subject on which it professes to treat."-Jurist, No. 750, May 24, 1851.

Stevens & Norton, 26, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn.

POLLOCK'S COUNTY COURT PRACTICE.

Recently published, in 1 thick vol. 12mo., price 158. cloth boards,

THE PRACTICE of the COUNTY COURTS, in Six

Parts:-1. Proceedings in Plaints; 2. Jurisdiction under Friendly Societies Act; 3. Jurisdiction under Joint-stock Companies Winding-up Act; 4. Jurisdiction as to Insolvent Debtors; 5. Jurisdiction under Protection Acts; 6. Proceedings against Judgment Debtors; with the Decisions of the Superior Courts relating thereto; and Table of Fees; also an Appendix containing all the Statutes under which the County Court has Jurisdiction; a List of the Court Towns, Districts, and Parishes; and the New Rules of Practice and Forms; with an Index to the principal Matters and Cases referred to. By CHARLES EDWARD

POLLOCK, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.

S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane, London.
Of whom may be had,

CHITTY, JUN., ON CONTRACTS.

In one thick vol. royal 8vo., price 1. 11s. 6d. cloth boards,
A PRACTICAL TREATISE on the LAW of CON-
TRACTS NOT UNDER SEAL, and upon the usual Defences
to Actions thereon. By JOSEPH CHITTY, Jun., Esq. The Fourth
Edition, by J. A. RUSSELL, B.A., of Gray's inn, Barrister at Law.

[blocks in formation]

J. B. Parry, Esq., Q. C., Lincoln's-inn, (Chairman).

*G. H. Barlow, M. D., Guy's Hospital.

D. Cornthwaite, Esq., Old Jewry Chambers.

*F. J. Farre, M. D., F. L. S., St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

T. W. Greene, Esq., Lincoln's-inn.

Richard Jebb, Esq., Lincoln's-inn.

*J. C. W. Lever, M. D., Guy's Hospital.

*W. J. Little, M. D., London Hospital.

J. Parrott, Esq., Clapham-common.

*R. Partridge, Esq., F. R. S., King's College Hospital. *R. Quain, Esq., F. R. S., University College Hospital. R. Smith, Esq., Endsleigh-street.

F. T. White, Esq., Lincoln's-inn.

J. H. Whiteway, Esq., Lincoln's-inn-fields.

AUDITORS.

John Brown, Esq., Surgeon, Hammersmith.

G. Carew, Esq., Solicitor, Lincoln's-inn-fields.

F. W. Remnant, Esq., Solicitor, Lincoln's-inn-fields.
E. Ray, Esq., Surgeon, Dulwich.

BANKERS.-Messrs. Praed, Fane, Praed, & Johnston, 189, Fleet-street.
STANDING COUNSEL.

T. W. Greene, Esq., 9, New-square, Lincoln's-inn.
SOLICITORS.-Messrs. Pooley, Beisley, & Read, 1, Lincoln's-inn-fields.
SECRETARY.-Frederick J. Bigg, Esq., 126, Strand.

The Directors marked with an asterisk* are the Medical Examiners of the Society, one of whom is always in attendance on Mondays at three o'clock, and on Thursdays at four o'clock.

POLICIES NEVER DISPUTED in the absence of wilful fraud. They are a sure and safe provision for settlements, renewal of leases, security for debts, &c.

ENTIRE NET PROFITS divisible among the Assured Members.
POLICY STAMPS may be COMMUTED by a small annual payment.
MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS PAID by the Office for every case referred
to them for their professional opinion.

Every form of assurance at moderate rates.
Prospectuses, &c. will be forwarded free on application to
FREDERICK J. BIGG, Secretary.
126, Strand.

N.B.-London agents wanted.

Orders for THE JURIST given to any Newsman, or letter (dostpaid) sent to the Office, No. 3, CHANCERY-LANE, or to STEVENS & NORTON, 26 and 39, BELL-YARD, LINCOLN'S-INN, will insure its punctual delivery in London, or its being forwarded on the evening of publication, through the medium of the Post Office, to the Country.

Printed by HENRY HANSARD, PRINTER, residing at No. 14, Park Square, Regent's Park, in the Parish of St. Marylebone, in the County of Middlesex, at his Printing Office, situate in Parker Street, in the Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, in the County aforesaid; and Published at No. 3, CHANCERY LANE, in the Parish of St. Dunstan in the West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAW BOOKSELLER and PUBLISHER, residing at No. 41, Great Coram Street, in the Parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, in the County of Middlesex.-Saturday, February 21, 1852.

[graphic]

No. 790-VOL. XVI. FEBRUARY 28, 1852.

Price 1s., with Supplement, 2s.

NAMES OF THE CASES REPORTED IN THIS NUMBER.
COURT OF CHANCERY.

Hickling v. Boyer.-(Will-Construction - Specific
Legatee of Leaseholds liable for Dilapidations).. 137
COURT OF APPEAL IN CHANCERY.

Ex parte Bowers, in re Bowers.-(Bankruptcy Law
Consolidation Act, 1849- Form of Protecting
Order under Trader-Debtor Arrangement Clauses) 139
ROLLS COURT.

[blocks in formation]

VICE-CHANCELLOR PARKER'S COURT.
Great Northern Railway Company v. Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company and
Others. (Injunction-Agreement between two
Railway Companies of a permanent Character) 146
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

[ocr errors]

Re James Hall v. Norfolk Estuary Company.-(Deed of Transfer of Shares, Call unpaid-8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, s. 16)

Driscoll v. Whalley.-(Judgment as in Case of Nonsuit-Affidavit)

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

South-eastern Railway Company v. Richardson.-(Costs of Compensation Inquiry-8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, ss. 51, 68)..

149

150

VICE-CHANCELLOR TURNER'S COURT. Crosse v. Lawrence-Crosse v. Keene.-(Vendor and Purchaser-Copyholds intermixed with Freeholds -Timber).......

151

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

142

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

VICE-CHANCELLOR KINDERSLEY'S COURT. Hambrook v. Smith.-(Pleading-Exceptions-Discovery-Forfeiture)...

LONDON, FEBRUARY 28, 1852.

[blocks in formation]

The language of the Engraving Acts, the 8 Geo. 2, c. 13, and the 7 Geo. 3, c. 38, is peculiar. The 8 Geo. 2, c. 13, In a very recent case before Vice-Chancellor Parker, refers only to inventing, designing, engraving, etching, not yet reported, it was held that wood-cuts, or, as or working in mezzotinto or chiaro oscuro; the 7 Geo. 3, they are sometimes called, wood engravings, printed c. 38, uses the same language. The 2nd section of the on the same sheet as the letter-press of a book, are 8 Geo. 2, c. 13, making it lawful for purchasers to print not within the Engraving Act, 8 Geo. 2, c. 13, so as engravings in which there is copyright, speaks only of to require the name of the proprietor and the date of purchasers of any plate or plates for printing. It is publication to be printed at the foot of the print, but submitted that this language is not applicable to prints are part of the book, and are, as such, the subject of produced by means of carving blocks of wood, the recopyright; and his Honor accordingly granted an in-sult of which mode of carving is not to produce anyjunction to restrain the infringement of such copyright. The subject is one of very considerable importance, inasmuch as there are now innumerable works published, in which the prints are what are termed wood cuts or wood engravings, and are printed on the same sheet as the letter-press; and in such works it has been almost the invariable practice of publishers not to put the date of publication at the foot of the prints. Unless, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor's decision is right, there is a very large amount of valuable literary property, or supposed property, wholly without protection; and that being so, it is very reasonable to expect that the subject will have to undergo discussion at law before it is settled.

[blocks in formation]

thing coming within the description of designing, etching, or working in mezzotinto or chiaro oscuro; nor can it with any degree of common accuracy be said that the Legislature, in speaking of a plate for printing, meant a block of wood; for-and on this sort of question the practical differences between two arts are not immaterial-it must be borne in mind, that engraving, in the ordinary sense of the term, and carving in wood, are quite different processes. In the one-that is, métal engraving-the figure to be printed is formed by the parts hollowed out by the graving instrument; in the other, the figure to be printed is formed by the surfaces left prominent, all between them being cut out: so that the mechanical operation of wood-cutting is not engraving at all; still less is it etching, which consists in producing the destruction, to a certain depth, of a portion of the metal plate, by means of some acid or mordant. Bearing also in mind, that at the time when the acts of the 8 Geo. 2 and 7. Geo. 3 were passed, none but prints of the rudest and coarsest kind were ever produced by wood-cutting, and so that, in fact, the protection of wood-cuts was not likely to

be thought of, it is submitted that the Engraving Acts do not, either in terms or in spirit, extend to prints from carved wood—that is, to what are technically as well as popularly called wood-cuts. Now, assuming that to be so, the next step is to inquire what is the effect of the Copyright Acts upon the copyright in wood-cuts. The old Copyright Act, 8 Anne, gave, as is well known, copyright in "books." The case of Donalson v. Becket (4 Burr. 2408; 2 Bro. P. C. 145) decided, that, at common law, an author had copyright in his works, and that the statute of Anne took away that right, substituting for it the statutory right. Now, though that case immediately concerned literary composition, and not the composition of printed figures produced by carving wood, yet the reasoning of the case applies equally to the latter, as a production of the mind; and it is submitted that that case would be an authority to shew that, at common law, the author of a drawing carved out of wood, and reproduced by printing, would have copyright in it. If so, then formerly the 8 Anne, and now the act of Victoria, which is substituted for it, would have one of two effects-either it would include wood-cuts under the general term of books*, and then would give in them the statutory copyright; or it would not include them, and then, if it did not include them, it would not destroy the common-law right: so that, assuming designs carved in wood not to be within the Engraving Acts, they are the subject of copyright, either within the meaning of and subject to the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, or at common law. Of course, on a point so untouched by authority before the decision of Vice-Chancellor Parker, all arguments must be more or less inconclusive; and we merely, therefore, throw out the above views for the consideration of our readers.

Correspondence.

PROFITS WITHOUT LIABILITY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE JURIST."

SIR,-After reading your very clear exposure of the absurdity of Lord Eldon's dictum in Ex parte Hamper, I was rather disappointed to find that you acquiesced in his Lordship's assertion, that the unintelligible proposition is part of the law of England. That it was not law up to the moment when that dictum was uttered is certain, (see Collyer on Partn. 24; Bisset on Partn. 13), for the cases "clearly settling" the distinction so much regretted by Lord Eldon never existed but in his Lordship's imagination. That it was not made law by what was said and done in Ex parte Hamper will appear from a statement of the case. Separate commissions of bankruptcy had issued against Rogers and Thomas, and Thomas had obtained his certificate, which lay before the Lord Chancellor for allow

ance.

A joint commission then issued, and the joint creditors, with a view to supersede the separate commissions, presented a petition to stay the certificate. This was opposed by Thomas, who denied that there was any partnership to support a joint commission, or any joint property-the goods consigned to Thomas at lading having been originally purchased by Rogers with bills

*There is not wanting authority for including designs, to be reproduced by printing, within the statute of Anne. See the case of Bach v. Longman, (Cowp. 523), in which Lord Mansfield intimated that hieroglyphics would be within the act.

drawn by him. It was admitted that Thomas was personally liable to the partnership creditors, and the only question was as to the ownership of the property sought whether the admitted personal liability gave the joint to be administered under the joint commission, and creditors a preferential claim on the goods which formed the subject of the joint adventure. There was an express agreement to share the profits, and of course it was not suggested that anything turned on the nicety right to a sum equal to a share of the profits. But Lord of the distinction between a share in the profits and a Eldon was not in the habit of confining his remarks to the matter in hand; and Mr. Vesey tells us, that in the course of conversation his Lordship said, "They may clearly agree that all the property shall be the property of one exclusively, but that the other shall participate ther to this nicety,-upon a distinction so thin, that I in the profit arising from it. The cases have gone furcannot state it as established upon due consideration,that if a trader agrees to pay another person for his labour in the concern a sum of money, even in proportion to the profits, that will not make him a partner; tion to he but if he has a specific interest in the profits themis the consequence of that as to third persons." His selves, as profits, he is partner. Another consideration Lordship was here plainly speaking of the constitution of partnership between the parties; and the distinction stated by him to be thin seems to be perfectly sound and satisfactory. It is a rule of construction merely. As between themselves the parties may agree either to be or not to be partners. If they agree in so many words, there is no question: if their agreement is silent on the point, the intention must be made out by inference; and an intention not to be partners may well be inferred where the parties take the trouble to stipulate that the remuneration of one of them shall be, the profits. The remuneration will be the same in each not a share of the profits, but a sum fluctuating with case if profits are made; but the relative positions of the parties will be, as they were intended to be, very different in the two cases. The distinction is not thin, but substantial and reasonable. On a subsequent day his Lordship said, "Thomas is clearly a partner as to third persons; whether as between himself and Rogers is a very different consideration. The ground as to third persons is this-it is clearly settled, though I regret it, that if a man stipulates that as the reward of his labour he shall have, not a specific interest in the business, but a given sum of money, even in proportion to a given quantum of the profits, that will not make him a partner; but if he agrees for a part of the profits as such, giving him a right to an account, though having no property in the capital, he is, as to third persons, a partner; and, in a question with third persons, no stipulation can protect him from loss. Upon the memorandum, therefore, and the letters in this case, there is no doubt that Thomas would be liable." Here we have what two days before was stated to be the test of partnership inter se, now used, by way of contrast, as a test of liability as a partner to creditors. The first remark suggested by this dictum is, that it does accurately state the test of partnership inter se, although his Lordship, contradicting his former remark, said that that was a very different consideration. An agreement to share profits certainly does constitute a partnership as between the parties, even though it be coupled with a special agreement that one party shall bear all the loss. (Gilpin v. Enderby, 5 B. & Al. 954; Bond v. Pittard, 3 M. & W. 357). The dictum appears still more inexplicable when the facts of the case are considered. Not only was there no stipulation against a partnership or community of profit and loss, but the parties in their correspondence styled themselves partners, and spoke of their house; and, according to the report in 1 Rose, 89, (nom. Ex parte

Rowlandson), there was an express stipulation to share profit or loss.

The dictum in Ex parte Hamper was not founded on any previous decision, and it has not since been acted on. Mr. Begbie, following Dr. Story, supposes that Lord Eldon relied principally on Waugh v. Carver (2 H. Bl. 235) and Grace v. Smith, (2 W. Bl. 998). But Waugh v. Carver merely decided that liability to creditors arises out of an agreement to share profits; and the point in Grace v. Smith was, that a fixed annuity to a retiring partner does not render him liable to new creditors. In Ex parte Langdale (18 Ves. 300) it was alleged that certain brewers stipulated with a publican that they should supply him with beer at 17s. per barrel above the market price, they paying half his rent; and Lord Eldon directed an issue to ascertain whether the agreement was for an interest in the profits. That case, therefore, is not in point. And Dry v. Boswell, (1 Camp. 329), which is often cited in connexion with Ex parte Hamper, is equally irrelevant. There the stipulation was for half of the gross earnings of a lighter, which Lord Ellenborough held was very different from a participation of profit and loss. This was followed in Pott v. Eyton, (3 C. B. 32), (when the Court erred in stating that in Ex parte Hamper, Lord Eldon acted on his dictum). See Barry v. Nesham, (3 C. B. 641).

Mr. Begbie seems to consider that his position is fortified by the weight of Dr. Story's authority; but that writer's reputation is rapidly declining, and even at its greatest height would scarcely have been sufcient to cover the extraordinary blunders which he has committed in his attempt to explain and justify Lord Eldon's doctrine. Whoever will take the trouble to examine the 100 pages devoted to this subject in Dr. Story's Commentaries on Partnership, will find that, in addition to the cases noticed above, the following are cited as being in point:-Withington v. Herring, (3 Nev. & P. 30); Ex parte Digby, (1 Deac. 341); Ex parte Hodgkinson, (19 Ves. 29); Saville v. Robertson, (4 T. R. 720); and Ex parte Gellar, (1 Rose, 297)— cases in which the existence of a partnership was never questioned: and also the following cases, in each of which the question was solely as to the existence of a partnership as between the parties themselves:-Hesketh v. Blanchard, (4 East, 144); Smith v. Watson, (2 B. & Cr. 401); Dixon v. Cooper, (2 Wils. 40); Benjamin v. Porteus, (2 H. Bl. 590); Gibbons v. Wilcox, (2 Stark. 45); Ex parte Watson, (19 Ves. 461); Green v. Burley, (2 Scott, 164); Mair v. Glennie, (4 Mau. & S. 240); Perrot v. Bryant, (2 Y. & C. 61); Cheap v. Cramond, (4 B. & Al. 663); Meyer v. Sharpe, (5 Taunt. 74); Farrant v. Copeland, (2 Bing. 270); Peacock v. Peacock, (2 Camp. 45); Coppard v. Page, (Forr. 1); and Gilpin v. Enderby, (5 B. & Al. 954). After this ment I shall be excused from discussing Dr. Story's commentary on Ex parte Hamper.

before the announcement of the Steam Gondola Company in 1852.

It is almost superfluous to test Lord Eldon's dictum by a reference to the foundation of the rule, that participation in profits involves liability to losses. The reason commonly given for that rule, that he who takes a part of the profits takes from the creditors a part of that fund which is the proper security to them for the payment of their debts, (per Eyre, C. J., in Waugh v. Carver, 2 H. Bl. 235), is not very satisfactory; for, until the creditors are paid or provided for, there are no profits; so that he who shares the profits comes in after the creditors, and not in competition with them. But he who is paid, according to Lord Eldon's distinction, a remuneration proportional to a share of the profits, if he is not a partner, comes in as a creditor, and, if his claim is not promptly discharged as it arises, may, by enforcing it after a reverse has happened, diminish the fund which ought to be applied for the benefit of subsequent creditors. The true ground of the rule appears to be, the expediency of discouraging that kind of speculation in trade which would prevail if the credit which the possession of skill or capital naturally attracts were allowed to be made use of for the purpose of realising large profits to the possessor of the skill or capital, without involving him in corresponding liability. The relaxation of the usury laws has nearly deprived the rule of its efficacy, so far as capitalists are concerned; and the practical results of the change have been such as to justify the inquiry, whether, instead of adopting the French law of partnership, it would not be wiser, without returning to the absurd prohibitions of the old usury laws, to give to the ordinary creditors of persons in trade a priority over those whose claims are founded on loans at a rate of interest considerably above the market value of money. P. T.

Review.

An Essay on the New Statutes relating to Limitations of Time, Estates Tail, Dower, Descent, Operation of Deeds, Merger of Attendant Terms, Defective Execution of Powers of Leasing, Wills, Trustees, and Mortgagees. By Sir EDWARD SUGDEN. 8vo., pp. 493. [Sweet.]

SIR EDWARD SUGDEN explains that the foundation of this Essay was the chapter on the New Statutes in the treatise on Vendors and Purchasers, which, however useful in that work, when the new laws were but little known, no longer forms a fit portion of it, now that the decisions upon the act have become numerous and imstate-portant, as it would be inconsistent with the main object of the treatise to load it with the introduction of the points decided. We may add, that the section on the In confirmation of your remark, that Lord Eldon's Statute of Wills appears to contain all that is now intest, founded on the existence or non-existence of the teresting of the Essay on the Statute of Wills, which right to an account, is no test at all, the case of Katsch was published under the name of Mr. H. Sugden. But v. Schenck (13 Jur. 668) may be referred to, where the these materials form but a small proportion of the elabolate Vice-Chancellor, without deciding whether a part-rate work before us, which, with the exception of a nership existed or not, held, that the remedy of the plaintiff must be the same in either view, because he had an interest to know what was the amount of profits.

reprint of the Trustee Act, 1850, consists entirely of commentary. The commentary on the Statute of Limitations (3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 27) occupies 158 pages.

We never could understand the doubt expressed by the Court of Common Pleas, in James v. Salter, (3 Bing. N. C. 344), as to the effect of the 3rd section of that act, and we are glad to observe that it is not sanctioned by Sir Edward, who pithily disposes of the doubt by observing that the devisee of a particular estate, or a rent newly limited by the will of the owner of the fee, "may fairly be considered to claim the estate or in'terest of a deceased person who continued in possession respect of the same estate or interest until his

No question is more frequently put to a commercial lawyer than the question, by what device may a capitalist, a person having skill, or a person having influence, be enabled to participate in the profits of a business without becoming liable for its losses; and if there were any element of soundness and practicability in the doctrine laid down by Lord Eldon in 1811, it is no disparagement to Mr. Begbie's ingenuity to say, that it must have produced some practical result long'in

« PreviousContinue »