iously abstracted. It was held that the loss fell upon the gas company and that the customer was not bound to pay again.

Husband and Wife.]—The judgment in Morel Brothers v. Westmorland, 18 T. L. R. 599, noted 22 C. L. T. 263, as to the wife's authority to pledge the husband's credit, was reversed by the Court of Appeal, 19 T. L. R. 43, chiefly on the ground that the liability was a several liability of either husband or wife, and that having elected to sue the wife the plaintiffs could not also sue the husband.

Infant.]-The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Thurstan v. Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society, 18 T. L. R. 135, noted 22 C. L. T. 29, as to the liability of an infant on a mortgage, was affirmed by the House of Lords: 19 T. L. R. 54.

Insurance.]-The judgment in Stuart v. Freeman, 18 T. L. R. 511, noted 22 C. L. T. 210, as to the effect of payment of a premium for life insurance after the life had dropped, was reversed by the Court of Appeal: 19 T. L. R. 24. The Court of Appeal held that there was evidence to justify the finding that there was an implied right to thirty-one days of grace, and got over the difficulty of the death on the thirtyfirst day before the actual payment by the nice distinction that the payment in question was that of a quarterly instalment on a policy previously renewed for a year subject to payment of four quarterly instalments, and therefore not ipso facto terminated by the death. In re Williams and Lancashire, etc., Ins. Co., 19 T. L. R. 82, is an important decision in these days of employers' liability insurance. A policy of that nature provided that the employers should give "immediate notice to the company of any accident causing injury to a workman," and time was to "be deemed to be the essence of this condition." The accident in question happened on the 10th of October, and the notice proved (an alleged informal oral notice not being given effect to) was the forwarding to the company on the 4th of December of the formal demand for compensation served by the workman on the employers on the 1st of December. It was held that the

condition had been broken and that the employers could not obtain from the company indemnity against the compensation awarded to the workman. Compare with this Shera v. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, 32 O. R. 411.

Landlord and Tenant.]-The question in Jones v. Livington, 19 T. L. R. 77, was whether by agreeing to "let" premises the lessor impliedly covenanted for quiet enjoyment. The Court of Appeal, applying Baynes v. Lloyd, [1895] 2 Q. B. 610, held that at all events there was no implied covenant as against a title paramount-which was the case in judgment and evidently inclined to the view that there was no implied covenant even as to the lessor's acts. It was contended by the plaintiff that there had been by the lessor an oral warranty as to the permissible mode of user of the premises, eviction having taken place at the instance of the head landlord because of mis-user. This contention was held, however, not to have been made out, and in addition the Court pointed out that such a question could not be dealt with by collateral warranty, but was part of the subject matter of the contract.

Master and Servant.]-The judgment in the somewhat novel case of Lloyd v. Woodland Brothers, 18 T. L. R. 578, noted in some detail, 22 C. L. T. 264, was reversed by the Court of Appeal, 19 T. L. R. 32, that Court being of opinion that there was no evidence to justify the findings of the jury, especially the finding that the lift was defective because of the absence of an inner gate, based as it was entirely on a view of a plan of the lift in question. The importance of the pleadings and particulars in a case of this kind is indirectly emphasized, and there is a useful discussion of what must be made out to justify recovery.-Worthington Pumping Engine Co. v. Moore, 19 T. L. R. 84, is an interesting case as to the right of a servant to inventions made by him during the term of his employment in relation to the articles dealt in by the employers. Admitting the general principle that the mere existence of a contract of service does not per se disqualify a servant from taking out a patent for an invention made by him during his term of service, even though the invention may relate to subject matters germane to and useful for his

employers' business, Byrne, J., held that, having regard to the nature and scope of the defendant's employment, and the special trusts and duties imposed on him, he could not hold his patents as against his employers.

Municipal Corporations.]-The highway obstruction case of Bull v. Mayor, etc., of Shoreditch, has made a second appearance in the Court of Appeal: 19 T. L. R. 64. That Court had previously directed a new trial-18 T. L. R. 171, noted 22 C. L. T. 70-and now, reversing the judgment at the second trial, entered judgment for the plaintiff, there being, in the view of the Court, a breach of the defendants' duty to keep the road in repair, and therefore liability for the accident resulting from the plaintiff, in avoiding the part out of repair, driving into a heap of earth placed on another part of the road by other persons over whom the defendants had no control.-In Dublin United Tramways Co. v. Fitzgerald, 19 T. L. R. 78, another highway case, a tramway company were held liable in damages for an accident resulting from the slippery condition of the portion of the highway between the tracks, the company being bound (by special statute) to keep that portion" in good condition and repair."-Power to provide and maintain urinals "in proper and convenient situations," was held, in Leyman v. Hessle Urban District Council, 19 T. L. R. 73, not to justify the defendants in placing a urinal so near the plaintiff's premises, as to be, as was found on the evidence, a nuisance to him.

Partner.]-The judgment in Hamlyn v. John Houston and Co., 18 T. L. R. 631, noted 22 C. L. T. 265, holding a firm liable in damages because one of the partners had obtained by bribery information as to a rival business, was affirmed by the Court of Appeal: 19 T. L. R. 66. "A principal may be held liable for the fraud or other unlawful acts, and even the crimes of his agent, committed in doing something which was legitimately within the scope of his authority."

Power of Appointment.]—In re Lawley, Zaiser v. Lawley, 19 T. L. R. 8, is an unusual case as to the effect of exercising a power of appointment. The donee of a general power of appointing a fund by will attempted to exercise the power

in favour of a creditor; but it was held that the fund becameupon his death part of the general estate of the testator and applicable in payment of debts generally. The creditor took only, so the Court held, under the will, and his position was really that of a legatee taking the bounty of the testator.

Sale of Goods.]-The contract in question in Ryan v. Ridley and Co., 19 T. L. R. 45,—for the sale of perishable goods -provided that payment was to be made by cash in exchange for the shipping documents. It was held that this meant payment within a reasonable time (in a business sense) aftertender to the purchaser of the documents and that in default the vendor was entitled to re-sell and recover from the purchaser the loss on such re-sale.-Clarke v. Army and Navy Co-operative Society, 19 T. L. R. 80, was decided by the Court of Appeal on the far-reaching principle that a seller of goods. of a possibly dangerous character is bound to warn a purchaser, who does not himself know it, of the danger. The plaintiff purchased a tin of a preparation of lime, and owing to some defect in the tin some of the lime, when the tin wasopened, flew in her eyes. In the opening of other tins of the same consignment similar accidents had, to the defendants' knowledge, occurred, and they were mulcted in damages.

Service out of Jurisdiction.]-The Duc D'Aumale, 19 T. L. R. 42, 87, was an action for damages from collision between the plaintiffs' English vessel and the defendants" French vessel while the latter was in tow of an English tug. It was held that as there was a right of action against the owners both of the tug and of the vessel, the owners of the latter were proper parties, and service out of the jurisdiction of notice of the writ was allowed.

Solicitor.] The judgment of Kekewich, J., in Wright v. Carter, 18 T. L. R. 256, noted 22 C. L. T. 101, dismissing an action to set aside certain conveyances from client to solicitor, was reversed by the Court of Appeal, 19 T. L. R. 29, that Court being of opinion that the client had not the competent independent advice which is essential to the validity of such: a transaction.

Statute of Frauds.]-That "do"-for ditto-may be a sufficient signature (by auctioneer as agent) to satisfy the statute is the point decided in Reynolds v. Hooper, 19 T. L. R. -33. In a sale catalogue the auctioneer wrote the name of the purchaser opposite the description of certain goods bought by him, putting opposite the description of the next parcel of goods, also bought by the same man, the word "do." This was held sufficient.

Succession Duty.]-An important question as to the Quebec Succession Duty Act was dealt with by the Judicial Committee in Lambe v. Manuel, 19 T. L. R. 68. By that Act a tax is payable on "all transmissions owing to death, of the property in, usufruct or enjoyment of, movable and immovable property in the province." It was held that the tax was payable only on property which the successor claimed under or by virtue of Quebec law, and therefore not in respect of property of a testator resident in Ontario consisting of (1) bank shares in a bank having its head office in Montreal; (2) bank shares in the Montreal register of a bank having its head office in Toronto; and (3) a debt secured by mortgage on land in Montreal.

Trademark.]-Bourne v. Swan, 19 T. L. R. 59, while deciding nothing new, puts in a neat form some of the principles to be applied in contests as to pictorial trademarks. The issue in such a case is whether the defendant's trade-mark is calculated to deceive the public into believing that the goods to which it is applied are those of the plaintiff. Intention on the part of the defendant to deceive, or actual misleading of a purchaser, need not be proved, and the Judge is entitled to decide whether, having regard to the trademarks in question, there is such a resemblance between them as is calculated to deceive. In Provident Chemical Works v. Canada Chemical Manufacturing Co., 22 Occ. N. 381, and Grand Hotel Co. v. Wilson, recently decided by the Court of Appeal for Ontario,

to be reported in 4 O. L. R.-many of the cases on this subject are referred to.