Apeil 1, 1899.
THE ESTATES GAZETTE
534
existence of a nuisance in the neighbourhood of a house contracted to be purchased for a residence, which nuisance is known to the vendor, and is one which a provident purchaser could not discover, is a ground for refusing a decree for specific performance of the contract ; and whether otherwise, if the nuisance be not known to the vendor, qucere.” In giving judgment Vice-Chancellor Wigram lamented the absence of an authority on the point involved, but added, “ The law, as stated by Sir Edward Sugden respecting defects in the subject of a contract (and I believe correctly), is this: That if the vendor at the time ot the contract does not know of the existing defect in the estate, the Court will enforce the contract ; otherwise, perhaps, if the defect be known to the vendor and be one which a provident purchaser could not discover.” “Lucas v. James” was followed by Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy in the recent case of “Hope v. Walter,” of which the facts were peculiar and of a good deal of interest to vendors and purchasers of house property.
The plaintiffs, who were devisees in trust for sale, had put up for sale by public auction part of their testatrix’s estate. Lot 1 was described in the particulars as an “ eligible freehold property for investment, comprising brick-built corner house and shop known as IN o. 146, City-road, let on a quarterly tenancy.” The defendant purchased this lot, but declined to complete the purchase, alleging that at, and for some time before, the sale, the premises were used by the tenant, ostensibly as a coffee tavern, but in fact as a disorderly house; and that the tenant had been recently convicted on this account. The plaintiffs brought the action for specific performance of the agreement, and the defendant counterclaimed for rescission of the contract and return of his deposit. It was admitted that the plaintiffs at the date of the sale were unaware of the use to which the premises were being put, and Mr. Justice Cozens-Hardy, after referring to “Lucas v. James,” held that neither on the ground of mutual mistake nor on the ground of hardship could he refuse to decree specific performance. The case is a border-line one, and the merits certainly very difficult to balance. The question being״ Which of two innocent parties was to suffer? the maxim is that “where equities are equal, the law shall prevail,” and the law says “ Caveat emptor.”
In answer to “0. D.,” before 1882 the legal estate in mortgaged land vested in the devisee or heir of the mortgagee according as he died testate or intestate, and thus the security was frequently divorced from the debt. In such cases, however, the heir of the mortgagee was (before foreclosure, or release of the equity of redemption) only a trustee for the mortgagee’s executors ; and if the mortgagor himself were the heir of the mortgagee the legal estate would not pass to the devisee of the mortgagor under a general devise of real estates in trust for sale; for to hold the contrary would be to assume that the mortgagor had authorised his devisee to make a sale, which would be a direct breach of trust. But now by virtue of section 30 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, the mortgaged property (where of freehold tenure) always vests along with the debt in the legal personal representative of the mortgagee as if it were a chattel real, !hough this is not the case with regard to copyholds, which still descend to the customary heir (Copy-hold Act, 1894, s. 88), who, of course, only holds them as trustee for the legal personal representative.
We would draw the attention of those desirous of acquiring land, houses, or farms to the lists of property for disposal in
SHEFFIELD, YOKES & DERBYSHIRE SURREY & SUSSEX.
THE WEST OF ENGLAND WEST KENT.
THE HOME COUNTIES.
SOUTH DEVON & CORNWALL. NORTH WALES. BAYSWATER & NOTTING HILL PLYMOUTH & DEYON. EASTBOURNE.
BIRMINGHAM AND MIDLANDS SOUTHEND ON-SEA & ESSEX. BERKSHIRE & LONDON.
which appear weekly in the front portion of the paper. We shall esteem it a favour if persons negotiating for any of these properties will kindly mention the “Estates Gazette.”
not increase substantially during the present year—production, at least, must be curtailed to avert catastrophe, and curtailment may mean destruction to new and weak concerns. This is gloomy “ tipping,” and there might׳ be another way out of the difficulty, to wit : —
“Let those now drink who never drank before, And those that used to drink now drink the more.”
Speaking seriously on a serious subject, it strikes me that the ever increasing popularity of this grateful and comforting form of alcohol is a consolatory item for the consideration of the shareholders in- whisky companies.
When a good thing appears in a paper it generally goes the rounds, but I have not seen the following (from the “ Public Health Examiner ”) quoted. It is worth reproduction for, if not true, it is well found. The other day, says our contemporary, in the lobby of the House of Commons, two venerable and well-known members of Parliament were overheard discussing the chances׳ of the Bill. They were both supporters of the Government. “I am afraid it will not pass,” said one ; “you see there are so many vested interests threatened by it.” Just at this moment a young and flippant adherent of the Conservative party chipped in with the remark, “ Too many vestried interests, you mean.” I say again, “good.”
Alderman A was very hard of hearing, and Alderman B was very hard upon his infirmity. One day a dumb man was brought up charged with uttering forged notes. Alderman B said : “ This case should go before Alderman A, for when a dumb man utters, a deaf man ׳ought to ! u ”
legal ®flpirs.
By a Barrister.
[The writer will answer any question relating to real property law. or to the practice of Agents, Auctioneers, and Surveyors, under " Queries and Replies.”]
The covenant to “insure and keep insured” the premises, which was under discussion in “The Seamen’s Hospital Society v. Kyffin,” was, it will be seen from our report, drawn in the usual terms. The point for the decision of Mr. Justice Day was whether, under it, the tenant was bound to take or send the receipts for the premiums to the landlord’s office, or whether the words “ to produce the receipts ” were not sufficiently complied with by the tenant allowing the landlord to inspect them if he chose to come to his (the tenant’s) premises for the purpose. The learned Judge took the latter view, holding that Mr. Kyffin was not bound to produce the receipts at the plaintiff’s office, but the judgment given in favour of the defendant was without costs, inasmuch as his lordship considered the dispute a somewhat frivolous one. It was certainly little more than a question of writing a letter, but the case is of some practical importance to landlords generally, and was rightly decided upon the terms of the covenant.
In “ Parsons v. The Great Eastern Railway Company and Wright,” one or two points of interest, though not of novelty, arose. The plaintiff’s case was that in August, 1897, he had entered into an agreement for the tenancy of a railway arch in York-road, Stepney, at a rent of £38 a year, payable quarterly in advance. In October the rent became in arrear. Possession of the arch was then obtained by smashing the lock on the wicket gate at the entrance, and a skylight was also removed in order to obtain access to the premises. The possession was continued from October 28 to November 9, and on the latter date an auction was held on the premises, the goods being sold, it was alleged, much under value. In the present action for wrongful distress against the bailiff Wright and his employers, the railway company, the defence of the latter was simply that they were not responsible for Wright’s illegal act in breaking open the outer door. A landlord, indeed, though liable at common law for the irregular acts of his bailiff, is not liable for his unauthorised illegal acts (“ Freeman v. Rosher ” ; “ Hurry v. Rickman ” ; Daniels’s “ Handbook of the Law of Distress,” up. 42, 70, 3rd ed.), and under the judge’s direction the jury found a verdict for the defendant company. That the bailiff himself, however, ought not to have broken open the outer door is certain, and ultimately the jury found against him with £30 damages, though a stay of execution was granted. “ An Englishman’s house is his castle ”—that has been decided by a string of authorities reaching from “ Semavne’s Case,” in the time of James I., to “The American Concentrated Meat Company v. Hendry,” a few years ago.
In “Lucas v. James,” a case just 50 years old, part of the head-note runs, “ Whether the
supposed. I recently saw it stated that several such houses, built on a very large scale, are successfully operated■ by the Glasgow Municipality. Another Glasgow institution which might, I think, vTell be copied in London is the Municipal Family Home, intended for widows or widowers and their children. It is a commonplace that the children of very poor widows or widowers, whose parents have to be out all day at work, are often greatly neglected. This home has 160 rooms, each heated with hot water and lighted■ with electricity, and capable of accommodating an adult and two children. Nurses are provided who look after the children during the day while their parents are at work, and there is a playground and a crèche. The charges are excessively moderate, and such establishments would surely be great boons in many parts of London.
I understand that the principal Oity wholesale firms in the drapery, hardware and similar trades have again closed from the evening before Good Friday till the following Tuesday morning. The practice is spreading to the larger establishments of the West-end, where many hundreds of employés have obtained an additional and much-valued holiday. An earnest appeal has been made by the Early Closing Association to several well-known firms and limited companies, who have hitherto stood out, to come into the arrangement, which seems to me a proper and salutary one. By-the-bye, ־why has not Mr. H. C. Trollope’s Saturday early closing scheme attracted more attention and prospered better?
It is sincerely to be hoped that those who have been fighting so arduously the battle against the American “ death ” or “ murder ” oil, as it has been called, will continue the contest, and that this cheap ׳and nasty compound will in the result be beaten out of the field. I admit that the proceedings in Parliament last week were not encouraging, but the flash-point of public opinion in this country is always difficult to ascertain. One can never ■tell, as Macaulay observed in the case of Byron’s marital relations, when the conscience of Englishmen will explode. With regard ■to th׳e scientific aspect of the matter it must be admitted that the experts are not in accord. But the opponents of the low flash stuff can use a strong argument— is it not an unanswerable one ?—by pointing out that there is a great “ring,” “syndicate,” or “ combine ” in America, called the Standard Oil Trust, whose interest it is to get rid in England of the oil which they cannot use in the States, and those connected with the Trust may have powerful influences at work in their favour on this side of the Atlantic. It is for the common sense and proper spirit of the country to show such biased individuals that their mischievous game is known, and to pay no heed to the childish jokes of such patriots as Mr. T. M. Healy and his congeners about the struggle that is going on for the “coppers of the poor,” and Russian oil and the Rothschilds.
Speaking of the Rothschilds a day or two ago I fell across an account of the rise of these great financiers, ־which, though brief, is, I believe, correct enough. The writer, after mentioning that authentic records are scarce, states that Meyer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the family, was the trusted friend and man of business o>f William IX., Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, with whose support he took the first step in that career of loan contractor to European Governments, which his successors have pursued on such an enormous scale. After the battle of Jena, in 1806, the Landgrave fled to Denmark, leaving in Rothschild’s hands ■a large part of his fortune (variously estimated at a quarter and something above half a million), besides a great many works of art. Rothschild showed himself worthy of the trust-, for the writer proceeds, in somewhat■ colloquial style, instead of “sticking,” or allowing himself to be “ squared,” when the French Commissioners demanded of him the whereabouts of the treasure, neither threats of violence nor offers of bribes could induce him to reveal the secret. Nathan Meyer, it is added, the founder of the London house, first■ came to England in 1797, and his offices in New-court, St. Swithin’s-lane, are still his descendants’ place of business. The story that this eminent financier in propria persona brought to England the news of the victory of Waterloo, and was in exclusive possession of it for a sufficiently long period to enable him to operate largely before ■it- was generally known, is stated in the article to which I am referring to be a myth.
So much has been written of late about the over-production of whisky, that a well-known financial paper has deemed it advisable to compile two lists of limited companies engaged in the trade. The ■one is dated 1889. and the other 1898. and they show that the joint stock capital of ■the whisky industry has risen from about £3,750,000 to nearly £12,000,000 in this brief interval. It will be surprising, our contemporary thinks, if the number of failures does
Mayings anit Dntttgs.
There is, it appears, an Act in force in Prussia, under the provisions of which an owner who neglects to cultivate the land so as to ensure the most abundant produce, forfeits his rights of ownership. The law steps in, sells the land, and ■hands over the proceeds to the incapable owner, who is at liberty to invest it in a more congenial and appropriate manner. In New South Wales (as to mining land) there is in, existence a somewhat similar law providing that the amount of labour employed shall be in proportion to the extent of the mine. A well-known Liberal writer has been pointing out that the same principle might be applied to building land in this country by conferring on our County Councils compulsory purchasing powers. This, he thinks, would do away with slums and insanitary houses—certainly, a consummation devoutly to be wished. But in all probability public opinion here is not yet ripe for the paternal legislation suggested.
In an ingenious “romance of the future,” now running in the “ Graphic,” Mr. H. G. Wells propounds and illustrates the theory that he development■ of “trusts” will have the ltimate effect of destroying the freedom, happi-ess and prosperity of the great bulk of the inhabitants of England. To be sure, his story is postdated a couple of centuries, so that the matter is׳ not exactly one of immediate concernment—après nous le déluge. In the meantime, however, it is no doubt true that “ trusts ” are growing in favour with our capitalists, though monopolies, or attempted monopolies, are as yet neither so numerous, so powerful, nor so successful as they are on the other side of the Atlantic. The extent to which the rania for syndicating has overtaken American vestors is shown by the fact that the various cmbines which have been formed since the ommencement of the year have an almost fabulous aggregate capital. Indeed, it seems probable that before long no business worth talking about will be outside “trust” control in the States.
Now an Idea—an Idea with a capital I—is by no means a common thing in modem literature, but in connection with the subject of “trusts,” I think that one is contained in a book which has been recently published, and in which the author, Mr. Henry Wright, makes his hero preach the gospel of ׳depopulation by way of a set-off to, and remedy for, the machinations of syndicated capital. There are to be no more marriages. Labour starts its “ comer ’ —a comer in men. “Let this be done, and,” says Mr. Wright, “ away with the big accumulations of capital, because the workmen will be able to get a fair share of the plunder. In fact, gold won’t buy workmen, but workmen will be able to buy gold, so everything is to come out all right for everybody, if you will only limit■ the output and crush out competition in human beings; just as the trusts have limited output and crushed competition in other goods and chattels.” There is, as I have said, an Idea in this. But will it ever be possible to disestablish marriage? And will not “ compromise,” and yet again “ compromise,” be the last word in the continuous series of contests which the generations to come will see fought out between Capital and Labour?
To the genuine, true born and bred cockney certain subjects are of perennial interest, and that of London restaurants׳ and taverns is one of them. I note that a contemporary calls attention to the fact that the Rainbow, in Fleet-street, is a very conservative house, and certainly many of the barristers, solicitors, “and others,” whom, one sees lunching and dining there now are reproductions of rare old-fashioned types. Charles Dickens—and who knew his London better?—in “Sketches by Boz,” makes this mention of the Rainbow: — “ There was once a fine collection of old boys to be seen every night between the hours of half-past eight and half-past eleven—there were, and still may be, two splendid specimens—at the Rainbow Tavern in Fleet-street, who always used to sit in the box nearest the fireplace and ׳smoked long cherry-stick pipes which went under the table, with the bowls resting on the floor. Grand old boys they were, fat, redfaced, white-headed old fellows, always there, puffing and drinking away in great state.” Those were not the days of lemon squash and cigarettes, nor are such puerilities much affected now at the Rainbow, which, by the way, was the second coffee-house opened in London, Tames Farr, a barber, having started a twofold usiness there in 1657.
Some time ago, in this column, I mentioned he fact that in London there is not. a single arge common lodging house for women similar ! the “ Rowton ” houses for men, and observed ,hat although everybody here seems afraid to start a house for women, it did not• strike me that the difficulties were so overwhelming as was