Page images
PDF
EPUB

on entering the employment. The usage in question was that of dock companies to pay income tax on their servants' salaries. Astbury, J., says (p. 422) :—

"In the circumstances I do not think the plaintiffs, even if the practice had existed for a long time and was universal, have brought themselves within the authorities which provide that the implication of a term in a contract of this character, and a fortiori a contract affecting the amount of wages, can only be made, and ought only to be made, where the parties seeking the advantage of that implication can be deemed to have entered into the contract of employment on the faith and in consideration of the existence of that usage."

Will Condition in restraint of marriage. In [1918] 1 Ch. for June, we find only one case to call attention to, viz., In re Hewitt, Eldridge v. Iles,15 in which Younger, J., holds that a condition subsequent in restraint of marriage in a will is only primâ facie, and not per se, void. He says that by the civil law all conditions in wills restraining marriage, whether precedent or subsequent, whether there was any gift over or not, and however qualified, were absolutely void; but our Courts never adopted this rule to its full extent, and subjected it to various modifications. He then refers to a number of decisions which show that in a case like the one before him, where an annuity in a will was made to diminish in amount in the event of the annuitant, who was the mother of the testator's son, contracting marriage, the real question is whether the object of the testator was to discourage marriage or not; and the condition subsequent was not void where, as he held in this case, the object the testator had in mind was not the continued celibacy of the annuitant, but to make it certain that the conflict of new duties undertaken by her would expose his child to no risk of being inadequately maintained or improperly educated.

15 [1918] 1 Ch. 458; 87 L. J. (Ch.) 209.

CANADIAN DECISIONS.1

We do not find any decisions in the June number of O. L. R. (Vol. 41, pt. 3) which seem to call for special mention here.

2

Bills and Notes-Notice of Dishonour-Difference in Canadian from English law. In the number of the D. L. R. for June 1st, the Alberta decision in Dowler v. Edwards, as decided by the Alberta Supreme Court (Beck, J., dissenting), held that compliance with sec. 103 of the Dominion Bills of Exchange Act by mailing as there provided, within the time specified in sec. 96, namely, not later than the next juridical day, is the only way to give legally sufficient notice of dishonour. The promissory note sued on was duly presented for payment and dishonoured, and on the last day of grace, the plaintiff, the holder, went to the address of the defendant endorser specified in the body of the note, but failed to find him there, and only found him eight or ten days later when, for the first time, he gave him notice of dishonour. Harvey, C.J., Stuart, J.A., concurring, held the defendant discharged from liability, no notice of dishonour as required having been given, and there being no sufficient excuse for such omission. Harvey, C.J. (p. 181), says:

"In England there is no provision for giving notice by mail to the place where the bill is dated, and it has been held that delay was excused where the address given was wrong or illegible, and, apparently, when the endorser could not be found delay would then be excused."

Land Titles- Execution Subsequently acquired lands. Robin Hood Mills, Ltd. v. Harrison 3 shows the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division, evenly divided upon the point of whether in Alberta an execu

'As most of our subscribers have ready access to the Canadian Reports, it is not deemed necessary to review the Canadian cases in the same detail as the English. Only those which seem of special interest and importance will, therefore, be noticed.

2 40 D. L. R. 180.

340 D. L. R. 328.

tion against lands filed in the Land Titles Office binds not only lands of the debtor owned by him at the time of filing, but, also, lands subsequently acquired by him while the execution lasts, thus leaving the decision of the trial judge, which was in the affirmative, standing.

"The Crown" - Power of provincial legislature to bind "The Crown." The number of the D. L. R. issued on June 15th contains the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Gauthier v. The King, already noticed by us supra, p. 425, with an annotation upon the Crown" under our constitutional law, the main contention of which is that in that expression the "Crown" is used in a symbolical sense as meaning the Executive; and that, inasmuch as provincial legislatures can only bind or affect the Executive of their own province, and cannot bind or affect the Executive of the Dominion, there can be no question that, in the words of Anglin, J., with which all the other judges concur Provincial legislation cannot proprio vigore take away or abridge any privilege of the Crown in right of the Dominion."

Bills and Notes-Memorandum written at foot of promissory note-Effect of. In O'Grady v. Lecomte the Manitoba Court of Appeal, Fullerton, J.A., dissenting, holds that an instrument on its face complying with all the requirements of a valid promissory note is not invalidated as such by a memorandum written at its foot, which constitutes an independent agreement relating to something to be performed immediately upon payment of the note. The document was as follows:

Winnipeg, Dec. 1st, 1910.

On Sept. 15th, 1911, without grace, after date I promise to pay to the order of O'Grady, Anderson and Co., Ltd., at the Bank of Nova Scotia, Winnipeg, the sum of three thousand dollars, value received.

/100

JOSEPH LECOMTE.

Stock certificate for 50 shares Gas Traction Co., Ltd. Attached

to be surrendered on payment.

4 40 D. L. R. 353; 56 S. C. R. 176.

5 40 D. L. R 378.

Perdue, J.A., says, at p. 379, and Cameron, J.A., speaks to a like effect at p. 384:—

"The document in question differs widely from the ordinary lien note. Upon its face it complies with all the requirements of a valid promissory note under the Bills of Exchange Act: see sec. 176.6 The memorandum written at the foot of the document does not in any way qualify the absolute nature of the document as a promissory note. There is still the unconditional promise of the maker to pay at a fixed time a sum certain in money to the order of a specified person, the body corporate which is the payee. Notwithstanding the memorandum, or anything contained in it, all the terms of the instrument will have to be performed by the signer just as if nothing had been underwritten on it."

Constitutional law - Provincial legislature-Forbidding taking orders in the province for supply of liquor to residents therein. In the number of the Manitoba Reports just issued (Vol. 28, No. 4), we have not space to do much more than mention Rex v. Shaw in which the Court of Appeal, Haggart, J.A., dissenting, have held that a provincial enactment prohibiting residents from taking orders for the purchase or supply of intoxicating liquors, or as the Act amusingly puts it, "for beverage purposes" within the province is intra vires as dealing with a matter of a merely local or private nature in the province, if not also because affecting civil rights in the province. Haggart, J.A., holds that there is no distinction in principle between the Act in question and that in Re An Application by the Hudson's Bay Co. and Heffernan, where the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that a provincial legislature has no power to prohibit the keeping of liquor within the province for export to other provinces or foreign countries. He says (p. 333) :

"In the Saskatchewan case the statute was directed against keeping liquor for export to another province; in the present

6 R. S. C. 1906, c. 119, s. 176:-A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another, signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.'

7 28 Man. 325.

8 (1917) 3 W. W. R. 167.

case the statute is directed against the agent of the purchaser. I cannot see any distinction in principle, and, until that case or a similar one is reversed by a higher Court, I would feel inclined to follow it."

It is to be hoped the case will be carried to the Privy Council.

Chauffeur borrowing use of his master's automobile without leave-Liability of a passenger with him. In the number of the Quebec Official Reports for June, there is a decision of some interest to owners of motors in Galibert v. Vaillancourt," namely, that if a person knows that a chauffeur has borrowed his master's automobile without leave, and gets in with him on his invitation for a joy-ride, he becomes his accomplice, and is responsible for injury to the machine the result of an accident.

9 R. J. Q. 53 S. C. 521.

A. H. F. L.

1

« PreviousContinue »