was held that the creditor could not enforce payment. It was ingeniously but unsuccessfully argued that the creditor must be regarded as the assured with a collateral warranty by the applicant against his suicide, and that the company were liable to the creditor for the amount of the policy with a right to damages against the estate of the debtor for breach of his warranty.

Limitations Act.]-Barrett and Sons v. Davies, 20 T. L. R. 318, is a useful and interesting case on the question of acknowledgment, the decision being very close to the line. A debtor wrote to his creditors stating that he was willing to sell at a named price certain shares in a named company in which the creditors were interested, " and in the event of my doing so I will with the money pay the call due on the shares (naming the amount), and the balance in settlement of my account with (the creditors) amounting to (naming the amount)." The shares were not sold, but it was held that the letter was a sufficient acknowledgment, the sale of the shares not being distinctly made a condition of the promised payment, but being rather referred to as the expected source of the means to effect payment. Other letters by the debtor stating his inability to pay and promising to pay "when things get better were held to be in themselves insufficient.

"

Patent.]-The judgment in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. David Moseley and Sons, 20 T. L. R. 85, noted 24 C. L. T. 50, holding that a sale of an article intended to be used in the manufacture of another article which would be an infringement of a patent is not in itself an infringement, has been affirmed by the Court of Appeal: 20 T. L. R. 314. The distinction is pointed out between such an act as this and the selling of the component parts of what would be, when these parts are put together, an infringing whole.

Precatory Trust.]-In dealing in Attorney-General v. Chamberlain, 20 T. L. R. 359, with a question of estate duty, it became necessary to decide whether a precatory trust had been imposed in respect of the property in question, and the

directions by the deceased to the devisee of the property as to the disposition he would like to have made of it, were held not to go far enough to impose a trust, there being such expressions as, "These instructions are not to fetter you;" You will be the best judge how and when a suitable distribution should be made;" and "Keep, of course, anything for yourself."

Principal and Agent.]-The mischief of secret commissions is again dealt with in Powell and Thomas v. Evan Jones. and Co., 20 T. L. R. 329. The plaintiffs were employed by the defendants to negotiate the issue of debentures, and the negotiations were conducted on their behalf by a sub-agent. who accepted a secret commission from the persons through whom the funds were advanced. It was held that as the plaintiffs had acted in good faith, and had employed the subagent with the defendants' approval, they were entitled to receive from the defendants the stipulated commission, but the defendants were given judgment against the sub-agent for the amount received by him.-The judgment in Hambro v. Burnand, 19 T. L. R. 584, 23 C. L. T. 315, has been reversed by the Court of Appeal: 20 T. L. R. 398: that Court laying down the principle that where an agent makes a contract within the terms of his authority, it is no defence to the principal, as against a person who has acted in good faith, to shew that the agent has really made the contract for his own benefit and not for that of the principal. The agent in this case had, under authority to underwrite guarantee policies for the defendants, underwritten policies guaranteeing the bills of a trading corporation of which he was himself a director, and which was to his knowledge insolvent. The policies were held by the Court of Appeal to be valid. Execution has been stayed pending an appeal to the House of Lords.

Restraint against Alienation.]-The majority of the Court of Appeal [Vaughan-Williams and Cozens-Hardy, L.JJ.], have reversed the judgment in In re Fitz-Gerald's Settlements, 19 T. L. R. 347, noted 23 C. L. T. 186, and have held that a restraint against alienation by the husband, of a

life interest given to him in his wife's property by a marriage settlement made in Scotland, was governed by Scotch law, and was good though the husband was and always had been a domiciled Englishman, and the trustees were English trustees who had changed the original Scotch investments into English ones: 20 T. L. R. 332. Stirling, L.J., dissented, putting his judgment on the somewhat refined distinction that the attempted alienation was bad as far as the trustees were concerned, and that the income had to be paid by them to the husband, but that when it reached his hands his previous assignment of it at once took effect upon it.

Sale of Goods.]-In Bostock and Co. v. Nicholson and Sons, 20 T. L. R. 342, is dealt with in a long and interesting judgment, the question of the quantum of damages recoverable by the buyer, where the goods bought are not of the description contracted for. The plaintiffs bought from the defendants sulphuric acid which was to be free, commercially, from arsenic, but was not. The plaintiffs used this acid in the preparation of compounds sold by them to brewers, who, in consequence of the presence of arsenic in these compounds, suffered loss and recovered damages from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had not when buying the acid told the defendants of the use to which it was to be put, but it was proved that its use in food products was an ordinary one, and that for such use freedom from arsenic was essential. Applying the principle that the damages directly and naturally resulting in the ordinary course of events were recoverable, the plaintiffs were allowed the price paid by them for the acid, it being useless, and the value of the compounds rendered also useless by its presence; but they were not allowed the damages which they had themselves been obliged to pay to their customers, or any sum in respect of the loss of business and reputation which had been caused, they alleged, by their sale of the deleterious compounds.-The plaintiff in Whurr v. Devenish, 20 T. L. R. 385, was successful in obtaining rescission of a contract to purchase a horse, on the short ground that he had purchased the horse at auction as apparently the property of a private owner, whereas in fact an hour or two before the sale the horse had been

purchased from this owner by a dealer who, with the former owner's acquiescence, had then allowed the horse to be offered at auction without notice to the bidders of the change of ownership. This principle, if upheld and strictly applied, would cause some curtailment of the present practice of working off dealers' rubbish at so called sales of household furniture formerly owned by the late so and so.

Settlement of Action.]-Law v. Law, 20 T. L. R. 295, is decided on what are, in Mr. Justice Kekewich's opinion, principles of common sense and common honesty. After an agreement duly carried out for the purchase by his partner of the plaintiff's interest in a partnership business, the plaintiff brought an action against the partner to set aside the sale, alleging that the partner had not disclosed to him the existence of certain specified assets. A settlement of this action was effected and a further sum paid to the plaintiff, all charges of fraud being withdrawn by him. Soon afterwards he brought this action asking to have both the sale. and the settlement set aside, the ground being the concealment of the existence of other specified assets. The learned Judge, however, held that the plaintiff could not make a new attack upon every fresh discovery of alleged assets; that whatever question there might be as to the duty of full disclosure in the sale negotiations-and as to that he expressed no opinion-there was certainly no duty of disclosure in the first action based on the alleged fraudulent concealment; and that the plaintiff, having in that action, with the knowledge that it was in his power to go into the matter to the bottom, deliberately made a settlement, could not again open the question.

Staying Proceedings.]—In In re the Goods of Bryan, 20 T. L. R. 290, the difficulty of obtaining a stay of proceedings in an English action on the ground of the pendency in a foreign court of another action for the same relief, is shewn. Only on clear proof that the English action is oppressive or vexatious will it be stayed. Relief of this kind can, however, be more readily obtained where there is an action pending in some court, technically foreign, but in the British dominions, the question then being one of identity and balance of convenience.

EDITORIAL REVIEW.

The High Court of Justice, Ontario.

The addition of two Judges to the staff of the High Court of Justice has already had the effect of smoothing the path of the litigant. The Divisional Courts have made substantial progress and reduced the list to a normal state, and the Toronto trial sittings, both jury and non-jury, have been steadily kept up. A Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division has not yet been` appointed. It is to be hoped that the High Court Judges will be able to give some assistance in the Court of Appeal during the present sitting. The new Judges, Mr. Justice Anglin and Mr. Justice Idington, have made a most favourable impression on the Bar by their courtesy, patience, and assiduity.

Death of Mr. Justice Wurtele.

The Hon. J. S. C. Wurtele, one of the puisne Judges of the Court of King's Bench, Quebec, died suddenly in Montreal last week in the middle of the trial of a criminal libel case, Rex v. Blackley, which had attracted a great deal of attention during its progress.

The County of York Law Association.

A very successful informal dinner of the members of this association took place at McConkey's, Toronto, on the 14th April. About sixty members were present, and some excellent speeches were made. It is proposed to have a similar dinner on the 19th of the present month, with a discussion of set topics of general interest to the Bar. The plan, originated, we believe, by the Canadian Club, of making the dinner hour early, and inviting members to go to it directly from their offices, in morning dress, is an excellent one; it