Court : House of Lords
LORD LOREBURN L.C. My Lords, I agree with the Court of Appeal. The only question is whether or not a sum given by parishioners and others to the vicar at Easter, 1905, is assessable to income tax as being "profits accruing" to him "by reason of such office." In my opinion, where a sum of money is given to an incumbent substantially in respect of his services as incumbent, it accrues to him by reason of his office, Here the sum of money was given in respect of those services. Had it been a gift of an exceptional kind, such as a testimonial, or a contribution for a specific purpose, as to provide for a holiday, or a subscription peculiarly due to the personal qualities of the particular clergyman, it might not have been a voluntary payment for services, but a mere present. In this case, however, there was a continuity of annual payments apart from any special occasion or purpose, and the ground of the call for subscriptions was one common to all clergymen with insufficient stipends, urge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Chancellor. I think this appeal fails, though the reasons which have led me to this conclusion are somewhat different from those which are relied upon by the Scottish Courts. The late Mr Hunter was injured in a railway accident on 28th December 1906, and died the next day. He had insured with the appellant Company, the defenders in this action, and the questions were whether the risk under the contract with the defenders was a subsisting risk on 28th December 1906, and whether claim was made under the insurance contract within twelve months of the registration of Mr Hunter's name by the defenders, whatever “registration” may mean. In view of these controversies it is necessary first to ascertain what the insurance was. The defenders inserted in Letts's Diary what they called a coupon insurance policy, announcing that they would pay 1000 to any person killed in a railway accident (or under other circumstances immaterial to this case) on certain conditions, one of which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD LOREBURN L.C. My Lords, this is a most unfortunate litigation, in which the costs must far exceed any sum there may be at stake. A little common sense would have settled all these differences in a few minutes. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants as manager of their business at Calcutta at 15 l. per week as salary, and a commission on the trade done. He could be dismissed by six months' notice. In October, 1905, the defendants gave him six months' notice, but at the same time they appointed Mr. Gilpin to act as his successor, and took steps to prevent the plaintiff from acting any longer as manager. In December, 1905, the plaintiff came back to England. The plaintiff brought this action in 1906, claiming an account and damages for breach of contract. That there was a breach of contract is quite clear. If what happened in October, 1905, did not amount to a wrongful dismissal, it was, at all events, a breach of the plaintiff's right to act as manager during the six months an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships are asked to decide whether a clause in a lease, dated 1884, has been superseded by the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1908. The clause runs as follows:—John Stewart hereby binds and obliges himself “at the expiry of this lease to leave the sheep stock on the farm to the proprietors or incoming tenant according to the valuation of men mutually chosen, with power to name an oversman.” Is this superseded by the words of section 11? (His Lordship read the material part of the section.) If this were an English case the authorities decided on the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, draw a marked distinction between arbitration and valuation. It is one thing to refer a dispute to the decision of an arbitrator who has to hear parties and witnesses as in a Court of law. It is another thing to say that a third person shall value the subject of sale, as when an incoming tenant agrees to buy fixtures at a valuation. But we are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD LOREBURN L.C. My Lords, I think this case should be determined upon the actual findings of the learned county court judge. It is true there has been some question about what he decided, and it appears that some little time after he had delivered the judgment he made an alteration in regard to a phrase he had used. I think it was quite legitimate to do so, because the word he used was capable of being misunderstood, or understood in one sense rather than in another, and I see no objection to his explaining to the Court and to the parties the sense in which he used the word. He has found certain facts. He has not found them according to the letter of legal phraseology, but he has presented to us a view of the facts; and I think what that view - by which we are bound - amounts to is this: He will not find whether there was a right of way or not; therefore the plaintiff did not establish that he was in the field according to a right to be in the field. Again the learned judge, I think...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Chancellor. In this case I agree upon the whole with the Second Division, though I have found, as no doubt they found, some difficulty. It is a peculiar case. The Sponge Company employed an agent named Cohen, who proved to be a rogue. His authority was to carry round with him parcels of sponges, to sell them and fix the price, to deliver them, and to receive cheques in payment. He had dealt with Messrs Watt for a considerable time, and generally—nearly always in fact—Messrs Watt paid for the sponges they bought by crossed cheque payable to Cohen's principals. In 1904, however, if not earlier, Cohen commenced a system of fraud. He sold and delivered sponges to Messrs Watt as before, but on four occasions he induced them to pay at once, either by open cheque payable to Cohen or by coin and notes, and then embezzled the money. The International Sponge Company now say that these four transactions were beyond Cohen's authority, and this action relates to three of the transa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Lord Atkinson. It is not disputed in this case that on 1st September 1909 the appellants, on behalf of the respondent and as his brokers, purchased 200 Globe and Phœnix mining shares for a sum, including brokerage and contract stamp and transfer and registration fee, of 865. Neither is it disputed that the respondent, by his letter of 13th September 1909, repudiated that transaction and refused to carry it out. It is conceded that, if the respondent was not entitled thus to put an end to the contract, the appellants were entitled to sell those shares against him and recover any loss they sustained on the resale. The appellants resold the shares, and, in my opinion, the whole trial proceeded on the assumption that on that resale and by means of it the appellants had lost 50, 2s. That is absolutely plain, and is, I think, found as a fact by the Lord Ordinary. The respondent justified his repudiation of his contract on the ground that he had not only instructed the appellants on 9th ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
EARL LOREBURN L.C. moved that the order appealed from be reversed and the judgment of Scrutton J. restored, and intimated that the reasons for their Lordships' decision would be given at a later date when all the members of the House who were present at the hearing of the argument would be able to attend and express their opinions. July 19. Their Lordships now gave their reasons for this decision. EARL LOREBURN. My Lords, the facts of this case, except in immaterial points, are quite clear and undisputed. The appellant, Mrs. Lloyd, had bought some property, and thus had come to know of the defendant, a solicitor. She had doubts about having got her money's worth, and went to the defendant's office to inquire. When there she saw one Sandles, the defendant's managing clerk, and was induced by him to give him instructions to sell or realize this property, and for that purpose to give him the deeds and to sign two documents which she neither read nor knew the tenor of, but which put into S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
VISCOUNT HALDANE L.C. My Lords, the facts out of which this litigation has arisen lie in a short compass. The question is whether certain articles of silver plate, which were pledged by one A. A. Solomon to the appellants under a contract of pawn, were validly pledged. A. A. Solomon was one of the executors of the will of Moses Solomon, which was made in 1878. The testator appointed A. A. Solomon and J. D. Solomon to be the executors and trustees; and after giving certain pecuniary legacies the testator devised and bequeathed the residue of his real and personal estate of every kind to his trustees upon trust for sale, payment of expenses, and division of the residue into four equal parts, two of which were settled. The will was duly proved, and very shortly after, in the next year, J. D. Solomon, the other executor, put in a residuary account. In so doing, as one of two executors has authority to act for both, he bound his co-executor. The account shewed the particulars of the estate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
VISCOUNT HALDANE L.C. My Lords, the appellants, who were rubber merchants in London, in the spring of 1910 underwrote a large number of shares in a company called the Filisola Rubber and Produce Estates, Limited, a company which was promoted and registered by other persons about that time. They instructed a Mr. Johnston, who was the manager of their Liverpool business, to obtain applications for shares in Liverpool. Johnston, who had seen a draft prospectus in London but had at the time no copy of the prospectus, mentioned the company to several people in Liverpool, including a Mr. Wright, who sometimes acted as broker for the respondent. On April 14 the respondent telephoned to Johnston from Wright's office. As to what passed there is no dispute. The respondent said "I understand you are bringing out a rubber company." The reply was "We are." The respondent then asked whether Johnston had any prospectuses, and his reply was in the negative. The respondent then asked "if it was all rig...
Tag this Judgment!