Quare, as to the mother's right to firm of "M. M. & B." in the usual sue alone. Meyer et al. v. Bell, 35. advertisements and business cards of the firın, and on all proceedings in the Courts the firm name of M. M. & B. was endorsed. M. however did not participate in the profits of the SHERIFF. Duty in replevin.]-See REPLEVIN. firm: SHIPS AND SHIPPING. Held, notwithstanding, that he was liable to be suspended for prac tising without taking out the usual annual certificate issued by the Law by the statute. ARMOUR, J., dissenting. Re Hon. Wm. Macdougall, 204. British ship-Alien mortgagee-Society, and to the penalties imposed Imperial Statute, 17 and 18 Vic. ch. 104]-The mortgagee of a British ship is not an owner within the meaning of Imperial Statute 17 and 18 Vic. ch. 104, and there is no provision in that statute to prevent an alien being a mortgagee. Comstock v. Harris, 407. SKATING RINK. Whether a proprietor of, is a person engaged in trade.]-See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 2. SLANDER. See DEFAMATION, 1, 2. 3. SOLICITOR. Privilege of, in action for defama tion.]-See DEFAMATION, 1. Acting for both mortgagor and mortgagee.]-See MORTGAGE, 3. Authority to receive money.]-See MORTGAGE, 3. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 1. Omission to tender deed for execution-Dispensing with tender. Specific performance-JudicatureAct, sec. 16, sub-sec. 8.]-The general scope of the Judicature Act, and especially sec. 16, sub-sec. 8, requires that the matters in controversy between the parties may be completely and finally determined, and multiLaw Society certificate-Omission plicity of legal proceedings concernto take out-Use of name by firm of ing such matters avoided; so that, practising solicitors-Suspension whenever a subject of controversy Penalty R. S. O. ch. 140.]-A so- arises in an action, the Court should, licitor who allows his name to be if possible, determine it so as to preheld out to the world as a member of vent further and useless litigation. a firm of solicitors, although not a In an action for the specific perpartner in respect of the profits of formance of an agreement to convey the firm, is a practising solicitor land, the defendant set up as a dewithin the meaning of R. S. O. ch. fence that there was no tender of a M., a solicitor of the Court, deed for execution before action allowed his name to be used by the commenced; but at the same time 140. indicated that if there had been a tender it would have been refused. Held, that though, in strictness, there should have been a tender, yet, under the circumstances, it should be dispensed with, and judgment was entered for the plaintiffs. McDougall et al. v. Hall, 166. See SALE OF LAND. STOCK EXCHANGE. of the seats. The plaintiff on the other hand claimed to be entitled to the seats and to the moneys arising from their sale under the assignment to him for the benefit of creditors. All parties concurred in the sale of the seats, subject to their respective rights. This action was brought by the plaintiff, as assignee for the benefit of creditors of F. & L., against the Toronto Stock Exchange for payment to him of the money realized from the sale of the seats: Held, 1. That it was competent Toronto Stock Exchange-Insol- for the Toronto Stock Exchange to vency of member-Sale of seat-Dispass the by-laws in question giving tribution of proceeds-Preference of the preference to the claims of the Stock Exchange creditors.]-F. & L., Exchange, and to claims of members. brokers in partnership, were both of the Exchange for debts arising out members of the Toronto Stock of Stock Exchange transactions. Exchange, being each the owner of That the plaintiff was the legal repreone seat at the board. They assigned sentative of the insolvents and ento the plaintiff in December, 1884. titled to the payment to him of the The Toronto Stock Exchange by balance of the moneys arising from their by-laws provided that in the the sale of the said seats after paythe case of a member becoming in- of fines and fees due to the Exchange solvent and not procuring a release and claims of creditors, members of from his creditors within a named the Exchange, arising out of Stock period, the Exchange should have Exchange transactions. 3. Reverspower to realize the seats by sale, ing the judgment of GALT, J., disand the proceeds in such case were missing the action, that as the byto be applied, first, in payment of laws of the Exchange did not profines and dues to the Exchange; vide any means for ascertaining or secondly, in payment of claims deciding a contest as to what deducarising out of Stock Exchange tions might properly be made from transactions of creditors, being the proceeds of the sale of the said members of the Exchange; and seats that it was proper to refer this thirdly, the balance, if any, to be matter for enquiry to the Master. paid to the insolvent, or his legal Clarkson v. The Toronto Stock Exrepresentative. The seats of F. & L. change, 213. were sold under the by-laws of the Exchange and the proceeds remained in the hands of the Exchange. Certain members of the Toronto Stock Exchange, claiming to be creditors of F. & L. prior to their insolvency, for debts arising out of Stock Exchange transactions, filed claims 17 & 18 Vic. ch. 104 (Imp.)]—See SHIPS under the by-laws prior to the sale AND SHIPPIng. STATUTES. 13 Eliz. c. 5.]-See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 2. Con. Stats. C. ch. 66, sec. 83.] - See Con. Stats. U. C. ch. 73.]-See HUSBAND 32-33 Vic. ch. 19, sec. 45. (D.)]-See 32-33 Vic. ch. 20, sec, 58. (D.)]—See 32-33 Vic. ch. 31, sec. 15. (D.)]—See 32-33 Vic. ch. 31, sec. 46. (D.)]-See 38 Vic. ch. 75. (O.)]-See WILL, 6. R. S. O. ch. 24.]-See CROWN LANDS, 1. R. S. O. ch. 50.]-See ARBITRATION R. S. O. ch. 50, s. 254.]—See JURY. R. S. O. ch. 106, sec. 26.]-See WILL, 7. R. S. O. ch. 180, secs. 109, 150, 155, R. S. O. ch. 216. (O.)]-See WILL, 6. 41 Vic. ch. 16 (D.)]-See CAN. TEM. 41 Vic. ch. 69, sec. 2. (0.)]-See REC- 41 Vic. ch. 16, ss. 99, 100, 103, 108, 42 Vic. ch. 9, sec. 17. (D.)]-See CAR- 42 Vic. ch. 9, sec. 27. (D.)]—See RAIL 43 Vic. ch. 4. (O.)]—See CROWN LANDS. 48 Vic. ch. 26, sec. 2. (0.)]-See BANK- 49 Vic. ch. 22. (0.)]-See WILL, 5. 49 Vic. ch. 55 (0.)]-See MUNICIPAL 49 Vic. ch. 37, sec. 9. (O.)]—See MUNI R. S. O. ch. 107, 8. 30.1-See EXECUTORS CIPAL CORPORATIONS, 6. R. S. O. ch. 109.]-See DEED 2. R. S. O. ch. 111, sec. 67.]-See MORT- R. S. O. ch. 118.]-See BANKRUPTCY R. S. O. ch. 120, sec. 23.]-See PRACTICE. R.S. O. ch. 128, sec. 5.]-See RAILWAYS R. S. O. ch. 131, sec. 1.]-See BASTARD. R. S. O. ch. 140,]-See SOLICITOR. R. S. O. ch. 162.]--See INSURANCE, 2. TAX SALE. Cash sale Advertisement of sale -Disadvantageous sale-Notice to owner-Compensation for improvements—R. S. O. ch. 180, secs. 109, 150, 155, 159—R. S. O. ch. 95, sec. 4-At a sale of part of a certain lot for taxes the treasurer, who made the sale, marked in the sale book the part sold as the south one-tenth, but afterwards gave a certificate for the north one-tenth, and this was finally conveyed to the defendant on December 5, 1884; the bid was for onetenth of an acre only. Held, that the above state of facts did not invalidate the tax sale and the title of the defendant to the north one-tenth. Held, also, that neither did the fact that the purchase money was not paid for a week or two after the sale invalidate it. It appeared that in the advertisement of the sale it was not stated whether the land was patented or unpatented. Held, that R. S. O. ch. 180, secs. 150, 155 did not cure this defect. Again, the part sold, the north one-tenth, was not the least disadvantageous to the owner, the southern boundary of it running through a house which was on the lot, leaving about four feet on the unsold portion. Held, that on this ground the sale could not be sustained. Again, though the owner of the land was known, he was not notified as required by R. S. O. ch. 180, sec. 109, of the assessment and liability to sell, Held, that this was also an omission which was not cured by R. S. O. ch. 180, sec. 155. Held, also, that the defendant was entitled under R. S. O. ch. 95, sec. 4, though not under R. S. O. ch. 180, sec. 159, to compensation for improvements to the land under mistake of title, and also to be paid the amount paid for taxes, interest and expenses. Haisley v. Somers, 600. TENANT FOR LIFE. Accounting for money.]—See EsTATE. TENDER. See SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. TIMBER. Sale of growing timber not within Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgage Act.]-See EVIDENCE, 2. TOLLS. Injunction to restrain from passing through toll-gates without paying.]-See INJUNCTION, TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. See LIMITATIONS (STATUTE OF), 1. Breach of trust.]-See WILL, 4. ULTRA VIRES. See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS, 6. -BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY 3. USER. See PARTY WALL. VENDOR AND PURCHASER. See COMPENSATION.-Deed, 2. VERDICT. See JURY. VOTERS' LISTS. should be disposed of, whether made after the order for holding the Court or not; but quære, could the Judge deal with such appeals on the 30th November Court? Court- Per Rose, J.-Under the Voters' List Act the Judge is not confined by the report of the clerk, but may and should hear all appeals. Re Alexander Boyes, 3. WILL. Per CAMERON, C. J.—Quære, also whether this Court has the right to Voters' List Act-Order for hold-interfere with election officers, exing Court before expiration of thirty cept where express statutory power days allowed for appeals Jurisdic- to do so is given. tion-Prohibition-High Power to interfere.]-The voters' lists for the city of St. Thomas were posted up in the office of the city clerk, on 23rd October, 1886. On 19th November, three days before the time for giving, by a voter, notice of any complaint against the list, had expired, the clerk made a report to the County Judge in the form No. 7 in the Schedule to the 1. Life estate by entireties—Estate Voters' list Act, R. S. O. ch. 9; tail-Mortgage.]-The testatrix by and the said Judge thereupon, on her will devised lot 15 to her son A. said 19th November, made an order P. and his wife M. P., "and to their appointing the 30th November, children and children's children for 1886, for the holding of a Court to ever. hear complaints of errors and omissions in the said voters' lists, and notice of the time and place thereof was duly published in a newspaper published in said city. Previous to the 19th November notice of a number of complaints and ommissions in the list was given to the clerk. On an application for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the County Judge from holding the Court, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to make the order, inasmuch as the thirty days for filing appeals bad not then expired. Held, that the County Court Judge had jurisdiction to make the order, and the application was therefore refused, with costs. Per CAMERON, C. J.-The appeal or complaint, made within the thirty days after the clerk had posted the voters' list, would be in time, and Provided always that the aforesaid A. P. and M. P. shall not be at liberty, at any time, or for any purpose, to convey or dispose of the said lands, as it is my will that the same be entailed for the benefit of their children." The testatrix then devised all the rest and residue of her estate to M. P. "to have and to hold the same to her and her heirs," &c., "to her and their use and behoof forever?" After the death of the testatrix A, P. and M. P. mortgaged lot 15 to the plaintiffs by a mortgage in fee simple. Held, taking the whole of the will together, that A. P. and M. P. took an estate for life by entireties in lot 15, and their children an estate tail in severalty. Held, also, that the said will did not contain such a restriction on alienation as to make the mortgage void; but that it was a valid charge for |