The County Court Judge allowed the undisputed claim for freight, but dismissed the claim for the armature supplied, and he allowed the defendant on its counterclaim $300 as the price of the armature not delivered, but dismissed its claim for breach of warranty.

The Appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Judge that the plaintiff was bound to supply the two spare armatures, holding that they were included in the price. But held that the acceptance of the cars without complaint, there being opportunity for inspection, was not an answer to the defendants' claim for damages for breach of warranty. The defect was not one discoverable at the time, because the cars were in a barn, and were not in a condition to operate when delivery was taken; but, apart from that, although the acceptance of the cars would preclude the defendant from entirely repudiating the transaction, it would not prevent a claim based upon the express condition of the contract, which, though in the form of a condition, was in truth a warranty.

Mr. Justice Middleton, in delivering the judgment of the Court, said that there was a wide difference between the attitude of the Court towards errors and defects in a contract arrived at by correspondence where the goods have been delivered, and there was unquestionably some contract, and the Court is merely endeavouring to ascertain what the contract in truth was, and the attitude of the Court in a case in which damages are sought for the breach of an executory contract, and there is a real question as to whether the parties were ever ad idem.

The Court also gave the defendant the costs both of the claim and counterclaim, although the trial Judge had only given the defendant the costs of the counterclaim, Mr. Justice Middleton saying that the rights of the parties depend upon the substance and not upon the mere form of pleading, and when the counterclaim is one which is in truth a set-off the appropriate result as to costs ought to follow: Cutler v. Morse (1888), 12 P. R. 594.

PROVINCIAL

3. NEW BRUNSWICK.

SECRETARY-TREASURER OF NEW BRUNSWICK v. ROYAL TRUST COMPANY, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANNA M. FERGUSON, DECEASED.

Succession duty-Mortgage-Specialty debts—Situs.

This is another decision on the Succession Duty Act of New Brunswick. The defendant was the administrator cum testamento annexo of Anna M. Ferguson, who, at the time of her death, was a resident of and domiciled in the City of Chicago, Illinois. Among her assets were mortgages amounting to $54,000, on real estate in the Province of New Brunswick. Bonds had been given by the mortgagors to the decedent and the mortgage instruments, as well as the bonds, were at her death in the possession of her agents in the City of Chicago. The mortgages had been registered in the proper registry office in New Brunswick, but no duplicates were in this province. The Crown claimed that succession duty was payable by the estate in respect of such assets as being property within the province.

It was held (following Walsh v. The King, 1894, 63 L. J. P. C. 52, and Toronto General Trust Corporation v. The King, 1917, 56 S. C. R. 26) that notwithstanding the rule that specialty debts are deemed to have had a situs where they actually were at the time of the death of the owner, the property in question was property in New Brunswick, and that succession duty was payable accordingly.

MANTLE LAMP COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., v. NIXON.

Sale of goods-Guarantee-Fraud-Estoppel.

In an action brought on a guarantee covering the price of goods to be sold by the plaintiff to a third party, the defendant, who was illiterate, pleaded that the guarantee had been obtained by the fraud of the debtor, and that in signing he believed that the document, which was not read over to him, was a recommendation of the debtor as a salesman. The jury found that the defendant was not aware that he was dealing with a guarantee, but that the circumstances of the signing were such that a reasonable man would have ascertained the nature of the document executed. Subsequently, a letter was received by the defendant from the plaintiff, which was read over to the defendant, and which stated that in view of the defendant's letter of guarantee, the plaintiff was extending credit accordingly. No action was taken on this letter by the defendant. Held, that these facts constituted an estoppel against the defendant, and that although this plea was not specifically set up, as all of the evidence was before the Court, an amendment would be allowed.

BOOKS AND PERIODICALS.

Publishers desiring reviews or notices of Books and Periodicals must send copies of the same to the Editor, care of THE CARSWELL COMPANY, LIMITED, 145 Adelaide Street West, Toronto, Canada.

A Treatise on the Law of Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, BankNotes and Cheques. By the Right Honourable Sir John Barnard Byles, late one of the Judges of Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas. 18th Edition with Colonial Notes by Walter J. Barnard Byles and A. W. Baker Welford. London: Sweet and Maxwell, Limited. The Carswell Company, Limited, 1923.

The most important recent decision within the sphere of the subjectmatter of this vade mecum for the commercial lawyer is the case of The London Joint Stock Bank v. MacMillan, (1918) A. C. 777. There, as the editors of the present edition point out, the House of Lords upheld the much criticized decision in Young v. Grote, (1827) 4 Bing. 253, and incidentally confirmed the correctness of the view expressed by the editors of the last edition of Byles. We are informed that owing to the greatly increased cost of production since the date of the last edition, it has been found necessary to restrict the size of the book. Material

that was not absolutely necessary to a clear understanding of the text as now presented, has been rigorously eliminated. The space saved in this way has been devoted to a consideration of the Australian, Canadian, New Zealand and South African statutes which correspond to, and to some extent, reproduce the English Act of 1882. The editors explain that they do not attempt to deal exhaustively with Dominions cases. However, they have done the very important thing of directing attention to the most striking points of difference between the overseas legislation and the English Act. They have also cited cases decided in the overseas courts interpreting these dissimilar enactments. Canadian lawyers will also be pleased to note authority accorded to Canadian cases in support of the English doctrine laid down in the text. At page 174, among the authorities illustrating the interpretation of the provisions of Section 36 of the English Act providing that "Where an overdue bill is negotiated it can only be negotiated subject to any defect of title affecting it at its maturity, and thenceforward no person who takes it can acquire or give a better title than that of which the person from whom he took it had," we find the following Canadian cases cited: The Merchants' Bank of Canada v. Thompson, (1911) 23 O. L. R. 502; Union Investment Company v. Wells, (1908) 39 S. C. R. 625, and Moore v. Scott, (1907) 5 W. L. R. 381. While our excellent Canadian books on the subject render reference to the standard English works less necessary than formerly, yet Canadian practitioners will find the old reliable "Byles on Bills" still very useful to them upon occasion.

Chambers's Encyclopædia. A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge. Edited by David Patrick, LL.D. and William Geddie, M.A., B.Sc. Volume III-(Cata to Diop.) Revised Edition. London and Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers, Limited.

The ten volumes of this great literary undertaking will comprise 30,000 articles contributed by some of the most eminent authorities in the world. Among the lawyers in the list of contributors are Lord Haldane, Lord Birkenhead, Sir John Simon, Lord Askwith, Sir Thomas Raleigh, Professor A. Berriedale Keith, Sheriff Irvine and Sheriff Durbar. In the present volume our readers will find a most instructive article on Copyright by Sir John Simon and Mr. T. W. Phillips. Reference is made to the case of Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) which developed a remarkable division of opinion among the Judges, being ultimately carried to the House of Lords where it was decided that if any common law right ever existed in published works it had been taken away by the Copyright Act of 1709. The common law, however, continued to protect the author against the unauthorized publication of unpublished works until the Act of 1911, which abrogated all protection to the author except that granted by statute law. Professor A. Berriedale Keith writes on the Colony with his usual learning and clarity of expression. Sir James Balfour Paul and Sheriff Irvine explain to the enquiring mind the position of the Crown under the law. The subject of Debt is very fully and admirably treated both as respects English and Scottish law. In speaking of

Chatham Lord Haldane says: "His affectedness and haughtiness not unfrequently disgusted his friends, and pride rather than principle seems to have actuated his course at some important conjunctures of his life. He had, however, an intense love of country; the grand object of his ambition being to make his native land safe against all contingencies, and powerful among nations."

The attention of our readers is directed to the following periodical literature:

Illinois Law Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 6. of Agent Affect Defence of Fraud in Action Price.

How far Does. Knowledge on Life Policy." Paul E.

Michigan Law Review, Vol. XXII, No. 4. 'Humanitarian Intervention in International Law as Related to Practice of United States."

American Journal of International Law, Vol. XVIII, No. 1. "Codification of International Law." Henry G. Crocker. Proposed Rules for Regulation of Aerial Warfare." James W. Gardner.

Law Quarterly Review, Vol. XL, No. 157. Nationality and Naturalization." H. J. Randall. "English Legislature and the Irish Courts." His Honor Judge W. J. Johnston.

Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXXVII, No. 5. The Judiciality of Minimum Wage Legislation." Thomas Reed Powell.

Columbia Law Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 3. "The Measurement of Law School Work." Ben D. Wood.

Minnesota Law Review, Vol. VIII, No. 4. "The Problem of Tax-Exempt Securities." William Anderson.

C. M.

BOOKS AND PERIODICALS RECEIVED.

1. Citizenship. By Sir W. H. Hadow, Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield University. Toronto. Oxford University Press. Price, $2.00.

2. The Law and Practice in Bankruptcy. By W. M. Collier. 13th Edition, by Frank B. Gilbert and Fred E. Rosbrook, in four volumes. Albany, N.Y.: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. 1923.

3. The Saar Controversy. By W. R. Bisschop, LL.D. The Grotius Society Publications. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited, 1924. Toronto: The Carswell Company, Limited.

4. Trial of Mary Queen of Scots. Edited by A. Francis Steuart. Toronto: Canada Law Book Company Limited, 1923.

5. Trial of Thomas Neill Cream. Edited by W. Teignmouth Shore. Toronto: Canada Law Book Company Limited, 1923.

CURRENT EVENTS.

On Friday, February 15th, 1924, at Royal Alexandra Hotel, Winnipeg, the Bar of Manitoba tendered a dinner to His Honour Sir James Aikins, K.C., Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba and President of the Canadian Bar Association, to mark the forty-fifth anniversary of his admission to the Bar of the Province. Nearly 300 were present and the gathering was a striking manifestation of the esteem in which Sir James is held by those associated with him in the practice of law in western Canada. Messages were read from leading Judges and members of the Bar in most of the Provinces of Canada. The Bar of Saskatchewan was represented by His Honour the Hon. H. W. Newlands, K.C., Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan, and the Bar of Alberta had as its representative Dr. H. A. Robson, K.C., of Winnipeg. The dinner was arranged by a commtitee representing the Law Society of Manitoba, the Manitoba Bar Association and the Blackstone Club of Winnipeg and was presided over by Mr. Theo. A. Hunt, K.C., of Winnipeg, President of the Manitoba Bar Association.

On behalf of the Bar, Dr. Isaac Pitblado, K.C., presented Sir James with an illuminated address signed by all present at the dinner. The text of the address is as follows::

To His Honour Sir James Aikins, Kt., K.C., LL.D., Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba.

We the undersigned members of the Bar of the Province of Manitoba, desire to take advantage of the forty-fifth anniversary of your call to the Bar to extend to you our sincere and heartfelt congratulations on the passing of this milestone in your professional career, while you still preserve the health and vigor of earlier years.

It falls to the lot of few men to enjoy the priceless blessing of health after a strenuous career covering such a long period of time, and to be able still to look forward to years of activity and service.

It give us a great deal of gratification to be able to express to you, upon an occasion of this kind, our appreciation of your loyalty and great service to Canada, and your generosity and untiring energy on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, the success of which is due in such a large measure to your efforts. This in itself entitles you to our gratitude and appreciation, and it is with pride as fellow-members of your profession that we contemplate the great work which you have achieved, both for the Bar and in your own personal and professional career.

We further desire to express the fond hope that you may long enjoy the best of health, and continue your distinguished services to your country and profession.

Dated at Winnipeg this Fifteenth day of February, 1924.