3. Caveat-Mistake in name of in fee simple of certain lands under owner, courts of equity will recogThe Real Property Act of 1885. nize and give effect to trusts and On, or about, that day G. executed contracts by acting in personam. a transfer of the lands to H. and Re Herbert & Gibson, 6 M. R. was paid the purchase money, but 191, explained. Re Massey & the transfer was not registered un- Gibson, 172. til the 1st May, 1888. In the meantime a writ of execution against the lands of G. was regis- applicant-Place to serve notices.] tered. The Registrar-General, un-Augustus Meredith Nanton havder section 110 of The Real Pro- ing applied for a certificate of title perty Act of 1885, submitted for of the lands in question under The the opinion of a judge, the question Real Property Act of 1889, M. whether the land was bound by the filed a caveat claiming an estate in execution. The question was arfee simple in the lands, and he then gued before BAIN, J., who gave an filed a petition to establish his opinion that the land was bound. claim. In the caveat the name of H. afterwards transferred to S., the applicant was stated to be who filed this petition for a direc- Augustus Meredith Newton. tion to register the transfer, and to appeared that in the usual notice issue to him a clear certificate of served upon the caveator by directitle. The petition came up tion of the District Registrar, under in section 52, the name "Nanton" Chambers, and both sides filed affidavits, after which DUBUC, J. refer- was not written plainly, and that red the petition to the Full Court. the application number was correctHeld, (1) That BAIN, J., did not ly given, and the lands correctly decide the question, but merely described in the caveat. gave an opinion for the guidance dule O of the statute, as to stating of the Registrar-General, leaving It Held, that the direction in sche the parties to raise the question the name of the applicant, is not again, as they have by this petition. imperative, and that the mistake was only an irregularity, and the caveat was not invalid on account of it. (2) That the Registrar-General could not enquire into the existence of a beneficial interest apart from the registered title. The petitioner's remedy, if any, was in a court of equity. Semble, a petition under the 118th section of The Real Property Act of 1889 may be summarily disposed of on affidavits, but, at all events, the respondent, having filed affidavits in reply, is now too late to raise the objection. The statute does not by registration recognize trusts, or the separation of legal and beneficial ownerships, but, as against the registered The petition alleged that the caveatee had applied to bring the lands under The Real Property Act, and that the petitioner had filed a caveat forbidding this, but did not expressly allege that the lands had not been registered under the Act. Held, that on the facts stated the Court will assume that the caveat was lodged before the registration of the certificate of title. Section 130, sub-section 8, of The Real Property Act of 1889 provides, that every caveat "shall state some address or place within. the Province of Manitoba at which Held, that both N. and W. notices and proceedings relating to should be parties to the issue. caveats may be served." Hay v. Nixon, 579. The caveat did not name a place at which notices, &c., might be served, but said, "I appoint A. N. McPherson, Commissioner of Railways office, Winnipeg, my agent, on whom notices and proceedings thereto may be served." Held, that the statute requires the caveat to state some place at which notices may be served, and that the statutory direction in this respect must be deemed to be imperative. The caveat in this case merely naming a person, the petition could not be entertained. McArthur v. Glass, 6 M.R. 224, followed. McKay v. Nanton, 250. 6. Trusts under Real Property Act. See CERTIFICAte of Judgment. 7. Petition-Security for costs. See COSTS AND SECURITY FOR Costs, 7. RECORD. Costs of plaintiff entering record REDEMPTION. Lien Redemption of whole of land sold for taxes by owner of part for redemption money. See TAX SALE, 4. 4. Petition Necessary allegation-Practice.]-Where a petition to enforce a caveat, lodged pursuant to section 130 of The Real Property Act of 1889, is filed after the expiration of one month from the receipt of the caveat by the District Registrar, it is necessary to allege in the petition that a certifi-diction of Referee. cate of title has not been issued. McKay v. Nanton, 7 M. R. 250, distinguished. Sprague v. Graham, 398. 5. Practice-Parties to issue.]— N. applied to bring certain lands under the provisions of The Real Property Act, and in his application directed that the certificate of title should be issued in the name of W. Notice of the application was served on H., who filed a caveat and followed it up with a petition. On the return of the petition an issue was directed. H. applied to have W. added as a party to the issue, he being the true owner of the land. REFEREE. - Jury-Ex-parte order for-Juris See JURY. REGISTRY LAWS. Registration - Priority - Quit claim deed - Notice - Affidavit of execution.]-A quit claim deed is within the Registry Act, and by registration defeats a prior unregistered grant of the interest of the same grantor. Registration is effectual without an affidavit of execution by the grantee. M. was entitled to a conveyance in fee simple of the lands in question, upon the payment of a small balance of purchase money. Under these circumstances, he executed an assignment of his interest in the land to A. Subsequently, M. executed a quit claim deed of the lands to B. B. registered first. B. had notice that A. had been negotiating for the purchase of the land, and that there had been a verbal arrangement for a transfer to A. He asked M. if he had given any written agreement to A, but did not enquire of A. himself. Held, that there was not sufficient proof of actual notice to defeat B.'s prior registration. SCHOOLS. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1. SECURITY FOR COSTS. See CoSTS AND SECURITY FOR COSTS. SEDUCTION. What constitutes relation of masThe plaintiff ter and servant.] · sued the defendant for the seduction of her daughter, a girl fourteen At the time the years of age. seduction took place, the girl was living as a domestic servant at the defendant's house, under the following circumstances: The plaintiff made a contract with the Stark v. Stephenson, defendant, in the daughter's pre Held, also, that in order to bring abstinence from enquiry within the category of actual notice, there must be wilful abstinence and fraudulent determination not to be informed. 381. RESCINDING RULE. REVIVOR OF JUDGMENT. See CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT. ROAD ALLOWANCE. By-law to sell road allowanceStatutory notices-Quashing by-law. See MUNICIPALITY. SALE OF GOODS. SALE OF LAND. sence, that the daughter should enter his service for $8 a month. The wages were to be paid to the mother. For the plaintiff it was contended that the defendant's contract was with the mother, that the daughter remained all the time in the service of the mother, and did her work as the servant of the mother under the mother's contract with defendant. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff. On a motion for a non-suit, Held, that under such circumstances the only proper inference was, that the girl was to serve the defendant alone, as her master in the ordinary way, and there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that any but the ordinary relations of master and servant existed between the girl and the defendant, or that the girl remained the servant of the mother, and was to do her work in that capacity. (Per KILLAM, J.) There may well be a case in which a master hires out a servant to do work for a third party, and in which there would be no contract at all between the third party and the servant, who would remain all the time in the original service, though bound to obey such commands of the third party as were implied by the nature of the employment or the terms of the agreement. Carr v. Clarke, 2 Chitty, 260, commented on. Hebb v. Lawrence, 222. SEPARATE PROPERTY. See HUSBAND AND WIFE. SERVICE OF EX JURIS WRIT. See PRACTICE, 6. The defendant applied to have both bills referred for taxation. Held, (Reversing the decision of TAYLOR, C. J.) (1) When a solicitor's bill contains one taxable item the whole bill is taxable. (2) That the first bill was clearly taxable, and the statute can not be evaded by the device of dividing the one bill into two. (3) When there is no prescribed tariff the taxing officer must inform himself in the best way he can as to the proper amount to allow. Howard v. Burrows, 181. SPECIAL ENDORSEMENT. See MOTION FOR JUDGMENt, 1. |