ADDENDA.

P. 159, the name of Mr. Richardson, as one of the counsel for the crown, was accidentally omitted.

WINDHAM V. PATERSON, Vol. I. 144, reported also, 4 Camp. 286. I have understood that the decision in this case has since been doubted.

TAYLOR V. KINLOCH, Vol. I. 176. In Trin. Term. 1819, Bayley, J. mentioned the case there cited, and stated that he had nonsuited the plaintiff for want of evidence to show the existence of the bill previous to the baukruptcy, and that the court of King's Bench afterwards held that the nonsuit was right.

(544)

ACTION.

5.

212

sheep. Proof must be given that the
dog had previously bit sheep, and the
fact cannot be inferred from the circum-
stance of the dog's having before sprung
A., with intent to seduce the servant and
upon a man. Hartley v. Halliwell.
daughter of B., hires her as his servant,
and by this means obtains possession
of her person. B. may maintain an ac-
tion against A. for such seduction. Speight
v. Oliviera.

493

Where the right of voting for a member
to serve in Parliament is in the inhabit-
ant householders paying scot and lot, one
who has been an inhabitant and has paid
poor's rates for many years, is entitled to
vote, although the poor's rates for three-
quarters of a year are in arrear at the
commencement of the election, no per-
sonal demand having been made upon
the party of the rates due, and no writ
ten demand having been left at his house.
At all events he is entitled to vote if he
pay the rates during the election.

A. agrees to supply B. with a manuscript
work to be printed by B., the profits of
which are to be equally divided. B. may
maintain an action at law against A. for
refusing to supply the manuscript. For
this is not an action of partnership pro-
fits, but for refusing to contribute the la-
bor of the defendant towards the attain-
ment of profits. It would be a good de-
fence to such an action, to show that the
intended publication was of an illegal
nature; but this is not to be presumed,
the work itself not being produced. Gale In an action against a returning officer for
and another v. Leckie.

ACTION ON THE CASE.

107

refusing a vote, the malice of the de-
fendant is an essential ingredient to sup-
port the action. Cullen v. Morris. 577

281

thority for what he did. Maunder and demnify A. against any claim by C., this
another v. Conyers.
promise is supported by a sufficient con
sideration, although it was made after
the payment of the money. Lord Suf
field v. Bruce.

AGREEMENT.

1. Agreement to let a house for a year, the
rent to commence at Michaelmas, and to
be paid three months in advance, such
advance to be paid on taking possession:
Semble this stipulation relates to the first
quarter's rent only. Hollander v. Palser.

6.

175

5. A., a malster, sends malt to B. the pur-
chaser, which is conveyed in C.'s barge,
and is delivered to B. in sacks belonging
to C.; B. requests that the sacks may be
left for his own convenience, and en-
gages to return them within a reasonable
time. The contract to return the sacks is
between B. and C. Terry v. Barker. 172
Money paid in consideration of putting
off the trial of a party upon an indict-
ment for perjury, for which he is not pre-
pared, cannot be recovered by his as-
signees, after he has become a bankrupt,
from the prosecutors. In an action by
the plaintiffs, A. and B., as the assignees
of C. v. E., a notice to produce a docu-
ment is entitled, A. and B., assignees of
C. and D. v. E., this is insufficient, al-
though A. and B. are, in fact, the as-
signees of C. and D. Harvey and others
v. Morgan and another.

1. A declaration in assumpsit against an
auctioneer, for having rescinded a con-
tract of sale (which he had made,) con- 7.
trary to his whole duty as auctioneer,
may be supported by implication of law
arising upon the facts of the employ-
ment of the auctioneer by the plaintiff,
and his sale of the goods, without proof
of an express contract on his part not to
rescind the contract. In such case, it
is incumbent on the defendant to esta-
blish a legal excuse for deviating from
the usual practice, although the proof in-
volve the proof a negative. Nelson and
another v. Aldridge.

435

1.

2.

2. Declaration on a promise by the defend-
ant to pay over to the plaintiff the amount
of a bill of exchange, delivered to him
by the plaintiff, to get discounted.-The
defendant having paid the bill in dis- 3.
charge of a debt of his own, is liable to
the plaintiff as if he had discounted the
bill. Oughton v. West.

321

5.

3. A. deposits goods in the warehouse of 4.
B., a wharfinger, for the purpose of sale
by B., who is paid 101. per annum for
warehouse rent, and receives a commis-
sion on the sale. B., having insured the
goods, which are afterwards burnt in the
warehouse, and having received the
amount from the insurer, is liable to A.
for so much money had and received to
his use.-A. deposits goods in the ware-
house of B., a wharfinger, and pays an
annual rent for part of a particular ware-
house, B. removes the goods into another
warehouse, where they are burnt: qu.
whether B. is liable to A. for the amount.
Sidaways and another v. Todd and an-
other.
400 6.
4. A. having paid to B. the whole of a de-
mand claimed by B., but part of which is
due to C., B. afterwards engages to in-

17

One who professes to cure disorders
within a specific time by means of sove
reign medicines, and induces another to
employ him by false and fraudulent pro-
fessions of his skill, cannot recover for
medicines or attendance. Hupe v. Phelps.

85

A. lends money to B. and receives a gun
as security for the repayment. A. may
recover the amount without first return-
ing the gun. Lawton v. Newland. 72
The plaintiff having paid an attorney
the amount of his bill, cannot, after a
reduction of the bill by taxation, recover
the difference. Gower v. Popkin.
Declaration on a special agreement for
the sale of a lease of a house in order to
recover a deposit for the purchase, the
supposed agreement being unstamped,
but not having been signed by either of
the parties, or by the auctioneer as their
agent, the plaintiff may recover for mo-
ney had and received. In such case it is
incumbent on the defendant to show that
when the deposit was demanded by the
plaintiff, he tendered an assignment of
the lease. Adams v. Fairbain.
A. engages to indemnify B. against a
debt due from A. and B. to C. of 50%.; A.
and B., in fact, owe C. 74. and C. re-
fuses to accept 50% from 4. without pay

277

ment of the remainder of his debt; and]

100

AUCTIONEER.

C. arrests B. for the whole debt. 4. is A landlord having given notice to his lessee
liable to B. on his engagement to in-
demnify him. Hancock v. Clay.
7. A. sells beer to B. in casks, giving him|
notice that unless he returns the casks
in a fortnight he will be considered as
the purchaser: B. does not return them
within a fortnight; A. cannot maintain
an action for goods sold and delivered,
the whole resting in special agreement.
Lyons and another v. Barnes.

39

8. A purser's steward on board one of His
Majesty's ships, cannot recover wages
from the purser, upon an implicit con-
tract, for his services as such on board
the ship. Carter v. Hall.

361

9. If a servant hired for a year refuse to

(under a covenant in the lease) that he
would re-enter if the premises were not
put in repair within three months, if an
auctioneer sell the lease without com-
municating the notice to the vendee, the
latter may recover his deposit from the
auctioneer, although he knew the dilapi-
dated state of the premises at the time
of the sale. Stevens v. Adamson. 422

B.

BANKRUPTCY.

against A. and B., may, in an action to
recover a debt due to A. alone, describe
themselves in the declaration as the as-
signees of A. alone. Harvey v. Morgan.

17

obey his master's orders, the master is 1. The assignees under a joint commission
justified in dismissing him before the end
of the year, and the servant cannot re-
cover any wages. Spain v. Arnott. 256
10. Assumpsit and plea of set-off for money
lent by the defendant to the plaintiff. Re-
plication, denying the set-off. It appears 2.
that the loan took place thirteen years
ago. Although the statute of limitations
is not a legal bar to the action, the jury
may presume from length of time and
other circumstances, that the debt has
been satisfied. Cooper v. Dame Turner,
Widow.

497
11. A. lends a picture to B., who wishes to
show it to C. B., without any previous
communication with C., and without his 3.
knowledge, sends the picture to his
house, where it is accidently injured: C.
is not responsible in assumpsit for not
keeping the picture safely:- Semble,
whether B. is a competent witness for
the plaintiff. Lethbridge v. Phillips, Knt. 4.

ATTORNEY.

544

5.

1. If one item of an attorney's bill be for
preparing a warrant of attorney to con
fess a judgment, a bill must be delivered
according to the stat. 2 G. 2. c. 23. s. 23,
although the warrant has not been ex-
ecuted. Weld v. Crawford.
538
2. It is no defence to an action by a soli-
citor against an assignee under a com-
mission of bankrupt that the commission
was sued out under a misrepresentation
by the plaintiff that the commission would
be operative in the Isle of Man, and that
it has been wholly fruitless, for the com-
mission cannot be treated as a mere nul-
lity. Pasmore v. Birnie.
3. Although it is usual for the solicitor of
the vendor of an estate, sold at a mas-
ter's office, to procure the confirmation
of the sale in the Court of Chancery, to
the expence of which, the vendee is 7.
liable; the vendee may, if he choose,
employ his own solicitor to transact the
business. Devon and another v. Fricker.
170

59 6.

In an action by the assignees of a bank-
rupt, where the proceedings under the
commission, are read by virtue of the
statute; a deposition, in which it is
stated, that the deponent saw the bank-
rupt execute an assignment of all his
effects, &c., is sufficient evidence of the
act of bankruptcy, without producing
the assignment. Kay and another v.
Stead.
200

A bankrupt having a lease of premises,
and also a reversionary interest in them,
the assignees sell his estate and rever-
sionary interest in the premises. This
amounts to an acceptance of the lease
by the assignees. Page v. Codden. 309
Á bankrupt carries on the business of a
coachmaker for the benefit of the cre-
ditors, as their agent, under the authority
of the assignee, and orders goods in his
own name, which are used in the busi-
ness, the assignee is liable for goods
bought for the use of the business.
Kinder v. Howarth.

354

In an action against the assignees of a
bankrupt and their servants, the proceed-
ings may be read in evidence, where no
notice has been given under the statute,
of the plaintiff's intention to dispute the
bankruptcy, although there are other de-
fendants on the record besides the as.
signees. Gillman v. Cousins and others.
182

The nonjoinder of a joint assignee of a
bankrupt, in an action of assumpsit
brought by the assignees, is a ground of
nonsuit upon the tria!, under a plea of
the general issue. Snelgrove v. Hunt. 424
A person who is interested in a commis-
sion of bankruptcy and the proceedings
under it, is entitled to have them pro-
duced in a collateral cause. Cohen v.
Templar and another.

260

8. A defendant's liability as surety in a
bastardy bond, is not discharged by his
bankruptcy and certificate. Parish of
St. Martin v. Warren.

ing to her husband's situation in life.
Luddlow v. Wilmot.

86

188 BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PRO-

MISSORY NOTES.

1. A. accepts a bill for the accommodation
of B., which B. delivers to C. his cre-
ditor, to provide for a bill about to be
come due. C., before A.'s bill becomes
due, returns it to B. as useless, in order
that it may be forwarded to A., and
abandons all claim upon the bill. C.
cannot, by subsequently obtaining pos
session of the bill, acquire a right of
action against A.-In such a case B.,
who has become bankrupt, is a compe
tent witness for A., after a general release
by A., although he has not been released
by his assignees. Cartwright and others
v. Williams.
349

2.

A. takes a bank note in the course of his
business, which he pays to B.; the note
is afterwards stopped at the bank as a
forged note, and is brought by an inspec-
tor to A., who immediately pays to B. the
amount of the note, and refuses to give
it up to the inspector, insisting on his
right to retain it, in order to recover the
amount from the person from whom he
received it. The inspector, in the ab-
sence of all circumstances of suspicion,
is not justified in charging A. before a
magistrate with feloniously having the
note in his possession, knowing it to be
forged, for the purpose of compelling
him to give up the note.-By possession,
under the stat. 45 G. 3. c. 89, is meant 3.
the original possession of a note acquir-
ed in an illegal mode, and not a subse-
quent possession like the above, where
the original possession was legal. Brooks
v. Warwick.

BARON AND FEME.

389

In an action by a second endorsee,
against the drawer of a bill, of exchange,
payable to his own order, proof that the
bill purported to have been accepted,
when it was indorsed to the plaintiff,
does not supersede the necessity of prov-
ing an actual acceptance.-The plaintiff
in such case, must either allege and
prove an actual acceptance, or charge
the drawer with having drawn the bill
upon a non-existing person. Smith v. Bel-
lamy.

223

An instrument by which the party pro-
mises to pay the sum of 654, and also
such other sum as, by reference to his
books, he owed to another, with interest,
cannot be considered as a promissory
note, even as to the 657., and cannot be
given in evidence under the count upon
an account stated, without an agreement
stamp. Smith and his Wife v. Nightin-
gale.

375

The drawee of a bill of exchange being
advised of the drawing of the bill by the
drawer, and requested to honor it, an-
swers by letter that "the bill shall meet
attention," this does not amount to an
acceptance, although it appears that in
other instances the drawee has used the
same expression when bills have been
drawn upon him. Rees and another v.
Warwick.

411

The payee of a bill of exchange accept-
ed as a security for A., engages to renew
it for three months more, if A. be not re-
turned before the bill become due. If the
acceptor, after the expiration of that
time, make no application for a renewal
of the bill, the payee may bring his ac-
tion before the expiration of three months
more. Gibbon and others v. Scott. 286
An acceptor of a bill of exchange, on
an action brought against him by the
payee, may show that he accepted it for
value as to part, and as an accommoda-
tion bill as to the rest. Darnell v. Wil
liams.

166