goods supplied between the 2nd of February, 1880, and the 3rd of May, 1880, and upon an account stated on the latter day between the defendant and the said John Smith. 2. On the said 3rd of May the said John Smith absolutely assigned to the plaintiff by agreement, in writing, under his hand, the said debt of £43 10s., and express notice in writing was given to the defendant of such assignment. The plaintiff claims £43 10s. Defence. 1. On the said 3rd of May the defendant was only indebted to the said John Smith in the sum of £35, and no account was on that date, or ever settled between the defendant and John Smith shewing a larger sum than £35 to be due. legal and other remedies for the same, and the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor: Provided always that if the debtor, trustee, or other person liable in respect of such debt or chose in action shall have had notice that such assignment is disputed by the assignor or any one claiming under him, or any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or chose in action, he shall be entitled, if he think fit, to call upon the several persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or he may, if he think fit, pay the same into the High Court of Justice under and in conformity with the provisions of the Acts for the relief of trustees.” Prior to this enactment the law (except in the case of an assignee of a policy of insurance) was that an assignee of a chose in action or debt could not sue the debtor in his own name; he must sue in the name of his assignor. Now in the cases which fall within sect. 25, sub-sect. 6, the assignee is entitled, upon compliance with the requisitions of the statute, to sue the debtor directly in his own name. It must be observed that only absolute assignments are within the sub-section. Therefore an assignment of a chose in action by way of mortgage to secure an advance made to the assignor will not enable the assignee to sue the original debtor in his own name. This was expressly decided in the case of the National Provincial Bank of England v. Harle, 50 L. J. 437. Debtor in action on assignment of debt may set-off claim against debtor, but may not counterclaim for The assignee where he takes by an absolute assignment of the chose in action, now stands exactly in the shoes of his assignor. He has the same rights against the debtor as his assignor has; neither more nor less. The debtor is not in any way to be prejudiced by the fact of the assignment, and he is entitled to set up as a defence to an action brought by the assignor, everything which would be a defence in part or in whole against the assignor. Thus in Young v. Kitchen (3 Ex. Div. 127; 26 W. R. 403), as a defence to a claim by the plaintiff as assignee of the balance of a debt due from the defendant to D. for work done under a contract, the defendant counter-claimed against the plaintiff for damages for breach of the contract by D., and it was held that the defendant was entitled to counter-claim for such damages, but only as a set-off to it. the plaintiff's claim. In such a case the counter-claim should show on the face of it that the defendant does not seek damages against the plaintiff. (Per Cleasby, B.) 2. The said John Smith did not absolutely assign the debt mentioned in the statement of claim, or any other debt to the plaintiff. 3. Express notice in writing was not given to the defendant of such assignment, or of any assignment. Reply. 4. The plaintiff joins issue upon the statement of defence. 2. Claim by Assignee of a Sum Awarded to the Assignor. 1. In the month of August, 1876, a claim for a large sum of money, which one William Wood, of Wigan, had made against the defendant, was referred by the said William Wood and the defendant to the arbitration of John Tomkins, Esq., of Preston. 2. The said John Tomkins, Esq., by his award made on the 13th of September, 1876, awarded that the defendant should pay to the said William Wood the sum of £550. 3. On the 15th of September, 1876, the said William Wood in writing absolutely assigned all his interest in the said sum of £550 to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff forthwith gave express notice in writing to the defendant of such assignment. The plaintiff claims £550. Defence and Counter-claim. Defence. 1. As to the 1st paragraph of the statement of claim the defendant says, that in addition to the claim of the said William Wood against the defendant, a large claim which the defendant had against the said William Wood was also referred to the said John Tomkins, Esq., and he was required to give his award as to all matters in difference between the parties. 2. The award of the said John Tomkins, Esq., is bad in law, because he wholly failed to consider the defendant's claim against the said William Wood, and has made no award or determination in regard thereto. Counter-claim. And by way of set-off and counter-claim 3. The defendant says that his claim against the said William Wood which the said John Tomkins, Esq., failed to consider and award upon was for £700 damages for failure to deliver 200 tons of iron in accordance with a contract in writing dated the 3rd of March, 1876, made between the defendant and the said William Wood. Full particulars of the said damages are delivered to the said William Wood. 4. The said sum of £700 is still due. The defendant claims to set-off against the said sum of £550-the said sum of £700. Reply. 1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the defence. 2. As to the counter-claim the plaintiff says that the said John Tomkins, Esq., fully considered the defendant's said claim of £700, and wholly disallowed it, and awarded that nothing was due to the defendant in respect of it. 3. Claim upon the Sums Due on a Building Contract assigned to the Plaintiff. 1. R. S., lately of K., did certain work as a builder for the defendant prior to the 10th May, 1877, and there was then due to him from the defendant in respect of such work the sum of £100 158. 63d. Full particulars of the said sum have been delivered to the defendant. 2. On the 10th May, 1877, the said R. S. absolutely assigned to the plaintiff by agreement in writing the said debt of £100 15s. 6d.; and on the 16th May, 1877, express notice in writing was given to the defendant of the said assignment. The plaintiff claims £100 15s. 6d. Defence and Counter-claim. Defence. 1. The sum of £100 15s. 6d. claimed in this action is made up of a sum of £40 Os. 6d., alleged to be the balance remaining due of R. S.'s contract price for doing the work in the said claim referred to, and also of divers sums claimed in respect of extras. 2. As to the said £40 0s. 6d., it was a condition of the defendant's contract with the said R. S. that the said balance should not be payable until two months after the works should have been certified by the architect to be completed, and then only upon production of his certificate. 3. The said works have not been completed. Such certificate has not been given. Alternatively two months did not elapse after the giving of any such certificate before this action was brought, and further no such certificate has been produced to the defendant. 4. As to the sums which are claimed in respect of extras it was a condition of the defendant's contract with the said R. S. that no charge or allowance should be made for any extras unless the same should have been ordered in writing by the defendant's architect. None of such extras claimed for were ordered in writing by the defendant's architect or were otherwise ordered by the defendant. Counter-claim. 1. The said contract contained a clause whereby it was provided that the said R. S. should complete the works by the of or in default pay to the defendant a sum of £3 a day for every subsequent day during which the works should remain unfinished, and they so remained unfinished for 32 days, to the The defendant counter-claims for £96. 4. For a Claim by Assignee of Policy of Insurance, see Title Insurance. Clergyman. Claim by a Clergyman who has resigned his Benefice for The plaintiff's claim is, as the late incumbent of the benefice of C., in the county of C., against the defendant as the now incumbent of the said benefice, for the sum of £225, being one half-year's pension due to him out of the revenues of the said living by virtue of a declaration made under the hand of the Bishop of, in accordance with the provisions of the Incumbents' Resignation Act. The plaintiff claims £225. Claim by Incumbent of a Parish against the Retired Incumbent for Dilapidations (b). 1. The plaintiff is the new incumbent of the benefice of A., and the defendant is the late incumbent of the said benefice. may get a (a) By the 34 & 35 Vict. c. 44, clergymen permanently incapacitated When by illness may resign their benefices, and a pension not exceeding one- clergymen third of the annual value of the benefices resigned may be awarded to them; and by sect. 10, "The pension so allowed shall be a charge upon pension on the revenues of the benefice, and shall be recoverable as a debt at law resignation. or in equity from the incumbent of the said benefice by the retired clerk, his executors, administrators, or assigns, but such pension shall not be transferable at law or equity." In Gathercole v. Smith (7 Q. B. D. 626; 50 L. J. Q. B. 681), it was held by the Court of Appeal that a set-off, or counter-claim, cannot be pleaded to an action brought under this statute for arrears of pension. (b) By the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict, c. 43), Liability it is provided that no sum shall be recoverable for dilapidations in re- for dilapispect of any benefice which becomes vacant after the commencement of dations. the Act, and to which the Act applies, unless the claim be founded upon an order under the Act. (Sect. 53.) Under the Act diocesan surveyors are appointed and if an incumbent makes such repairs as they require, he is relieved from all further liability for five years, unless in case of wilful waste, or damage by fire against which the incumbent has failed to insure. (Sects. 46, 47.) The whole expense of the repairs is cast upon the incumbent, who, however, may borrow the money from Queen Anne's Bounty, and charge the sum on the benefice. When the benefice becomes vacant, unless the late incumbent, or his representatives, are relieved from liability under the Act by having made such repairs as the surveyor directed within five years, it is the duty of the bishop to direct the surveyor to inspect the rectory buildings, &c., and report what sum is required to make good the dilapidations. (Sect. 29.) The surveyor's report will set out what works are necessary, and what sum will be required. A copy of such report must be sent to the present and the late incumbent, and they are entitled to state their objections to it to the bishop, Finally, the bishop shall make an order stating the repairs |