Counter-claim. 4. The defendant says that plaintiff purchased from him the lease, fixtures, fittings, goodwill, and stock-in-trade of the said shop mentioned in the statement of claim for the sum of £500. 5. The plaintiff has paid £200, and no more. The defendant claims £300. Reply. 1. The plaintiff joins issue upon the statement of defence. 2. As to the counter-claim he repeats all the allegations contained in the statement of claim. Rejoinder. The defendant joins issue upon the reply. 5. Claim for Misrepresenting the Value of a Public-house on its Sale. The plaintiff has suffered damage from the defendant inducing the plaintiff to buy the goodwill and lease of the "George" public-house, Stepney, by fraudulently representing to the plaintiff that the takings of the said public-house were £40 a week, whereas in fact they were much less to the defendant's knowledge. Particulars of special damage : [Fill them in.] The plaintiff claims £. 6. Claim for Misrepresentation as to the Solvency of Another Person. 1. In answer to a letter from the plaintiffs inquiring as to the solvency of A. B., the defendant on the 1st of August, 1879, replied as follows: · "Gentlemen,-The person you inquire about is respectable and doing a good business, and we consider his means are sufficient for his requirements in trade. Yours obediently, "C. W." 2. At the time when the said reply was so sent by the defendant, the said A. B. was insolvent, as the defendant well knew. 3. In consequence of the said reply, the plaintiffs were induced to sell and deliver to the said A. B. goods on credit; and in the month of June, 1880, the said A. B. was indebted to the plaintiffs in respect of such goods in the sum of £818, no part of which the said A. B. has paid. The plaintiffs claim £818, with interest thereon from until payment. 7. Claim for Misrepresentation in the Prospectus of a Company. 1. On the 31st January, 1883, the defendant issued a prospectus to the public relating to the A. B. Company (Limited). 2. On Feb. 1st, 1883, the plaintiff received a copy of this prospectus. 3. The plaintiff subscribed for 100 shares in the Company on the faith of this prospectus. 4. The prospectus contained misrepresentations, of which the following are particulars : 5. The defendant knew of the real facts as to the above particulars. 6. The following facts which were within the knowledge of the defendants, are material, and were not stated in the prospectus: (a) (b) 7. The plaintiff has paid calls to the Company to the extent of £1,000. The plaintiff claims: (1) Repayment of £1,000 and interest; (2) Indemnity. Defence. 1. The defendant did not issue the said prospectus to the public. 2. The defendant denies that the plaintiff subscribed for any shares in the said Company on the faith of the prospectus. 3. The said prospectus did not contain any misrepresentations. All the statements in the same specifically referred to in the 4th paragraph of the claim were true. 4. If any of them were untrue or inaccurate, the defendant did not know of their untruth or their inaccuracy. 5. The defendant does not admit that the facts alleged in the 6th paragraph were material. 6. They were not within the knowledge of the defendant. 8. Clam for Issuing a Fraudulent Prospectus within the 38th Section of the Act of 1867. 1. On the 13th of February, 1880, the defendants were the directors of a joint stock company called 2. On the said 13th of February they, as such directors, issued a prospectus to the public inviting persons to subscribe for shares in the said company. 3. On the 14th of the said February the plaintiff received a copy of the said prospectus. 4. The plaintiff subscribed for 50 shares in the said company upon the faith of the said prospectus. 5. The said prospectus did not specify the dates and names of the parties to the following contracts entered into by the defendants as directors of the said company before the issue of such prospectus, viz.:— (a) A contract between one C. D. and the defendant A. B. of the 10th of January, 1880; and (b) A contract between the defendants acting for and on behalf of the company and X. Y. dated the 11th of January, 1880. 6. The plaintiff has paid calls to the company to the extent of £600. The plaintiff claims: (1) A return of the said sum of £600; (2) Damages. Mines. (See Landlord and Tenant.) Mischievous Animals. (See Ferocious Animals.) Money («). 1. Claim by Surety to Recover, against the Principal, Money he has been compelled to Pay. 1. On the 3rd of May, 1879, the plaintiff, at the defendant's request, became surety to A. B. for the due payment by the defendant to the said A. B. of £50 on the 3rd of June, 1879. (a) Money paid by the plaintiff to the use of the defendant.]-To maintain this action the following conditions are essential, viz.-(a) That the money was paid by the plaintiff; (b) That it was paid at the request of the defendant. To support the first of these it is necessary to show that money was paid, unless where stock (Howard v. Danbury, 2 C. B. 803), or a bill or note (Barclay v. Gooch, 2 Esp. 571) is taken as equivalent to money. It must also be stated that the money paid was the plaintiff's. (See Moore v. Pyrke, 11 East, 52; Exall v. Partridge, 8 T. R. 308.) A request must be proved, even where the plaintiff has paid a debt Request due by the defendant. (Stokes v. Lewis, 1 T. R. 20.) But a legal obli- must be gation to pay another's debt, as in the case of a surety, dispenses with proved, an express request. (See Johnson v. R. Mail Packet Co., L. R. 3 C. P. except 38.) On this principle an accommodation acceptor who is sued in where default of payment by the drawer may recover from the latter the plaintiff amount of the bill paid by him (Driver v. Burton, 21 L. J. Q. B. 157); compelled aliter if he paid it voluntarily. (Sleigh v. Sleigh, 5 Ex. 514.) If he to pay. defends the action at the request of the drawer, he may recover the costs. (Garrard v. Cottrell, 10 Q. B. 679.) And such request may be implied. (Stratton v. Mathews, 3 Ex. 48.) Where the plaintiff paid the funeral expenses of the defendant's wife, When who was living apart from him at her death, which took place in the request plaintiff's house, he was held entitled to recover, though he knew where implied. to find the defendant and did not apply to him. (Bradshaw v. Beard, 31 L. J. C. P. 273.) If the plaintiff allows goods to remain on the defendant's premises with his knowledge but without his express request until rent has become due, and the landlord has distrained, the plaintiff cannot recover from the defendant money paid by him to pay out the distress. An original lessee may recover in this action money paid by him for Lessee may breaches of covenant by the assignee, on the implied or express promise recover or covenant to indemnify (Moule v. Garrett, L. R. 5 Ex. 132; aff. Ex. money paid for breaches of covenant by assignee. Mere pay- What is evidence of a loan. Person to whom mo- another not liable to that other till he has agreed with him to hold the money to his use. Money recoverable 2. The defendant did not pay the said sum of £50, and the plaintiff was compelled to pay it. The plaintiff claims £50. Ch. L. R. 7 Ex. 101. See also Roberts v. Crowe, L. R. 7 C. P. 636, per Willes, J.; and Couch v. Tregonnino, L. R. 7 Ex. 88.) As to costs paid in action on such breaches, see Howard v. Lovegrove, L. R. 6 Ex. 43. If a person is compelled to pay money in consequence of his own neglect or breach of duty, though it may be for the benefit of another, it cannot be recovered from the latter. (Pitcher v. Bailey, 8 East, 171.) If there has been an express request to pay, the plaintiff may recover. though the debt was one which could not have been enforced, such as a wager (Knight v. Chambers, 24 L. J. C. P. 121; Reed v. Anderson, 10 Q. B. Div. 100), or a time bargain. (Rosewarne v. Billing, 33 L. J. C. P. 55.) A subsequent assent to the payment will be evidence of a previous request. (1 Wms. Saund. 264, b (2).) Money lent.]-The plaintiff must show that the money was lent and not repaid. The mere payment of money to the defendant is not evidence of a loan, as the presumption is that it was in payment of a debt. (Welch v. Seaborn, 1 Stark. 474.) But if the plaintiff can show any transactions from which the loan may be inferred, or an application for a loan at the time, this, coupled with payment, will be evidence of a loan. (Cary v. Gerrish, 4 Esp. 9.) Where money is advanced by A. to B. as a gift, B.'s assent will be assumed, but if B. declines to accept it except as a loan, the advance is then a loan. (Hill v. Wilson, L. R. 8 Ch. 888.) Where A., at the request of B., agreed to lend C. money on D.'s guarantee, and did so, receiving the following memorandum, signed by C. and D., "We jointly and severally owe you £60," it was held that there was evidence of a loan. (Buck v. Hurst, L. R. 1 C. P. 297.) Money had and received for plaintiff.]-The plaintiff must show that money was received by the defendant, and that it was received by him on account of the plaintiff. This action will not lie to recover a bank note against the finder thereof, it not having been received (Chitty on Bills, 9th ed., 524); aliter if cashed. (Ib.) An auctioneer is the agent of both parties, and a deposit on a sale that goes off may be recovered from him as money received to the plaintiff's use. Where a deposit is paid to the vendor's solicitor, the vendor may recover it before the question of title is settled. (Edgell v. Day, L. R. 1 C. P. 80.) Profits made by an agent in the course of his employment belong absolutely to the principal, who may recover them as money received to the use of the plaintiff. (Morison v. Thompson, L. R. 9 Q. B. 480.) Where an agent receives money to pay over to a third person, though he assents to hold it for that purpose, it cannot be recovered from him by such third person until he has entered into a binding agreement to hold it to his use or communicates the fact to the third person. (Baron v. Husband, 4 B. & Ad. 611; Lilly v. Hays, 5 Ad. & E. 548.) The holder of a bill cannot sue the acceptor's banker for the amount of the bill put into the banker's hands to pay the bill. (Hill v. Royds, L. R. 8 Eq. 290.) In cases of a total failure of consideration this action lies to recover money paid on such consideration. But where A. conveyed land to B.. and A. covenants for title, and B. is evicted owing to A.'s want of title, A. cannot sue B. for money had and received, but can sue him on his covenant. (Clare v. Lamb, L. R. 10 C. P. 334.) If the consideration has only partially failed, the money cannot be recovered. As where a premium is paid for instructing an apprentice for seven years, and the master dies at the end of the first year, no part of the premium is re |