if from the day of the date thereof, including the day of such date;" but it is enacted, that, any defendant therein named may not have been served therewith, the writ may be renewed, "at any time before its expiration, for six months from the date of such renewal, and so from time to time during the currency of the renewed writ," by being sealed with a seal to be provided for that purpose. Quare, whether the six months for which the renewed writ under this section is to be available, are to be reckoned inclusively or exclusively of the date of the renewal ? Black v. Green, 262 5. The officer, assuming the former to be the proper construction of the statute, having declined to seal a writ which upon that assumption was tendered a day too late,-the Court, without expressing any opinion as to whether or not he had rightly construed the act, directed him to seal the writ nunc pro tunc. Ib. II. Appeal under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854. Semble, that the 34th and 35th sections of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854,-17 & 18 Vict. c. 125,-are not retrospective, though the 44th section is. Jenkins v. Betham, 189 III. Rule to discontinue. 1. In an action by assignees of a bankrupt, the defendant gave notice to dispute the trading and act of bankruptcy. At the trial, the Judge nonsuited the plaintiffs on the ground that the petitioning-creditor's debt upon the proceedings was contracted at a period when the bankrupt had ceased to be a trader. The court set aside the nonsuit, holding that the objection was not open to the defendant under the notice to dispute the trading and act of bankruptcy. A Judge at Chambers having allowed the defendant to amend his notice, by adding thereto that he intended at the trial to dispute the petitioning-creditor's debt,The court refused to allow the plaintiffs to discontinue without payment of costs. Hernamann v. Barber, 774 2. Where an administratrix has been made defendant in an action commenced against the intestate, by a suggestion under the 138th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, and has pleaded to the suggestion, the court will not allow the plaintiff to discontinue without payment of all the costs of the cause. Benge v. Swaine, VI. Entering Verdict. Upon a negotiation for the sale of a ship, B., the seller, represented to A., the buyer, that she was, so far as he knew, as sound as a ship of her age usually was. Upon the faith of this representation, A. agreed to purchase the ship, and proceeded to make alterations in her to fit her for a voyage to Australia, for which B. at the time of the contract knew she was intended. The register proving defective, A. afterwards repudiated the bargain, and, upon a suggestion that the representation of B. as to the ship's soundness was false, brought an action against him, charging him with a false and fraudulent representation with a view to induce A., and whereby A. was induced, to expend money on the ship, which but for such false and fraudulent representation he would not have done. At the trial, the Judge told the jury, that, to sustain the action, the plaintiff must prove, -that the defendant made the representation alleged, that it was false, that the defendant knew it to be false,-and that damage had resulted to the plaintiff. The jury returned the following verdict,--"We find for the plaintiff, but acquit the defendant of any fraudulent intention:"-Held, that, upon this finding, the verdict was properly entered for the plaintiff. Milne v. Marwood, 778 PRECEDENCE, PATENT of. See PROMOTIONS, I. PRESCRIPTIVE CORPORATION. See OYSTER-FISHERY. PRISONER. Discharge of, under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, s. 25. By the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, s. 25, sums payable by way of annuity are to be deemed debts: and by s. 57,-reciting "that it is expedient to limit the present power of arrest upon final process," it is enacted, "that no person shall be taken or charged in execution upon any judgment obtained in any action for the recovery of any debt, wherein the sum recovered shall not exceed 201., exclusive of the costs recovered by such judgment." A. signed judgment for 5007. on a warrant of attorney given by B. to secure an annuity of 321. by half-yearly payments, and took B. in execution for 161.:-Held,-dubitante Williams, J.,-that B. was entitled to be discharged from custody under the above act, the "sum recovered" by the action being 167. Johnson v. Harris, 357 PRIVATE ACT. Construction of,-See ENCLOSURE ACT. PROCESS. See PRACTICE, I. PROHIBITION. Where granted. 1. To entitle a party to a prohibition to restrain commissioners under a local improvement act from proceeding to enforce a penalty for an offence against the act, he must distinctly show that they are acting without jurisdiction: it is not enough to show that it is doubtful, upon the act of parliament, whether their jurisdiction extends to the place where the alleged offence was committed. In re Birch, 2. "Public place," meaning of. PROMOTIONS. I. Patents of Precedence. II. Queen's Counsel. Denison, Edmund Beckett, 261. PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION. PUBLIC PLACE. PUBLIC STOCK. See STOCK-JOBBING. QUARE IMPEDIT. The Marquis of Bristol v. Robinson, 244. QUEEN'S COUNSEL. See PROMOTIONS, II. RAILWAY COMPANY. RAILWAY TRAFFIC. See REGULE GENERALES, 473-476. READINESS AND WILLINGNESS. REGISTRATION. See JOINT-STOCK COMPANY, 1, 2. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS. Under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18. A. bought a piece of freehold land for 1501., intending it for building purposes, for which it was suitable. In a case stated by a revising-barrister, it was found, that, if let upon a building-lease, the land would be worth a ground-rent of 157. a year; and that A. had received a bona fide offer of that sum, but had refused it as insufficient:-Held, that, although the land was unbuilt upon and unlet, and consequently remained unproductive, A. was nevertheless entitled to be registered as the owner of a freehold estate of the clear yearly value of 408. 743 Ib. Ib. 2. Notice of Objection.]-A notice of objection given to overseers, pursuant to the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 13, and Sched. (B.) No. 3, described the party objected to as being "in the list of persons entitled under the reform act, to vote," &c. -Held, a sufficient specification of the particular list referred to. Hugget, App., Lewis, Resp., 245 Costs of Proceedings against the Company for Damage to Land, under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18, .. 68,-See COSTS, IV. REGULE GENERALES. General Rules as to Forms of Proceedings and Process, made pursuant to the statute 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 4, intituled "An Act for the better Regulation of the Traffic on Railways and Canals." 473-476 REVOCATION. See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS. SALE. I. Delivery of Goods. A., carrying on business in Manchester, by his traveller sold goods to B. at Oxford, which goods were to be forwarded in the usual way, viz. by the London and North-Western Railway. The goods were accordingly packed and sent by A. to the railway station at Manchester, addressed to B. at Oxford :-Held, that, as the order for the goods was received at Oxford, the "whole cause of action" did not arise in Manchester, so as to give the county court there jurisdiction to try it, under the 9 SEWERS-RATE. Right of Tenant to deduct. 344 STATUTE OF FRAUDS. In consideration that A., who was in the possession and occupation of premises wherein he carried on the business of a milkman, would yield up the possession and occupation of the said premises to B., and permit him thenceforth to occupy the same, and would assign over to B. all his property in the stock and plant, and deliver the same to B., the latter promised to pay A. a certain sum: -Held, that this was a contract for an interest in or concerning lands, within the 4th section of the 29 Car. 2, c. 3. Smart v. Harding, 652 STOCK JOBBING. Differences. A. demised land to B. upon a building lease, 1. To an action for "stock, shares, scrip, goods, at the yearly rent of 607., clear of all rates, assessments, &c., the sewers-rate, land-tax, and landlord's property or income-tax only excepted, with the usual covenants for the payment of rent, &c. B. having by building on the land increased its rateable value to 300l. per annum :-Held, that he was only entitled to deduct the sewers-rate and landtax upon the original rent, and not in respect of the improved value. Smith v. Humble, 321 SHIP AND SHIPPING. I. Liability of Endorsee of Bill of Lading, for Demurrage. The acceptance of a cargo by the endorsee of the bill of lading whereby the goods were deliverable to order "against payment of the agreed freight and other conditions as per charter-party," is a circumstance from which the jury may imply a contract on his part to pay the demurrage stipulated for by the and chattels bargained and sold and sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, and for work and labour and materials and for commission due and payable in respect thereof, and for money paid by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, and for money due on accounts stated,"-the defendant pleaded, as to so much of the claim as related to money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for the said work and materials and commission, and for money paid by the plaintiff, and for money due from the defendant upon the said accounts stated,-that the plaintiff was a stock and share broker, and that the defendant employed him as such broker, after the passing and coming into operation of the said act of parliament (referring to the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, mentioned in a former plea), to enter into, and the plaintiff accordingly entered into, on his behalf, certain contracts by way of gaming and wagering, "contrary to the form of the sta STOCK JOBBING. tute," that is to say, certain wagering contracts, under the semblance of pretended sales, respecting the market price and value of certain public and other stock, shares, scrip, and goods, and chattels, on certain days then to come, whereby, under pretence of contracts, the plaintiff agreed with divers persons whose names were to the defendant unknown, that, if the price and value of the said public stock and shares, scrip, goods, and chattels, should be lower, &c., and vice versa, "differences" should be paid. The plea then went on to allege, that no real sale was intended, and that the plaintiff know it; and that the work and labour in the declaration mentioned was done, and the commission claimed, in respect of the making of the said wagers and contracts in the plea mentioned; and that the money paid by the plaintiff was paid by him as such broker in settling such differences :Held, that the plea was no answer to the action. Knight v. Fitch, 2. Semble, that it was substantially a plea founded on the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 18: but that, if it was to be treated as a plea founded on the stock-jobbing act, 7 G. 2, c. 8, it should have shown that each of the contracts mentioned therein involved a dealing in public stock. SURRENDER. 566 Presumption of,-See OUTSTANDing Term. SURVEYOR. See ECCLESIASTICAL VALUATION. TENDER. See PLEADING, III. TERM. See OUTSTANDING TERM. TRESPASS. For Mesne Profits,-See PLEADING, VII. 2. TROVER. Judgment in. Ib. WARRANT OF ATTORNEY. To secure Instalments of an Annuity. By the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 96, s. 25, sums payable by way of annuity are to be deemed debts: and by s. 57,-reciting "that it is expedient to limit the present power of arrest upon final process," it is enacted "that no person shall be taken or charged in execution upon any judgment obtained in any action for the recovery of any debt, wherein the sum recovered shall not exceed 201., exclusive of the costs recovered by such judgment." A. signed judgment for 5007, on a warrant of attorney given by B. to secure an annuity of 327. by half-yearly payments, and took B. in execution for one instalment of 167.:-Held, -dubitante Williams, J.,-that B. was entitled to be discharged from custody under the above act, the "sum recovered" by the action being 161. Johnson v. Harris, 357 1. A. sent his horse to Tattersall's for sale by public auction, where he was to be sold without a warranty. On the day prior to the intended sale, meeting B at the stable, and seeing him in the act of examining the horse's legs, A. said, "You have nothing to look for: I assure you he is perfectly sound in every respect;" whereupon, B. replied, "If you say so, I am perfectly satisfied," and, upon the faith of the representation so made to him by A.,-which was admitted to have been made in perfect good faith,-became the purchaser:-Held, that there was no evidence of warranty to go to a jury, the representation made by A. on the day preceding the auction forming no part of the contract of sale. Hopkins v. Tanqueray, 130 2. Quare, per Maule, J., as to the legality of such a secret bargain for a warranty, where third persons attending the sale are bidding upon the supposition that the sale is without warranty. II. On Sale of Goods. Ib. In an action for a breach of warranty on the sale of goods upon a written contract, parol evidence is not admissible to show that the seller's agent at the time of the sale represented the goods to be of a particular quality. Harnor v. Groves, 667 WILL. See DEVISE. WINDING-UP ACTS. Construction of. The 66th section of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, enables a creditor to enforce a judgment obtained against a joint-stock company completely registered, by execution against shareholders. The 50th section of the winding-up act, 11 YEARLY VALUE. & 12 Vict. c. 45, provides, that, after the appointment of an official manager under that act, all actions brought against the company or any person duly authorized to be sued as nominal plaintiff on behalf of the company, shall be brought against the official manager. And the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 108, s. 1, extends the provisions of the last-mentioned act to all partnerships consisting of more than seven members: Held, that a judgment obtained against the official manager can only be enforced against a shareholder, where the action is one which could be brought against the company as a company, or against some person authorized to be sued on their behalf; and, consequently, that the provisions of the winding-up acts do not apply to the case of an action against a non-registered company. Pritchard v. The London and Birmingham Extension, Northampton, Daventry, Leamington, and Warwick Railway Company,-In re Weiss, 331 END OF VOL. XV. |