« PreviousContinue »
to the commissioners, and full answer make to the questions which might be put to him by virtue of the said commission, sufficiently pursued the terms of the oath to be taken by the bankrupt, and the 16th section of the stat. 5 Geo.2, c. 30, as it must be intended that the questions which might be put by the commissioners would be legal questions.-And where the bankrupt was committed to Newgate under a Judge's warrant, granted on the certificate of the commissioners for not appearing to their summons, and afterwards brought before them by warrant, to make a disclosure of his estate, and he refused to be sworn and examined as to such estate: Held, that the commissioners might commit him under the 14th section of that statute ; as when he was brought before them, the war. rant and authority of the Judge were at an end and determined. Nobes v. Mountain, E. 3 G. 4.
Page 39 2. Where a master and part owner
of a ressel consigned her to the defendants, who were ship-brokers, on the usual terms of commission, on which the ship's papers were handed over to them, and they made disbursements on his account; and he was afterwards arrested, and lay in prison more than two months, on which a commission of bankruptcy was issued against him, and the plain tiffs were appointed his assignees; and whilst he was in prison, the defendants adjusted their account with him, and received the balance due to them on account of their disbursements, and at the same time delivered to him the ship's papers ; – Held, in an aetion brought by the assignees for the recovery of such balance, that they
were not entitled to recover, as the defendants had a lien on the pa pers until their account was adjusted and paid ; and that neither the bankrupt nor his assignees could have disposed of the vessel before the papers were given up. Thompson v. Bealson, H. 3 & 4 G. 4.
Page 548 3. Where, on a commission of bank
rupt being sued out against the
BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
SET-OFT, I. 1. Where the acceptor of a bill of
exchange, against whom an action had been brought by the holder, gave the latter notice to prove the consideration he had given for the bill, and letters of the drawer were given in evidence to shew that the transaction between him and the holder was fraudulent.Quære, whether it was incumbent on the holder to prove sach consideration ? And it seems, that such letters were properly received in evidence at the trial. Caster v. Merest, E. 3 G. 4.
2. The copy of an original letter,
giving notice of the dishonour of a bill of exchange, is admissible in evidence, without notice to produce such original letter; and it seems that there is no substantial distinction between a duplicate original, and a copy made at the time and authenticated on oath. Kine v. Beaumont, E. 3 G.4.
Page 112 3. Where the plaintiffs' traveller took
a bill of exchange from the defendant, to whom it was previously indorsed, in payment for goods sold, which bill being of greater amount than the price of the goods, the traveller gave the defendant the difference in bills, who indorsed the bill to the plaintiffs in blank, and it was afterwards enclosed in a letter, addressed to them, and put into the post-office, but never received by them; and six months after it became due, they sued the defendant as the indorser of such bill ;-Held, that the plaintiffs could not recover, without proof of its destruction or total loss ; and that they were also precluded from recovering the value of the goods on counts for goods sold and delivered, as the defendant had given full value for the bill, and might still be compelled to pay its amount to à boná fide holder.
Champion v. Terry, E. 3 G. 4. 130 4. An averment in a declaration on
a bill of exchange, that when it became due and payable, according to the tenor and effect thereof, to wit, on the 31st March, 1822, it was duly presented for payment: -Held sufficient on a special de
murrer, assigning for cause, that · the 31st March was a Sunday, as it was enough to state that the bill was presented when it became payable according to its tenor, with
out mentioning any particular day. Bynner v. Russell, T. 3 G. 4.
Page 267 6. Where the defendant being in
debted to the plaintiffs on a bill of exchange which was dishonoured, gave another bill at a longer date, and also a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, in case the second bill should not be paid when due, and agreed to pay the expenses of executing the warrant of attorney; and the second bill was duly honoured, but those expenses were not paid, and the first bill was retained by the plaintiffs :Held, that they could not sue the defendant on such original bill ; and the Jury having found a general verdict for them in an action on the bill to the amount of such expenses, the Court ordered it to be entered on the common money counts, with a view to deprive the plaintiffs of their costs under the London Court of Requests Act: the sum claimed as the expenses of executing the warrant of attorney being under 51.
Dillon v. Rimmer, M. 3 G. 4.
Where an order is given to a carrier,
antecedently to the delivery of goods, who assents to deal with them when delivered in a particular manner, a duty is imposed on him on the receipt of the goods to deal with them according to the order previously given; and the law implies a promise by him to perform such duty. Streeter v. Horlock, T. 3 G. 4. Page 283
BANKRUPT, 1.04 MU CESTUI QUE TRUST.
See ATTORNEY, 12.
CLERK. See OFFICER.
CLERKSHIP. See Attorney, 2, 4, 10.
COSTS. See AMENDMENT, 2.
WITNESS, 2. 1. By the Rochester Court of Re
quests Act, 22 Geo. 3, c. 27, ss. 12 & 32, debts under 40s. contracted within the jurisdiction of the Court, are to be sued for in that Court, and not elsewhere. By the 48 Geo. 3, c. 51, s. 1, the jurisdiction of the Court is extended to sums not exceeding 5l: the 13th section contains an exception as to any sum, being the balance of an accounton demand originally exceeding 51.; and the 14th section enacts, that "if any action shall be commenced in a superior Court, for any debt not exceeding 51. and recoverable under either of the acts in the Court of Requests, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to costs, notwithstanding a verdict in his favour."-Where the plaintiff's original demand was 341. 58. ld. for
labour and measured work done within the jurisdiction of the Rochester Court, which a surveyor, appointed by the plaintiff and defendant, afterwards estimated at 331. 138. Td., and the plaintiff brought an action in this Court, and the defendant proved payments by him to the amount of 241. 18s., and the Jury estimating the work at 261. only, found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, 11. 12s. :-Held, that this was not a case in which the defendant was
CODICIL. See EXECUTORS, 2.
See PRIZE MONEY.
COMMISSION. See BANKRUPT, 1-3. COMMISSIONERS. See FINE, 1.
LIMITATION OF Actions, 1.
COMMITMENT. See BANKRUPT, 1.
CONVEYANCE. See VARIANCE, 3.
CONVEYANCER. See ATTORNEY, 5.
on which the verdict was taken :secondly, that a broker was not entitled to compensation for loss of time :--thirdly, that the plaintiff was entitled to the allowance of a sum sworn to have been paid by him for the postage of foreign tetters, as being solely applicable to the cause ; but that he was entitled to the expenses of the production and translation of such letters only as were applicable to such parts of the counts in trover as related to the verdict.-Where foreign witnesses appear to be domiciled in this country, they are not entitled to the expences of their return home; and it seems that a witness is not entitled to his costs, unless they have been paid to him previously to taxation. Lopes v. De Tastet, E. 3 G. 4.
Page 120 4. Where the plaintiff obtained a
entitled to enter a suggestion on motion to deprive the plaintiff of his costs, on the grounds-first, that he had reasonable cause for litigating his demand ; secondly, that if the defendant intended to take advantage of 22 Geo. 3, it should have formed part of his defence at the trial; and lastly, that it felt within the exception contained in the 13th section of 48 Geo. 3, as being the balance of an account or demand originally exceeding 51. Harsant v. Larkin, E. 3 G. 4.
Page 68 2. Where a defendant, on being ar
rested, paid the sheriff's officer the amount of the debt, and 101. for costs, under the statute 43 Geo. 3, c. 46, s. 2, which latter sum was more than sufficient to cover the costs incurred up to the return of the writ; and the undersheriff having omitted to pay over the amount to the plaintiff, after being requested so to do, in consequence of which, he proceeded further in the action, and incurred further costs;-Held, that the defendant was not liable to pay such costs. Clark v. Yates, E. 3 G. 4.
83 3. Where declaration in case con
tained several special counts, imputing misfeazance to the defendant as an agent, and the two last were founded in trover, and contained allegations of special damage ; but the plaintiff failed in substantiating any of the special counts, and the jury found a verdiet for him generally on the counts in trover, thereby negativing the special damage alleged in those counts ;-Held, first, that he was only entitled to the costs of those counts divested of the special allegations contained therein, and the expences of such wit. nesses only as were incurred to support the parts of those counts
verdiet subject to a reference, and the arbitrator awarded in favour of the plaintiff, but made a material mistake in his award, on which the plaintiff applied to the Court, that it might be referred back to the arbitrator to re-consi. der his award, but the defendant would not accede: on which the Court ordered the rule of reference to be discharged, and the verdict and award to be set aside; and the plaintiff having taken the cause down to a second trial, and again obtained a verdict :-Held, that he was entitled to the costs of both trials. Payne v. Bailey, E. 3 G. 4.
147 5. Where a declaration in trespass
contained two counts, the first for assaulting the plaintiff and destroying a scraper affixed to his house; and the second for destroying the scraper ; and the Jury found a general verdict for him, damages two shillings:-Held, that he was entitled to his full costs, and the
Court would not allow the postea to be amended, by entering a verdict for the defendant on the first count. Reece v. Lee, M. 3 G.4.
Page 269 6. The Court refused to require the
plaintiff to give security for costs, · although it was sworn that he was
insolvent, and that the action was brought in his name for the benefit of J.S., who was alone beneficially interested in the result. Morgan v. Erans, M, 3 G. 4.
344 7. After a defendant has undertaken
to accept short notice of trial, he cannot require security for costs from the plaintiff, a foreigner residing abroad. De Montellano (Duke) v. Garcias, M. 3 G. 4.
361 8. Where the plaintiff's attorney had
been guilty of gross misconduct towards the defendant, in consequence of which, the Prothonotary refused to allow the plaintiff any costs, the Court refused a rule for him to review his taxation, although the defendant had taken out a summons to stay proceedings in the action, on payment of debt and costs. Adams v. Staton, M. 3 G. 4.
365 9. Where a defendant, being indebt
ed to the plaintiffs on a bill of exchange, which was dishonoured, gave another bill at a longer date; and also a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, in case the second bill should not be paid when due, and agreed to pay the expences of executing the warrant of attorney; and the second bill was duly honoured, but those expenses were not paid, and the first bill was retained by the plaintiffs :Held, that they could not sue the defendant on such original bill ; and the Jury having found a general verdict for them in an action on the bill, to the amount of such expenses, the Court ordered it to
be entered on the common money counts, with a view to deprive the plaintiffs of their costs, under the London Court of Requests Act ;the sum claimed as the expences of executing the warrant of attorney being under 51, Dillon v. Rimmer. M. 3 G.4.
Page 427 10. Where the plaintiff was employ.
ed as a solicitor to carry on proceedings in Chancery, after which the defendant married one of the parties to the suit, and eventually received a proportionate part of the property in dispute, in right of his wife, under an order of that Court: -Held, that he was liable to pay the plaintif a proportion of his bill of costs. after taxation by the Master, although there had been no retainer of the plaintiff by the defendant, and although the bill had not been delivered to the latter, but to a co-defendant, who had suffered judgment by default. Gray, gent. v. Wainman, H. 3 & 4 G. 4.
467 il. Where an action of ejectment is
defended, and the plaintiff obtains a verdict, he cannot, on the execution of a writ of inquiry to assess damages in an action for presne profits, give in evidence the extra costs beyond his taxed costs, in order to increase the damages; but after judgment by default in ejectment, the costs of such judg. ment may be recovered as well as the mesne profits. Brooke v. Bridges, H. 3 & 4 G. 4.
471 12. Where a defendant, on being ar
rested, deposited the amount of the debt, together with 102. for costs, with the officer, who, four days afterwards, informed the plaintiffs' attorney of the circumstance, and the under-sheriff afterwards wrote him, that the deposit had been made, notwithstanding which, the sheriff was ruled to return the writ, and a declaration