« PreviousContinue »
of Ibbotson v. Tyndall, H. 3 & 4 G. 4,
given in evidence, without a receipt stamp. Wellard v. Moss, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. Page 503
SHIP AND SHIPPING.
STATUTE OF FRAUDS. See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
See LIMITATION OF Actions.
STATUTES CITED OR COM
Where a tradesman gives credit for
any of the requisites for the equipment of a vessel, such as stores, rigging or repairs, the only question is, to whom the credit is given : and the mere fact of ownership, without a privity of contract, is not sufficient to render an owner liable for goods furnished on her account ; nor does it attach any obligation on a mortgagee, merely as such, as he derives no profit until the ship comes into his actual possession. Therefore, where the original owner had assigned all his interest in a vessel to the defendants by bill of sale, and the plaintiff furnished sails and rigging by order of the former, to whom alone credit was given :-Held, that the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the defendants, to recover the price of the goods. Baker v. Buckle, M, 3G, 4.
Charles 2. 12. c. 24. Testamentary Guardian,
486 17. c. 7. Replevin.
144 29. c. 3. 3. 4. Frauds, Statute of.
252 s. 17. Frauds, Statute of.
219 to 31
William und Mary. 2. sess. 1. c.5. Distress.
See LIBEL, 2.
foot of an account, stating that
William 3, 8 & 9. c. 11. s. 3. Tithes, Costs.
610 to 613 9 & 10 c. 15. s.1. Award. 466, 7
c. 17. 3.3. Bills of Exchange.
134, 6 2 2
2. 22. s. 13. Set off. 417
-Conmitment. 41, 6, 9
s. 18. Double Rent. 576
375 to 8
35. c. 55. 6. 7. Stamps_Receipts.
Page 7, 14
83, 6, 432, 4
1 to 24
145 to 56
c. 51. 84. 1. 13. 14. Rochester
Court of Requests. 68 to 81
503 to 518
Superannuated Officers. 93, 106
382 to 99
s. 37. Prize Money. 508
446 to 58
ii. (. xxxii. $. xci. xciv. Witham
08 to 81
444 to 55
384 to 99
See BANKRUPT, I.
SURETY. See Replevix Boyd.
See AssumpYIT, 3.
See VARIANCE, 5. Where the defendant ordered A. to
pay the plaintiff 71. 12s.. and the clerk of the plaintiff's attorney demanded 81., on which 4. said that he was only ordered to pay 71. 12s. which sum was in the hunds of B., and B. put his hand to his pocket with a view of pulling out his pocket-book, to pay 77. 128., but did not do so by the desire of A.; but B. could not say whether he had that sum about him, but swore that he had it in his house, at the door of which he was standing at the time :--lleid, that this was not a leg.. tender as the money should have been produced to the attorney's clerk. Krans v. Arnold, E. 33 G. 4.
and the jury on a writ of inquiry, assessed the plaintiff's damages at 171. 45. Od. on the first count, for the treble value, and 9l. for the single value on the other counts, but omitted to find costs, the Court ordered the return of the inquisition to be amended, by the insertion of nominal damages as to the last counts, on which costs de incremento inight be added. Bale (Clerk), v. Hodgetts, H. 3 & 4 G.4.
See Costs, 13.
See AMENDMENT, 2.
INSPECTION OF PAPERS, 1.
a writ of inquiry or not, in an ac-
1. Where, in an action for an assault,
the plaintiff declared that the defendant beat, bruised, and wounded him: and the defendant pleaded son assault demesne, and the plaintiff replied de injurid sua proprid ; and it was proved that the latter being on horseback, got off, and held up his stick at the defendant, when the latter struck him :-Held, that the plaintiff should have replied specially. Dale v. Wood, Ė. 3 G. 4.
33 2. Where the tenant of a house, after
a regular notice to quit, abandoned the premises, and locked the door, and left only a few articles of furniture therein; and the landlord afterwards, in his absence, and when no person was in the house, broke open the door and took possession : -Held, that he was justified in so doing, as he had a legal right of entry: and it seems that the tenant cannot maintain trespass a
gainst him; but that his remedy, if any, is by an indictment for a forcible entry. Turner v. Meymott, (Gent.) H. 3 & 4 G.4. Page 574
any rent that might accrue subsequently to the plaintiff.-Held, in an action for use and occupation, that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff, and that he could not impeach his title, as he must be taken to stand in the same situation as B. whose title as landlord the defendant had acknowledged, by occupying and enjoying the premises under him. Rennie v. Robinson. H. 3 & 4 G, 4.
USURY. See WARRANT OF ATTORNEY, 1.
tioneer, for having sold the plaintiff's goods under a commission of bankruptcy, which was afterwards superseded, one of the plaintiff's witnesses, on cross-examination, said, that he had heard the plaintiff say, that he had been discharged under the Lords' Act since the sale :-Held, that such admission being a matter of law as well as fact, was not conclusive to impeach the plaintiff's title to sue the defendant, as the latter should have produced the assignment, or shewn that the requisites of that statute had been complied with, so as to entitle the plaintiff to his legal discharge. Summersett v. Adamson, M. 3 G. 4.
VARIANCE. 1. Growing crops may be considered
USE AND OCCUPATION.
in the nature of goods and chattels, under the statute 11 Geo. 2, c. 19, as they may be distrained in the same manner as articles of the latter description: Where, therefore, the condition of a replevin bond was, that the defendant should prosecute his action with effect against the plaintiff for taking and
detaining his goods, chattels, and growing crops; and in the declaration the bond was set out as conditioned to prosecute with effect for taking and detaining the goods and chattels in the said condition mentioned :-Held, that this was no variance. Glover v. Coles, T. 3 G. 4.
231 2. Where a count of a declaration in
assumpsit against a carrier by water, alleged, that in consideration that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, had caused to be shipped on board the defendant's vessel a quantity of wheat, to be carried to a certain place for freight to be therefore paid to the defendant, he undertook to carry the wheat safely, and deliver it for the plaintiff on a given day : but
USE AND OCCUPATION. Where a house was devised to a
trustee, in trust for a devisee, for her sole and absolute use, and she afterwards married B. who let part of it under a written agreement signed by himself only, to the defendant, as a yearly tenant, and afterwards granted a lease for years of the whole of the house to the plaintiff, which the wife refused to execute, although she was named therein ; and the defendant had notice of the lease, and was required to pay
it appeared that the defendant's undertaking to carry was made before the whole of the wheat had been shipped on board his vessel ; -Held, that the count might be supported, although it was objected that the consideration for the promise was executory. Street
er v. Horlock, T.3 G.4. Page 283 3. Where, in a declaration of trover,
a deed was described as a certain deed of assignment, purporting to be made between J. S. of the one part, and W. R. of the other part, and purporting to be a conveyance from J. S. to W.R. of certain tenements therein mentioned : and on the production of the deed, it appeared to be a conceyance by lease and release between the same parties :-Held to be no variance, and that it was sufficiently described in the declaration. Harri
son v. Vallunce, T. 3 G. t. 304 4. W'here, in an action on the case
for diverting a stream of water from the plaintiff's mills, the declaration alleged, that the defend. ant placed and raised a certain dam across the stream, and thereby diverted and turned the water, and prevented it from running along its usual course to the plaintiff's mill, and from supplying the same with water for the necessary working thereof, as the same of right ought, and otherwise would have done :-Held, that such allegation was supported by proof, that in consequence of the dam, the water was prevented from being regularly supplied to the plaintiff's mill, although the stream was not diverted, as the dam was erected above the mill, and the water returned to its regular course long before it reached the mill, and there was no waste of water occasioned by the erection of the dam. Shears v. Wood, M. 3 G.4. 315
5. Where, in an action of assumpsit
by three co-plaintiffs for a breach of contract, they were rightly named in the writ, but the surname of one of them was omitted by mistake in the declaration, issue, and nisi prius record, and the defendant pleaded a tender, and paid inoney into Court generally on the whole declaration, and at the trial failed to establish the tender ; and the jury, after an objection had been taken as to the omission of the surname, found a verdict for the plaintiffs with nominal damages only, and leave was given them to move to increase it to the extent of their demand if the Court should be of opinion that the omission was immaterial; they discharged a rule obtained for that purpose, as the plaintiffs might have amended the plearlings and record at any time hefore the trial ; and as they had their remedy by bringing a fresh action. Longridge v. Brewer, H. 3 & 4 G.4.
VENIRE DE NOVO.
See Damages, 2.
1. On a motion to change the venue
from London to Worcester, ou the usual affidavit : an affidavit, stating that the action was brought for the seduction of the plaintiff's daughter, and that she was so ill, it was not expected that she would live till the assizes, is a sufficient answer to the application. Wing v. Jenkins, E. 3 G.4.
62 2. So, in debt on bond, the Court
will not change the venue from London to Worcester, on an affidavit, stating that all the plaintiff's