1816. RAMSBOTTOM against HARCOURT. The Attorney-General and Comyn, who shewed cause, referred to Tidd's Prac. (a) for the rule, that an attorney shall not be allowed his privilege, where he sues or is sued en autre droit, or jointly with his wife or other person who is not privileged. And though in this case the person with whom Bawden is sued has privilege of parliament, yet if the plaintiffs had sued by original, Bawden clearly would not have been allowed his privilege; and the rule seems to be that wherever a different remedy from that in which an attorney is entitled to his privilege lies against him jointly with another, there he shall not be allowed his privilege. The Court agreed, that where an attorney is sued jointly with a person not privileged, he shall not be allowed his privilege. But they inquired if there was any authority to the same effect, where an attorney is sued with a privileged person. And it being admitted that there was not any such authority, they said that in the present mode of proceeding by bill the attorney was intitled to his privilege. Rule absolute. (b) Peake and Casberd were in support of the rule. AN INDEX ΤΟ THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. 1. ABANDONMENT, ACCEPTANCE, See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 4. ACTION ON THE CASE. THE HE trustees of a public road, AFFIDAVIT. defendant wrongfully moored a AFFIDAVIT, See ERROR, WRIT OF. QUO WAR- RANTO. Affidavit of debt, "that defendant is ant ant on common bail. Bosanquet and Others v. Fillis, T. 55 G. 3. Page 329 AMENDMENT. 1. Where a verdict was given for a sum exceeding the damages in the declaration, and judgment entered for the same, and writ of error upon the judgment assigning that for cause, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to amend the judgment and transcript in a term subsequent to that in which the judgment was signed, by entering a remittitur for the excess. Usher and Another v. Dansey and Others, 94 E. 55 G.3. 2. The Court refused to allow plaintiff to amend a fi. fa. where the defendant had become bankrupt before sale of the goods taken under it. Hunt v. Pasman, T. 55 G.3. ANNUITY, See BANKRUPT, 2. DEBT, 1. APPEAL, See MANDAMUS, 5, 6. 328 the fact committed; but if the imprisonment is continued by defendant, in pursuance of orders from the commanding officer of the regiment, to a period within six months, the action lies; unless the continuance of it be justifiable on the part of the commanding officer; and such continuance was held to to be justifiable where it was in order to bring plaintiff to a general court-martial for uttering words in the presence of several serjeants and others of the same regiment, amounting to disorderly conduct on the part of plaintiff to the prejudice of good order and military discipline, within the 24th section of the articles of war, art. 2., although the words uttered referred to an order made by the commanding officer, which he was not strictly competent to make, and although plaintiff was acquitted by the sentence of the court-martial. Bailey v.Warden (in Error), M. 56 G.3. Page 400 ASSUMPSIT. Where a pauper had his leg accidentally fractured in one parish, and was conveyed to the next house in an adjoining parish, and was confined there and visited by the overseer, and attended by the surgeon who attended the parish poor, with the knowledge of the overseer: Held that the surgeon might have assumpsit against the overseer for the expences of the cure; for there was not any obligation against the parish where the accident happened to pay these expences, and the overseer's knowing of and not repudiating the surgeon's attendance was equivalent to a request. Lamb v. Bunce, T. 55 G.3. 275 ATTOR See AMENDMENT, 2. PARTNERS, 1 1. A transfer of a ship and cargo at sea, conveyed by M. to S. as a security for money borrowed, by executing and delivering to S. a bill of sale of the ship, a policy upon ship and cargo, and indorsing the bills of lading, was held not to pass the property to S., where S. neglected, upon the ship's return and notice thereof, to take possession, or to do any act to notify the transfer of the property to him; but that the property passed to the assignees of M., who became bankrupt, as being in the possession, order, and disposition of M. at the time when he became bankrupt within the stat. 21 Jac.1. c. 19. Also that an agreement between M. and the captain, that the captain should have one-fifth share of the profit or loss of the voyage on ship and cargo, did not prevent S. from taking possession. Mair and Others, Assignees, v. Glennie and Others, Assignees, T. 55 G. 3. Page 240 2. A surety in an annuity deed who is compelled by the annuity creditor after the bankruptcy and allowance of the certificate of the principal to pay several sums for arrears due after the issuing of the commission, is not within stat. 49 G. 3. c. 121. s. 8., and therefore may have an action against the principal for such sums, and hold him to bail. Welsh v. Welsh and Another, T.55 G. 3. 332 BASTARD. 1. Order of filiation on the putative father, stating that the child is likely to become chargeable, held sufficient, without shewing that it was actually chargeable. Rex v. The Inhabitants of Hartington Upper Quarter, H. 56 G. 3. 559 2. If the order directs a sum to be paid towards the lying-in and maintenance, it seems to be enough, without stating that the sum was expended by the overseers. And if it be stated to be on complaint of the overseers of a township it need not state that it is a township maintaining its own poor. BILLS OF EXCHANGE. ib. 1. A bill of exchange, drawn in this form: 66 Pay to our order," &c. signed in the name of two persons and Co., and accepted by defendant, may be declared upon by the indorsees as a bill drawn by an ag gregate gregate firm, and if it be proved that the firm consists of only one person, yet it is not a variance. Bass and Another v. Clive, E. 55.G.3. Page 13 2. The drawer of a bill of exchange, who has no effects in the hands of the drawee, except that he has supplied him with goods upon credit, which credit does not expire until long after the bill would become due, is not discharged by want of notice of the dishonour. Claridge v. Dalton, T. 55 G. 3. 226 3. Time given by the indorsee to the payee does not discharge the ib. drawer. 4. Where the holders of a foreign bill of exchange, payable 60 days after sight, presented it to the drawees for acceptance, which being refused, they protested it for nonacceptance, and afterwards, on the day when it became due, presented it to the drawees for payment, making a charge for the expences of protesting it, to which the drawees said, "This bill will be paid, but we cannot allow you for a duplicate protest," and the holders refused to receive payment without the charges, and afterwards the drawees revoked their offer to pay: Held that they might well do so, for this did not amount to an acceptance of the bill by the drawees. Anderson and Others v. Heath and Others, T. 55 G. 3. 303 5 A bill of exchange payable at a banker's in London, which, by reason of being mislaid, was not presented for payment, but the acceptor was some months afterwards informed of its being mislaid was held not to be discharged, but that the drawer might set it off in an action brought against him by the acceptor, although the bankers at whose house the bill was pay able failed in the interval, and the acceptor had at all times up to the failure of the bankers a balance in their hands sufficient to cover the acceptance. Sebag v. Abitbol, H. 56 G. 3. Page 462 6. Where the indorsee declared against the maker of a promissory note, that he made the same payable at the house of Messrs. B. and Co., London, and upon production of the note at the trial it appeared that the address at the house of Messrs. B. and Co. was not a part of the note, but only a memorandum at the foot of the note: Held that this was a variance. Russell, H. 56 G. 3. Exon v. BOARD OF CONTROL, See MANDAMUS, 3. BOND, See RELEASE, 2. 505 In debt on bond, conditioned for the performance of several things, if one of them be void at the common law, yet the bond may be good for the others; as where it was conditioned to pay money to the obligee upon the conveyance of an estate to the obligor, and to present the obligee's son to the next avoidance of a church, the advowson of which belonged to the estate, if he were then of age to take it, or if not, to procure the person who should be presented to resign, upon notice of the son's being qualified to take it, and to present him: Held that admitting that part of the condition for the presentation of the obligee's son to be simoniacal, yet the bond was good for the payment of the money. Newman, Executor of H. Newman, v. Newman, E. 55 G. 3. 66 BROKER |