1849. SANDERSON じ。 DOBSON. devise. The case of Saumarez v. Saumarez is in perfect conformity with this rule. With respect to the case cited from the Jurist, of The Mayor of Hamilton v. Hodsdon, there is clearly nothing in it that would or ought to have induced the court of Exchequer to come to any other conclusion than that which they did come to. The words of the residuary clause in that will were large enough to comprehend property of every description. Hodgson was heard in reply. The following certificate was afterwards sent to the Master of the Rolls (a): — "This case has been argued before us by counsel. We have considered it, and are of opinion, that, under the above-stated will of Thomas Stapylton, the reversion in fee-simple in the hereditaments at Leyburn, Bellerby, and Harnby, passed to John Robson and Jonathan Sleigh, the devisees in trust therein named. (b) (a) For American cases, see Jackson ex dem. Dicker v. Mer- "THO. WILde. "W. H. MAULE. "C. CRESSWell. "E. V. WILLIAMS." (b) Lord Langdale, M. R., not being satisfied with this certificate, the grounds upon which the conclusion had been come to by this court, not appearing, directed a third case to be sent for the opinion of the court of Queen's Bench. 1849. GRIFFIN V. GILBERT. Jan. 20. Service of a rule to comlivering it to pute, by de "the land lord at the sufficient. REW moved to make absolute a rule to compute, upon an affidavit which stated, that, since the defendant had been served with the writ and notice of declaration, he had removed from his former residence at &c., to the railway-station at Kingston, where he had residence of taken lodgings in the house of one Holditch; that the the defenddeponent, on &c., served the defendant with a true ant," is not copy of the rule, by leaving the same with the said Holditch, at the residence of the said defendant at the railway-station at Kingston aforesaid, and at the same time produced and shewed to Holditch the original rule; and that Holditch stated that the defendant would return home on the following day, when he would deliver the said rule to him. He referred to Taylor v. Whitworth (a), where an affidavit of service of a rule to compute, stating that the deponent served "the above-named defendant with a true copy of the rule, by delivering and leaving with one Hitchcock, at the defendant's residence, situate, &c., a true copy of the said rule, and at the same time shewing the original thereof, and that Hitchcock promised to deliver the said copy to the defendant," was held to be insufficient, as it did not shew a service on any person connected with the defendant's residence; and to Lawes v. Scales (b), where service of a rule to compute, on the daughter of the defendant's landlady, at the house, in which the defendant was personally served with notice of declaration, was held to be sufficient. (a) 9 M. & W. 478., 1 Dowl. (b) 2 Dowl. N. S. 342. N. S. 600. WILDE, C. J. In Gardner v. Green (a) and Salisbury v. Sweetheart (b), service of a rule to compute, "on the landlady of the house at which the defendant lodges," was held to be insufficient. Littledale, J., in the last-mentioned case, says "Although she is the landlady of the house, it by no means follows that she is an agent for the purpose of receiving papers for her lodgers." I think service on the landlord, without more, will not do. The rest of the court concurring, Rule refused. (a) 3 Dowl. P. C. 343. (b) 5 Dowl. P. C. 243. Jan. 31. Service of a rule to compute by delivering it to "the housekeeper at the residence of the defendant," situate, &c., is not sufficient. LEWIS v. BLURTON. CHANNELL, Serjt., moved to make absolute a rule to compute, upon an affidavit of service of the rule nisi" by delivering to and leaving the same with the housekeeper at the residence of the defendant, situate No. 54. St. James's Street," and at the same time shewing her the original. He submitted, that, although service upon a mere laundress at a place where the defendant occupies chambers will not be good service (a), yet that it was different where the place of service was the defendant's residence. MAULE, J. Service on a "housekeeper" at a place where several persons are residing, clearly will not do, without shewing that she had authority to receive papers for the defendant. Rule refused. (a) See Dodd v. Drummond, 1 Dowl. P. C. 381. 1849. WOOLF V. THE CITY STEAM-BOAT COMPANY. Jan. 29. ASSUMPSIT. The declaration commenced thus: A company -"The plaintiff complains of The City SteamBoat Company, who have been summoned to answer the plaintiff," &c. may be declared against by the name by which it without Special demurrer,-assigning for causes, that the is known, names of the defendants were not stated, that it did not alleging it to appear whether they were sued as a corporation or a be chartered company completely registered, or by virtue of what act of parliament they were entitled to be sued by the registered. name of a company. Hugh Hill, in support of the demurrer. The question in this case is, whether the plaintiff may, in his declaration, describe the defendants as a company, without shewing whether or not they are a corporation, or a registered company. In the doubtful state of the allegation, the defendants could not safely plead nul tiel corporation. [Cresswell, J. Is not this the usual form of declaring against a corporation? It may be that the defendants are a chartered company: how does it appear that they are not?] In Thompson v. The Universal Salvage Company (a), which was an action against a registered company, upon a promissory note, -the declaration stated that the company had been duly registered under the statute 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. [Maule, J. If the defendants in fact are a corporation, the declaration is correct: if they are not, they may traverse it.] In The Queen v. West (b), a coroner's or incorporated or 1849. WOOLF V. The CITY COMPANY. inquisition stating that certain goods and chattels were the goods and chattels of the proprietors of the Hull and Selby Railway, was held bad, because it did not shew that there was any corporation so intituled. STEAM-BOAT [Cresswell, J. That case would have been more to the purpose, if the defendants here had been described as "the proprietors of the City Steam-Boats."] Since the statutes creating these registered corporations, it is essential that they should in all proceedings be described according to the truth. [Cresswell, J. How can the mode of describing them in pleading, be affected by the statutes?] It is important that the true character in which a party sues or is sued should appear upon the record. Hawkins, contrà, was not called upon. MAULE, J. The mode of pleading is governed either by positive rules or by a known course of precedents. There is no positive rule that I am aware of, which requires such a mode of description as the defendants' counsel insists upon in this case: nor is the description which is given at all out of the usual form: it impliedly amounts to an allegation that the defendants are a corporate body. I think the plaintiff is entitled to judg ment. The rest of the court concurring, Judgment for the plaintiff. |