A., being owner of a ship which was unfinished, on the 5th of July mortgaged it to B. A., on the 5th of August, registered the ship as owner pursuant to The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 42. On the following day B. caused the mortgage to himself to be inserted on the register. A. having become bankrupt :-Held, that A.'s assignees could not main tain trover against B. for the ship. Bell and Another, Assignees of Batley, a Bankrupt, v. The Bank of London, BILL OF EXCHANGE. 730 (2). Indorsement per Procuration. A declaration on a bill of exchange against the acceptor, alleged an indorsement by the drawer to the H. Company and by the Company to the plaintiff. Plea traversing the indorsement by the Company. It was proved that the bill had been indorsed in blank by the drawers, and afterwards delivered by them to the Company. It was indorsed by two directors, per proc. of the Company," to the plaintiff. By the deed of settlement and resolutions which were duly registered, the directors had no power to endorse the bill.-Held that, whether or not the Company was bound, the infer the property and right of suit on dorsement being sufficient to transthe bill, the allegation in the declaration was proved. Quare, whether the rule, that a person taking a bill indorsed "per procuration" is bound to take notice of the extent of the authority of the person indorsing, applies to the See JOINT STOCK COMPANY, (3), (4). case of a partner indorsing "per PARTNERSHIP. VENDOR AND VENDEE. procuration." Smith v. Johnson, 222 (3). Indorsement after Bill became due and subject to Equities. To a declaration by indorsee against acceptor of a bill of exchange for 300l. the defendant pleaded as 908 BILL OF EXCHANGE. BILL OF SALE. to 2721. 2s. 7d., that before the in- | (5). Onus of Proof of Consideration. dorsement or acceptance he applied to the drawer to advance him 3007. which the drawer agreed to do on his depositing certain canvas with him and accepting the bill; the drawer to have power of selling the canvas and applying the proceeds in payment of the bill if not paid by the defendant when due; that the bill was accepted and the canvas deposited on the terms aforesaid; that after the bill was due the drawer sold the canvas and re ceived the proceeds, 2721. 28. 7d., and holds the same; and that the bill was indorsed by the drawer to the plaintiff after it became due and subject to the equity of the proceeds of the sale of the canvas being applied to the payment of the bill, and without value.-Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber (affirming the judgment of the Court of Exchequer), that the plea was good. Holmes v. Kidd, 891 (4). Notice of Dishonour. The holder of a bill of exchange, on the day after it became due, called at the office of J., the drawer, and on being told that he was engaged wrote on a scrap of paper and sent in to him the following notice:"B.'s acceptance to J., 5007., due 12th January, is unpaid: payment to R. & Co. is requested before 4 o'clock." The clerk who took in the notice said "It should be attended to."-Held a sufficient notice of dishonour. Also that under the circumstances, it was a question for the jury whether there was not a sufficient intimation that the bill was dishonoured. Paul, Public Officer of Stuckey's Somersetshire Banking Company v. Joel, 455 Action by indorsee against drawer of a bill of exchange. Plea: that the defendant indorsed the bill and delivered it to W. to get discounted for the defendant and pay him the proceeds: that the bill was never discounted for the defendant, nor was there any consideration for his indorsing it or paying the amount thereof: and W., in fraud of the defendant, indorsed the bill to the plaintiff without consideration. At the trial, the defendant, proved that he indorsed the bill in blank and delivered it to W. to get discounted for him, which W. promised to do and bring him the money on the following morning. W. took away the bill, but never returned, and the defendant heard no more of it until payment was demanded by the plaintiff's attorney.-Held sufficient evidence of illegality to cast on the plaintiff the onus of proving consideration. Hall v. Featherstone, 284 BILL OF LADING. See CHARTER-PARTY. VENDOR AND Vendee. BILL OF SALE. (1). Description of Assignor— W., described as "gentleman," by bill of sale, registered under 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, conveyed goods to M. M., in W.'s presence, assigned the goods to B. to secure an advance made bonâ fide. W. had been a colliery agent, but for six months before the date of the bill of sale had been out of employment. There was evidence that the conveyance to M. was fraudulent and void as against W.'s creditors under 13 Eliz. c. 5. (3). Onus of Proof of Occupation. Under the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, s. 1, where the occupation of a party to, or the witness of, a bill of sale, is not stated, the onus of proving that such party or witness has an occupation lies on the party seeking to impeach the bill of sale on that ground. Daniel Sutton v. Bath, 382 (4). Assignment of Looms and other Effects on a Mill particularly set forth in Schedule. The plaintiff assigned to the defendant by bill of sale, "all and singular the 104 power looms and other effects and things belonging thereto, now being in, upon, or about the mill, particularly set forth in the schedule.' "The schedule was as follows:-"Looms made by S." The looms were in use at the date of the execution of the bill of sale. Healds, reeds, weft and waste cans are attached to the looms when in use, and the looms are not complete for the purpose of weaving till they are supplied, but they form no part of the looms as they come from the makers. They are made and often sold at sales separately from the looms. Different healds and reeds are used in weaving cloth of different degrees of fineness; they do not ordinarily belong to any particular loom, but can be detached and used with any loom indifferently.-Held, which were on the premises at the that the healds, reeds, cans, &c., time of the execution of the bill of sale passed to the defendant. Cort v. Sagar, 370 (5). Unregistered Bill of Sale- A. conveyed goods by bill of sale to B. By a second bill of sale A. conveyed the same goods to C. having become bankrupt, and the first bill of sale not having been duly registered pursuant to 17 & 18 Vict. c. 36, s. 1, A.'s assignees brought an action of trover for the goods.-Held, that B. could not set up the bill of sale to C. against the assignees. Nicholson and Another, assignees of Bowman a bankrupt, v. Cooper, BOND. See BANKRUPT, (3). COSTS, (4). 384 Stay of Proceedings on Payment of Interest and Costs. A joint and several bond was conditioned for payment of the principal money after six months notice, and 910 BUILDING CONTRACT. in the mean time for payment of interest on the usual quarter days. Default having been made in payment of one quarter's interest (as it was said through inadvertence), the obligee gave notice to pay the principal, and the next day brought actions on the bond against the several obligors.-Held, that the Court had no power to stay the proceedings on payment of the interest due and costs. Wheelhouse v. Ladbroke, 291 BUILDING CONTRACT. Flooring not Mentioned in Specifica tion. CANAL ment, because the flooring was not mentioned in the specification, whereupon the defendant put an end to the contract, took possession of the work, and proceeding to complete the building used the flooring boards so prepared and fitted by the defendant:-Held, First, that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover for the flooring as an extra, because it was included in the contract, though not mentioned in the specification. Secondly, that the plaintiff could not maintain trover for the flooring boards left on the premises by him and subsequently used by the defendant. Williams v. Fitz maurice, CANAL. 844 Liability of Navigation Commissioners for neglect to give notice to Lessee to repair. The plaintiff agreed to build a house for the defendant, who prepared a specification which contained particulars of the different portions of the work. Under the head "Carpenter and Joiner," there was specified the scantling of the joists for the An Act enabling navigation Comdifferent floors, the rafters, ridge and missioners to grant a lease of a canal wall pieces, but no mention was contained a clause as follows:-In made of the flooring. The specifica- case the lessees during the term tion stated that "the whole of the should permit the navigation to be materials mentioned or otherwise in out of repair, the Commissioners the foregoing particulars, necessary "are hereby authorized and required for the completion of the work, must to give notice thereof to such lessees, be provided by the contractor." At &c., and in such notice to specify the the foot of the specification the particular repairs which ought to be plaintiff signed a memorandum, done; and the Commissioners may whereby he agreed with the defend- by such notice require that such reant "to do all the works of every pairs should be commenced, prokind mentioned and contained in ceeded with and finished within the foregoing particulars, according reasonable periods to be named by in every respect to the drawings the Commissioners, and in case the furnished or to be furnished, for the lessees shall neglect to commence, sum of 1100l. The house to be com- &c., such repairs, &c., then it shall pleted and fit for the defendant's be lawful for the Commissioners and occupation by the 1st of August, they are hereby authorized to take The plaintiff prepared the possession of the tolls, &c., and to flooring boards, brought them to the cause such repairs to be done under premises, and planed and fitted them their own direction, and to pay the to the several rooms, but refused to necessary expenses of making such lay them down without extra pay-repairs out of the said tolls," &c. The lease having been granted in pursuance of the Act, during its continuance one of the locks of the canal became out of repair, but the Commissioners, though they knew of the want of repair, gave no notice of it to the lessee, though a sufficient time had elapsed for the giving of such notice. A barge entered the canal while the lock was so out of repair, but was prevented from getting out again by the falling in of the lock.Held, that no action lay by the owner of the barge against the navigation Commissioners for neglecting to give | notice to the lessees to repair, on the ground that the detention of the barge was not a damage naturally flowing from the neglect of the Commissioners to give notice, it not being shewn that if such notice had been given the lessees would have repaired, or that the Commissioners would have taken possession and repaired. Walker v. Goe and Another, Clerks, &c., 395 CAPIUS AD SATISFACIEN DUM. See SHERIFF, (3), (4). CARRIER. (1). Duty of Carrier on refusal of Consignee to receive Parcel. The plaintiff delivered in London to the defendants, who were common carriers, a parcel addressed to the plaintiff's agent at Plymouth. The defendants' railway terminates at Bristol, from whence they forwarded the parcel to Plymouth by the South Devon Railway, and shortly before noon, on the day of its arrival, a porter tendered it to the plaintiff's agent, who refused to pay the sum charged for its carriage, whereupon the porter took it away, saying that it would be returned to London; and it was accordingly sent back to London at eight o'clock in the morning of the following day. About two hours afterwards the plaintiff's agent tendered at the office of the South Devon Railway the amount of the carriage and demanded the parcel, when he was told that it had been that morning returned to London. The parcel remained in the custody of the defendants at their office in London, and it did not appear that the plaintiff had applied for it there. The jury found that the parcel was sent back to London unreasonably soon; and that the demand of the parcel and tender of the charge for the carriage was made within a reasonable time after the parcel had been refused.-Held, in the Exchequer Chamber (affirming the judgment of the Court of Exchequer), that, under these circumstances, the defendants were liable for a breach of duty, even supposing their duty qua carriers ended with the tender of the parcel: Per Cockburn, C. J., Crompton, J., Williams, J., and Willes, J. Crowder, J., dissentiente. Wightman, J., dubitante. Also that there was no evidence of a conversion: Per Crowder, J., and Wightman, J. A declaration stated that the plaintiff delivered to the defendants, as common carriers, a parcel to be carried by them from London to Plymouth, and alleged as a breach the nondelivery of the parcel to the plaintiff at Plymouth. The defendants pleaded a tender on payment for the carriage, but that the plaintiff refused to pay the amount, whereupon the defendants refused to deliver the parcel. The plaintiff replied that within a reasonable time after the defendants had tendered the parcel, he offered at Plymouth to pay for its carriage and requested |