Page images

Superior Courts : Queen's Bench.-Q.B.P. Court.-Common Pleas.-Exchequer. 235 pursued, and to which she was driven by stress' Jan. 12, 13.- Moffatt v. Dickson, clerk-Cur. of weather. The vessel could not therefore ad, vult. be considered as having met with the accident - 14.- Volaut v. Soyer and another-Rule in the ordinary course of navigation, and the refused for new trial. plaintiff was therefore entitled to judgment. - 14.-Dalton v. Midland Railway Com.

pany-Rule nisi to enter verdict for defendants

or for a nonsuit. Jan. 11.- Regina v. Vestry of St. Pancras-1

Vestry of St. Pancras- - 17.- Quartermain and others v. Bittleston Leave to deliver to Judges written copy-order and others-Cur. ad. vult. of Poor Law Board, where order out of print.1 - 18.-Peterson v. Eyre-Rule absolute for

- 12.- Tallis v. Tallis-Judgment for the new trial. plaintiff on demurrer to plea.

– 18.—Duncan v. Tindal-Stand over. - 12.—Mayor of Berwick v. Oswald-Judgment for plaintiff. - 12.- Regina v. Wilson--Rule nisi to set

Court of Erchequer. aside side-bar rule for taxation of costs.

- 12.- Regina v. Barnet — Rule nisi to Price v. Hewitt. Jan. 12, 1853. quash inquisition found by coroner's jury. - 12.-In re John Smith-Rule discharged

RULE FOR LEAVE TO PLEAD AND DEMUR. on payment of costs to strike attorney off the


Rule absolute for leave to the defendant to - 12.—In re Richard SillRule enlarged. plead and demur to the declaration under

- 13.—Regina v. Walsh, in re Walsh and the 15 f. 16 Vict. c. 76, s. 80,-although another-- Rule absolute for prohibition.

there was no affidavit of the truth of the – 13.Holt v. Ely-Rule nisi to enter a matter proposed to be pleaded,- on the nonsuit on leave reserved.

ground that such affidavit was only re- 13.-Bessell v. Wilson-Cur. ad. vult. quired where the plea was by way of con

- 14.- Cromont v. Ashley and wife-Rule fession and avoidance, and not a mere nisi to set aside nonsuit and for new trial.

traverse, of the aterments in the de- 15.Regina (on prosecution of Overseers claration, of Christ Church) v. Fletcher-Judgment for This was a rule nisi on the defendant the prosecution.

to be at liberty to plead and demur to the - 15.—Dugdale v. Reginam — Conviction declaration under the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, 8. affirmed.

80. It appeared that the proposed plea tra- 15.—Regina v. Plant-On appeal, rate versed an averment in the declaration, but the confirmed.

affidavit in support did not allege the traverse – 17. Heywood v. Potter — Rule discharged to enter verdict for plaintiff.

Petersdorff showed cause against the rule. - 17.-In re Hawley-Habeas corpus re- The Court held, that it was only necessary fused.

to swear to the truth of the matters pleaded - 17.-Hastings v. Brown-Rule absolute where they were pleaded by way of confession to set aside verdict for plaintiff and to enter a and avoidance, and not where the plea merely nonsuit.

traversed an averment in the declaration, and

the rule was therefore made absolute. Queen's Bench Practice Court. Jan 11.- Cecil, administratrix, v. National Jan. 11, 12.—Morgan v. Clifton, Bart.Mercantile Life Insurance Company-Rule nisi Arrangement come to. for inspection of policy.

1 - 13.-Waters v. Towers-Rule absolute - 11.-Regina v. Smith-Rule nisi for quo to increase verdict. warranto on councillor of borough of Leeds.

- 11.-Regina v. Carr-Rule nisi for quo " Which enacts, that “either party may, by warranto on eouncillor of Oxford.

leave of the Court or a Judge, plead and - 11.-Exparte Boram-Rule for habeas demur to the same pleading at the same time, corpus to bring up body of infant.

upon an affidavit by such party, or his at. - 17.- Regina v. Newhurst – Application torney, if required by the Court or Judge, to refused for taxation of defendant's costs on in the effect that he is advised and believes that dictment for libel, where verdict for defendant he has just ground to traverse the several on plea of Not Guilty, and for the Crown on matters proposed to be traversed by him, and the plea of justification.

that the several matters sought to be pleaded - 18.-In re Boram-Cur, ad. vult. as aforesaid by way of confession and avoid

ance are respectively true in substance and in Court of Common pleas.

fact, and that he is further advised and be

lieves that the objections raised by such deJan. 11.-Mitchell and wife v. Crassweller-murrer are good and valid objections in la Rule nisi to enter verdict for plaintiffs. and it shall be in the discretion of the Court

- 11.-Evans v. Edmonds-Rule nisi for or a Judge to direct which issue shall be first new trial.

| disposed of.”

236 Superior Courts : Exchequer. -Analytical Digest of Cases : Bills of Exchange.

Jan. 14.-Anderson and others v, Thornton Jan. 15.-Simmons v. Lillington, Rule nisi Rule nisi for new trial on the ground of verdict to enter verdict for defendant on leave rebeing against evidence and of mis direction-served. Cur. ad. vult.

- 18.-Hills v. Nutson-Cur. ad. cult. - 15.-Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, and - 18.-De Clermont v. Bradbury and anDublin Railway Company v. Peacock-Rule re-other- Part heard. fused to set aside nonsuit.



Ayloffe v. Skrimpshire, Carth, 6S; Comber

bach, 124 ; Gibbons v. Vouillon, 8 C. B. 483; 1. Indorsee against acceptor.- Plea issuable.

Fowell v. Forrest, 2 Saund, 48; Stracey v. -In assumpsit by indorsee against acceptor of

Bank of England, 6 Bingh, 754; 4 M. & P. a bill of exchange, the defendant-being under 639; Ford v. Beech, 11 Q. B. 852; Overton terms-pleaded, to the further maintenance of v. Harvey, 9 C. B. 324; Griffith v. Owen, 13 the action, that he was indebted to the drawer M. & W. 58, 61 ; James y. Williams, 13 N. in a sum less than the amount of the bill; & W.828, 838 ; Davis v. Gyde, 2 A. & L. that, before the acceptance, it was agreed be

623 ; Worthington v. Wigley, Ś New Ca. 154; tween him and the drawer, that he should pay

4 Scott. 558 ; Jones v. Broadburst, 9 C. B. him such lesser sum by four instalments; that

173. he duly paid three of such instalments before, 4. Denial of authority to draw or indorse. and the fourth after, the commencement of the - The acceptor of a bill of exchange, payable action; and that the bill was indorsed to the to the order of the drawer, cannot deny the plaintiff without value or consideration : Held, authority of the drawer to draw or indorse not an issuable plea. Besant v. Cross, 10 C. B. such bill. Therefore, to an action on a bill of 895.

exchange drawn by A. B. & Co., and payable 2. Parol contract inconsistent with. - It is to their order twelve months after date, and not competent to the acceptor of a bill of ex- accepted by the defendant, and indorsed by change to set up a parol contract inconsistent A. B. & Co. to the plaintiffs, a plea, that A. B. with the contract upon the face of the bill. & Co., before, and at, and since the time of the Besant v. Cross, 10 C. B. 895.

making and indorsing the said bill, were and 3. Plea of conditional payment by a stranger

have been a body corporate, by virtue of cergiving the plaintiff his acceptance for the debt. the tain letters patent; and that the bill purported bill so given being at the time of suit outstanding Co.

ins to be, and was drawn by the said body corpoin the hands of an indorsee.-To debt on simple rate

(rate, and as such accepted by the defendant, contract for goods sold and delivered, work an

be and not otherwise ; and that the said body and labour, &c., the defendant pleaded, “as

corporate had not at any time any authority to to 331. 10s., parcel of the debt in the declara.

indorse, issue, or negociate any bill of ex. tion mentioned, and the cause of action in re

change, or to transfer the right to receive payspect thereof,” that, after the accruing of the

ment thereof by indorsement, in the name of causes of action in the declaration mentioned,

d the said company, or otherwise; was held bad and before the commencement of the suit on demurrer. Hallifax v. Lyle, 3 Esch. R. the plaintiff drew a bill on C. for 331. 10s.,

2 10 446. payable to the plaintiff's order three months Cases cited : Drayton v. Dale, 2 B. & C. 1993; after date; that C. accepted the bill, and Taylor v. Croker, 4 Esp. 187. delivered it to the plaintiff, and the plain. 5. Venue. Delivery of bill. - Cause of tiff received it, for and on account of the said

action.—A bill of exchange was drawn and acsum of 331. 108., parcel of the debt in the de cepted, and the indorser put his name upon it, claration mentioned, and the causes of action within the city of London, but it was delivered in respect thereof; and that the plaintiff in

to the indorsee in the county of Middleser: dorsed and delivered the bill to one D., who Held that the cause of action did not aris was, before and at the time of the commence- within the city of London. Buckley v. Hass, ment of the suit, the holder of the bill, and 15 Exch. R. 43. entitled to sue C. thereon.

6. Delivery of.- Pleading.-Admission. -To Held, that the giving of the bill by C. must an action upon certain bills of exchange, draw be taken to be a conditional payment on behalf by M. & Sons upon, and accepted by the de of the defendant; that the condition to defeat fendant, and payable to the plaintiff at certain it not having happened, it operated as an abso- I periods after date, the defendant pleaded that, lute payment; and that it might be, and had after the bills became due, M. & Sons made an been, adopted by the defendant in his plea, and consequently that it barred the action.

| agreement with the acceptor to discharge him

Bel-lon receiving 2s. 9d. in the pound upon, inte shaw v. Bush, 11 C. B. 191.

alia, the said acceptance, in consideration of Cases cited in the judgment: Wankford v. the payment of a certain specified sum in set. Wankford, 1 Salk. 299; Freakly v. Fox, 9 B tlement of their differences of account, and that & C. 130; Harmer v. Steele, 4 Exch. R. 1; the plaintiff took the bills after the agreement. Analytical Digest of Cases : Bills of Exchange.--Promissory Notes, 237 The plea contained averments, that M. & Sons the trusts of the said will; which they " had were the holders of the bills at the time the “agreed to do upon” the grandsons executing agreement was made, and that they afterwards the indenture, "in order to indemnify” the delivered them to the plaintiff. The replication plaintiffs “ against any loss or diminution traversed the former of these allegations : that” might "happen to the said trust estate Held, that although the replication admitted a and moneys, or the interest or income thereof, delivery of the bill by M. & Sons to the plain- by the failure of the said securities ;” and tiff after the making of the agreement, that it there was a covenant by the grandsons, in condid not admit such a delivery as to give the sideration of the premises, to indemnify the plaintiff a new title to the bills, and, conse plaintiff's accordingly; and a further covenant quently, the replication was good as putting by the two other grandsons, that E., who was in issue a substantial averment in the plea. then a minor, should execute the indenture on Corlett v. Booker, 5 Exch. R. 197.

attaining his majority. The security referred 7. Bill of exchange, when complete. - Ac to, as set forth in the schedule, consisted of ceptance, place of.-The acceptance of a bill, the promissory note in the declaration, and though revocable at any time before delivery, other notes payable also on demand, with inis, if unrevoked, complete as soon as written terest. The plaintiffs were present at the exeon the bill; and the contract is made in that cution of the deed, assented to it, and acted place where the bill is accepted, not where upon it. A verdict was found for the defendit is issued. Regina v. Birch, in re Wilde v. ant. Sheridan, 1 L. & M. 56.

Held, by the Court of Queen's Bench, that Cases cited in the judgment: Roff v. Miller, 19

the plaintiffs were bound by the indenture, the Law J., C. P. 278; Cox v. Troy, 5 B. & A.

meaning of which was, that the securities 474.

mentioned in the schedule should remain outstanding until E. attained 25; and that the

plea was proved. PROMISSORY NOTES.

Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber,

on error, that the agreement in the indenture 1. Contemporaneous agreement between plain- I was collateral to the agreement in the declaratiff and defendant.- Assumpsit on a promissory tion, because, though stated to be contemponote made payable by defendant to the plain- raneous, it was not stated to be parcel of it, tiffs, as executors of S., on demand, with in- and was not between the same parties; that, as terest.

a collateral agreement, it was invalid for want Plea, that, at the same time as the making of consideration, and was no defence, being, at of the note, an agreement in writing was made, most, a covenant not to sue for a limited time, between the defendant and other persons and and also a covenant with other covenantees the plaintiffs, that the note should not become than the defendant alone; and that the plea due and payable until one E. attained the age was bad, and the plaintiff's entitled to judg. of 25 years; or, if he should die under that

ment, notwithstanding the verdict. Webb v. age, then upon certain moneys becoming di-Spicer, 13 Q. B. 886, 894; Same v. Salmon, ib. visible under the will of S., and that E. was

Case cited in the judgment: Ford v. Beech, 11 still living and under 25. Issue was joined

was joined Q. B. 852. upon a replication traversing the agreement.

It appeared on the trial that s., by her will, 2. Effect of security under seal given by one had bequeathed half of her residuary personal of two makers.-If one of two makers of a estate to her daughter. defendant's wife, and joint and several promissory note gives the had directed the plaintiffs, as her executors, to holder a deed of mortgage to secure the place out at interest the remaining half, until amount, with a covenant to pay it, the other the said E., one of her three grandsons, should maker is not thereby discharged; for the reattain the age of 25, and to divide the same, on medy on the specialty is not co-extensive with that event, equally between her grandsons. the remedy on the note. Ansell v. Baker, 15 After the death of testatrix, the plaintiffs paid Q. B. 20

e paid Q. B. 20. over half the residue to defendant: and. E.1 Cases cited in the judgment: Solly v. Forbes, being then under 25, the plaintiffs invested the

2 Brod. & B. 38; Twopenny v. Young, 3 B. remaining half of the residue in promissory

& C. 208, 211. notes payable on demand and bearing interest, 3. Payable to maker's own order, with meone of such notes being the note mentioned in morandum at foot for payment at a particular the declaration. At the time of making this place and indorsed by maker in blank.-A note note, an indenture, to which the defendant, the payable to the order of the maker, and by him grandsons, and the plaintiffs were parties, was indorsed in blank, may be treated as a note executed by all the parties thereto except the payable to bearer; and that notwithstanding plaintiffs. The indenture, after reciting the there is a memorandum at the foot of the will and death of testatrix, and the payment of note, indicating a particular place of payment. half the residue to the defendant, recited that Masters v. Baretto, 8 C. B. 433. the grandsons had requested the plaintiffs to in- 4. Given for the debt of a third party.-Suf. vest the remaining half of the residue upon the ficiency of consideration. - In assumpsit by security set forth in the schedule to the deed, payee against maker, on a promissory note "until the same” would " be divisible under payable on demand, with interest, the defendant

238 Analytical Digest of Cases : Promissory Notes.-Law of Arbitration. pleaded, that the note was made by the de- ! 9. Inland note.-Notice of protest unnecesfendant as a collateral security for a debt due sary.-7 Geo. 4, c. 67.-Return to stamp office from one J. S. to the plaintiff ; that the de- under that Statute not condition precedent to fendant was not at the time of making the note, right to banking company on note.-In an action or ever, liable to pay the debt, or to give the by the manager of a joint-stock banking comnote as a security for the same; and that there pany, upon a note indorsed by the defendants to never was any other consideration for the mak- the company, the declaration stated, that one L. ing of the note, save as aforesaid : Held, a suf-made his promissory note at L., in Scotland, ficient plea of no consideration, after verdict. to the order of the defendants, and delivered Crofts v. Beale, 11 C. B. 172.

the said note to them, and that they indorsed 5. Personal liability of directors of joint it to the company; that the note was not paid, stock company.The defendants, who were di- although duly presented for payment, and that rectors of a joint-stock newspaper company, it was protested for payment, whereof the degave the plaintiff the following promissory note, fendants had notice. Pleas, Ist, that the dein part payment for the purchase of a news- fendants had no notice of the said note being so paper, which the company had agreed to pur- protested, modo et formá ; and 2ndly, that the chase of him :

coropany, between the 25th of May and the "On demand, we jointly and sererally pro- 25th of July, 1847, did not deliver at the mise to pay to Mr. L. H., or order, the sum of Stamp office a return in pursuance of the 7 250l. value received, for and on behalf of the Geo. 4, c. 67. Verification. Wesleyan Newspaper Association.” Signed Held, that the word " whereof,” after verdict, by the defendants, * Directors :"

was not confined to the allegation of protest, Held, that the words “jointly and severally” and that the declaration was good in arrest of were equivalent to jointly and personally ; and judgment. that the defendants were therefore personally Held, also, that both the pleas were bad 90 liable to the plaintiff on the note. Healey v. obstante veredicto : the first on the ground Story, 3 Exch. R. 3.

that no protest of an inland note, which it was 6. Form of.-The following document,- to be taken to be, was necessary; and the “ Nottingham, August 5, 1844. Borrowed of second plea, on the ground that the due makMr. J. W. the sum of 2001., to account for, on ling of the return mentioned in that plea was behalf of the Alliance Club, at months' not a condition precedent to the company's notice, if required,”—was held not to be a right to recover upon the note. Bonar 5. promissory note. So also, a similar instru- Mitchell, 5 Exch. R. 415. ment, with the blank filled up with the word “two,” was held not to be a promissory note. White v. North, 3 Exch. R. 689.

LAW OF ARBITRATION. Case cited in the judgment: Horne v. Redfearn, 1. Attachment for non-performance. - Afide* Bing. N. C. 433.

vits impeaching award.--Evidence.--In showing 7. Signed as " widow.” Plea of coverture.

cause against a rule for attachment for non-Estoppel.- In an action on a promissory

performance of an award, affidavits cannot be note, to which the defendant pleads her cover

used to show that the award is impracticable, ture only, it appeared the note was signed by

uncertain, or not final, nor can the award be the defendant "widow:Held, that such re

impeached, except for defects apparent on the presentation did not bind her by way of estop

face of it. In re Butler and Masters, 13 Q. B. pel. Cannam v. Farmer, 3 Exch. R. 698.

341. 8. Statute of Limitations. — Payment of

2. Setting aside.- Mistake of arbitrator.interest on note.-A parish vestry having re

Matter in difference omitted. It is not an in• solved to borrow money for the purpose of

of variable rule that the Courts will not set aside building almshouses, the money was in 1830 an award on the ground that the arbitrator bids, advanced by the plaintiff upon the security of

security of by mistake, adjudicated wrongly on a matter in a promissory note payable to him, or bearer, ||

difference. on demand, with interest, and signed by the Where, on a question of account, both parties defendants thus : "J. H., churchwardens; civen sum was due to the plaintiff on a par

to a suit agreed before an arbitrator, that a J. E., Overseer, or others for the time being." given sum was ou The interest had been regularly paid by the ticular item, and it appeared by the arbitrators overseers for the time being up to 1847, but the an

| affidavit, that he, conceiving this to be no defendants had never paid the interest, or in

| longer a matter in difference, omitted the su express terms authorised the parish officers to in the amount which he awarded to the plainda, pay it for them. The defendants having

the Court, on motion by the plaintiff (who had pleaded the Statute of Limitations to an action objected to the adjudication without lossus on the note,– Held, that it was a question for

for time after delivery of the award), set the award the jury, whether, by the form of the note, the

he aside. Hutchinson y. Shepperton, 13 Q. B. defendants had not constituted the parish | 95 officers for the time being their agents for the

Cases cited in the judgment: In re Hall and payment of interest, so as to take the case

Hinds, 2 M. & G. 847 ; Hagger v. Baker, 13 out of the statute, Jones v. Hughes, 5 Exch.

M. & W. 309. R. 104.

3. Covenant to refer differences.-Rule of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Analytical Digest of Cases : Law of Arbitration.

239 Court. Enlargement of time by Judge. — A sum, L. tendered a conveyance to H., and decovenant by indenture, that any differences manded the money of him; but he would not which may thereafter arise between the parties pay. The Court refused to grant an attachtouching the matters of the indenture shall be, ment against H. as for non-performance of an and they are thereby, referred to an arbitrator award under Stat. 9 & 10 Wm. 3, c. 15. Hemnamed, constitutes a submission which may be ingway's Arbitration, 15 Q. B. 305, n. acted upon and made a rule of Court, under 6. What is a dispute that hinders making an Stat. 9 & 10 Wm. 3, c. 15, when such differ award, within Stat. 68:7 Wm. 4, c. 71, S. 45.ences arise.

| Who is in possession of the tithe, for the purpose Although the covenant to abide the award of an award.The award to be made by Tithe be expressly subjected to the proviso, “so as " Commissioners under the Commutation Act, 6 the award be made, &c., within a given time, & 7 Wm. 4, c. 71, is for the purpose only of with power to the arbitrator to enlarge the settling disputes only between tithe-owner and time, but “so as " the enlargement shall not land-owner, and not of deciding questions of extend beyond a day named, yet if the submis- title between rival claimants of tithe. sion can, by the agreement, be made a rule of Therefore, where tithes of agistment were Court, a Judge may, before the expiration of claimed by both rector and vicar, and the vicar the limited period, or of such enlargement, called upon the Commissioners to determine extend the time for making the award to a day such claims before making their award, later than the last day named in the submis- Held, on return to a mandamus, that the sion. Parkes v. Smith, 15 Q. B. 297.

Commissioners were not bound so to determine, 4. Covenant to refer future differences.- the difference not being one, within sect. 45, by Plea of award.Bar.-Estoppel.-Declaration which the making of the award was hindered; in covenant stated that, on a dissolution of but that they would do rightly in awarding partnership between plaintiff, defendant and rent-charges for the tithes, including that of another, defendant, by a certain indenture, agistment, to the parties respectively in poscovenanted that he and the other party last session, leaving them to litigate the title submentioned would pay plaintiff, as the outgoing sequently, as they might do, under section 71, partner, 6,8001. by instalments; but five in- notwithstanding the award. stalments, amounting to 4,8001., parcel of the No statement appearing as to the receipt of 6,800l. were made, subject to reduction in a agistment-tithe by any party : Held, that the specified ratio, if the profits which the partner- , Commissioners might properly consider the ship had derived from connexions of the plain- rector as the person in actual possession, with tiff should fall short of a certain amount. Non- sect. 12 of the Statute. Regina v. Tithe Compayment of the 4,8001., as well as of the other missioners, 15 Q. B. 620. instalments, amounting to 2,0001., was as. 7. Time for moving to set aside award. - Taxsigned as a breach.

ation of costs.-A cause and all matters in dif. Plea, as to the 4,8001. (setting out the deed ference between the parties were referred by an on oyer), that, by a further covenant, it was order of Nisi Prius, by which a verdict was agreed that, if any difference should arise taken for the plaintiff, subject to an award, touching the sums to be deducted, it should the costs of the cause to abide the event, and be referred to J. P., an arbitrator, to award the costs of the reference and award to be in what amount, not exceeding 4,8001., should be the discretion of the arbitrator. The arbitrator deducted ; that such difference did arise, and by his award ordered that the verdict entered thereupon plaintiff, defendant, and the other for the plaintiff should stand, and directed that parties submitted themselves to refer, and did the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the refer, the said difference to J, P., who awarded costs of the reference and award; Held, that that 4,8001., being the whole amount of the the plaintiff was not entitled to have an allocasaid five instalments, should be deducted from tur for the costs, or to sign judgment, until the 6,8001.; and that defendant, before the the expiration of the proper time for moving to commencement of this action, in pursuance of set aside the award. Jones v. Ives, 10 C. B. the said award claimed to deduct, and did 429. deduct, the said 4,8001., “from the said five

Case cited in the judgment : Hobdell v. Miller, instalments," whereby the said 6,8001., before

2 Scott, N. R, 163. the commencement of this suit, was reduced to 2,0001., to be paid to plaintiff pursuant to the 8. Finality uf award.-Order under 1 of 2

| Vict. c. 110, s. 18, in the discretion of the Held, on demurrer, that the matter alleged Court, and grantable only where an attachment was not merely an estoppel, but that the plea would be granted.-A cause and all matters in was a good plea in bar. Parkes v. Smith, 15 difference were referred to an arbitrator, who Q. B, 297.

awarded as follows:-“Having heard and duly 5. Submission, what is, within Stat. 98. 10 and maturely weighed and considered the seWm. 3, c. 15.-H. and L. agreed, by deed, veral allegations, vouchers, and proofs brought that H. should purchase property of L., at a before me in pursuance of the said reference, I price to be ascertained by arbitration; the do make and publish this my award in writing conveyance to be made on payment of the of and concerning the several premises so remoney. The agreeinent was made a rule of ferred as aforesaid." He then disposed of the Court. The arbitrator having awarded the several issues, ar directed that the defendant


« EelmineJätka »