Held, that Edison's telephone was a "telegraph" within the meaning of the Telegraph Act, 1863 and 1869, although the telephone was not invented or contemplated in 1869.
2. Held, also, that a conversation through the telephone was a "message," or at all events a "communication transmit- ted by a telegraph," and therefore a "telegram" within the meaning of those acts; and that since the company made a profit out of the rents, conversations held by subscribers through their tele- phones were infringements of the ex- clusive privilege of transmitting tele- grams granted to the Postmaster-Gen- eral by the act of 1869, and were not within the exceptions mentioned in s. 5. Attorney-General v. Edison, etc.
See AGREEMENTS, 341, 347 note.
1. Goods having been shipped for London consigned to C. & Co., the shipmas- ter signed a set of three bills of lading, marked "First," "Second," and "Third," respectively, making the goods deliverable "to C. & Co., or their assigns, freight payable in Lon- don, the one of the bills being accom- plished, the remainder to stand void." During the voyage, C. & Co. indorsed the bill of lading marked "First" to the plaintiffs for valuable consideration. Upon the arrival of the ship at Lon- don, C. & Co. entered the goods as con- signed to them, and they were landed and placed in the custody of the de- fendants in their warehouses; the mas- ter lodging with the defendants notice
under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862, to detain the cargo until the freight should be paid. C. & Co. then produced to and lodged with the de- fendants, the second part of the set of bills of lading. The defendants ac- cordingly entered C. & Co. in their books as enterers, importers, and pro- prietors of the goods, and the stop for freight being afterwards removed, they delivered the goods to various persons upon delivery orders signed by C. & Co.:
Held, by Field, J., that the defend- ants were liable in an action by the plaintiffs for the value of the goods, for without deciding whether the mas- ter could have been exonerated by a delivery of the goods to the person first presenting a bill of lading, the defend- ants were not by receiving the goods, subject to the stop for freight, placed in the same position as the master and entitled to his rights; and further, that in delivering the goods upon the order of C. & Co., they had acted in a character beyond that of mere ware- housemen, and were guilty of a conver- sion. Glyn, etc., v. East, etc.
2. Claim. That plaintiffs were holders of a bill of sale duly registered, comprising amongst other things all the growing crops and all the goods, chattels, and effects which then were or thereafter should be on or about the farm and premises of S., farmer, and that defend- ant wrongfully deprived the plaintiff's of the use and possession of twelve quarters of wheat comprised in the bill
Defence. That the plaintiffs suffered S. to have the possession of the goods, and to hold himself out as having not only the possession but the property in them, and that he sold the same to the defendant, who bought them in the ordinary course of business, and with- out any notice that they did not belong to S. That S. was suffered by the plaintiffs to carry on his business as a farmer and dealer in grain at the time of the sale, and it was the ordinary course of business of S. in such busi- ness to make such sales:
Held, that the defence was good, for the bill of sale by implication conferred a license on the grantor to carry on his business and dispose of the goods so as to give a valid title to purchasers. National, etc., v. Hampson.
3. D. & Co. deposited certain goods with the plaintiffs as security for an ad- vance; they afterwards obtained pos- session of the goods by fraudulently representing to the plaintiffs that they had sold them to the defendants, and would hand over to the plaintiffs the money to be received in payment. D. & Co. obtained an advance from the defendants, and deposited the goods, with a power of sale, with them:
Held, affirming the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, that as the plaintiffs had parted with their special property in the goods to D. & Co., they could not recover them in an action from the defendants who had obtained them bona fide and for a good consid- eration. Babcock v. Lawson. 296,
STOCKHOLDERS, 253, 280 note.
1. By the Kidnapping Act, 1872, s. 3, vessels carrying native laborers of the South Sea Islands, not being part of the crew, must have a license; by s. 6, vessels carrying native laborers without a license are subject to the provisions of s. 16; by s. 9, to detain or confine a native for the purpose of removing him from one place to another is declared to be felony; by s. 16, any vessel sus- pected upon reasonable grounds of committing an offence against the 9th section may be detained; by s. 20, no damages shall be payable and no officer shall be responsible for the detention or seizure of a vessel in pursuance of the act.
Before the passing of the Kidnapping Act, 1872, the plaintiff's vessel sailed
1. G. had purchased certain calico print- ing works for the sum of £15,000. G. and S. associated themselves together as promotors of a company formed for the purchase of the works from G., and for the purposes of the negotiations for such purchase a contract, which the jury found to be a sham contract, was entered into between them for the pre- tended sale of the works by G. to S. for £20,000. The company was ulti- mately formed, its directors being nominees of G. and S., and the works were conveyed by G. and S. to the company for £20,000. It was agreed between G. and S. that G. should pay the sum of £3,000 out of the purchase- money to S., but this agreement was not communicated to the directors of the company when the sale to the com- pany was effected:
Held, by Bowen, J., on further con- sideration, that S., as a promoter of the company, was not entitled to secure any profit to himself out of the forma- tion of the company without the knowl- edge of the directors, and that such being the case the company were enti- tled to treat the agreement made between G. and S. as made by S. on their behalf, and to enforce it against G., and that consequently they could recover from G. so much of the £3,000 which he had agreed to pay to S. as
1. A Local Turnpike Act, 3 Wm. 4, c. lv, imposed the following tolls:
For every horse, mule, or other beast drawing any coach, sociable, chariot, berlin, landau, vis-à-vis, phaton, cur- ricle, &c., 6d.
For every carriage of whatever de-
See INSURANCE, MARINE, 21.
scription, and for whatever purpose, See CARRIERS, 290, 295 note, 671, 700 note.
which shall be drawn or impelled, or set or kept in motion by steam or other power or agency, than being drawn by any horse or horses, or other beast or beasts of draught, 5s.:
Held, that a bicycle was not a car- riage liable to toll under the act. liams v. Ellis.
See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 371.
See NEGLIGENCE, 769, 775 note. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT, 348, 351 note.
1. A devise of premises for life provided that the tenant for life should keep the premises in repair. The tenant for life entered upon and enjoyed the prem- ises during her lifetime, but left them at her death out of repair. The re- mainderman in fee brought an action against the executor of the tenant for life in respect of the non-repair of the premises within the period of limita- tion prescribed by 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42, 8. 2, which gives a right of action against the executor of a person de- ceased in respect of wrongs committed by the testator to another in respect of his property:
Held, that an action of tort in respect of the permissive waste by non-repair of the premises would have lain at common law against the tenant for life in her lifetime, and consequently lay under the above-mentioned statute
1. The plaintiffs occupied premises be- neath the offices of the defendants who were solicitors. One of the defendants had a room of the offices, and in it was a lavatory for his own use exclusively, and his orders to his clerks were that no clerk should come into his room after he had left. A clerk went into the room to wash his hands at the lava- tory after his employer had left, turned the water tap, and negligently left it so that water flowed from it into the plaintiffs' premises and damaged them. In an action for negligence: Held, that the act of the clerk was not within the scope of his authority, or incident to the ordinary duties of his employment, and that there was no evidence of negligence for which the defendants were liable. Stevens v. Woodward.
See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 480, 487 note.
Near as may safely get," "Person,"
"Telegraph,” "Telephone,"
See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 31, 34 note.
1. Under the Wills Act (1 Vict. c. 26), s. 15, the marriage, after attestation of
See CARRIERS, 671, 700 note.
Abatement, statute New York as to what actions survive against personal
what actions so survive, 29–366.
Acceptance. See Agreements.
Accident, when death from is manslaughter, 29-506-7.
using dangerous weapon carelessly, 29-507.
degree of care required in such case, 29-507.
trying to get pistol from another, 29-507.
one trying to commit suicide killed another, 29–507. pistol discharged in scuffle, 29-507.
while frightening one, 29-507.
third person killed one with whom defendant fighting, 29-507. ignorant person gave dangerous drug, 29-507.
one may be convicted of adultery with woman whose husband has not been heard of for seven years, 29-507.
See Act of God—Insurance, Life.
Act of God, small-pox not so as to justify discharging teacher of school,
sickness preventing work, 29–538.
few jugs containing seltser water broken in transportation, 29-
spring did not supply sufficient water for property leased, cove- nanted to be supplied with water, 29-538.
Adultery, one may be convicted of adultery with woman whose husband not heard of for seven years, -29-507.
Agent. See Husband and Wife-Principal and Agent.
Agreements, when happening of contingency operates as assent, 29–34. when collateral covenant against assignment not enforced, 29– 241.
if not necessarily personal in character, assignee may perform, 29-241.
as street cleaning contract, 29-241.
to cultivate land, 29-241.
« EelmineJätka » |