No. 10. Creditor against Principal Debtor and his Surety Severally on a Guarantee for Goods Sold. The plaintiff's claim is against the defendant A. B. as principal, and against the defendant C. D. as surety, for the price of goods sold and delivered by the plaintiff to A. B. on the guarantee by C. D., dated the 2nd of February, 1904. Particulars 1904, 2nd February - Goods App. C. Sec. III. Nos. 10, 11, 12. $47.15 105.14 14.12 34.00 $200.41 (Signed) No. 11. Debt Upon a Trust. The plaintiff's claim is against the defendants as trustees under the settlement upon the marriage of A. B. and X. Y., dated January 1st, 1890, whereby $10,000 invested on mortgage of land at Z. was vested in the defendants as trustees upon trust to pay the income thereof half-yearly to the plaintiff. Particulars : 1905, December 25th, half a year's income, $250.00 No. 12. Landlord against Tenant whose Term has Expired or has been determined by Notice to Quit. See Sect. VI., Form No. 1. Actions for Damages for Breach of Contract or Duty arising out of Contract. No. 1. Buyer against seller of goods for not delivering. 1. The plaintiff has suffered damage by breach of contract for sale and delivery by the defendant to the plaintiff of 100 tons pig iron at $22 per ton to be delivered on rail at Moncton on the 15th of March, 1906. 2. The defendant did not deliver any (or case may be) of the said iron. Particulars of damage: tons, as the Loss of profit at $4 per ton on 100 tons $400.00 (Signed) Delivered No. 2. Buyer against Seller of Goods for delivering them inferior to 1. The plaintiff has suffered damage by breach of a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for sale and delivery of 100 sacks of flour known as seconds at $7 per sack. 2. Eighty sacks delivered were inferior to seconds, and 20 sacks were not delivered. No. 3. Shipowner against Charterer for Detention beyond the demurrage days. 1. The plaintiff has suffered damage by breach of a charter-party, dated the 10th of March, 1904, between the plaintiff and the defendant of the ship Mary. 2. The ship was detained at the port of loading. Particulars of damage: 1905. Jan. 1 to 10 days' detention beyond the demurrage Jan. 10 days, at $100 per day, . . $1,000.00 The plaintiff claims $1,000. App. C. Sec. IV. Nos. 3, 4, 5. Delivered (Signed) No. 4. Shipper against Master on a Bill of Lading for Damage to Goods. 1. The plaintiff has suffered damage by breach of contract by bill of lading of goods shipped by the plaintiff on board the Jane signed by defendant, dated the 1st of January, 1906, 2. Fifty bales of cotton were delivered in a damaged condition. Shipper Against Ship-owner on a Bill of Lading for Dama.e and Short Delivery. 1. The plaintiff has suffered damage by breach of contract App. C. Sec. IV. Nos. 5, 6. by bill of lading of goods shipped by the plaintiff signed by the master of the ship Mary as the defendant's agent, dated the 1st of January, 1905. 2. 500 barrels of flour were delivered in a damaged condition, and 100 barrels were not delivered. The plaintiff was interested to the amount of $ marine policy of insurance for that amount, dated the of under a 19 the ship Hero, subscribed by the defend , ant for $ Particulars: 1. Valued or open:-Valued at $20,000.00. 2. Voyage-At and from Cardiff to Valparaiso. 3. [or, Time: From noon of 1st January, 1905, to noon of 1st January, 1906]. 5. Perils insured against causing loss:-Of the seas. 6. Loss:-Total [or exceeding 3 per cent]. No. 7. Passenger Against Railway Company for Negligence. The plaintiff has suffered damage from the defendant's negligence in carrying the plaintiff as a passenger by railway from Woodstock to McAdam, causing personal injuries to the plaintiff, in a collision near Canterbury Station on the 15th January, 1906. Client against Solicitor for Negligence. 1. The plaintiff has suffered damage from the defendant's negligence in his conduct for the plaintiff, as his solicitor, of business undertaken by the defendant on the plaintiff's retainer. 2. The negligence was in making an application under Order XIV., Rule I., in the case of A. B. (the plaintiff) v. C. D., where the case was one of unliquidated damages and not of delt. Particulars of damage: Taxed costs paid to defendant on dismissal of summons The plaintiff claims $ Delivered (Signed) App. C. Sec. IV. Nos. 7, 8. |