697

THE

REVISED REPORTS

BEING

A REPUBLICATION OF SUCH CASES

IN THE

ENGLISH COURTS OF COMMON LAW AND EQUITY,

FROM THE YEAR 1785,

AS ARE STILL OF PRACTICAL UTILITY.

EDITED BY

SIR FREDERICK POLLOCK, BART., LL.D.,

CORPUS PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,

5 & 6 VESEY (to p. 616)-8 T. R.-1 EAST (to p. 138)-2 BOS. & P.-
FORREST-1 & 2 ESPINASSE.

LONDON:

SWEET AND MAXWELL, LIMITED, 3, CHANCERY LANE.

BOSTON:

LITTLE, BROWN & CO.

1892.

LONDON:

BRADBURY, AGNEW, & CO. LD., PRINTERS, WHITEFTARS.

PREFACE TO VOLUME V.

We may now be said to be in the full stream of modern reporting, but the Exchequer still contributes very little. A third of this century had to pass before the Court of Exchequer, reinforced by Parke and Alderson, finally asserted its equality in substance as well as in form with the King's Bench and the Common Pleas. Among the Equity cases in the present volume, Ex parte Ruffin, Evans v. Bicknell, and Gibson v. Jeyes, embodying principles of wide and permanent importance, may still be deemed classical. The learned reader's attention is specially called to Mr. Campbell's warning note, at p. 715, as to the value of Espinasse's Reports. Attention is also called, with reference to Folkingham v. Croft, 4 R. R. 844, to the note on Morgan v. Slaughter, at pp. 715-716.

In this, as in former volumes, we have not always thought ourselves bound to correct the quaint elliptical phrases of the original head-notes where the sense was reasonably clear, and especially where the language of

the head-note is taken from the judgment itself. Hope

v. Lord Clifden, p. 364, is an example.

References to the Law Times, as well as the Law Journal Reports, have been given for most of the later cases cited in our notes.

F. P.