ADDENDA. If, to an interpleading suit, there be several defendants, the answer by one may be read against the others. Bower v. Pritchard, 11 Price, 103. An occupier of lands took a lease of the tithes, due from himself to a rector, at a rent reserved. The rent was afterwards assigned by the rector to another person, who claimed to be paid the arrears.. The lessee, having also received notice of a further claim, from grantees of annuities previously charged on the tithes by the rector, who had, as such grantees, subsequently to the title of the rector's assignee, sued out a fieri facias de bonis ecclesiasticis against the rector, and judgment by them on their securities, filed a bill of interpleader against all the parties, and obtained injunctions on paying the rent due from him into court. On the answers of the defendants coming in, the priority of the several titles of the claimants being thereby clearly set out, and the rector disclaiming, the Court dissolved the injunctions, holding, first, that in such a case they could not restrain the party, who was shewn to have a preferable title, from proceeding to enforce it; nor decree that the parties should interplead in a case where the priority of right was so distinctly set forth by the answers: secondly, that if the case be not one that will support a bill of interpleader, the defendant must demur: and, thirdly, that the above lease and assignment of part of the rector's ecclesiastical property is good, and not affected by an execution sued out against the rector, after the rent had been assigned. Bowyer v. Pritchard, 11 Price, 103. A party in possession of property subject to conflicting claims, may always protect himself by a bill of interpleader, notwithstanding the pendency of a suit commenced by one of the claimants. Warrington v. Wheatstone, 1 Jac. 202. A testator gave a legacy of 500l. to trustees, upon trust to invest it in government or good security, and pay the interest to his widow for life, with remainder over: after his death, his executors (who were different persons from the trustees of the legacy,) and the trustees of the legacy stated to a debtor, who owed the testator 500l. on bond, that they had arranged and agreed to appropriate that debt for the legacy; and from that time, during a period of more than fourteen years, the debtor, with the privity of the trustees, and also of the executors, had paid the interest of the bond to the tenant for life of the legacy: the executors having called for payment of the bond, and proceeding to sue upon it, while, on the other hand, the surviving trustee of the legacy had given notice to the debtor not to pay it to them: Held, by the Lord Chancellor, (reversing the decision of the Vice Chancellor,) that the debtor was entitled to file a bill of interpleader. Wright v. Ward, 6 Law J. Chanc. 42. Demurrer to a bill of interpleader overruled, where the plaintiff called on two persons claiming the possession and rent, or an equivalent for use and occupation of premises in his occupation, and one of them (the party demurring) had actually obtained a verdict for the value of the use and occupation; it being held that the plaintiff did not stand in the relation of tenant to the party demurring, who had so recovered in the action at law. Stephens v. Callanan, 12 Price, 158. A bill of interpleader ought to be filed immediately after or before the commencement of proceedings at law, and not be delayed till after a 571 judgment or verdict has been obtained; and therefore, where an interpleading bill was filed, after a verdict had been obtained by one of the parties, and an injunction had been granted on the money being paid into court, the Court dissolved the injunction, though the answer of only one of the parties had come in, the plaintiff not satisfactorily accounting for the delay in filing his bill. Cornish v. Tanner, 1 Y. & J. 333. Upon the hearing of an interpleading bill, evidence is admissible to shew that the plaintiff has retained possession of the subject of the suit under an indemnity from some of the defendants. Stathum v. Hall, 1 Turn. 30. No affidavit is necessary to support a motion by a plaintiff in an interpleading suit, for liberty to pay the money into court, and for an injunction. Walbanke v. Sparks, 1 Sim. 385. LACHES IN PROCEEDING. A rule of attachment against a chief bailiff of a liberty, for not bringing in the body, was obtained on the 12th of February, and the attachment not sued out till the 19th of May following; and in the interim, one of the defendants in the original action obtained his discharge under the Insolvent Debtors Act: The Court set aside the attachment. Rex v. Jewison, 12 B. Mo. 483. LANDLORD AND TENANT. The defendant took premises for a year certain, but quitted at the end of the first quarter. The plaintiff then let the premises for a portion of the remaining three quarters, to another tenant at a less rate, and afterwards sued the defendant for the difference: Held, that by re-letting the premises, the plaintiff had assented to the termination of the original tenancy, and dispensed with the necessity of a legal surrender. Walls v. Atcheson, 11 B. Mo. 379. LEASE. The Court will permit leases to be granted, if that course be beneficial to the parties interested, notwithstanding the testator by his will may have directed that the estate should be sold. Jervoise v. Clarke, 6 Mad. 96. LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF. To take a case out of the Statute of Limitations, evidence of a conversation in which one of the defendants had admitted the debt, and said, "that it was hard that he should be called upon individually to pay the debts of the firm when so many outstanding debts due to them were uncollected; that he had put the debts into the hands of an accountant, who would settle the business, and that he might refuse to pay altogether, but would not act in that way," was held sufficient to constitute an absolute promise to pay. Pierce v. Brewster, 12 B. Mo. 515. PRACTICE. PROCESS. The Court refused to set aside the service of a writ of attachment of privilege, on the ground that the wrong year was stated in the English notice. Harmer v. Lane, 12 B. Mo. 522. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. The stat. 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 87, s. 12, does not require a corn-factor to return the name of the person to whom corn, when sold, is actually delivered. Where, therefore, cornfactors returned the name of TL as a buyer of wheat, and afterwards paid the lastage duty on the delivery of the quantity returned as sold to him: Held, that they were not thereby precluded from shewing that, although the corn was sold to T L, it was delivered to his granary keepers on the condition that they were to hold it for the factors till TL had paid them for it. Wordley v. Brown, 10 B. Mo. 201. RECOVERY. PASSING. The Court permitted a recovery to pass, notwithstanding the warrants of attorney of the several vouchers were on separate pieces of parchment. Hicks, dem.; Dean, ten.; Crump, vouch., 12 B. Mo. 295. TRESPASS. EVIDENCE. Trespass for assaulting and imprisoning the plaintiff. Plea, that the plaintiff was wilfully trespassing on the land and breaking down the hedges of the defendant, wherefore be apprehended him and took him before a justice. Replication, that the plaintiff entered the land and broke down the hedges in the assertion of a right of way; traversing that he did so wilfully or for any other purpose than in the exercise of such right. Rejoinder, that the plaintiff was in the act of committing wilful damage to the defendant: Held, that, upon this issue, the plaintiff might give evidence as to the right of way claimed by him, in order to shew quo animo he entered the locus in quo. Looker v. Halcomb, 12 B. Mo. 410. PRODUCTION OF DEEDS. A, having an imperfect copy of a deed by which his ancestor conveyed an estate and royalty to B, wishes for a copy of that deed, that he may see whether at that time the royalty and right to kill game had not been excepted, in order that the de VENUE. In an action against a sheriff for an escape, the Court refused to allow the venue to be changed to the county in which the escape took place, although it was sworn that all the witnesses resided there. Jenkins v. Lawrence, 12 B. Mo. 230. TABLE OF CASES REFERRED TO IN THE PRECEDING ANALYTICAL DIGESTED INDEX 1822-1828. [Where Stars are added, the Case named is referred to as many times in the particular page. The references to the late volumes of B. Moore are inserted here, as they were not published when this Digest was printing. Add. refers to the ADDENDA.] AARON V. Chaundy, 292 Aarons v. Williams, 217 Abbott, in re, 278 v. Rice, 458 v. Young, 353, 355 Abell, ex parte, 102 Abernethy v. Hutchinson, 158* Abington v. Jeans, 125 Abney's bail, 67 Abraham, in re, 281 v. George, 92, 101 [11 B. Mo. 198] Adkins v. Graves, 350 Ainsworth, ex parte, 78 in re Tills, 330. v. Brown, 222, 50% v. Dixon, 561 v. Holland, 178 Alexandre, ex parte, 82 pl.; Kinderley, ten.; South- Alfred v. Horne, 130, 131 v. Lavender, 137, 318 Allison v. Haydon, 499 v. Raynor, 45, 47, 276 Alpin v. Fox, 68 Alsop v. Silvester, 431 Alston v. Dugger, 425 Altridge v. Kittridge, 86 Amery v. Brodrick, 424 Ames v. Milward, 31 Amfield v. White, 299 Amburst v. King, 381. Amory v. Merryweather, 123 Amphlett v. Parke, 322 Ancaster v. Milling, 516 Anderson v. Bailey, 265 v. Shaw, 357, 375 [11 B. Mo. 44] v. Turner, 246 v. Watson, 45 Anderton v. Wilbraham, 418 v. Francis, 353 v. Mercer, 100, 357 Angell v. Angell, 186, 204 Angel v. Angel, 461* [11 B. Mo. 272] Angerstein v. Martin, 233, 323 Angus v. Montgomery, 163*, 164, 427 Ann, the, 462 Anonymous cases, viz:- v. Bailie, 108, 416 - v. Bozon, 269 -v. Chadwick, 449 - v. Crampthorne, 462 -v. Davis, 409 - v. Donovan, 268, 269 - v. Falmouth, Lady, 418 4 D v. Staples, 412 -v. Taylor, 353 as to Admiralty, 10, 425 - (Affidavits), 5* ***, 53, 54 (Amendment), 15, 451 (Arbitration), 28, 29, 30, 31 Solicitor in), 103* N.P. Practice in), 406 (Bill of Discovery), 412 Revivor), 412 (Causes), 419 (Cognovit), 141 (Costs), 165, 167*, 169* (Counsel), 171, (Declaration), 403 (Deposit in lieu of Bail), 56* (Depositions), 419 (Disclaimer), 203 (Ejectment), 212, 213, 214 (Error), 218 (Estreats), 14 (Evidence), 222 * (Exceptions), 423 (Execution), 230* (Executors and AdministTM*), 232 (Fine, Amendt of), 246 * (Friendly Society), 251 (Information), 268 - (Injunction, 270, 271, 272, 273 (Insolvent Debtors), 274 (Inspection of Papers), 440* (Interrogatories), 566* (Cross), 418 Apperley v. Gill, 509 -- v. Campbell, 528 v. Bamford, 111, 407 - v. Little, 412 v. Walker, 401, 403 Arkley v. Arkley, 10 Arkwright v. Stoveld, 148, 421 Arlett v. Ellis, 143* Armsby v. Woodward, 308 [11 B. Mo. 209] (Proceedings, setting aside), Arnot v. Redfern, 149, 289 409** Staying), 410 (Prochein Amy), 438** - (Production of Documents), 439*, 441 - (Prohibition), 442* (Publication), 419 (Puis darrein continuance), 405 (Record), 441 (Recovery) 246, 451, 453 (Reference to Master), 418, 422 · (Rule), 408*, 410 (Service of Proceedings), 408** (Sheriff's Liability), 473* * Poundage), 476 Privileges), 473 Return), 410, 417, 474 Ashbourn v. Price, 170, 224 Ashby v. Ashby, 236 Ashford v. Price, 48 Ashley, in re, 279 Ashmore v. Fletcher, 70 .V. Astle v. Baldwin, 139 - v. Thomas, 140 Astley v. Miller, 191, 344 v. Young, 325 406 Atkins v. Drake, 292, 354, 511 v. Tredgold, 235 Atkinson, ex parte, 335 v. Atkinson, 425, 566 v. Bell, 543 v. Carter, 255, 256 v. Cotesworth, 482, 484 v. Hutton, 414, 424 v. Laing, 368 v. Sadler, 548 Atkinson's bail, 68 (Warrant of Attorney), 14, 549*, Attenbury v. Smith, 218 550* Atterbury v. Fairmanor, 355, 551 Attorney General v. Poor of Alverstoke, 420 v. Ashburnham, 136 v. Bacchus, 324 v. Barrell, 268 v. Berkeley, 264 v. Bevington, 231 -v. Brooksbank, 5, 16, 439 v. Buller, 136 v. Bulpit, 565 v. Catherine Hall, Master of, 201, 322, 527, 547 Christchurch, 135 v. Taylor, 51 v. Thornton, 231 v. Tomkins, 320 v. Tyson, 12 v. Vew Llette, 352 v. Vivian, 135, 136, 137 v. Winchester, 135, 136 v. Woolhouse, 258 Attwood v., 413 Atwood v. -, 146 v. Braham, 270, 489 v. Griffin, 112, 113 v. Hankin, 435 v. Prince, 566 Awbrey, dem.; Simmons, vouch., 451 Axford v. Perrett, 455 Baby v. Rose, 77 -V. Stacey, 331 Bagnal v. Harvey, 197 of Carolina v. Case, 367 Bankes v. Holme, 203 Banks v. Kain, 563 Bann v. Dalzell, 290 Barber, in re, 79, 434 - v. Crankshaw, 370 v. Crawshaw, 417 Barclay, ex parte, 85 v. Adam, 500, 542 v. Curtis, 271, 570 v. Raine, 173, 440, 489 Bardney v. Hasselden, 270 v. Underwood, 169, 328, 567 Bardouleau, in re, 275 Bagot v. Williams, 294 v. Allan, 401 v. Berkeley, 517 v. Bond, 209 V. Buckle, 479 v. Davenport, 476 V. Hanbury, 319 v. Morrey, 166 Bailey v. Bailey, 455 v. Forbes, 415 v. Pottinger, 126 v. Sewell, 513 v. Taylor, 158 v. the London Waterworks, Bailie v., 416 Baillet v. Mitchell, 185 Bain v. Bain, 13 v. Mason, 10, 343 Bainbridge v. Statham, 87 Balch v. Symes, 43, 46,* 183, 440 v. Lawrence, 145, 365, 490 Bale v. Hodgetts, 513, 514 Barford v. Stuckey, 17, 182 Barfield v. Nicholson, 158, 271 Barker v. Barker, 207 v. Green, 474 V. Ray, 224, 355, 356 V. Rayner, $19 v. Richardson, 408 v. Lucas, 457 v. Winkler, 458, 459 Barraud v. Lawrence, 76 v. Lewis, 78 Barrett v. Booty, 107 v. Moss, 47 v. Tickell, 271 Barrow v. Bell, 285 v. Croft, 293 v. Whitehead, 67 Barry v. Rodney, 404 -v. Downes, 341, 499 |