AN

1

ACTION ON THE CASE.
See HUNDRED, ACTION AGAINST.
1. Where the goods of A. were dis-
strained for rent arrear, after the
amount had been tendered: Held,
that A. might bring an action on
the case for an exces: ive distress.

Branscomb v. Bridges and Another,
H. 3 & 4 G. 4.
Page 145
2. By 9 G. 1. c. 22. s. 7., the inhabit-
ants of the hundred are to make
satisfaction for damages occasioned
by the acts therein mentioned:
Held, that under this statute, the
action must be against all the in-
habitants of the hundred; and the
declaration being against two only,
it was held bad on motion in arrest
of judgment. Jackson v. Pearson
and Squirrell, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 304

ADMINISTRATOR.

1. Where a bill of exchange was in-
dorsed generally, but delivered to
S. C., as administratrix of J. C., for
a debt due to the intestate, and
S. C. died intestate after the bill

ADMINISTRATOR.
became due, and before it was
paid: Held, that the administrators,
de bonis non of J. C., might sue
upon the bill; and that their title
was sufficiently proved by the let-
ters of administration, de bonis
non, without producing those
granted to S. C., the administra-
trix. Catherwood and Another,
Administrators, v. Chabaud, H.
3 & 4 G. 4.
Page 150
A. mortgaged lands in fee to B.
and Co., with a power of sale upon
trust to repay themselves the mo-
nies advanced, &c., and to pay
over the surplus to A., his execu-
tors or administrators. Before any
sale was made, A. died, having
devised all his real and personal
property to C. and D. (whom he
also made executors,) upon trust
to sell and pay debts, &c. During
the lifetime of C. and D., B. and
Co. sold the estate, and paid the
surplus into the hands of E., who
was agent for C. and D. Whilst
the money remained in E.'s hands,
C. and D. died. E. also died soon
after, leaving the defendant his
executor. The plaintiffs having
taken out administration de bonis
non,

non, with the will of A. annexed, brought an action for money had and received against the defendant: Held, that it could not be maintained; for that the money in the defendant's hands was equitable, and not legal assets, and therefore would not have been recoverable by C. and D. in their representative character.

Held, also, that a promise made by the defendant to pay the money to the plaintiffs was merely nudum pactum, they not being entitled to receive it. Clay and Others, Administrators de bonis non, v. Willis. H. 3 & 4 G. 4. Page 364

ADVOCATE.

See PRISONER, 1.

AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO BAIL.

See PRACTICE, 6.

AFFIDAVITS, (entitling.)

See CERTIORARI, 4. PRACTICE, 22.

AGENT.

See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

AGREEMENT.

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 7. 1. An executory agreement to transfer a share of a vessel, is void by the 34 G. 3. c. 68. s. 14., unless it contains a recital of the certificate of registry. Biddell v. Leeder and Pulham, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 327

2. Where an agreement was made between A. and B. that the former should sell certain premises to B., if it turned out that he had a title to them, and that B. should have the possession from the date of that agreement: Held, that an ejectment could not be maintained by A. against B. without a demand of possession, although the object of the action was to try the title to

1. A clause in a private inclosure act, declaring that no item or charge in the accounts of the commissioners shall be binding to the parties concerned, or valid in law, unless the same shall have been duly allowed by a justice of peace in the manner therein pointed out, does not take away an appeal given by a subsequent clause, "to the party grieved by any thing done in pursuance of that or the general inclosure act, (other than, and except such determinations as were by that or the general inclosure act declared to be binding, final,

and

H

3. Notice of appeal against an order of filiation was given in the following form: "I, A. B. of, &c., intend, at the next general quarter sessions to be holden, &c., to commence and prosecute an appeal against an order of filiation, made, &c., whereby I was adjudged to be the father of a bastard child, born on the body of E. R., and chargeable to the parish of S.." Held, that this notice was insufficient, the cause and matter of appeal not being set out as required by 9 G. 3. c. 68. s. 5. Rex v. The Justices of - Oxfordshire, H. 3 & 4 G. 4.

APPRENTICE.

279

insurance, which was done at his expense, and not in pursuance of any agreement between him and A. The ship, with the goods on board, was captured, and the underwriters paid a total loss to R. and Co., who gave B. credit for the money, part of which they paid over to him, and part to his assignees after he had become bankrupt. R. and Co. paid part of the bills drawn upon them, and rejected others. In an action brought against them by A. for money had and received to his use: Held, that they were not bound to apply the money paid on the policy to the discharge of the bills drawn by B. for the goods. The defendants in answer to an application by plaintiff, stated that they could say nothing about some of the bills in question not then accepted, and that their fate must depend upon the state of Williams' account when they become due: Held, that this was not a conditional acceptance, and did not bind R. and Co. to apply to the payment of the bills, any money that they might receive on account of Williams. Neale. Administratrix, v. Reid, E. 4. G. 4. Page 657

ARBITRAMENT.
See COSTS, 2.

1. In an action against several defendants, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for 4007. damages, subject to a point of law reserved for the opinion of the Court; and in case that point should be determined in favour of the plaintiff, then subject to the award of a barrister as to the damages. The point of law having been decided in favour of the plaintiff, the arbitrator having been consulted by one of the parties in the cause, declined proceeding in the reference.

One

One of the defendants refused to name any other arbitrator. Under these circumstances the Court ordered judgment and execution to issue against that defendant for the damages found by the jury, unless he would consent to refer the damages to some other arbitrator. Woolley, Executrix, v. Kelly and Others, M. 3 G. 4. Page 68 2. Personal knowledge of an award

and rule of court makes the party liable to an attachment for not performing the award, although he has not been personally served. In the Matter of Bower, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 264

3. Where a cause and all matters in difference were referred to an arbitrator, but nothing was said about costs: Held, that the arbitrator had power over the costs of the cause, but not those of the reference. Firth v. Robinson, H. 3 & 4. G. 4.

ARREST.

277

3.

2. An action for money had and received, brought against the receiver of an estate to recover money received by him for rent, for the purpose of trying the title of the estate, is an action for rent within the meaning of the 39 & 40 G. 3. c. 104. s. 13. the London Court of Request Act; and the plaintiff, although he recovered less than 51., was held to be entitled to costs. Drew v. Fletcher, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. Page 283 A. mortgaged lands in fee to B. and Co., with a power of sale upon trust to repay themselves the monies advanced, &c., and to pay over the surplus to 4., his executors or administrators. Before any sale was made A. died, having devised all his real and personal property to C. and D. (whom he also made executors,) upon trust to sell and pay debts, &c. During the lifetime of C. and D., B. and Co. sold the estate and paid the surplus into the hands of E. who was agent for C. and D. Whilst the money remained in E.'s hands, C. and D. died, E. also died soon after, leaving the defendant his executor. The plaintiffs having taken out administration de bonis non with the will of A. annexed, brought an action for money had and received against the defendant: Held, that it could not be maintained; for that the money in the defendant's hands was equitable, and not legal assets, and therefore would not have been recoverable by C. and D. in their representative character: Held, also, that a promise made by the defendant to pay the money to the plaintiffs was merely nudum pactum, they not being entitled to receive it. Clay v. Willis, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 364

4. A. and Co. and B. and Co. respectively carried on the business of bankers at Maidstone. B. and

Co.