Page images
PDF
EPUB

AND

RE

ADOPTION.

judgment book, and found that judgment was Of tortious act, 187. MONEY HAD

signed “this day :" Held, that the date of the

year, omitted in the affidavit, might be I.

sup CEIVED,

plied by reference to the jurat.

Under stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 18, wbich ADVERSE POSSESSION.

provides, that in causes tried before the I. Effect in giving and extinguishing titles. sheriff, judgment may be signed “at the 1. How far it must be continuous and for how

return of any such writ of inquiry," judg. long.

ment cannot be signed before the day on

which the writ has been made returnable, In ejectment it appeared that the lessor of the plaintiff's husband had been in pos

though it has been actually returned before

that day. Holmes v. London and South session as tenant at will for eighteen years,

Western Railway Company,

211 ending in 1834, when he died leaving a son, and that she then became possessed and re

II. Jurat. mained in possession for thirteen years.

Time supplied by reference to, 211. Ante, I. Held, That the plaintiff could not rely on the husband's possession, except as primâ facie

AGENT. evidence of a seisin in fee, on which supposi- I. Liability of agent for unauthorized acts. tion it was also evidence of title in his heir, When not directly liable on a contract which defeated the title of the lessor of the entered into without authority in the name plaintiff: and that she could not insist ona

of another person. her own possession for thirteen years, as it Assumpsit on a contract alleged to have was not derived from the husband's pos- been made by defendant to charter a ship to session; although the possession by herself plaintiff. Plea, Non assumpsit. Proof, that and her husband for inore than twenty years

defendant made a memorandum of a charterconsecutirely would have entitled her to a party in B.'s name, and purporting to be signed verdict if she had been defendant in an eject- by defendant as agent for B. : that defendant ment brought by the real owner.

had no authority to contract for B., apd Semble, that the effect of the 34th section knew that he had none; and that B, refused of stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 27, which says that, at to adopt the contract. the determination of the period limited by IIeld, that defendant was not liable as the act for any person to make an entry, his principal, in an action on the contract itself: title shall be “extinguished," is to give title and a nonsuit was entered. Jenkins v. to possession for twenty years, but that such Hutchinson,

744 twenty years' possession must be either by II. Liability of principal for trespass by agent. the same persons, or several persons, claiming What not a sufficient assent: ignorance. one from another. Doe dem. Carter v. Bar. After verdict for plaintiff, with leave re. nard,

945 served to move for a nonsuit or verdict for 2. Twenty years possession by sister against

defendant, defendant died before a motion brother.

could be made. The rule nisi was afterwards Where a daughter entered into occupation

obtained in his name. of premises on the death of her mother, to

Held, that the rule might still be made whom they belonged, and held them without

absolute to enter the verdict for the defendinterruption for twenty years, but the mother ant, it appearing that the executors authohad left a son, who was living during the

rized the motion; and that the judgment whole time of the daughter's occupation:

might be given on such verdict, under stat. Held (on ejectment brought before stat. 3

17 C. 2, c. 8, s. 1. & 4 W. 4, c. 27, came into operation), that it

A principal is not liable in trespass for the could not be presumed from this circumstance

act of his agent unless he authorized it beforealone that the sister's occupation was virtu- band, or subsequently assented to it with ally that of the brother. Doe dem. Draper v.

knowledge of what had been done. ThereLawley, 954, n.

fore, where, in an action of trespass against

a landlord, it appeared that he gave a broker II. For less than twenty years.

a warrant to distrain for rent, and the broker Primâ facie title before the end of the twenty took away and sold a fixture, and paid the years, 945. Ante, II. 1.

proceeds to the defendant, who received them

without inquiry, but without knowledge that AFFIDAVIT.

anything irregular had been done. Held, 1. How construed.

that no such authority or assent appeared Dato supplied by reference to jurat.

as would sustain the action. Freemas r.

Roshier, An affidavit, the jurat of which was of the “13th day of January, 1849,” stated that de- III, Acting as commissioner under statutory ponent, “on this 13th day of January, pre

power, 143. COMPENSATION, I. 1. vious to making this affidavit," searched the IV. Proxy. PROXY.

780

9

AGREEMENT.

3. Effect as to certainty, 548. Ante, 2. I. Absence of, as an essential to jurisdiction,

4. “ Other matter." 143. COMPENSATION, I. l.

Declaration, in debt, for rent reserved on

a lease, stated that B. and L., before and at II. See CONTRACT.

the time of the demise thereinafter mentioned, AIDER.

were possessed of certain premises, and that, I. In criminal cases.

by a lease made between B. and L., of one By verdict, 790. False PRETENCES, 74. part, and D. of another part, B. & L. demised East Indies, I. 1.

the premises to D.; the reversion was traced

to plaintiff; and it was alleged that D.'s II. In civil cases.

interest became vested in defendant. The By verdict, 426. FISHERY, I. 1.

defendant, in separate pleas, traversed the

possession of B. and L. modo et formâ, and ALIEN.

that the deed was the deed of D. It apRight of copyright, 257. COPYRIGHT, I. 1. peared, at the trial, that L. had died before

the execution of the lease. The Judge ALLOWANCE.

amended the declaration by striking L.'s

name out of the record. I. By interested auditor, 327. Poor, X. 1.

Held, that such amendment was within II. Of parish indenture, 190. Poor, XXV. 1.

sect. 23 of stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, as to the

issues arising on both pleas. Gregory v. ALTERNATIVE. Duff,

608 Illegal, 389. Conviction, I. 393. JUSTICE, X. II. Substitution of amended conviction, 216.

CONVICTION, V. 1.
AMBIGUITY.
In alleging performance, 462. CONTRACT,

APPEAL.
VIII. 2.

I. Proper appellants.
AMENDMENT.

1. Under local act, 642. Poor, V. 1. I. At nisi prius.

II. Caption. 1. Not on tithe issue.

Inaccurate statement of parties in, 642. The power to amend a variance, given to

Poor, V. 1. the Judyo at nisi prius by stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, III. Procedure. c. 42, s. 23, does not extend to feigned issues Variations in system incorporated from under the Tithe Commutation Act, 6 & 7 W. another statute, 561. LUNATIC, II. 4, c. 71, s. 46. James v. Lynn,

845

IV. Notice : time. 2. By striking out parts of description of On appeal against order for maintenance of bill: when warranted.

lunatic, 561. LUNATIC, II. A count in detinue stated that plaintiff de-V. Second appeal. livered to defendant a certain bill of exchange

After first appeal abortive for want of notico, [of the plaintiff, to wit, a bill of exchange

a

881. Poor, XXXV. bearing date, to wit, the 20th day of Novem ber, A.D. 1848, drawn by the plaintiff upon

VI. Decision. and accepted by the defendant] for the pay- Not on the merits, effect of, 881. Poor, ment to the plaintiff or his order of a certain XXXV. sum, to wit] 851., (two months after the date VII. Under Tithe Commutation Act, 509. thereof], of great value, to wit, of the value

TITAE, II. of 1001., to be redelivered by defendant to plaintiff on request. Breach, that defendant

APPEARANCE. did not redeliver the bill, but detained.

Plaintiff, on the trial, proved that a bill of Does not want of jurisdiction, 248. exchange for 851. was in the defendant's BASTARDY, I. hands, but did not prove the particular description as laid. The Judge, on objection,

APPLICATION. amended, first by striking out the words I. Time of making. “ two months after the date thereof," and To take out of Court deposit in lieu of bail, then, on further objection, all the words 556. BAIL, IV. within brackets.

II. Second. Held, that the count, so amended, was not

On new facts, 341. ARBITRATION, V.1 specially demurrable for want of certainty; and that the amendment was warranted by stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 42, s. 23. Graham v.

APPOINTMENT. Gracie,

548 Of proxy: stamp, 175. STAMP.

curo

RENT, 1.

[ocr errors]

APPRENTICE.

omitted the sum in the amount which he Parish apprentice. Poor, XXV.

awarded to the plaintiff, the Court, on motion by the plaintiff (who had objected to the ad.

judication without loss of time after the deARBITRATION.

livery of the award), set the award aside. Hutchinson v. Shepperton,

955 I. Appointment of arbitrators. Mandamus to appoint arbitrators under en- VII. Under convention with foreign governclosure award, 484. CORNRENT, 1.

ment, 380. CROWN, III. II. Award : impracticability.

VIII. By enclosure commissioners, 484. CORN-
When not an available objection, 341. Post,
V. 1.

ARGUMENTATIVENESS.
III. Award : certainty.
Want of, when not an available objection,

In pleading. PLEADING, XIII.
341. Post, V. 1.

ARREST.
IV. Award : finality.
1. Want of, when not an available objection,

I. Generally.
341. Post, V.1.

1. What render is not, 802. EIGN AT2. Mattter in difference omitted by mistake, TACHMENT, I. 1. 955. Post, VI.

2. Plaintiff himself taking part in, 903. V. Rule for attachment.

County Court, III. 1. Grounds on which the award may be im. II. On mesne process. peached.

1. What not abolished by stat, 1 & 2 Vict. In showing cause against a rule for attach- c. 110, 802.

FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, I. 1.
ment for non-performance of an award, affi- 2. Deposit on lieu of bail, 556. Bail, IV.
davits cannot be used to show that the award
is impracticable, uncertain, or not final, nor

ASSAULT.
can the award be impeached oxcept for de- Notice of action.
fects apparent on the face of it.

Bonâ fide belief of the party that he is acting
The rule, that an application once disposed

under the game act, 558. Action, L 1. of cannot be renewed under the same circumstances and for the same object, is not binding in all cases. Where an award directed

ASSENT.
that A. should pay the arbitrator's costs, and To deed, by a party who does not execute, 886.
should be reimbursed by B., a rule for an

BILLS, I. 1.
attachment against B. for not reimbursing
A. was discharged, because the affidavits did

ASSETS.
not show that A, had paid them to the arbi-
trator. A. had not then paid them, but had Retaining, to meet future breaches, 542. Cove-
given his note for the amount, which he
afterwards paid. On a second motion, then

ASSIGNMENT. made, an attachinent was granted, on the ground that the payment by A. was a new Of lease. fact, which took the case out of the ordinary 1. Assignment over just before breach of rule; it appearing also that there had been covenant, 542. COVENANT, IV. contumacy in the party against whom the 2. Covenant to indemnify: plenè adminisrule was directed, and hardship on the appli- travit, 542. COVENANT, IV. cant. Re Butler and Masters,

341
2. Second application on new facts, 341.

ASSIZES.
Ante, 1.

Holding quarter sessions concurrently with,
VI. Setting aside award: mistake of arbitra- 738. Sessions, I.

tor,
Matter in difference omitted by mistake.

ASSURANCE.
It is not an invariable rule, that the Courts

INSURANCE.
will not set aside an award on the ground
that the arbitrator has, by mistake, adjudi-

ATTACHMENT.
cated wrongly on a matter in difference.
Where on a question of account, both par-

I. In Chancery.
ties to a suit agreed before an arbitrator,

1. Nature of the process. that a given sum was due to the plaintiff on A writ of attachment in Chancery for nona particular item, and the arbitrator, conceiv. payment of costs is in the nature of final proing that to be no longer a matter in difference, cess : and therefore an officer may justify the

NANT, IV.

taking and detaining under such attachment without showing any return of the writ.

Where, under stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 22, s. 2, the keeper of the Queen's prison, by warrant from the Chief Justice of Q. B., received from the warden of the Fleet the plaintiff, being then in custody under such writ of attachment: Held, that in justification to an action of false imprisonment, the keeper need not show that the plaintiff was committed by warrant to the custody of the warden, the writ being itself a justification, and the statute being applicable, though there was no commitment.

It is no objection to such plea of justification that the writ in Chancery appears to be returnable immediately, though there is no averment as to residence, so as to bring the case within the words of stat. 11 G. 4 & 1 W. 4, c. 36, s. 15. (3).

Nor that the writ is not stated to have been endorsed with the name of the solicitor. Cobbett v. Hudson,

497 2. Time when returnable, 497. Ante, 1. 3. Endorsement of name of solicitor, 497.

Ante, 1.
II. Application for.
Second application, on new facts, 341. AR-

BITRATION, V.1.
III. Objections in answer.

What not available, 341. ARBITRATION, V.1.
IV. In particular instances.
For non-performance of award, 341. ARBI-

1

TRATION, V. 1.
V. Pleading
Justification : return of writ, 497. Ante,

V. 1.
VI. Foreign. FOREIGN ATTACHMENT.

the Lord Mayor and aldermen, and called
The Lord Mayor's Court, on signing the roll
of that Court as directed by stat. 6 & 7 Vict.
c. 73, s. 27; and that they had refused, &c.;
and the writ commanded them to admit, or
show cause, &c.

Return : That from time whereof, &c., tho Lord Mayor's Court was a Court of record, and had by custom jurisdiction in the city as a court of law and a court of equity: That, besides entertaining ordinary actions, it was a peculiar jurisdiction in which many actions arising out of customs of the city were alone triable, particularly actions on by-laws for breach of the city customs: That a large portion of the business, both in law and in equity, arose out of the law and peculiar practice of foreign attachment, established in the city by prescription : That the Court exercised criminal jurisdiction over freemen offending against the city laws and customs, on information filed by the Common Serjeant, which proceeding might result in disfranchisement: That the business arising out of the peculiar laws and customs differed in form and practice from that of the courts at Westminster, and required great experience to qualify a practitioner: That by the city custom, the attorney for a plaintiff administers an oath to his client, and keeps possession of the affidavit, on which an attachment issues : That in certain actions, he takes sureties, which the custom requires his client to give, and he is answerable in case of their insufficioncy: That, from time whereof, &c., certain clerks or attorneys not exceeding four have had tho exclusive right of practising in the said Court: That, besides acting as attorneys, they attend the Lord Mayor and advise and assist him as his clerks in all matters of equity and law, assist the town clerk in corporation affairs, and perform, severally or together, certain other official duties relating to the public business of the Corporation : Tbat, for many years past, the office has been acquired by purchase, and the admission has been for life (subject to removal for misconduct), with power of alienation on payment of a fine, the alienee being admitted by the court of Mayor and aldermen, which is a court of record, and records the admission: That the person admitted makes the declaration required by law on admission to municipal offices and takes a peculiar oath (which was set forth) : And that the clerks or attorneys never sign any roll, but practise immediately on admis. sion, subject to the control of the court of Mayor and aldermen, who may suspend or remove them for misconduct; and that thero is not, nor has been, during the existenco of the Lord Mayor's Court, any roll which a person admitted as an attorney could sign And for these reasons, &c.

Special demurrer.

ATTORNEY. I. Generally. 1. At common law; effect of statute of Mer

ton, 1, 32. Post, II. 2. Acting as district auditor when interested

in part of the accounts to be taxed, 327.

Poor, X. 1. 3. Business done for overseers running

through several years, 524. Poor, XII. 1. II. In inferior courts. Right of attorney of superior court to sign

roll and practise.

Mandamus to the Lord Mayor and aldermen of London recited that A., who had been admitted an attorney of the Superior Courts of Law at Westminster, and also a solicitor of the Court of Chancery, had produced to the Mayor and aldermen his admission to those Courts properly verified, and requested them to admit him an attorney of a certain inferior Court within the said city, held before

[ocr errors]

Held, by the Court of Queen's Bench (as- the creditor issued writs of sci fa, against suming the objection of argumentativeness seven of the shareholders, each of whom, not to be insisted upon), that the Lord May. severally, retained the same attorney for his or's Court was an “inferior court,” within the defence. Afterwards, by consent, the actions letter of stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 27; and (in the Court of Exchequer) were consolithat the incidents of the court, and office of dated, and one tried. attorney therein, as stated in the return, did Held that it might be inferred from these not render the clause inapplicable ; the sta- facts that the several retainers were with. tutory words being express.

drawn, and a joint retainer given to the atAnd that the want of a roll was no answer; torney by all the defendants as to future for the statute must be taken to mean that, proceedings: and if the court had no roll which a person en- Held that he might recover from one the titled to admission could sign, a roll must be amount of his bill of costs in the action tried, provided.

though that party was not the defendant in Judgment, that the return is not valid, and the individual action. that a peremptory mandamus issue.

The attorney delivered a bill of costs to On writ of error,

the one defendant, headed “In the ExcheHeld by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, quer of Pleas A.” (the defendant) "debtor to without any decision on the above points, B." (the attorney). The name of the parti. That the writ was bad, inasmuch as it did cular cause tried was not giren ; but the not show that the court was, within the terms nature of the business appeared by the items; of stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 27, an inferior and one of them, referring to the judgment court “of law” or “of equity.

against the public officer, mentioned the title And that the defect was not helped by the of the cause in which that judgment pas return, since a peremptory mandamus could given. The bill contained items for business not go (as the court below had awarded it) in Chancery. in the terms of the present writ.

Held, a sufficient bill (under stat. 6 & 7 Judgment reversed. Regina v. Mayor of Vict. c. 73, s. 37) to charge defendant for London,

the business (after consolidation) in the Court III. Examination.

of Exchequer. Anderson v. Boynton, 308 1. Extension of time of the certificate being V. Lien for costs. in force.

How far considered : moneys advanced, 659. This Court has not power to extend the Costs, II. time during which, under Reg. Gen. Easter VI. Bill : description of the business charged. T. 9 Vict., the certificate of examination for admission to practise as an attorney shall be

1. Consolidated action, 308. Ante, IV. in force : the extension must be by order of 2. Sufficient particularity: naming the courts. a Judge.

In an action by an attorney for business Where & party applied to the Court for done, it appeared that he had delivered a such extension after the time had expired,

bill, under stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 37, which alleging that he had, two years ago, given

contained charges in respect of nine actions the usual notices for admission and passed

in the Court of Exchequer and two in the his examination, but had then gone abroad

Court of Common Pleas. The courts and the on account of ill health ; that the time had parties to these causes were pamed in the bill. elapsed while he was abroad and detained by

It contained also items in respect of two other continuod illness; that, before leaving Eng

actions, each of wbich appeared to have been land, he had been unacquainted with the ne

in some one of the superior courts of law: cessity for enlarging the time, and therefore as to one of these, the parties were named in made no application for the purpose ; and

the bill : as to the other, it appeared that that he was negotiating for reception into a the present defendant had informed plaintiff partnership, but the negotiation might be

that an action had been brought against him, frustrated if his admission were delayed ; the defendant, and no more appeared to bave Court, on the last day of term, allowed him been done. The items in respect of actions to give notice and be examined for the pur

as to which both parties and courts were spepose of admission during the next term. Ex cified, made up the greater part of the whole parte Young,

662

bill. 2. Indulgence as to giving notice, 662.

Held, a sufficient compliance with the sta

515 Ante, 1.

tute. Keene v. Ward,

VII. Endorsement of his name on writ.
IV. Retainer.
Inference of joint retainer on consolidation

Attachment in Chancery, 497. ATTACHof actions.

Judgment having been obtained against VIII. Power of attorney. W., the public officer of a banking company, Stamp, 175. STAMP.

MENT, I. 1.

« EelmineJätka »