520

Digested Index to Cases reported.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

Where A. has for some time been acting as the general agent of B. and in B.'s business, and has been in the habit of making contracts on his behalf, but B., after some disputes between them, sends him express orders not to buy or sell on B.'s account beyond a certain limit, if such restriction is not known to the trade at large, it will not affect the rights of a third person with whom A. afterwards makes a contract exceeding the limits assigned him. In such a case, evidence of a particular custom in the trade is not admissible to defeat the general rule of law as to the liability of the principal for the acts of his agent. Trueman and another v. Loader Page 472

fact of due notice of the calls having been given: Held also, that a plea that the calls were made for other purposes than those mentioned in the act, could not be pleaded, and that the proper place to agitate such a question was at a general meeting of the subscribers to the company: Held also, that a plea that the calls were made to pay the expense of devianot be pleaded; and the Court refused to allow tions from the prescribed line of railway could a plea, denying the existence of 36,000 shares in the company. Brighton Railway v. Wilson, Same v. Fairclough

RECEIVER.

. 173

This Court may appoint a receiver to get in a testator's estate in aid of an administrator of the Ecclesiastical Court pendente lite, but such receiver is not to go upon the property of the testator claimed by one of the parties under an assignment independently of the will, nor will the Court restrain such party from receiving the rents of the property comprised in the assignment. Jones v. Godrich, Page 296

REGISTRATION.

and Death Registration Act), is compulsory in its provisions, and if the information required by that statute is withheld, the party withholding it is liable to an indictment. A public act which does require certain things to to the not doing of them, may be enforced by be done, but does not attach any specific penalty indictment. The Queen v. Price

The 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 86 (the Birth, Marriage,

SCIRE FACIAS.

381

The fact that a man was bound in recog nizances to appear and prosecute A., is in itself no answer to an action afterwards brought by A. for an alleged malicious prosecution, if the original charge was in fact made without reasonable and probable cause. A Judge is not Though the entry of a suggestion on the roll in such a case bound to leave it to the jury to may be sufficient to charge a person already a say whether the bill of indictment was pre-party to the record with a liability to costs, ferred from a malicious motive or from a fear greater than he would be subject to in ordiof forfeiting the recognizances. Dubois v.nary cases, yet where the object is to enforce Keats a judgment against a person not already by name a party to the record a scire facias must be issued. Bosanquet v. Ransford

QUO WARRANTO.

284

SEQUESTRATION.

461

The Court will allow a writ of levari facias, improperly returned by the bishop, to be taken off the file and re-issued to that officer. Alderton v. St. Aubyn .

SLANDER.

320

The defendant in an action of slander has

The charter of the borough of Maldon granted the right to the freedom of that borough to different classes of persons, and among other things, declared that every daughter of an admitted freeman should have a right to nominate and appoint her husband a freeman, and further, that if any daughter of an admitted freeman died "leaving her husband and child or children or any of them behind her," he and they should be respectively entitled to the freedom of the borough in the a right to have the question of bona fides left same way as if her husband had been admitted to the jury. Podmore v. Lawrence during her life. A, a stranger married the daughter of a freeman. She died before her husband was admitted a freeman; he married again, and had a son by his second marriage: Held, that this son was entitled to the freedom by birth. The Queen v. J. Bunting, the 45

younger

Circumstances under which the Court refused to allow the defendant to traverse the

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.

269

1. By articles of agreement A. covenanted with B. his wife, and C. her trustee, (who thereby agreed to covenant to indemnify 4. against his wife's debts), to pay 1,000l. to D., for the wife's use, and also to secure to B. and his executors an annuity, during the wife's life for her use, by a charge on A.'s real estates or an investment in the funds, or by othe, means. On a bill filed by B., C., and Dr

Digested Index to Cases reported.

USURY.

321

463

against A. and trustees of his real estates, al- | notes, when a motion is made for a new leging that he refused to perform his covenant trial. Flower v. Adams Page 238 although he had sufficient means to satisfy it, 2. A cause was tried as an undefended and charging that he and his trustees were cause, no notice of the plaintiff's intention to disposing of his real estates in fraud of the do so having been given to the defendant, but covenant, and praying specific performance: the cause being in the written list of the day, the Lord Chancellor overruled a demurrer by the Court allowed this cause to be placed at the trustees, holding that at the hearing of the the head of the list at the next sittings, the cause, on the facts alleged in the bill, the costs of the day to abide the event. Dorrien Court would give effect to the covenant on the v. Howell real estates. Wellesley v. Wellesley Page 186 2. Circumstances under which it was held upon demurrers to a bill for want of equity and want of parties, that the plaintiff had a clear equity for specific performance, not only against the parties to the contract, but also against the whole company; that it was not necessary to make all the shareholders defendants, but that the directors and representatives of the company at the time of filing the bill should all be made parties. The demurrer for want of equity therefore, was overruled, but that for want of parties was allowed with leave to amend the bill, and withont costs. Attwood v. Small 409

2. A solicitor having obtained an order for taxation of costs against his client, served the latter personally with the master's certificate, and afterwards obtained, after notice, an order on the client to pay the costs within three weeks, or be committed. This order was not served on the client until after the three weeks expired: Held, that this order being abandoned and spent, all the subsequent orders founded on it for enforcing the payment of the costs were irregular. Ea parte Wilton 486

STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

Shares in a banking company are not "goods, wares, and merchandize" within the meaning of the statute of frauds, and may therefore be the subject of a parol contract. Humble v. Mitchell,

109

A. advanced to B. 16001., minus the interest thereof, at the rate of 1017. per cent per annum, on his promissory note payable in three months after date. The note was renewed four times within eighteen months, and the same rate of interest was charged on each renewal: Held, by the Lord Chancellor, reversing the decision of the Court of Review, that the transaction was protected by the 7th section of the act 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 98, which allowed any interest to be taken on bills or notes not having more than three months to run. Re Poynton, ex parte Terrewest 26

An incumbrancer on an estate sold under a decree, purchased it with leave of the Court, but not being able to complete his purchase, an order was inade discharging him therefrom, and ordering the estate to be resold, and the deficiency of price to be made good by him: Held, that so much of the order as discharged the purchaser was bad, and that the rule should be for the future to order purchasers to comTaxation of costs may take place at West-plete their contracts, or that the estates be reminster, as well as at the Master's offices, ac- sold, and the purchasers make up the deficording to the Master's discretion, and a ciency. Harding v. Harding . notice to tax there is consequently good. Blake v. Warren 286

TAXATION.

TRIAL.

1. Where counsel have been employed at the trial of an issue before the sheriff, on a writ of trial, the Court will receive from them a statement of what took place at the trial, without verified copy of the sheriff's

WARRANT OF ATTORNEY.

. 138

The Court will allow judgment to be entered up generally on an old warrant of attorney, without mentioning the amount of the debt, where, from peculiar circumstances, the amount cannot be stated. Pickering v. Carnell 218

2, An attorney cannot act for both plaintiff

Pensions of government, assignability of, 459 Writs, new forms of, 368, 409