and also a farm called Buckland Farm
in Kent, were sold before the testator's
death, and at the time of his death he
The Court refused to amend a fine passed two years back, by altering the sur-. names of the Deforciants, though it was sworn that a wrong name had been inserted by mistake. Ex parte Motley et Ux. T. 41 Geo. 3.
had no estate in Kent, except that which
lay in the parishes of Hearne, C. W. S.
R. and S: 2u. Whether the above
facts were admissible in evidence to
shew that the testator intended to pass
the land in the several parishes of C.W.
S. R. and S. as well as that in the See SEA-Shore, 1, 2, 3.
parish of Hearne? Whitbread v. May,
EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, COURT OF,
See INTEREST OF MONEY, 1.
See ATTORNEY, 1.
The Court will not discharge a prisoner
out of execution, because the judgment
against him is not docketted and en-
tered upon the rolls of the court.
Pariente v. Castle, E. 40 Geo. 3. 163
EXECUTOR & ADMINISTRATOR,
See Cosтs, 6.
PLEADINGS, 2, 3. 21.
EXTORTION,
If by abuse of the process of one of the courts at Westminster, a sheriff's officer extort a promissory note from a suitor, and then declare upon that note in another of the courts at Westminster, the latter court cannot interfere summarily to punish the officer, under the 32 Geo. 2. c. 28. s. 11. Ex parte Evan Evans, H. 40 Geo. 3. 88
PAYMENT OF MONEY INTO COURT, 4.
FRAUDS, STATUTE OF,
A bill of parcels in which the vendor's name is printed, delivered to the vendee at the time of an order given for the future delivery of goods, seems to be a sufficient memorandum of a contract within the Statute of Frauds. Saunderson v. Jackson, T. 40 Geo. 3. 238 2. At all events a subsequent letter, written and signed by the vendor, referring to the order, may be connected with the bill of parcels so as to take the case out of the Statute, id.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.
The goods of A. being taken in execution and put up to sale, B. became the purchaser, and took a bill of sale of the sheriff, but permitted A. to continue in possession; A. then executed another bill of sale of the same goods to C. a creditor, under which the latter took possession; whereupon A. brought an action against C. for the goods: Held that the first bill of sale was valid, and that A. was therefore entitled to recover, Kiddv. Rawlinson, H. 40 Geo. 3. 59 FREIGHT,
See PLEADINGS, 16, 17.
not set out by the Commissioners, still
subsists, for it is not within their juris-
diction. Simpson v. Scales, T.41 Geo. 3.
1. Service of a demand of a copy of the
commitment on the turnkey of a prison,
is not sufficient to support an action
against the gaoler for the penalty in-
curred by him under the habeas cor-
pus act for not delivering the copy to See PLEADING, 9.
the prisoner within due time after de-
mand made, if the gaoler himself were
in the prison. Huntley v. Luscombe, See EVIDENCE, 8.
M. 42 Geo. 3.
2. 2u. Whether a commitment in execu-
tion for a penalty on conviction before
a magistrate for an offence against the
excise laws be a commitment for "a
criminal matter," within the provisions
of the habeas corpus act, so as to en-
title a prisoner to an action against the
gaoler for not delivering a copy of the
commitment within a certain time after
demand made? id.
See BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMIS-
SORY NOTES, 3.
ILLEGAL CONTRACT,
See ARBITRATION, 3.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMIS-
SORY NOTES, 3.
MONEY HAD ANd received, 2.
PARTNERS, 1, 2.
IMPARLANCE,
See PRACTICE, 12. 14.
INCLOSURE ACT.
If an act of parliament for inclosing and
allotting the common and waste lands
of a parish through which a navigable
river flows, empower Commissioners to
set out such public and private roads
and ways as they shall think necessary,
and direct that all roads and ways not
so set out shall be deemed part of the
lands to be allotted, an ancient towing-
path on the bank of the river, though
INQUIRY, WRIT OF,
See BAIL-bond, 1.
PRACTICE, 15.
See PARTners, 1, 2.
PLEADING, 10.
1. Policy on the Ceres "at and from Oporto
to Lynn, with liberty to touch at any
ports on the coast of Portugal to join
convoy, particularly at Lisbon, at 12
guineas per cent. to return six pounds
if she sail with convoy from the coast of
Portugal and arrive," the Ceres sailed
from Oporto with a sloop and cutter ap-
pointed to protect the trade of that
place to Lisbon, from whence it was to
proceed with the Lisbon trade under a
larger convoy for England; in the way
from Oporto to Lisbon the fleet was dis-
persed by a storm, and the Ceres, judg-
ing for the best, ran for England, and
arrived: Held that the assured was en-
titled to a return of premium. Audley
v. Duff, H. 40 Geo. 3.
2. So where the words were "if she de-
part with convoy from Portugal and
arrive." Everard v. Hollingworth, H.
42 Geo. 3.
ib. in notis.
3. If A. and B. declare upon a policy of
insurance, and aver that they were in-
terested until and at the time of the loss,
and it be proved that C., after the po-
licy effected, but before the loss, be-
came a partner with A. and B. in the
goods insured; it seems that the va-
riance is not fatal, for the averment of
interest relates to the time of making
the policy. Perchard v. Whitmore,
Guildhall Sitting after Mich. 1786,
coram Buller J.
155#.
4. A
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=wVYDAAAAQAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PT14&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22moored+at+anchor+twentyfour+hours+in+good+safety,+and+upon+the+goods+and%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0rJZDJWZPxjCrEP-f9hVfhLT89ow&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=991,503,6,6)
INTEREST OF MONEY,
See MONEY HAD and received, 3.
If judgment for the Plaintiff on an at-
torney's bill be affirmed in the Exche-
quer Chamber, that Court will not
allow interest. Walker v. Bayley in
Error, T. 40 Geo. 3.
Page 219
In a contract for the sale of goods if
any particular time be limited for pay-
ment of the price, the vendor is entitled
to interest on the price from that time.
Mountford v. Willes, M. 41 Geo. 3. 337
4. A warranty to depart with convoy is
not complied with, unless sailing in-
structions be obtained before the ship 1.
leaves the place of rendezvous, if by
due diligence of the master they can.
be obtained. Anderson v. Pitcher, E.
40 Geo. 3.
Page 164
5. If a policy be effected on a foreign
built ship British owned (which not
being required to be registered may
sail without convoy), it is not incum-
bent on the assured to communicate to
the underwriter, at the time of making
the policy, the circumstance of her be-
ing foreign built. Long v. Duff, T.
INTEREST INSURABLE,
See PLEADING, 10, 11.
ISSUABLE PLEA,
See BAIL-BOND, 1.
EXECUTION, 1.
PRACTICE, 6. 26.
PRISONER, 2.
WASTE, 1,2.
40 Geo. 3.
6. In a declaration on a policy of insur-
ance, the Plaintiff averred that Messrs. See PRACTICE, 28.
H., at the time of effecting the policy,
and at the time of the loss, were inte-
rested in the cargo which was the sub-
ject of the insurance "toa large amount,
to wit, to the amount of all the money
ever insured thereon:" at the trial it
appeared, that previous to effecting the
policy Messrs H. had admitted another
mercantile house to a joint concern in
the cargo insured: Held that the aver-
ment was supported by the evidence.
Page v. Fry, T. 40 Geo. 3.
7. In an action on a policy of insurance,
with a count for money had and re-
ceived, if the Defendant pay no money
into court, but establish as a defence
that the risk never commenced, the
Plaintiff is entitled to a verdict for the
premium, though no demand of pre-
mium was made by his counsel in
opening the case. Penson v. Lee, M.
41 Geo. 3.
330
8. Insurance on goods from A. to B.
"until they should be there discharged
and safely landed ;" on their arrival at
B., the merchant to whom the goods
belonged employed and paid a public
lighter to land them, and the goods
being damaged in the lighter without
negligence, the underwriters were held
liable for the loss. Hurry v. The Royal
Exchange Assurance Company, E. 41
Geo. 3.
S. P. Rucker v. London Assurance Com-
pany, Guildhall, 8 June 1784, coram
Buller J.
If the judgment of Commissioners of
Appeal in certain cases be declared
final by statute, their judgment cannot
be questioned in an action of trespass.
The Earl of Radnor v. Reeve, E. 41
Geo. 3.
391
If a servant being solicited to become an
accomplice in robbing his master's
house, inform his master thereof, who
thereupon tells him to carry on the
business, and consents to his opening a
door leading to the premises, and being
with the robbers during the robbery,
and also marks his property and lays it
in a place where the robbers are ex-
pected to come, this conduct of the
master will not amount to a defence in
an indictment against the robbers. The
King v. John Eggington and others,
Trin. 41 Geo. 3.
![[blocks in formation]](https://books.google.ee/books/content?id=wVYDAAAAQAAJ&hl=et&output=html_text&pg=PT16&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22moored+at+anchor+twentyfour+hours+in+good+safety,+and+upon+the+goods+and%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U2A9--Qd_epNkynihubD_6f_m6gew&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=91,212,442,342)
I. S. demised lands to the rector of D.
for 40 years at a certain rent in the
lease, the rector, after covenanting for
payment of the rent, further granted
to I. S. the tithe of oats for the parish
of D.; the lease also contained a pro-
viso for re-entry, in case the rent
should be in arrear, or I. S. his heirs,
&c. should be disturbed by the rector
or his assigns in the receipt of the
tithe, and concluded with a covenant
on the part of I. S. that the rector
should quietly enjoy the lands under
the covenants, grants, and agreements
contained in the lease. After the ex-
piration of the lease, the rector con-
tinued to hold the land, but withheld
the rent for more than 20 years: the
heirs of I. S. at the same time con-
tinuing to take the tithe of oats, and
some confusion existing as to the re-
spective rights of the rector and the
heirs of I. S., the latter being portion-
ists of the tithes of the parish; Held in
ejectment by the representatives of
I. S. against the rector that the pos-
session of the land by the latter were
not adverse so as to let in the opera-
ion of the statute of limitations. Roe
ex. dem. Pellatt v. Ferrars, M. 42 G. 3.
Page 542
See BARON AND FEME, 1, 2, 3.
1. If a person against whom a commission
of lunacy has issued be arrested, the
Court of Common Pleas has no power
to discharge him on the ground of his
lunacy. Steel v. Allan, H. 41 Geo. 3.
Page 362
2. Nor will the Court compel security for
costs in error on the ground of the
Plaintiff in error being a lunatic.
Steel v. Allan, E. 41 Geo. 3.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION,
See ACTION ON THE CASE, 1.
MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED,
See BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMIS
SORY NOTES, 5.
1. A. with a view to accommodate B.lent
him a bill drawn by himself upon and
accepted by C. who had effects of his
in his hands; B. indorsed it to D., who
indorsed it over; the day before the
bill became due, B. paid the amount
to A., who on hearing that C. had
failed gave B. a check for the amount
of the bill and sent him with it to D.
to enable him to pay the bill when due;
four days after that time, A. learning
that payment had not been demanded
desired D. not to pay the bill, as no
notice of non-payment had been given
by the holder, and offered to indem-
nify him; notwithstanding this D. af-
terwards paid the bill: Held that D.
paid the money in his own wrong; and
that A. was entitled to recover back
the money paid into the hands of D.
by B. in an action for money had and
received. Whitfield v. Savage, M.
41 Geo. 3.
277
2. A. in consideration of 200 guineas
paid by B. gave a bond for the pay-
ment of an annuity to the latter of 100
guineas, until the hop duty should
amount to a certain sum; before this
event had taken place A. brought an
action to recover back the 2001. of B. :
Held
See BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMIS-
SORY NOTES, 4.
4. A. being indebted to B. in 700l. ap- See BOND.
plied to C. to lend him that sum, who
agreed so to do, provided A. would
allow him to deduct therefrom 801. due
from B. to himself upon stock jobbing
transactions; accordingly C. advanced
6201. and A. gave him a promissory
note for 7001.; A. then paid over to
B. the 6201. who gave him a discharge
for the whole 7007.: a promissory note
for 7001. given by A. being paid when
due, B. brought an action against C.
to recover 801. as money had and re-
ceived by C. to his use: Held that B.
could not maintain the action, but that
it must be brought by A. if by any one.
Scholey v. Daniel, M. 42 Geo. 3. 540
1. The trustees under a turnpike act hav-
ing demised to one of several mort-
gagees, such proportion of the tolls
arising from the road and of the toll-
houses and toll-gates for collecting the
same, as the sum advanced by him
bore to the whole sum raised on the
credit of the tolls, the mortgagee
brought ejectment for the toll-houses
and toll-gates in order to repay him-
If an officer seize goods in obedience
to the warrant of a magistrate, whether
that warrant be legal or not, he cannot
be sued without a previous demand of a
copy and perusal of the warrant, accord-
ing to the 24 Geo. 2. c. 44. Price v.
If the warrant be to seize "stolen
Messenger, E. 40 Geo. 3.
Page 158
goods," and he seize goods which turn
out not to have been stolen, he is still
within the protection of the 24 Geo. 2.
c. 44. id.
ib.
self the interest due: Held that he See FRANKing, 1.
might well maintain his action, not-
withstanding a clause in the act that
all the mortgagees should be creditors
upon the tolls in equal degree. Doe, d. See FRANKing, 1.
Banks v. Booth, T. 40 Geo. 3.
NAVIGABLE RIVERS,
See INCLOSEMent.
See AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO bail, 8.
ARBITRATION, 1.
1. Money paid by one or two partners
for the other, on account of losses in-
curred by them on partnership insur-
ances, cannot be recovered in an action
brought by him against the other
partner. Aubert v. Maze, H. 41 Geo. 3.
371
2. And
|