Warlow v. Harrison, p. 219, is a decision of the Ex Chamber and of a Court including Judges of the eminence, and therefore deserves all respect; but much in it that does not seem to fit very well w long settled rules as to the nature of a sale by a An implied contract of the auctioneer, not with the highest bidder, but with "the highest bona fide 1 founded on the general announcement of the sal without reserve,. is a rather adventurous conc happily we are free to prefer the opinion of Wi and Bramwell, B. that the auctioneer did in fact pr have an authority which he had not. On the whole it safe to class Warlow v. Harrison among the decisions stand as authority for what they decide but are not li be extended. Another Exchequer Chamber case, Whaley, p. 918, shows a remarkable difference of leading to a result which puzzled the Court itself to correctly, and which cannot be stated with accuracy short form of words. We confess that the note in 11 at p. 645, on the decision below, was not adequate, must leave the learned reader to choose his own f amendment. A similar question of principle, namel the rights of a licensee against an extraneous trespass more lucidly dealt with in the contemporaneous case o v. Hill, 114 R. R. 849 (May 25, 1858; the date of v. Whaley was June 19), where the decision was t extent simplified by the consideration that the defer interference with the licensee's enjoyment of his righ such as the licensor himself could not have justified. Bignell v. Buzzard, p. 661, is not an instructive cas Court held with some difficulty that the declaration di a cause of action, but it is extremely difficult to ma what that cause of action was. One member of the had said during the argument that it was not slandero another that the words were not libellous witho innuendo. If it was neither libel nor slander of title was it? F 11 MOORE, P. C.; 1 ELLIS & ELLIS; 3 HURLSTONE & NORMAN; 29-34 LAW TIMES, O. S.; 1 LAW TIMES, N. S. "Achilles," The. See Cremidi v. Parker. Adams v. Lloyd, 3 H. & N. 351; 27 L. J. Ex. 499; 4 Jur. N. S. 590; 6 PAGE 722 "Aspasia," The. See Cremidi v. Parker. Athersmith v. Drury, 1 El. & El. 46; 28 L. J. M. C. 5; 5 Jur. N. S. 433; L. T. O. S. 218 H. & N. 424; 28 L. J. Ex. 9; 6 W. R. 774; 31 BADGER v. South Yorkshire Railway and River Dun Co., 1 El. & El. 347; 66 Barnett v. Allen, 3 H. & N. 376; 27 L. J. Ex. 412; 1 F. & F. 125; 4 133 626 999 999 768 Barton v. Gainer, 3 H. & N. 387; 27 L. J. Ex. 390; 4 Jur. N. S. 715; 6 Bateman e. Ashton-under-Lyne (Mayor of), 3 H. & N. 323; 27 L. J. Ex. 458; 6 W. R. 829 708 30 62 955 Betts v. Menzies, 1 El. & El. 990; 28 L. J. Q. B. 361; 5 Jur. N. S. 1164 563 1 El. & El. 1020; 30 L. J. Q. B. 81; 6 Jur. N. S. 1290 Bignell v. Buzzard, 3 H. & N. 217; 27 L. J. Ex. 355 Bird, Ex parte, 1 El. & El. 931; 28 L. J. Q. B. 223; 5 Jur. N. S. 1009 Bird v. Baker, 1 El. & El. 12; 28 L. J. Q. B. 7; 4 Jur. N. S. 1148. Bishop v. Trustees of Bedford Charity, 1 El. & El. 697; 28 L. J. Q. B. 215 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 488; 7 W. R. 345. 408 1 El. & El. 713; 29 L. J. Q. B. 53 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 220; 8 W. R. 115 Blackburn (Mayor of) v. Parkinson, 1 El. & El. 71; 28 L. J. M. C. 7; 5 Jur. N. S. 572 Blythe v. Lafone, 1 El. & El. 435; 28 L. J. Q. B. 164; 5 Jur. N. S. 364 419 145 274 Note. Where the reference is to a mere note of a case reproduced elsewhere in the Revised Reports, or omitted for special reasons, the names of the parties are printed in italics. Boardman v. Quayle, 11 Moo. P. C. 223 Booth v. Coldman, 1 El. & El. 414; 28 L. J. Q. B. 137; 5 Jur. N. S. 844 Bradford Library Society v. Bradford (Churchwardens of), 1 El. & El. 88; Briggs, Ex parte, 1 El. & El. 881; 28 L. J. Q. B. 272 Bristol (Dean of) v. Jones, 1 El. & El. 484; 28 L. J. Q. B. 201; 5 Jur. Brown v. Davenport, 11 Moo. P. C. 297 Brown v. Kidger, 3 H. & N. 853; 28 L. J. Ex. 66 v. Metropolitan Counties Life Assurance Society, 1 El. & El. 832; 501 460 v. Royal Insurance Co., 1 El. & El. 853; 28 L. J. Q. B. 275; 5 Burling v. Harley, 3 H. & N. 271; 27 L. J. Ex. 258; 4 Jur. N. S. 789 CAMMELL v. Sewell, 3 H. & N. 617; 27 L. J. Ex. 447; 4 Jur. N. S. 978; Carr v. Martinson, 1 El. & El. 456; 28 L. J. Q. B. 126; 5 Jur. N. S. 788; Cartwright v. Frost, 3 H. & N. 278; 27 L. J. Ex. 352; 4 Jur. N. S. 464; Caswell v. Morgan, 1 El. & El. 809; 28 L. J. M. C. 208; 5 Jur. N. S. 1252; Chapman v. Robinson, 1 El. & El. 25; 28 L. J. M. C. 30; 5 Jur. N. S. 434 Cobbett, Er parte, 3 H. & N. 155; 27 L. J. Ex. 199; 4 Jur. N. S. 145; Colman v. Trueman, 3 H. & N. 871; 28 L. J. Ex. 5; 32 L. T. O. S. 134 Comroodeen Tyabjee, In re, 1 El. & El. 319; 28 L. J. Q. B. 22; 4 Jur. Coombs v. Bristol and Exeter Rail. Co., 3 H. & N. 1 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 269; 6 Cooper v. Slade, 1 El. & El. 336; 28 L. J. Q. B. 82; 5 Jur. N. S. 678; 7 Cort v. Sagar, 3 H. & N. 370; 27 L. J. Ex. 378 Costar v. Hetherington, 1 El. & El. 802; 28 L. J. M. C. 198; 5 Jur. N. S. 985 Cremidi v. Parker, The " Aspasia," The " Cuckson v. Stones, 1 El. & El. 248; 28 L. J. Q. B. 25 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 337; Cummins v. Birkett, 3 H. & N. 156; 27 L. J. Ex. 216; 4 Jur. N. S. 242; Curtis v. March, 3 H. & N. 860; 28 L. J. Ex. 36; 4 Jur. N. S. 1112 D'Allain v. Breton, 11 Moo. P. C. 64 Debiah v. Sing, 11 Moo. P. C. 152, 304 Denison v. Holiday, 3 H. & N. 670; 28 L. J. Ex. 25; 4 Jur. N. S. 1002; 234 |
0 Reviews Arvustused pole kinnitatud, aga Google kontrollib neid võltssisu suhtes ja eemaldab selle. Write review |