« PrejšnjaNaprej »
who boarded and lodged in his house, a bill and a note, both at one time, for his score, part of which consisted of a demand for spirits, but not to the amount of either bill or note; money was also paid on account:-Held, in an action on the securities, that, although they were given at the same time, the plaintiff might recover on one of them, and also that he might apply the money paid in reduction of the demand for spirits, although such demand could not be recovered, in consequence of the act of 24 Geo. 2, c. 40. Crookshank v. Rose,
4. The traveller of a tradesman in London called on his employer's debtor in the country, and, being unable to obtain cash, consented, at the request of the debtor, to take an acceptance for the amount, and wrote the whole form of a bill except the name of the drawer, and sent it up to his employer, telling the debtor that he did not think it would be satisfactory. The employer kept the bill, but did not put his name to it as drawer. The traveller had no authority to sign bills, but was in the habit of sending them up without a drawer's name, to prevent risk by loss:-Held, that these facts did not amount to proof of the
6. It was proved, in an action against the indorser of a bill of exchange, that, two months after it was due, it was produced to him, and inquiries were made as to the drawer and acceptor; upon which he said, that if the holder would take 10s. in the pound, he would secure it :-Held, sufficient to dispense with proof of notice of dishonour. Dixon v. Elliott, 437
7. A bill of exchange for twentyfive seventeen shillings and three pence, is a bill of exchange for twenty-five pounds seventeen shillings and three pence, and may be declared on as such. Phipps v. Tanner,
8. A. procured a banking company to advance 1007. on a bill of exchange for 300l., A. giving the company his guarantie for the amount so advanced, but having no other interest in the bill:-Held, that A. might recover the whole amount of the bill in an action against the acceptor, and not merely the amount for which he gave his guarantie. Reid v. Furnival,
plaintiff undertaking not to enforce it for a certain time. Doe d. Packer v. Hilliard, 132
CHARITABLE INSTITUTION. 1. A member of a committee of management, taking an active part in the concerns of a charitable institution supported by voluntary contributions, is liable for goods furnished by a tradesman for the use of the institution, although it appear that such tradesman did not furnish them on any contract with the committee, but having at first furnished goods on the credit of an individual, who, previously to the formation of a committee, had the sole management, continued to send them in afterwards on orders given, as before, by the servants of the institution, without any inquiry as to who was liable to pay him. Glenester v. Hunter,
2. If a builder do work at an intended hospital on the order of the physician and surgeon, they being announced to deliver lectures there, and being members of the provisional committee, such builder is not bound to look solely to the funds of the hospital for payment, but may sue the persons who gave the orders, unless he was distinctly informed that the dealing was to be on the terms of looking for payment to the funds of the hospital only. Pink v. Scudamore, 71
See PARISH CLERK.
Semble, that there is not any custom in the cloth trade, by which a tailor, who receives cloth from a clothier which he does not approve, is bound to pay for it, if, when sent back, it does not reach the seller, unless he shews that he has delivered it to the seller's order in writing. Davies v. Halton, 69
COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION.
1. A., being a creditor of B., had executed a composition deed, in which it was stipulated that the debt should be paid at 6s. in the pound, by promissory notes. After executing this deed, A. obtained payment from B. in full:-Held, that B. could not recover back the difference between the full amount and 6s. in the pound, without proving that the composition notes had been paid, or giving some evidence that would be equivalent to such proof. Ward v. Bird,
2. A. advanced 100l. to B. on the joint and several promissory note of B. and C., the latter at that time owing A. 657. on his own account. C. failed, and, at a meeting of his creditors, A. and others entered into a resolution that C. should assign certain property for the benefit of his creditors; and that his creditors should give him a release. A., at the meeting, stated his debt to be 657., and he afterwards received a dividend on that sum; subsequently to this B. failed: -Held, that A. could not then sue C. on the promissory note. Seager v. Billington,
Where parties have become bankrupt in France, but have been reinstated in their affairs by a concordat; it is not necessary in an action brought by them for money due to them before their bankruptcy, to prove that they have performed their part of the concordat, but they should shew that the action is brought with the assent of the commissioners named therein. Orr v. Browne, 414
1. On the trial of a prisoner, who
4. A girl, accused of poisoning, was told by her mistress, that if she did not tell all about it that night, a constable would be sent for in the morning to take her before a magistrate; she then made a statement, which was held to be not admissible in evidence. Next day, a constable was sent for, and as he was taking her to the magistrate, she said something to him, he having held out no inducement to her to do so:-Held, that this was receivable, as the former inducement ceased on her being put into the hands of the constable. Rex v. Richards,
5. The committing magistrate had told a prisoner, that he would do all that he could for him if he would make a disclosure; after this, the prisoner made a statement to the turnkey of the prison, who held out no in
ducement to the prisoner to confess : -Held, that what the prisoner said to the turnkey could not be received in evidence, more especially as the turnkey had not given the prisoner any caution. Rex v. Cooper, 535
6. A man and woman being apprehended on a charge of murder, another woman, who had the female prisoner in custody, told her, that she "had better tell the truth, or it would lie upon her, and the man would go free:"-Held, that a declaration of the female prisoner, made to this woman afterwards, was not receivable in evidence. Rex v. Enoch,
7. A statement relating to an offence, made upon oath by a person not at the time under suspicion, is admissible in evidence against him, if he be afterwards charged with the commission of it. Rex v. Tubby, 530
See FORCIBLE ENTRY, 3.-IMPRISON
CONTRA PACEM. See INDICTMENT, 3.
See DEER. EVIDENCE, 3.
See AUTHOR, 2.
By custom in the corn market, a buyer may pay the factor upon discount within the two months which constitute the ordinary time for payment, either for his own accommodation, or that of the factor; and, therefore, where a factor stopped payment after he had received the money for corn sold, but before the expiration of the two months, it was held, that the principal could not sue the buyer, but must look to the factor. Heisch v. Carrington, 471
See EXPENSES.-LANDLORD AND TENANT, 6.
On an indictment under the stat. 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 26, for killing a deer after a previous summary conviction, a conviction by two Justices of the previous offence was put in:— Held, that such a conviction was good. This conviction, in stating the offence, did not state the place at which it was committed; but the Justices, in awarding the distribution of the penalty, awarded it to the overseers of D. in the said county, "where the said offence was committed:"-Held, sufficient. Rex v. Weale, 131
1. If A., without the authority of B., pledges his property with C., a joint action of detinue is maintainable by B. against both A. and C. Whether in such an action a verdict may be taken against one defendant onlyQuære. Garth v. Howard, 346
2. Statements made by the shopman of a pawnbroker who is left in the shop to answer in his master's absence, can only be received in evidence in an action against the master, when they relate to transactions which are strictly within the business of a pawnbroker; and are not receivable if they relate to an advance of money not within the terms of the Pawnbrokers' Act. Ibid.
3. If the jury, in such a case, are satisfied that B. held out A. as a person authorized to pledge his property for the purpose of raising money, they may find a verdict for both defendants. Ibid.
See LANDLORD AND TENANT, 4, 5, 7. RECEIVER.
The carriage of A., being on the premises of B., was seized by C. for rent due by B. to his landlord, D. In an action of trover brought by A. against C., a witness proved that B. had held the premises of D. for more than a year, but that he had a lease of them:-Held, that the lease must be produced and given in evidence, and that B.'s acquiescence in the distress would not dispense with such proof. Shepherd v. Cafe,
See PARK, 1.