Page images
PDF
EPUB

and the defendant also undertook, if the proceeds of the testator's personal property should not be sufficient for payment of the debts, to raise and pay to S. a sufficient sum to enable him to discharge them. Defendant took the goods first mentioned, but did not pay for them or give security, and afterwards, finding that they were more than he wanted, he made a verbal agreement with the plaintiff's, that he should select so much of the goods as he wished for, and take the same at the prices they had been appraised at, and that the residue should be taken and sold by the plaintiffs. He accordingly selected and took such goods, (being of a smaller value than those first bargained for,) but did not pay for them. Plaintiffs as executors took the residue:

Held, that supposing the action to be grounded on the written contract, S. was named therein merely as the agent of the plaintiffs, and therefore that they need not declare specially upon the contract to pay the money to him.

Semble, per Denman C. J. and Parke J., that the second contract might be considered as substituted for the first, and forming a new and distinct ground of action. Pearson v. Pearson, M. 4 W. 4. Page 859 8. After the passing of the act for the uniformity of process, 2 W. 4, c. 39. which directs," that all personal actions, where it is not in tended to hold the defendant to bail, &c. shall be commenced by writ of summons ;" an executrix pleaded, to an action of assumpsit, plene administravit, and no assets on the day of exhibiting the bill of the plaintiff. The plaintiff in his replication tendered issue in the words of the plea :

Held, that the words exhibiting the bill upon these pleadings meant

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

By a grant of G. 1. reciting that the Chelsea Water Works' Company had undertaken works for supplying Westminster, &c. with water, and had petitioned the crown for liberty to use a certain canal or basin and old pond in St. James's park, and to lay mains through the park to and from the same for the purpose aforesaid; and that the surveyor general had reported that the said undertaking might be convenient to this majesty, and to many of his subjects, and ornamental to the parks; the King gave, granted and assigned to the company and their successors the said canal, &c. to be converted into reservoirs and to be used and enjoyed by them as such, for the purposes aforesaid, during the royal pleasure. Liberty was also granted them to break up the ground at all times through the said park, for laying therein pipes or mains to and from the old pond and canal for the purposes aforesaid, making good the ground so broken as soon as possible. Certain conditions were added, prescribing the direction in which the pipes should be carried, the breadth of ground to

1

be

[ocr errors]

be broken, &c. The company were to supply St. James's palace at reasonable rates; and the ranger was empowered to supervise all the company's works in the park and order them to rectify and reform the same if not done according to the conditions.

The company took the basin and pond in pursuance of the warrant, and made a reservoir, into which they conveyed water, and laid pipes communicating with it for the purposes aforesaid. They subsequently made expensive improvements in and about the reservoir, on the requisition of the crown; and they were never allowed to alter or repair it but by leave, and under the inspection of the crown surveyor. They pay no rent and are paid for supplying the palace, as well as other residences. The ranger is rated to the poor for the herbage growing on the surface of the soil in the park, including that under which the pipes pass:

Held, first, that the company were rateable as occupiers of the reservoir; secondly, that they were rateable for the occupation of land below the surface of the soil by their pipes, though another person was rated for the herbage. The King v. The Governor and Company of the Chelsea Water Works, T. 3 W. 4. Page 156

POSTEA.

See PLEADING, 1.

POWER.

See LEASE, 2, 5.

* POWER OF ATTORNEY.

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

Page 455

2. The Uniformity of Process Act, 2 W. 4. c. 39. Sched. No. 4. repeals sect. 24. of the first General Rule of Hilary.term 2 W. 4.; and, therefore, if a party held to bail on a capias do not put in special bail within eight days after execution of the process upon him, including the day of such execution, the plaintiff, immediately on the expiration of that time, may put the bail bond in suit. Hilary v. Rowles and Two Others, 460 T. 3 W.4.

3.

The 7 & 8 G. 4. c. 30, s. 41., which directs that actions brought for any thing done in pursuance of that statute, shall be tried in the county where the fact was committed, applies only to the case of parties exercising particular powers conferred by the statute.

In an action against justices for falsely imprisoning the plaintiff on a charge of feloniously beginning to demolish a house, contrary to the act, the Court granted a rule to change the venuc, on a suggestion that a fair trial could not be had in the county. Thomas, Gent. v. Saunders and Another, T. 3 W. 4. 462 4. Payment of money into court on a count on a promissory note payable by instalments, is only an admission by the defendant that money to the amount paid in was due on the promissory note; it e 4 does

addoes not bar the Statute of Limit

ations as to a further sum claimed Ito be due on the same note. Reid and Another, Executors v. Dickens, M. 4 W.A Page 499 6. Where a new trial is granted on payment of costs, in a town cause, the costs occasioned by the cause being made a remanet are included. Robinson v. Day, M. PAW.4.21 814

[ocr errors]

6. After the Uniformity of Process Act, 2 W.4. c. 39., the Court directed the signer of K. B. writs to sign a pluries bill of Middlesex, in a suit commenced before the ract, and which, if recommenced, would have been barred by the ... Statute of Limitations. Finnie v. Montague, M. 4 W. 4.. 877 Defendant in an action for words, -after notice of trial, signed a paper, in which, after reciting that plaintiff had consented on defendant's paying the costs and making an apology, to stay proceedings, he made such apology: Held, that this was a positive undertaking by defendant to pay the costs.

Plaintiff in such a case having stayed proceedings, but defendant not paying the costs, the Court will enforce performance of the agreement on his part by rule. Tardrew v. Brook, M. 4 W. 4. 880

5. On application to the Court by a sheriff under sect. 6. of the Interpleader Act, a third party served with the rule, and not appearing, is barred by sect. 3. from further prosecuting any claim brought in question by the rule, as well as where such application is made by a defendant under sect. 1.

The Court, on such application, will, on proper grounds shewn, order the sheriff, or the execution creditor, to pay to a third party | appearing and successfully prosecuting his claim, his costs of such appearance. Ford v. Dilley, M. 2:4 W. 4.

885

9. Issue was entered in a cause in Easter term, 1827, and docketed according to the practice of the office of judgments. The plaintiff in 1828 recovered damages and costs, and entered final judgment on the roll, but the judgment, ac cording to a practice said to have prevailed for 100 years, was not ⚫docketed as required by 4 & 5 W. and M. c. 20 s. 2. On application to the Court in Hilary term 1834, to order the judgment to be docketed nunc pro tunc: Held, that the Court had no power to make such order, Hopwood v. Watts, H. z 4 W. 4. Page 1056 10. In a cause decided by the judge

of an inferior court on a writ of trial, this Court will hear a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against evidence, though the damages were below 20. Taylor Helps, H.4 W.4.1069 11. A motion calling upon an attor ney to answer matters alleged against him on affidavit affecting his character, must be made by a barrister. Pitt Ex parte, H.

4 W. 4.

1078

12. The rule of court Hil. T. 2 & 3

G. 4. requiring that on all bailable mesne process, the defendant's place of abode and addition shall be indorsed, is in effect repealed by stat. 2 W. 4. c. 39. and therefore the want of such indorsement is no objection to a capias issued under that statute, and in the body of which the defendant is described as "G. P. of the city of London.”

An affidavit to hold to bail for a debt stated therein to be due to A. and B. is good, though the plaintiff's are partners, and are not stated to be so in the affidavit. Bodfield v. Padmore, H. 4 W. 4. 1095

13. Defendant in a cause, being advised to pay 481. into court, gave his attorney 501. for the purpose of making such payment, which was done. The attorney after

wards

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

carried into execution. In the matter of John Waller Poe, M. 4 W. 4. Page 681

PROMISSORY NOTE.

See PLEADing, 6. PRACTICE, 4 STAMP, 2.

Held, that, at all events, the attorney, not having treated it as a disbursement in making out his bill, could not claim to insert it as A Buch, for the purposes of the taxation. Hayes v. Trotter H. 4 W4. Page 1106

༧ ཚ་

[ocr errors]

PREMIUM.

See LEASE, 5.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

quo warranto information "was moved for against an officer elected by ballot, on the ground that a large proportion of the persons who voted were not qualified; but it was not shown for whom the votes of those persons were given:

Held, that on this application the officer could not be required to prove his election valid, but it lay on the opposing parties to show (if that were practicable) that his majority was obtained by bad votes. The King v. Jefferson, M. 4 W. 4. we af tis 855

RATE.

See INCLOSURE ACT, 2

RECOGNIZANCE.

See JUSTICES, 3.

REGULÆ GENERALES. I.

467, 468. 816. i-xxii

REMAINDER.

See DEVISE, 4.

REMANET.

See PRACTICE, 5.

RENT

RENT APPORTIONMENT OF

See LEASE, 2.

REPLEVIN BOND.

See PLEADING, 2.
ROAD.

See HIGHWAY, 1, 2. TOLL.

SESSIONS.

See MANDAMUS, 3, 4, 7, 9.

Where it has been referred to the chairman at sessions, on an appeal, to state a case, and a case has afterwards, on certiorari, been returned to this Court by the clerk of the peace, purporting to be signed by the chairman, this Court will not send it back to be restated, or quash the certiorari, on the ground of the chairman having said that he did not recollect signing the case, and upon a suggestion by the attorney for one of the litigating parties, in an affidavit, that such case does not agree with the facts proved, and that deponent believes the chairman did not settle the case. Rex. v. The Inhabitants of Matlock, M. 4 W. 4. Page 883

[blocks in formation]

justices within the meaning of the 56 G. 3. c. 139. Section 11 of that statute extends only to indentures of apprenticeship of poor children; and, therefore, an indenture whereby a person of the age of twenty-four is bound apprentice, part of the premium being paid out of the public parochial funds, does not require the assent of two justices. The King v. The Inhabitants of St. John Bedwardine, T. 3 W. 4. Page 169 2. Pauper was bound apprentice for seven years to a breeches-maker, and served his master half a year: the latter then failed in business, and told the pauper he might go and work for one B., who lived in another parish, and if pauper did not become troublesome to him, the first master, or to his parish, till the end of his time, he would give pauper his watch. The pauper agreed with B., and worked for him at breeches-making, by the piece, at the usual rate. B. frequently carried messuages between the first master and the pauper. The latter having worked for B. a year in B.'s parish, agreed (with the consent of his first master) to work by the piece for C. another breeches-maker, living in a third parish, who gave better terms. While he so worked with C., his first master came to see him, and again promised him his watch at the end of his time. The pauper worked two years for C., living in C's parish; he afterwards left, and his first master then sent him his watch. The pauper kept his earnings, and maintained himself:

Held by Denman C. J., Littledale, J., and Patteson J. (Parke J. dissentiente), that the inhabitation of the pauper in the parishes of the second and third master was connected with the apprenticeship, and that he thereby gained settle

ments

« PreviousContinue »