misdirection. Cheveley, App., Fuller, | versed,-that the count was good after Resp., 122.
II. Executory Contract for Services as
an Attorney and Solicitor.
A count in assumpsit against the secretary of a joint-stock company, stated, that, on the 30th of November, 1844, it was agreed, by and between the plaintiff and the company, that, from the 1st of January then next, the plaintiff, as the attorney and solicitor of the company, should receive and accept a salary of 1007. per annum, in lieu of rendering an annual bill of costs for general business transacted by him for the company, and should and would for such salary advise and act for the company on all occasions in all matters connected with the company, with cer- tain exceptions. The count then stated that, the said agreement being so made, in consideration that the plaintiff had, at the request of the company, promised the company to perform the same in all things on his part, the company pro mised to perform the same in all things on their part, and to retain and employ him as such attorney and solicitor of the company, on the terms aforesaid; and alleged for breach, that the company, disregarding their promise and agree- ment, did not nor would continue to retain or employ the plaintiff as such attorney or solicitor, on the terms afore- said, but wrongfully and without any reasonable cause dismissed and dis- charged him from such employment and retainer, and thence hitherto re- fused to retain or employ him as such attorney or solicitor :-
Held,—in accordance with the opi- nions of eight judges against one, and in affirmance of the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, whereby that of the court of Common Pleas was re-
verdict; for, that it sufficiently alleged an agreement by the company creating the relation of attorney and client, and a promise to continue that relation for at least a year. Emmens v. Elderton,
III. Measure of Damages in Case of Breach of.
The measure of damages in the case of a breach of contract to deliver goods at a specified time, is, the difference between the contract price and the market-price at the time of the breach of contract, or the price for which the vendee had sold: but the latter cannot recover, as special damage, the loss of anticipated profits to be made by his vendees. Peterson v. Ayre, 353. And see MASTER and Servant, 1. RAILWAY COMPANY, I.
One who contracts to do work upon a large scale, employing labourers under him, is not an "artificer, workman, or labourer," within the meaning of the truck-act, 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 37, though he superintends the work, and from time to time labours personally therein. Sharman v. Sanders, 166.
Surrender and Admittance. 1. In the absence of any special custom to that effect, the lord cannot be compelled to take a surrender by deed burthened with trusts. Flack v. The Master, &c., of Downing College, 915.
2. A surrender, therefore, to such uses as "A. B., his executors, admi- nistrators, or assigns, at any time, or from time to time during the lives of the surrenderor and A. B., or the life
of the survivor of them, or within twenty-one years from the day of the decease (inclusively) of such survivor, shall by any writing or writings under his or their hand or hands appoint, and, in default of and until such appoint- ment, to the use of A. B., his heirs and assigns for ever, according to the cus- tom of the said manor," &c.,-is not, without some special custom in the manor to warrant it, such a surrender as the lord is bound to accept. Ib.
3. A surrenderee (for a valuable consideration) of a copy hold tenement, who had never been admitted thereto, by his will devised it to A. B. :-Held, that A. B., though admitted, gained no legal title to the premises. Matthew v. Osborne, 919.
Service of Process upon. Quare, as to the mode of service upon a corporation, under the Irish uniformity of process act, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 18, ss. 8, 9 ? Sheehy v. The Pro- fessional Life Assurance Company,787. And see MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
I. Under Statute 3 & 4 Vict. c. 24, s. 2. The first count charged the defend- ants with injuring the plaintiff's party- wall, by excavating by the side of it, and raising and overloading it. The defendants pleaded,-first, as to the raising and overloading, not guilty by statute, secondly, as to the residue, payment into court of 301. The plaintiff joined issue on the first plea, and replied damages ultrà to the second. At the trial a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to an award, but no power was reserved to the arbitrator to certify for costs, under the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 24, s. 2. The arbitrator having
directed a verdict to be entered for the plaintiff on the first issue, damages 20s., and for the defendant on the second issue-Held, that the plaintiff was deprived of costs, by the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 24, s. 2, having "recovered by verdict of a jury less damages than 40s." Reid v. Ashby, 897.
II. Suggestion under the London Small Debts Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. lxxvii, s. 119.
The 119th section of the London small debts extension act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. lxxvii, is not repealed by the 120th section, the latter provision not being necessarily inconsistent with the former, the combined effect of the two being, that, if the plaintiff, in an action on contract in the superior court, for which a plaint might have been entered in the local court, recovers 201., and not more than 50%. (or less than 57. in tort), a suggestion may be entered to deprive him of costs; but that, if he recovers less than 207. in an action on contract (not being an action for breach of promise of marriage), or less than 57. in trespass, trover, or case (not being an action for malicious prosecu- tion, libel, slander, criminal conversa- tion, or seduction), he loses his costs absolutely, unless the judge certifies under the 121st section. Castrique v. Page, 458.
Costs of Witnesses.]-To debt for work and labour, &c., the defendant pleaded,-first,-except as to 597. 12s., never indebted,-secondly, except as to 597. 12s., a set-off,-thirdly, except as to 597. 12s., payment,-fourthly, payment into court of 591. 12s., which was taken out. The cause was re- ferred, and the arbitrator found the
2. Devastavit.]-The county-court has no jurisdiction to try a question of devastavit. Winch, App., Winch, Resp. 128.
3. Cause removed by Certiorari.]— Semble, that a cause removed by certi- orari from a county-court, is, as to the pleadings therein, governed by the rules prescribed by the common law procedure act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76. Messiter v. Rose, 162.
4. Title coming in Question.]—A. and B. had a conversation about the letting of a cottage which A. claimed as heir- at-law of his father, who had been in possession for fifty years before his death, but no agreement was come to. B. afterwards took forcible possession of the cottage; and, in a plaint in the county-court, in which A. claimed two years' rent, B. set up the title of the lord of the manor :-Held, that, inas- much as there was no evidence of tenancy, the title properly came in question; and a prohibition was issued. Marwood v. Waters, 820.
COUNTY-MAGISTRATES.
See LUNATIC ASYLUM.
I. For Payment of Rent. Mortgagor and mortgagee of an un- divided moiety of certain premises, jointly with the owner of the other moiety, demised the whole for twenty- one years to one Green, the latter covenanting with the three lessors jointly and severally to pay the rent reserved, but not saying to whom. Green entered upon the premises, and afterwards became bankrupt His assignees having accepted the lease,— Held,-deferring to the authority of Wakefield v. Brown, 9 Q. B. 209,-
that the defendants were liable in covenant at the suit of the three lessors for rent accruing since they became possessed of the premises. Magnay v. Edwards, 479.
II. Effect of the Reddendum, with a
subsequent express Covenant to pay. By indenture of the 20th June, 1840, reciting that a patent had been granted to A., his executors, &c., for improve- ments in machinery or apparatus for manufacturing pipes, A., in considera- tion of the reservation and covenants thereinafter contained, granted to B., his executors, administrators, and as- signs, licence to manufacture the said patent improved machinery, and ex- clusive liberty, licence, and authority to make pipes or tubes of iron (but of no other metal) by or with such ma- chinery, and to sell and dispose thereof for his and their own use and benefit,- reddendum to A., his executors, &c., a royalty of 4l. 13s. 4d. for every ton of the said iron pipes or tubes which B., his executors, administrators, or as signs, should make and sell in pur- suance of the aforesaid licence; "but such patent rent to be paid without de-
duction, on or before the twenty-first day after each successive quarter of a year from the date thereof:" and B. did thereby for himself, his executors, administrators, and assigns, covenant with A., his executors, &c., "that he, B., his executors, administrators, and assigns, would, within seven days after the end of each successive quarter of a year from the date thereof, deliver to A., his executors, &c., a just and true account of the quantity in weight of iron pipes or tubes which B., his execu- tors, administrators, or assigns, should have sold in the quarter then ending, in pursuance of the licence, and would, within twenty-one days after the end of each successive quarter, pay A., his executors, &c., such sum as should upon the face of such account be pay- able by way of royalty as aforesaid."
On the 4th of May, 1842, B. assigned his interest in the licence to C. On the 11th of September, 1845, C., by a deed reciting that D. and E. intended to carry on the business of making and selling iron tubes under the licence, that the business was to be carried on under the style or firm of The Patent Welded Iron Tube Company, and that, by a deed of even date therewith, the licence had been assigned to F. and G., in trust, D. and E. covenanted with C., that they, their executors, adminis- trators, and assigns, would pay all sums of money, and perform all cove- nants, which should, from the 25th of December then last, respectively be- come payable and to be performed in respect of the said licence and letters patent, &c.
In covenant by C. against D. and E., the declaration stated, that, after the 29th of September, 1847, and during the continuance of the licence,
the persons carrying on the said busi- ness under the firm or style of The Patent Welded Iron Tube Company made and sold, in pursuance of the licence, great quantities of the said iron tubes, whereby certain royalties became due to A.; and alleged for breach that D. and E. did not pay the money, or render any account of the pipes so made and sold :—
Held, on demurrer, that the declara- tion disclosed a sufficient cause of ac- tion, although it did not in terms aver that any iron tubes were made by B. or his assigns; and that the covenant to render an account and pay the royalty, did not control the covenant to pay contained in the reddendum. Bower v. Hodges, 765.
Fraud and Immorality,-See HUSBAND AND WIFE, III. And see APPRENTICE.
1. For Breach of Contract.]-The measure of damages in the case of a breach of a contract to deliver goods at a specified time, is, the difference between the contract price and the market price at the time of the breach of contract, or the price for which the vendee had sold: but the latter cannot recover, as special damage, the loss of anticipated profits to be made by his vendees. Peterson v. Ayre, 353. 2. In Trover.]-See SHIPPING. And see NEW TRIAL, 4.
Production of-See ATTORNEY, I, 1. And see HUSBAND AND WIFE, III.
DELIVERY ORDER. See CONTRACT, I, 2.
I. Of Rent,-See LANDLORD AND
II. In Detinue,-See DETINUE, I.
III. Particulars of. Better Particulars.]-In ordering further and better particulars, the court will not compel the plaintiff to give particulars of payments made by
the defendant. Fussell v. Gordon, 847.
I. Demand by One of Two or more
Joint-Tenants of a Chattel.
Where two or more who are jointly interested in a chattel, deposit it with a stranger, a demand by one in his own name only, and not on behalf of all, will not entitle such one to main- tain detinue for it. Atwood v. Ernest, 881.
II. Jurisdiction of County-Courts in. The county-courts have jurisdiction, under the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, and 13 & 14 Vict. c 61, in actions of detinue. Taylor v. Addyman, 309.
The county-court has jurisdiction to try a question of devastavit. Winch, App., Winch, Resp., 128.
1. Executory Bequest.]—A testator, by his will, made in the year 1820, gave and bequeathed to his daughter
Mary, her executors, administrators, and assigns, certain leaseholds, for life, and, from and after her decease, he gave and bequeathed the same "unto and amongst the lawful issue of his said daughter Mary, equally, share and share alike, with benefit of survivor- ship; and, in default of such issue, he gave and bequeathed the same unto his son George, for his natural life, and, after his decease, to his children equally, share and share alike, with the benefit of survivorship."
He afterwards made a codicil, which contained a recital that he had by his will given and bequeathed the lease- holds to his son George "after the de- cease of his daughter Mary, and in de- fault of her leaving lawful issue," and then went on to provide, that, in the event of his son not indemnifying his estate from a liability he the testator had incurred on his account, all the
bequests to his son (but so far as con- cerned the son only) should be re- voked :-
Held, that, interpreting the will by the codicil, the gift over in the former, "in default of such issue," being capa- ble of importing a bequest over on failure of issue living at the death, it must be inferred from the latter that the testator employed it in that sense, inasmuch as in the codicil he referred to it as if it were a gift over in default of his daughter's leaving issue, which as regards personalty, is tantamount to a gift over on failure of issue living at the death: and, consequently, that, assuming the limitation in the will if it stood alone would have conferred an absolute interest on the daughter, upon the true construction of the will and codicil taken together, such a gift was subject to a good executory bequest
« PreviousContinue » |