1817. PRIDEAUX V. COLLIER. longer to be considered as the agent of the indorser. Scarlett contended that, under these circumstances, enough had been proved to entitle the plaintiff to recover; the defendant had said that he would endeavour to find effects, and would call again. Lord ELLENBOROUGH. The evidence shews that it was not likely that the drawees would accept the bill, but it was possible that they might change their minds. The drawer is liable upon the default of the drawee, of which he must have notice, that default is a condition precedent; and it does not appear in this case, that there was a default on the part of the drawee. Plaintiff nonsuited. Scarlett and Chitty for the plaintiff. Garrow, A. G., and Williams, for the defendant. See Clegg v. Cotton, 3 Bos. and Pull. 239, where the drawer had lodged funds in the hands of the indorsee to answer the bill upon the presumption that the drawee would make default; and it was held that the drawer was discharged for want of notice of the dishonour. THIS PASMORE V. BIRNIE. 1817. to an action by a solicitor IS was an action by the plaintiff against the It is no defence. defendant, the assignee under a commission of bankruptcy, for business done by the former as solicitor to the commission. against an as signee under a commission of the commission was sued out under a misrepresentation by the plaintiff that the com The defence attempted to be set up was, that bankrupt, that the commission had been prosecuted upon a representation by the plaintiff, that an English commission of bankruptcy extended to the Isle of Man: and it was stated, that the bankrupts, Allen and Torrens, had absconded to the Isle of Man with mission would be operative in their property, leaving no effects in England; and the Isle of that the defendant had been deceived by this representation, and the commission had been wholly fruitless. Man, and that wholly fruit it has been less; for the commission cannot be mere nullity. Lord ELLENBOROUGH.-This does not go to the treated as a root of the action. If there has been such a misrepresentation as is complained of, the party may have recourse to a cross action; but the commission cannot be considered as a mere nullity; it operates at all events as a voluntary assignment. Gurney, for the plaintiff, suggested, that by the laws of the Isle of Man, debts contracted beyond the limits of the island might be recovered there; they only protected persons resident there for a certain time: and that, by an act of Tynewald, persons 1817. persons who had committed offences in England PASMORE against the bankrupt laws were subject to proceed V. ings against them. BIRNIE. Gurney and Verdict for the plaintiff. for the plaintiff. Garrow, A. G., and Scarlett, for the defendant. See Dax v. Ward, vol. i. 409, and the cases there referred to. SAMUEL v. DARCH and Others. A declaration, THIS was an action against the defendants, who alleging that were carriers, for not having delivered a case of shoes. the defendant undertook to deliver a parcel of goods for the plain The declaration alleged the delivery to the defendants, being carriers, of certain packages contiff, is disproved taining shoes, to be by them conveyed to Liverby evidence of a special agree- pool, and there to be safely and securely delivered ment to deliver for the said plaintiff; and that the defendants unthem to the dertook and promised so to convey and deliver ceipt given for the same within ten or twelve days then next folthe goods at lowing. bearer of a re the time of delivery. A carrier's receipt for goods is evidence of the contract be tween himself The delivery of the goods to the defendants was proved, and it appeared that the defendants then gave a receipt in the following terms; "6 October, 1815. Received a case of shoes, "which we engage to deliver in Liverpool, in 10 and the owner. " or 12 days from the date hereof, to the bearer J. Brown, for Darch and Co." 66 of this receipt. It appeared that the goods had been delivered by mistake to a wrong person. Topping, for the defendant, objected, that this was a special contract to deliver the goods, not, as alleged in the declaration, for the plaintiff, but to deliver them to the bearer of this receipt; and therefore, that it should have been alleged, either that the plaintiff was the bearer of the receipt, or that the defendants refused to deliver the goods to the bearer. For the plaintiff it was contended, that the undertaking, in substance, was to deliver the goods according to the appointment of the plaintiff, and that the receipt given in evidence was not the contract, but only evidence of it. - Lord ELLENBOROUGH. It was not a contract to deliver to the plaintiff in an unqualified sense, the defendants had a right to stipulate for the evidence of the receipt. If the declaration had been in trover, the plaintiff would have been entitled to recover, since the delivery of the goods to another amounted to a conversion. Plaintiff nonsuited. Scarlett and Jones for the plaintiff. Topping and Lawes for the defendants. 1817. SAMUEL V. DARCH and Others. 1817. A landlord having autho. rised a distress for rent, is liable for the necessary expences, and although the plaintiff was sent by the defendant to to take possession of the COLMAN V. EYLES. THIS was an action of assumpsit, for work and labour, and for money paid, &c. Allen the landlord of certain premises, in respect of which rent was due, gave a warrant to Gray to distrain upon the tenant. The defendant was a creditor of Allen's and he paid the broker who valued the goods; and it was contended, that he was liable to pay the plaintiff also, having taken him down to the premises to keep possession of the goods distrain- goods, and promised to pay him, and also to repay him for sums to be advanced to Emmett, who was him, the latter also in possession of the goods distrained; but — ed, who pro mised to pay will not be liable without a note in writing. Lord ELLENBOROUGH was of opinion, that since in this case there was a principal, namely, the landlord, who was responsible for the necessary expences of the distress; the case was within the statute of frauds, and that the debt was to be considered as the debt of another; and consequently, that the defendant could not be liable without a note in writing. Plaintiff nonsuited. Gurney and Long for the plaintiff. Topping and Barrow for the defendant. See Barber v. Fox, vol. i. 270. Harris v. Huntbach, Burr. 373. Anderson v. Hayman, 1 H. B. 120. |