« ForrigeFortsett »
IN D E X
ACTION ON THE CASE, APPOINTMENT, POWER OF,
See BANKRUPTCY, 1.
See PLEADING, 3.
See PRACTICE, 12. 30.
at the next sessions, after having
appeal has been respited, if he
thorized to dismiss it altogether.
See PARTNERSHIP, 3 ; VENDOR and
several promissory-note, after the
same had become due, gave his dict to be entered for the plaintiffs; bond to the holder for the amount; but that they should not take out but before the commencement of execution for the debt until they the action no money was actually had paid a larger sum due to the paid on the bond: Held that, until defendant: Held that the plainhe had paid money upon the bond, tiff's attorney might still take out he could not maintain an action execution for the costs.
The for money paid, in order to recover Highgate Archway Company v. contribution against any of the Nash, E. 59 G. 3. other makers of the original note. 4. An arbitrator is not bound by a Maxwell v. Jameson, M. 59 G. 3. rule of practice, adopted by courts
Page 51 of law for general convenience; 2. Where a sheriff claimed as of right, and, therefore, where on a refer
upon a warrant issued by him in the ence of a Chancery suit, and all execution of his office, a larger matters in difference between the fee than he was entitled to by parties, the arbitrator had allowed law, and the attorney paid it in interest, (when it would not be alignorance of the law: Held that lowed by a court of law or equity,) the latter might maintain money
the Court refused to set aside the had and received for the excess award on that ground. In Re paid above the legal fee, or might Badger, T. 59 G. 3. 691 set off the saine in an action by 5. Where it was stipulated that in the sheriff against him. Dew v. case of the breach of an agreeParsons, E. 59 G. 3. 562 ment, the sum of 1001. should be ATTACHMENT,
received as a stipulated debt bind
ing on each party, as to the See EscAPE.
amount; and an action for damages
generally, for the breach of this AWARD.
agreement, was referred to an ar. 1. Where the parties named two ar bitrator, who awarded only 10. bitrators, who were to choose an
damages: Held, that in order to umpire, and each arbitrator named
entitle the party to come to set a person to whom the other ob
aside this award, it was necessary jected; and they afterwards agreed expressly to state in the affidavit
, to decide by lot which should that this clause was pointed out name the umpire, and thereupon to the arbitrator at the time, and the party who won named the that he was required to act person to whom the other had
Pinkerton v. Caslon, previously objected: Held that
T. 59 G. 3. the award made by such um
BAIL-BOND. pire was bad.
Weils v. Cooke, M. 59 G. 3.
See PRACTICE, 3, 18. 2. The authority of an arbitrator is The assignee of a bail-bond, without determined by the death of either
any sufficient reason for so doing, party, before the award. Cooper brought separate actions against v. Johnson, H. 59 G. 3. 394
each of the bail : the Court, upon 3. By rule of Court, a cause and all payment of the costs of one
matters in difference were referred action only, stayed the proceedto an arbitrator, and the costs of
ings in all. Dissentiente Abbott the cause were to abide the event. C. J. Key v. Hill, E. 59 G. 3. The arbitrator directed the ver
and the case did not come within See Bills OF EXCHANGE, 5.
the statute of James, the ship
having been seized by the defend. 1. A trader being seised of an estate ants before the bankruptcy of A.
for life, with the general power of and B.; and though the bill of appointment, with remainder, in sale, unaccompanied by possesdefault of appointment, to himself sion, might be void as against crein fee; after having committed an ditors, it was binding upon A. and act of bankruptcy, upon which he B.and their assignees. Robinson v. was afterwards declared a bank. M'Donnell, M. 59 G. 3. P. 134 rupt, executes his appointment in 3. The 21 Jac. 1. c. 19. s. 11. is not favour of an appointee: Held that repealed as to shipping by the all his interest having passed to ship-register acts; and therefore the assignees by the assignment, when A., the owner of a ship, that such appointment was void ; duly assigned his interest in it to and, therefore, that his assignee B., and Ď. became the registered under the commission had a suf. owner, but by his permission A. ficient legal estate to maintain an continued to have the same in his ejectment. Doe, Dem. Coleman, possession, order, and disposition, «V. Britain, M.59 G. 3. Page 93
until he became bankrupt: Held 2. A. and B., owners of a ship, exe- that the property in the ship
cuted an absolute bill of sale to passed to A.'s assignees under the C. and D. for a nominal consi- statute of James. Hay v. Fairderation, There was a parol bairn, M. 59 G. 3.
193 agreement between them that C. 4. Commissioners of bankrupt are and D. should accept bills for the authorized to examine a witness accommodation of A. and B.; concerning the person, trade, that the ship should be a security dealings, estate, and effects, of the to C. and D. for any advances they bankrupt, and incidentally to this should make on such acceptances, power they may examine him and that until default made by A. also respecting other individuals, and B. in providing for the ac- through whom they may be likely ceptances, the ship should remain to obtain information on those in their possession and manage- points. And, therefore, where a ment. The ship was registered in witness was asked questions as to the names of C. and Ď.; but A. when and where he last saw the and B. remained in the possession bankrupt's wife: Held that such and management of her, appeared questions were legal and material; to the world as owners, and ob- and that the commissioners were tained credit from appearing so. justified in committing him for Before default made by A. and B. giving unsatisfactory answers to in providing for the acceptances, these questions. Held also, that C. and D. became bankrupts, and the true criterion by which to their assignees immediately seized judge as to the propriety of the and sold the ship. A. and B. af- commitment,was to consider all the terwards became bankrupts: Held questions and answers collectively, that trover for the ship could not and then to say whether the whole be maintained by their assignees examination was satisfactory or against the assignees of C. and D.,
not; and, therefore, where the for the parol agreement could not commissioners in their warrant set
be set up against the bill of sale, out several questions, to some of VOL. II.
3 H which,
BILL OF EXCHANGE.
which, taken alone, the answers therefore, that the sheriff having were satisfactory, held also, that entered before the bankrupt had this was no objection to a warrant surrendered in discharge of his committing the party“ till he bail, the assignees were not entitled should full answer make to the to recover. Thomas v. Desanges, questions so put to him as afore E. 59 G. 3.
Page 586 said.” Ex-parte Vogel, M.59 G.3. 8. Act of bankruptcy by lying two
Page 219 months in prison. During the im5. Interest accruing before the act prisonment A. advanced to the
of bankruptcy cannot be added bankrupt money for the purpose to the principal sum due on a bill of settling with his creditors. The of exchange, so as to constitute a purpose failing, a part of the money good petitioning creditor's debt, was repaid to A. by the bankrupt: unless interest be specially made Held that this repayment was payable on the face of the bill. protected, and that the assignees
Cameron v. Smith, H.59 G.3. 305 could not recover the money so 6. A person having three bills of repaid. Toovey v. Milne, T. exchange, applied to a country 59 G. 3.
683 banker, with whom he had had no 9. A bond was conditioned for the previous dealings, to give for them payment of a sum of money to a bill on London of the same executors of the obligor, and amount, and the bill given by of the interest during his life, the banker was afterwards dis payable on certain days, or within honoured: Held that this was a twenty days after demand. The complete exchange of securities, obligee became bankrupt, and inand that trover would not lie for terest was then due, but no de
the three bills of exchange. mand had been made: Held, there Held, also, that if the exchange having been no forfeiture, that
had not been complete, still that the bond did not constitute a the banker having become a bank debt proveable under the comrupt, and the three bills having mission. Held, secondly, that come to the possession of his as it was not proveable as an ansignees, must be considered as nuity-bond within the meaning of goods and chattels in the order 49 G. 3. c. 121. s. 17. Winter v. and disposition of the bankrupt at Mouseley.
802 the time of his bankruptcy, within the statute of James. Hornblower
BILL OF EXCHANGE, v. Proud, H. 59 G. 3. 327
See BANKRUPTCY, 5. 7. Where the sheriff took possession 1. The vendor of goods had been
under a fieri facias, and at a later in the habit of drawing bills in hour of the same day, the de payment upon the vendee, and fendant surrendered in discharge discounting the same with bankers, of his bail, and afterwards lay in by whom the bills were transmitted prison two months, and thereby by post for acceptance: the vendee committed an act of bankruptcy; cautioned the bankers to inquire, and, by the statute of James, was when they discounted any such a bankrupt from the time of his bills, whether the goods for which arrest : Held that in an action by such bills were respectively drawn his assignees to recover the value had been delivered, and the carof such goods, the Court would rier's receipt sent, and assured notice the fraction of a day; and, them that in that case they would
be accepted. The bankers after sum in Irish money, which differs wards discounted a bill, and trans in value from English money, did mitted the same for acceptance to not support the declaration, and the vendee, who detained it in his that this was a fatal variance. possession for ten days, and then Held, also, the bill having been informed the bankers that he drawn for a certain sum sterling, could not accept the bill, as the that the omission of the word invoice of the goods had not been sterling in the declaration was delivered ; and after a further in immaterial. Kearney v. King, terval of sixteen days, the bankers H. 59 G. 3.
Page 301 having made no objection to his 4. A person having three bills of detaining the bill, "returned the exchange, applied to a country same; the vendor having then banker, with whom he had had no stopped payment, without deliver previous dealings, to give for them ing the goods or sending the a bill on London of the same carrier's receipt: Held that the amount, and the bill given by drawee of the bill was not liable the banker was afterwards disa as acceptor.
honoured: Held that this was a Quære, Whether in any case the complete exchange of securities,
mere detention of a bill, for an and that trover would not lie for unreasonable time, by the drawee, the three bills of exchange. with whom it is left for accept- Held, also, that if the exchange had ance, in point of law amounts to not been complete, still that the an acceptance. Mason v. Barff, banker having become a bankrupt, M. 59 G. 3.
and the three bills having come to 2. Where the drawer of a bill wrote the possession of his assignees,
to the drawee, stating that he had must be considered as goods and valued on him for the amount, chattels in the order and disposiand added, “ which please to tion of the bankrupt at the time honour;" to which the drawee of his bankruptcy, within the staanswered, “ the bill shall have tute of James. Hornblower v. attention :" Held that these Proud, H.59 G. 3.
327 words were ambiguous, and did 5. Where the defendant, being innot amount to an acceptance of debted to the plaintiff, paid to him the bill, inasmuch as although an the debt in country bank notes on acceptance may be made by a a Friday, several hours before the letter to a drawer, still that can post went out, and the plaintiff only be so where the terms of the transmitted them partly by Sunday letter do not admit of doubt. night's post and partly by a coach
Rees v. Warwick, M. 59 G.3. 113 on Saturday, and both parts are 3. The declaration stated that a bill rived in London on Monday, and
of exchange was drawn and ac were presented for payment and cepted at Dublin, viz. at West dishonoured on the Tuesday: minster, for a certain sum therein Held that the true rule is, that a mentioned, without alleging it to party, in order to avoid laches, be at Dublin in Ireland: Held must give notice by the next day's that the bill upon this declaration post, and not by the next possible must be taken to have been drawn post; and that the plaintiff, in so in England for English money; transmitting these notes, had been and therefore proof of a bill drawn guilty of no laches, and might conat Dublin in Ireland for the same sider them as no payment, and re
3 H 2