Sidebilder
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

See BANKRUPTCY, 9.
The deeds, and other assurances, a
memorial of which is required by
17 G. 3. c. 26. to be enrolled, are 1.
those to which the grantor of the
annuity is a party, or which are
entered into by a third person at
his instance and request, or on
his behalf; and, consequently,
where a third person, wholly un-
connected with the grantor, gua-
ranteed, in consideration of a cer-
tain commission, the payment of
an annuity to the grantee: Held
that such guarantee need not be
enrolled. Sandilands v. Marsh,
T. 59 G. 3.

ARBITRATION,
See PRACTICE, 10.
ARBITRATOR,
See AWARD, 2, 4.

673

ATTACHMENT,
See ESCAPE.

ATTAINDER,

See PLEADING, 3.
TRANSPORTATION, 1.

ATTORNEY,

See PRACTICE, 12. 30.

APPEAL.
Where a statute gives a party ag-
grieved a right of appeal, on giving
security to a specified amount, he
may enter and respite his appeal
at the next sessions, after having
given such security, without notice
to the other side; but after the
appeal has been respited, if he
does not give the usual notice of
trying it, the sessions will be au-
thorized to dismiss it altogether.
The King v. The Justices of Salop,
T. 59 G. 3.
Page 694

ASSUMPSIT,

See PARTNERSHIP, 3; VENDOR and
VENDEE.

1. One of the makers of a joint and
several promissory-note, after the

same

same had become due, gave his bond to the holder for the amount; but before the commencement of the action no money was actually paid on the bond: Held that, until he had paid money upon the bond, he could not maintain an action for money paid, in order to recover contribution against any of the other makers of the original note. Maxwell v. Jameson, M. 59 G. 3. Page 51 2. Where a sheriff claimed as of right, upon a warrant issued by him in the execution of his office, a larger fee than he was entitled to by law, and the attorney paid it in ignorance of the law: Held that the latter might maintain money had and received for the excess paid above the legal fee, or might set off the same in an action by the sheriff against him. Dew v. Parsons, E. 59 G. 3.

ATTACHMENT,
See ESCAPE.

AWARD.

562

[blocks in formation]

4.

dict to be entered for the plaintiffs; but that they should not take out execution for the debt until they had paid a larger sum due to the defendant: Held that the plaintiff's attorney might still take out execution for the costs. The Highgate Archway Company v. Nash, E. 59 G. 3. Page 597 An arbitrator is not bound by a rule of practice, adopted by courts of law for general convenience; and, therefore, where on a reference of a Chancery suit, and all matters in difference between the parties, the arbitrator had allowed interest, (when it would not be allowed by a court of law or equity,) the Court refused to set aside the award on that ground. In Re Badger, T. 59 G. 3.

691 5. Where it was stipulated that in case of the breach of an agreement, the sum of 100l. should be received as a stipulated debt binding on each party, as to the amount; and an action for damages generally, for the breach of this agreement, was referred to an arbitrator, who awarded only 10%. damages: Held, that in order to entitle the party to come to set aside this award, it was necessary expressly to state in the affidavit, that this clause was pointed out to the arbitrator at the time, and that he was required to act upon it. Pinkerton v. Caslon,

T. 59 G. 3.

BAIL-BOND.

704

See PRACTICE, 3, 18. The assignee of a bail-bond, without any sufficient reason for so doing, brought separate actions against each of the bail: the Court, upon payment of the costs of one action only, stayed the proceedings in all. Dissentiente Abbott C. J. Key v. Hill, E. 59 G. 3.

598 BANK

BANKRUPTCY.

See BILLS OF EXCHANGE, 5.

1. A trader being seised of an estate for life, with the general power of appointment, with remainder, in default of appointment, to himself in fee; after having committed an act of bankruptcy, upon which he was afterwards declared a bank. rupt, executes his appointment in favour of an appointee: Held that all his interest having passed to the assignees by the assignment, that such appointment was void; and, therefore, that his assignee under the commission had a sufficient legal estate to maintain an ejectment. Doe, Dem. Coleman, v. Britain, M. 59 G. 3. Page 93 2. A. and B., owners of a ship, executed an absolute bill of sale to C. and D. for a nominal consideration. There was a parol agreement between them that C. and D. should accept bills for the accommodation of A. and B.; that the ship should be a security to C. and D. for any advances they should make on such acceptances, and that until default made by A. and B. in providing for the acceptances, the ship should remain in their possession and management. The ship was registered in the names of C. and D.; but A. and B. remained in the possession and management of her, appeared to the world as owners, and obtained credit from appearing so. Before default made by A. and B. in providing for the acceptances, C. and D. became bankrupts, and their assignees immediately seized and sold the ship. A. and B. afterwards became bankrupts: Held that trover for the ship could not be maintained by their assignees against the assignees of C. and D., for the parol agreement could not be set up against the bill of sale, VOL. II.

3.

4.

193

and the case did not come within the statute of James, the ship having been seized by the defendants before the bankruptcy of A. and B.; and though the bill of sale, unaccompanied by possession, might be void as against creditors, it was binding upon A. and B.and their assignees. Robinson v. M'Donnell, M. 59 G. 3. P.134 The 21 Jac. 1. c. 19. s. 11. is not repealed as to shipping by the ship-register acts; and therefore when A., the owner of a ship, duly assigned his interest in it to B., and B. became the registered owner, but by his permission A. continued to have the same in his possession, order, and disposition, until he became bankrupt: Held that the property in the ship passed to A.'s assignees under the statute of James. Hay v. Fairbairn, M. 59 G. 3. Commissioners of bankrupt are authorized to examine a witness concerning the person, trade, dealings, estate, and effects, of the bankrupt, and incidentally to this power they may examine him also respecting other individuals, through whom they may be likely to obtain information on those points. And, therefore, where a witness was asked questions as to when and where he last saw the bankrupt's wife: Held that such questions were legal and material; and that the commissioners were justified in committing him for giving unsatisfactory answers to these questions. Held also, that the true criterion by which to judge as to the propriety of the commitment, was to consider all the questions and answers collectively, and then to say whether the whole examination was satisfactory or not; and, therefore, where the commissioners in their warrant set out several questions, to some of 3 H which,

[blocks in formation]

which, taken alone, the answers were satisfactory, held also, that this was no objection to a warrant committing the party" till he should full answer make to the questions so put to him as aforesaid." Ex-parte Vogel, M. 59G. 3. 8. Page 219 5. Interest accruing before the act of bankruptcy cannot be added to the principal sum due on a bill of exchange, so as to constitute a good petitioning creditor's debt, unless interest be specially made payable on the face of the bill. Cameron v. Smith, H. 59 G. 3. 305 6. A person having three bills of exchange, applied to a country banker, with whom he had had no previous dealings, to give for them a bill on London of the same amount, and the bill given by the banker was afterwards dishonoured: Held that this was a complete exchange of securities, and that trover would not lie for the three bills of exchange. Held, also, that if the exchange

BILL OF EXCHANGE.

therefore, that the sheriff having entered before the bankrupt had surrendered in discharge of his bail, the assignees were not entitled to recover. Thomas v. Desanges, E. 59 G. 3. Page 586 Act of bankruptcy by lying two months in prison. During the imprisonment A. advanced to the bankrupt money for the purpose of settling with his creditors. The purpose failing, a part of the money was repaid to A. by the bankrupt: Held that this repayment was protected, and that the assignees could not recover the money so repaid. Toovey v. Milne, T.

59 G. 3.

683 9. A bond was conditioned for the payment of a sum of money to executors of the obligor, and of the interest during his life, payable on certain days, or within twenty days after demand. The obligee became bankrupt, and interest was then due, but no demand had been made: Held, there having been no forfeiture, that the bond did not constitute a debt proveable under the commission. Held, secondly, that it was not proveable as an annuity-bond within the meaning of 49 G. 3. c. 121. s. 17. Winter v. Mouseley. 802

had not been complete, still that the banker having become a bankrupt, and the three bills having come to the possession of his assignees, must be considered as goods and chattels in the order and disposition of the bankrupt at the time of his bankruptcy, within the statute of James. Hornblower v. Proud, H. 59 G. 3. 327 7. Where the sheriff took possession 1. under a fieri facias, and at a later hour of the same day, the defendant surrendered in discharge of his bail, and afterwards lay in prison two months, and thereby committed an act of bankruptcy; and, by the statute of James, was a bankrupt from the time of his arrest: Held that in an action by his assignees to recover the value of such goods, the Court would notice the fraction of a day; and,

[blocks in formation]

be accepted. The bankers afterwards discounted a bill, and transmitted the same for acceptance to the vendee, who detained it in his possession for ten days, and then informed the bankers that he could not accept the bill, as the invoice of the goods had not been delivered; and after a further interval of sixteen days, the bankers having made no objection to his detaining the bill, returned the same; the vendor having then stopped payment, without delivering the goods or sending the carrier's receipt: Held that the drawee of the bill was not liable

as acceptor. Quære, Whether in any case the mere detention of a bill, for an unreasonable time, by the drawee, with whom it is left for acceptance, in point of law amounts to an acceptance. Mason v. Barff, M. 59 G. 3. Page 26 2. Where the drawer of a bill wrote to the drawee, stating that he had valued on him for the amount, and added, "which please to honour" to which the drawee answered," the bill shall have attention :" Held that these words were ambiguous, and did not amount to an acceptance of the bill, inasmuch as although an acceptance may be made by a letter to a drawer, still that can only be so where the terms of the letter do not admit of doubt. Rees v. Warwick, M. 59 G. 3. 113 3. The declaration stated that a bill of exchange was drawn and accepted at Dublin, viz. at Westminster, for a certain sum therein' mentioned, without alleging it to be at Dublin in Ireland: Held that the bill upon this declaration must be taken to have been drawn in England for English money; and therefore proof of a bill drawn at Dublin in Ireland for the same

[ocr errors]

4.

sum in Irish money, which differs in value from English money, did not support the declaration, and that this was a fatal variance. Held, also, the bill having been drawn for a certain sum sterling, that the omission of the word sterling in the declaration was immaterial. Kearney v. King, H. 59 G. 3. Page 301 A person having three bills of exchange, applied to a country banker, with whom he had had no previous dealings, to give for them a bill on London of the same amount, and the bill given by the banker was afterwards dishonoured: Held that this was a complete exchange of securities, and that trover would not lie for the three bills of exchange. Held, also, that if the exchange had not been complete, still that the banker having become a bankrupt, and the three bills having come to the possession of his assignees, must be considered as goods and chattels in the order and disposition of the bankrupt at the time of his bankruptcy, within the statute of James. Hornblower v. Proud, H.59 G. 3. 327 Where the defendant, being indebted to the plaintiff, paid to him the debt in country bank notes on a Friday, several hours before the post went out, and the plaintiff transmitted them partly by Sunday night's post and partly by a coach on Saturday, and both parts arrived in London on Monday, and were presented for payment and dishonoured on the Tuesday: Held that the true rule is, that a party, in order to avoid laches, must give notice by the next day's post, and not by the next possible post; and that the plaintiff, in so transmitting these notes, had been guilty of no laches, and might consider them as no payment, and re3 H 2 cover

5.

« ForrigeFortsett »