« ForrigeFortsett »
ing a dividend of the profits. The session of the original bills : Held King v. The Governor and Com- that the separate notes having pany of the Bank of England, proved unproductive, he might E. 59 G. 3.
Page 620 still resort to his remedy against 2. Where a railway was made under the other partners, and that the
the authority of an act of parlia- taking under these circumstances ment, by which the proprietors the separate notes, and even afterwere incorporated, and by which wards renewing them several times it was provided that the public successively, did not amount to should have the beneficial enjoy- satisfaction of the joint debt. ment of the same ; the company Bedford v. Deakin and Others, having afterwards taken up the M. 59 G. 3.
Page 210 railway: Held that a mandamus 2. Where one of two partners makes might issue to compel the com- a contract as to the terms on pany to reinstate and lay down which any business is to be transagain the railway.
The King v. acted by the firm, although such The Severn and Wye Railway business is not in their usual course
Company, T. 59 G. 3. 646 of dealing, and even contrary to 3. The mode of burying the dead is their arrangement with each other, sentations of his partner; and that the word malt was here not to be A. was entitled to retain the mo. taken in its usual sense, viz. of an ney that had been paid to him up- article used in the brewing, but on these fictitious transactions, as only in the colouring of beer, that if they were real.
a matter of ecclesiastical cogni- and the business is afterwards zance: and therefore where the transacted by or with the knowquestion was, Whether a parish- ledge of the other partner : Held ioner had a right to be buried in that he is bound by the contract the parish church-yard in an iron made by his partner. Sandilands coffin, which was a new and un- v. Marsh, T. 59 G. 3. 673 usual mode, the court refused a 3. A. employed B. and C., who mandamus. The King v. Cole- were partners as wine and spirit ridge and Others, T. 59 G. 3. 806 merchants, to purchase wine and
sell the same upon commission.. MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT, C. the managing partner, repreSee Deed, 1, 2.
sented that he had made the pur
chases, and that he had sold a MONEY HAD & RECEIVED, part of the wines so purchased at See PARTNERSHIP, 3.
a profit; the proceeds of such sup
posed sales he paid to A., and OUTER DOOR, BREAKING
rendered accounts, in which he OF,
stated the purchases to have been
made at a certain rate per pipe. See TRESPASS, 3.
In fact, C. had neither bought PARTNERSHIP.
nor sold any wine. The transac
tions were wholly fictitious, but 1. Where one of three partners, B. was wholly ignorant of that.
after a dissolution of partnership, Upon the whole account a larger undertook by deed to pay a par- sum had been repaid to A., as ticular partnership debt on two the proceeds of that part of the bills of exchange, and that was wine alleged to be resold, than communicated to the holder, who he had advanced; but the other consented to take the separate part of the wine, which C. reprenotes of the one partner for the sented as having been purchased, amount, strictly reserving his right was unaccounted for. 'Held that against all three, and retained pos- B. was liable for the false repre
3 1.2 sentations
in the patent here it was necessary Held, also, the supposed purchases to have stated the purpose to
having been represented to have which the prepared malt was to been made at a certain specified be applied, and to have said that rate per pipe, that A. might main- it was obtained for a new method tain an action for money had and of drying and preparing malt to received to recover the specific be used in the colouring of beer. sums advanced for the number of Quære, Whether a patent can be pipes of wine unaccounted for. good if obtained for a mere proRapp v. Latham and Parry, cess to be carried on by known T. 59 G.3.
Page 795 implements or elements acting lance due at the time of the part- of the ship and freight, due or to ner's death is considerably re- grow due, although the loss was duced, and that reduced balance, occasioned by the misconduct of by order of the obligor, is trans- one of the defendants, who was ferred by the bankers to the ac- both master and part-owner; and, count of another customer, who, Secondly, That the value of the with his assent, is charged with ship was to be calculated at the the then debt of the obligor. time of the loss, and not at the The person so charged having time of the commencement of the become insolvent, the surviving
upon known substances; inasmuch PARTY WALL.
as the word “ manufacture,” in The assignee of the lessee of pre- 21 Jac. c. 3., seems rather to be
mises, at a fixed rent, which he confined either to some new arconsiderably improved, and there- ticle or to some new instrument, by rendered of greater annual or part of an instrument, to value, is not the owner of the im- be used in making an article proved rent within the 14 G. 3. previously well known: And held, Lambe v. Hemans, E.
that at all events no merely phi59 G. 3.
467 losophical or abstract principle
can answer to that word, or be the PATENT.
subject of a patent. The King v. Patent for " a new or improved me
Wheeler, H. 59 G. 3. Page 345 thod of drying and preparing malt.” In the specification it was
PAYMENT, stated, that the invention consisted in exposing malt previously
See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 5. made to a very high degree of A bond was given to the several perheat; but it did not describe any sons constituting the firm of a new machine invented for that banking-house, conditioned for purpose, nor the staté, whether
the repayment of the balance of moist or dry, in which the malt an account, and of such further was originally to be taken for the sums as the bankers might adpurpose of being subjected to the vance to the obligor; one of the process ; nor the utmost degree partners dies, and a new partner of heat which might be safely is taken into the firm; at that used; nor the length of time to time a considerable balance is due be employed; nor the exact cri- from the obligor to the firm; adterion by which it might be known vances are afterwards made by when the process was accomplish- the bankers, and payments made ed: Held that the patent was to them on account by the oblivoid ; inasmuch as, 1st, the speci- gor; the latter is credited by the fication was not sufficiently pre- new firm with the several paycise; and as, 2dly, the patent ments, and charged with the ori. appeared to be for a different ginal debt and subsequent adthing from that mentioned in the
vances as constituting items in specification. Held, also, that as one entire account, and the ba
lance port abroad, to be paid within ten PAYMENT OF MONEY INTO days next after her arrival there, COURT,
voyage; and, partners of the original firm Thirdly, That in calculating the brought their action upon the value of freight, due or to grow due, bond: Held that as they had not money actually paid in advance originally treated it as a distinct
was to be included.
Wilson v. account, but had blended it in the Dickson, M. 59 G. 3.
Page 2 general account with other trans- 2. By charter-party the freighter coactions, that they were not at venanted to pay to the owner liberty so to treat it at a subse- freight at and after the rate of so quent period; and that having much per ton, per month, for the received in different payments a term of six months at least, and sum more than sufficient to dis- so in proportion for less than a charge the debt due upon the month, or for such further time bond at the time of the death of than six months as the ship might the deceased partner, that the be detained in the service of the bond was to be considered as freighter, until her final discharge, paid.
or until the day of her being lost, Quere, Whether the transfer of the captured, or last seen or heard of;
balance due from the obligor to such freight to be paid to the the account of another, with his commander of the ship in manner assent, did not, in point of law, following, viz. so much as might operate as payment.
Bodenham be earned at the time of the arrival v. Purchas, M. 59 G. 3. Page 39 of the ship at her first destined
and the remainder of the freight See PRACTICE, 1.
at specific periods: Held that this constituted one entire covenant,
and that the arrival of the ship at PERIL'OF THE SEA,
her first destined port abroad See INSURANCE, 2.
was a condition precedent to the
owner's right to recover any PLEADING,
freight; and that the ship having
been lost on her outward voyage, See TROVER, 3. EVIDENCE, 10.
the owner was not entitled to reVARIANCE, 1, 2, 3.
cover freight at
so much per 1. In an action against several de- month to the day of the loss.
fendants, as ship-owners, for da- Gibbon v. Mendez, M. 59 G. 3. 17 mage sustained by the loss of 3. An attachment for non-payment goods laden on board their ship, of money is in the nature of mesne it was held that by the 53 G. 3. process; and where the party had e. 159. s. l., they were not liable been taken and permitted to go‘at in that character beyond the value
3 1 3
large and returned again into cus- ment as for want of a plea, and tody, and continued in custody at made the defendant or his attorthe return of the writ; it was ney pay the costs occasioned by held that the sheriff was not liable the plea, and the costs of the rule to an action for an escape. Lewis for correcting the proceedings.
v. Morland, M. 59 G. 3. P. 56 Thomas v. Vandermoolen, M. 4. Covenant will lie by the assignee 59 G. 3.
Page 197 of the reversion of part of the 9. So also where the sham plea was demised premises against the les- such as to make it necessary for see for not repairing. Twynam the plaintiff's attorney to consult
v. Pickard, M. 59 G. 3. 105 counsel, and thereby cause delay 5. Declaration stated that plaintiff and expence, the court suffered
had sold to defendant a quantity the plaintiff to sign judgment, and of oak’ at the average price of the made the attorney pay the costs. season, to be ascertained before a Bartley v. Godslake, M. 59 G. 3. given day, and then averred that
199 before that day the average price 10. An indictment charged that dewas ascertained to be a given sum. fendants conspired, by divers false Held that the payment of money pretences and subtle means and into court did not admit that the devices, to obtain from A. divers average price was that stated in large sums of money, and to cheat the declaration. Stoveld v. Brewin and defraud him thereof: Held, and Another, M. 59 G. 3. 116
that the gist of the offence being 6. The character of broker is ma- the conspiracy, it was quite suffi
terially different from that of cient only to state that fact and factor; and, therefore, where a its object, and not necessary to broker sells goods, without dis- set out the specific pretences. closing the name of his prin- Kingv.Gill and Henry, M.59 G.3. cipal : Held, that he acts beyond
20+ the scope of his authority, and 11. By the word transportation in the that the buyer cannot set off a 8 G. 3. c. 15. is meant not merely debt due from the broker to him the conveying of the felon to the against the demand for goods place of transportation, but his made by the principal. Baring being so conveyed and remaining
v. Corrie, M. 59 G. 3. 137 there during the term for which 7. Certain parts of a machine had
he is ordered to be so transported; been put up by the tenant during and therefore a felon attainted is his term, and were capable of not by that statute restored to his being removed without either in- civil rights till after the expiration juring the other parts of the ma- of the term for which he is orchine or the building, and had
dered to be transported. been usually valued between the 2dly, By attainder all the perout-going and in-coming tenant: sonal property and rights of action Held that these were the goods in respect of property accruing to and chattels of the out-going the party attainted, either before tenant, for which he might main- or after attainder, are vested in tain trover. Davis v. Jones, M. the crown without office found; 59 G. 3.
165 and therefore attainder may be 8. Where a sham plea was pleaded well-pleaded in bar to an action
calculated to raise issues requiring on a bill of exchange indorsed to different modes of trial, the court the plaintiff after his attainder. suffered the plaintiff to sign judg- Bullock v. Dodds, H.59 G. 3. 258 3
12. In declaration for pirating a freight, and charged them with
book, an allegation that plaintiff the premiums, &c.; and, on a was the author of a book, being a loss happening, received the musical composition, called A., is money from the underwriters : well supported by shewing him to Held that he was accountable to be the author of a musical com the assignees of the surviving position of that name, comprised partner for the surplus, after payin and occupying only one page ment of his own debt, and not to of a work with a different title, the executors of the deceased which contained several other partner, to whom the ship origimusical compositions. The 54 G.3. nally belonged. Dixon v.Hamond, does not impose upon authors H. 59 G. 3.
Page 310 as a condition precedent to their 15. A person having three bills of deriving any benefit under that exchange, applied to a country act, that the composition should banker, with whom he had had be first printed ; and, therefore, no previous dealings, to give for an author does not lose his copy them a bill on London of the same right by selling his work in manu amount, and the bill given by the script before it is printed. White banker was afterwards dishonour
v. Geroch, H. 59 G. 3. Page 298 ed: Held that this was a com13. The declaration stated that a plete exchange of securities, and
bill of exchange was drawn and that trover would not lie for the accepted at Dublin, viz. at West three bills of exchange. minster, for a certain sum therein Held, also, that if the exchange had mentioned, without alleging it to not been complete, still that the be at Dublin in Ireland: Held banker having become a bankrupt, that the bill upon this declaration and the three bills having come to must be taken to have been drawn the possession of his assignees, in England for English money; must be considered as goods and and therefore proof of a bill chattels in the order and disposidrawn at Dublin in Ireland for tion of the bankrupt at the time the same sum in Irish money, of his bankruptcy, within the stawhich differs in value from English tute of James. Hornblower v. money, did not support the decla Proud, H. 59 G. 3.
327 ation, and that this was a fatal | 16. The contract laid in the declaravariance.
tion was to deliver stock on the Held, also, the bill having been 27th of February. The contract
drawn for a certain sum sterling, proved was to deliver stock on the that the omission of the word settling-day, which, at the time, sterling in the declaration was was fixed for, and understood by immaterial. Kearney v. King, the parties to mean, the 27th of H. 59 G. 3.
February; Held that the proof 14. An agent cannot dispute the supported the declaration. Wickes
title of his principal; and, there v. Gordon, H. 59 G. 3. 335 fore, where a ship originally be- 17. In an action for disturbance of longed to one of two partners, plaintiff's right of common, the and had been conveyed to B. for declaration stated that he was securing a debt, and B. became possessed of a messuage and land, the sole registered owner of the with the appurtenants, and by ship, and afterwards, as agent for reason thereof ought to have both partners, insured the ship and common of pasture, &c.; Held
3 I 4