Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

of exchange, drawn by one P. upon, and accepted by himself for that amount; B. subsequently took the benefit of the Insolvent Act, 7 Geo. 4, c. 57, and was discharged from his liability upon the bill of exchange. P., in the meantime, had been sued upon the bill, by C., and had been arrested upon judgment obtained in the action; B., upon his discharge, in consideration of the release of P. from custody, gave a warrant of attorney to C. for the amount of the bill, and also for the costs in the action brought by him against P., and certain costs incurred in the Insolvent Court, in opposing his own discharge : Upon application to set aside judgment and execution on the warrant of attorney, under the 60 and 61 sects. of the Insolvent Act: Held, that the instrument was invalid, as to the amount of the original debt, but that the judgment must remain in force for the amount of costs, which formed its new consideration. Collins v. Benton,

905

11. Where a trader, having contracted a debt, gave a warrant of attorney to secure its payment specifically, and the creditor sought to enforce that security against the goods of the debtor, in respect of subsequent advances made by the creditor, the Court, at the instance of the assignees, set aside the proceedings of the creditor.

The Court would not, on the affidavit of the plaintiff, that he understood that the warrant of attorney was intended to cover subsequent advances, extend the defeasance to those advances. Bell v. Tidd,

949

12. Where it appeared that an attorney was acting both for plaintiff and defendant in a transaction in the course of which a warrant of attorney was given, and that instrument was attested by a clerk of the attorney, he being also an admitted attorney, it was held, that the attestation was in

sufficient within the 1 & 2 Vict., c. 110, s. 9. Durrant v. Blurton and Caley, 1015

13. A warrant of attorney to secure advances of money made by a banking company to a particular firm, was executed to the manager of the company, appointed under the 7 Geo. 4, c. 46, s. 9, authorized him, "his executors or administrators," to enter up judgment. His administratrix, who was his widow, took out a prerogative administration in the province of Canterbury, the parties who had given the warrant of attorney residing within the province of York, at the time of her husband's death: Held, that as the judgment was to be entered up in the province of Canterbury, the prerogative administration in that province was sufficient to authorize her to enter it up.

The warrant of attorney was less than ten years old, and, therefore, a rule for judgment would, pursuant to 1 Reg. Gen., H. T., 2 Wm. 4, s. 73, be absolute in the first instance, but the Court would only allow a rule nisi under the particular circumstances of the case. Edwards, Administratrix of Edwards v. Holiday and Others,

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

2. The first count of the declaration was, for not using premises in a tenant-like manner; the second, for use and occupation; the third, on an account stated. The damages stated in the declaration were 50l. The writ of summons was indorsed for 177., and the particulars claimed 157. for rent, and 21. damages for non-repair and improper use of premises. A verdict was found for the plaintiff. The Court set aside the proceedings, on the ground that it was not a case within the meaning of the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42, s. 17, but without costs, as the defendant might have objected to the order being made, or moved to set it aside when made. Roffey v. Shoobridge, 957

YARMOUTH, (CORPORATION

OF).

The Corporation of Great Yarmouth has no claim under 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. XLIX. (local) to compensation, pursuant to 59 Geo. 3, c. 54, s. 9, and 1 & 2 Vict. c. 113, s. 27, for the diminution of duty on foreign vessels, importing and exporting commodities into and out of the haven, in consequence of commercial conventions between England and Foreign Powers, notwithstanding the general language of s. 128 of the Local Act, with reference to the previous provisions of that act. Regina v. The Corporation of Trinity House, Deptford Strond,

565

END OF THE NINTH VOLUME.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY RAYNER AND HODGES,

109, Fetter Lane, Fleet Street.

[graphic]
« ForrigeFortsett »