5. Against a Commissioner, for acting in a Matter in which he was personally interested, contrary to the Provisions of a Local Act. Charlesworth v. Rudyard, 1 Cr., M. & R. 498; 3 Dowl. 517. 6. Against a Person, for having acted as Councillor of a Borough whilst Unqualified. (p) Simpson v. Ready, 12 M. & W. 736. 7. Against an Overseer, for not making out a Burgess List. King v. Burrell, 12 Ad. & E. 460; and see, also, King v. Share, 3 Q. B. 31 ; and Hunt v. Hibbs, [5 H. & N. 123.] 8. Against an Overseer, for selling Goods for the use of a Workhouse. Barker v. Waite, 1 Ad. & E. 514; and see Henderson v. Sherbourne, 2 M. & W. 236. 9. Against a Guardian of the Poor, for supplying Goods for his own Profit. Greenhow v. Parker, 6 H. & N. 882. 10. Against a Stockbroker, for acting without being admitted. Clark v. Powell, 4 B. & Ad. 846; and see Cope v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 157. 11. For delivering Sacks of Coals in London of Deficient Weight, contrary to 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 76. Collins v. Hopwood, 15 M. & W. 459. 12. Against an Apothecary, for Penalties for practising without a Certificate. Apothecaries' Co. v. Greenough, 1 Q. B. 799. (9) 13. Against a Pound-keeper, for taking more than Four Shillings on a Distress. Fyfe v. Bousfield, 6 Q. B. 100; 2 D. & L. 481. STOCK. 1. Indebitatus Count for Stock sold and transferred. (r) 3 per cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities [as the case may be] sold and transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant. For £ (p) It is not necessary to state in what the disqualification consists. Cook v. Swift, 14 M. & W. 235. (7) See "Apothecary," ante, 48. (r) See law, Mortimer v. M'Callan, 7 M. & W. 20; 9 M. & W. 636. Shares in a joint stock banking company, foreign stock and scrip on a railway company, are not within 17th section of statute of frauds. Humble v. Mitchell, 11 Ad. & E. 205; Heseltine v. Siggers, 1 Ex. 856; Knight v. Barber, 16 M. & W. 66; Tempest v. Silver, 3 C. B. 249; Bowlby v. Bell, 3 C. B. 284. 2. Against the Purchaser of Spanish Certificates, for not accepting them, whereby Plaintiff sustained a Loss on the Resale. (8) For that the defendant bought of the plaintiff fifteen new Spanish five per cent. certificates [or "certain foreign stock, to wit, Spanish stock"], at a price agreed upon between them [or "the then market price of the said certificates"], such certificates to be delivered to the defendant, and paid for by him, on the day of A. D. ; and although the plaintiff was always ready to deliver the said certificates to the defendant according to the terms of the said agreement [whereof the defendant had notice, and requested the defendant to accept and pay for the same], (t) [allege performance of conditions precedent, as ante, 39], yet the defendant did not, on the said day of , A. D. or at any other time, accept the said certificates, or pay the plaintiff for the same, whereby the plaintiff lost and was deprived of the gains and profits which would otherwise have accrued to him from the completion of the said contract, and was obliged to and did resell the said certificates at a loss. [Add account stated.] 3. For not delivering Foreign Stock. Heseltine v. Siggers, 1 Ex. 856. SURETY. See "Guaranties," ante, 136. SURGEON. See "Apothecary," ante, 48; "Negligence by," post, Torts. TELEGRAPHIC MESSAGE. (u) For not transmitting a Message correctly. TILLAGES. (x) Indebitatus Count for Tillages left by an Outgoing Tenant. For money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for the relinquishment by and pay for the same, &c." conclude as above. (8) Chit. jr. Contr.; Henderson v. Bise, -3 Stark. R. 158; Paterson v. Powell, 2 M. & Sc. 399; 9 Bing. 320; Sutton v. Tatham, 10 Ad. & E. 27. (t) If there has been no tender or request, and the defendant has dispensed with them, omit this allegation, and proceed as follows from the asterisk-"whereof the defendant had notice, yet the defendant declared to the plaintiff, that he the defend ant would not accept the said certificates or pay for the same, and discharged the plaintiff from tendering the said certificates to the defendant and requesting him to accept (u) A provision in the charter of a telegraph company "for the sending and receiving of messages by all persons alike without favor or preference, and subject to such equitable charges and reasonable regulations as may from time to time be made by the company," is not violated by paying a commission on messages collected. Reuter v. Electric Telegraph Co. 6 El. & Bl. 346. (x) See form for "Crops," ante, 117; form in case of a valuation, Ib. The him to the defendant, at his request, of the benefit and advantage of work done and materials provided and moneys expended by the plaintiff in ploughing, harrowing, manuring, sowing, and otherwise cultivating and improving divers lands, as tenant thereof; and for [&c. account stated]. TOLLS. (y) 1. By a Company for Rates or Tonnage for passing along a Tramroad. For rates and tolls payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs for the tonnage of goods carried by and for the defendant, at his request, upon the railway [or “tramroad"] of the plaintiffs [add account stated]. 2. For Stallage. (z) For stallage due from the defendant to the plaintiffs, as the proprietors of a market and market-place, and of the stallage and other profits, privileges, and emoluments thereto belonging, for and in respect of the defendant having erected, and kept in the said market and market-place, stalls and stands, for the purpose of exposing and for having exposed to sale goods and cattle therein [add account stated]. 3. For Tolls for Cattle sold in a Market. (a) For tolls due from the defendant to the plaintiff, as the proprietor of a market and of the tolls and duties therefrom arising, for ["cattle"] of the defendant brought into the said market and therein sold [add account stated]. 4. For Tolls on passing through a Turnpike. (b) For tolls payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, as farmer and collector above form will suffice, although the tillages have been taken upon a valuation by appraisers. Ante, 117, note (a). The claim to tillages by the outgoing against the incoming tenant of a farm may be supported by express agreement, or custom of the country. See cases, Chit. jr. Contr. See special form, &c. Dalby v. Hirst, 1 B. & B. 224; Senior r. Armytage, Holt N. P. R. 197; Earl of Falmouth v. Thomas, 1 Cr. & M. 89. See the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 25, as to improving the law of landlord and tenant in relation to emblements, &c. (y) An indebitatus count lies for tolls after they have been actually enjoyed, without proof of any actual contract. Seward v. Baker, 1 T. R. 616; Mayor of Newport v. Saunders, 3 B. & Ad. 411; The Mayor of Carmarthen v. Lewis, 6 C. & P. 608. See other forms, &c. Peacock v. Harris, 10 East, 104; Duke of Bedford v. Emmett, 3 B. & Ad. 366; Mayor of Reading v. Clarke, 4 B. & Ad. 268. See a special count on a covenant by one railway company to pay tolls for the use of the railway of another company, South Yorkshire Ry. Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 9 Ex. 55. For tolls due to the lord of a manor, Burne v. Thompson, 1 Cr. & M. 34. Counts for tolls thorough and tolls traverse, or market tolls and stallage, would be allowed together. Jenkins v. Treloar, 1 M. & W. 19; Bradley v. Newcastle, 2 El. & Bl. 427; Earl of Falmouth v. Penrose, 6 B. & C. 385. For toll due under a statute, Ribble Navigation Co. v. Hargreaves, 17 C. B 385. If more toll is exacted than ought to be taken, it may be recovered back as money had and received to the plaintiff's use. Lewis v. Hammond, 2 B. & A. 206; Waterhouse v. Keen, 4 B. & C. 200; Hall v. Mayor &c. of Swansea, 5 Q. B. 526. (z) See form, &c. Lockwood v. Wood, 6 Q. B. 31. Stallage is a satisfaction to the owner of the soil for liberty of placing a stall on it; Mayor of Newport v. Saunders, 3 B. & Ad. 411; but it may be included in a grant under the word "toll." 6 Q. B. 31. See, also, Mayor of Carmarthen v. Lewis, 6 C. & P. 608. (a) See other forms, Duke of Bedford r. Emmett, 3 B. & Ald. 366; Mayor of Reading v. Clarke, 4 B. & Ald. 268; Com. Dig. Market," ante, 248, note (y). (b) See a form for rent on a demise of tolls, Oldroyd v. Crampton, 4 Bing. N. C. 24. of the tolls payable at a turnpike gate erected on a turnpike road, for carriages of the defendant travelling along the said road [add account stated]. TRADE. See "Goodwill," ante, 134. TRADE MARKS. See post, p. 259, and Torts. UNDERTAKER'S BILL. (c) For work done and materials provided, and for coaches and horses and chattels by the plaintiff let on hire to the defendant, in and about furnishing and conducting a funeral at his request; and for [add money paid, and goods sold and delivered, if applicable, and account stated]. USE AND OCCUPATION. See "Landlord and Tenant," ante, 181 et seq. OBS. VENDORS AND PURCHASERS. See forms for breaches of covenant for title and further assurance, 2 Chitty's Pl. 7th ed. 387; Lewis v. Campbell, 3 Moore, 35; Foster v. Pierson, 4 T. R. 617, 620; Milner v. Horton, M'Clel. 647; King v. Jones, 1 Marsh. 107: Kingdon v. Nottle, 1 M. & S. 355; Evans v. Vaughan. 4 B. & C. 261; 2 Wms. Saund. 175–183, and notes; Doe d. Smith v. Pike, 3 B. & Ad. 742; [2 Sugden V. & P. (8th Am. ed.) 576 et seq. notes and cases.] Law, &c. as to breach of covenant for title. Stannard v. Lock, 6 Ad. & E. 973. Eviction. Brooks v. Humfreys, 5 Bing. N. C. 55. By and against vendors and purchasers for not conveying or accepting a conveyance; forms, Dobell v. Hutchinson, 3 Ad. & E. 355; Price v. Williams, 1 M. & W. 6. See Sugden V. & P.; Chit. jr. Contr.; E. Chit. Eq. Index, tit. "Vendors." [Damages for not conveying, see 1 Sugden V. & P. (8th Am. ed.) 358, and cases in notes (c) and (c1), 360, and note (pl), 361, note (¿1); Bain v. Fothergill, L. R. 7 H. L. 158; Drake v. Baker, 5 Vroom, 358; King v. Buckman, 9 C. E. Green, 298; 1 Chitty Contr. (11th Am. ed.) 435, and note (n), 437, and note (p). 1. Indebitatus Count for the Purchase-money of an Estate sold and conveyed. (d) For a messuage and lands sold and conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant [add a count on an account stated]. (c) See forms, Green v. Salmon, 8 Ad. & E. 348; Lucy v. Walrond, 3 Bing. N. C. 841. If an executor or administrator give, or ratify orders given, for the funeral of the deceased, he will be personally liable. Brice v. Wilson, 8 Ad. & E. 349. And an executor, if he have assets, will be liable upon an implied promise, for the reasonable expenses of the testator's funeral. Tugwell v. Heyman, 3 Camp. 298; Rogers v. Price, 3 Y. & J. 28; Corner v. Shew, 3 M. & W. 350. A husband is under a legal liability to bury his wife, and if in the husband's absence another incurs expense in doing so, he may recover a reasonable sum for so doing. Ambrose v. Kerrison, 10 C. B. 776; 19 L. J. C P. 135; Jenkins v. Tucker, 1 H. Bl. 90; [Bradshaw v. Beard, 12 C. B. N. S. 344.] So an infant widow is liable for the funeral of her insolvent husband. Chappel v. Cooper, 13 M. & W. 252; ante, 124, note (o). (d) This form is given by C. L. P. Act, 1852, sch. B, 7. It may be easily adapted to the sale of copy hold or leasehold lands 2. Special Form for the Price of a Freehold Estate actually conveyed. For that it was agreed by and between the plaintiff and the defendant, that the plaintiff would ["on the day of then next," omit this if no particular time for the execution of the conveyance was agreed upon] grant and convey the fee-simple and inheritance of, in, and to certain messuages, lands, and premises, with the appurtenances, to the defendant, his heirs and assigns, forever [or "would sell and cause to be conveyed the fee-simple and inheritance of the said messuage, lands, and premises, with the appurtenances, to the said defendant, to have and to hold," &c.], for a certain sum of money, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff afterwards granted and conveyed [or "sold and caused to be conveyed"] the fee-simple and inheritance of, in, and to the said messuages, lands, and premises, with the appurtenances, to the defendant as aforesaid [aver performance of conditions precedent, as ante, 39]; yet the defendant has not paid the price thereof [add account stated]. [2a. Grantee against Grantor in a Common Deed of Warranty, for Breaches of Covenant. And the plaintiff says the defendant delivered to him a deed, a copy whereof is hereunto annexed; and the defendant was not seised in fee of a part of the land described as follows [describing it], but the same was held adversely by one L. M.; and the residue of said land was not free from incumbrances, but was subject to a mortgage to one S. T. to secure the payment of six hundred dollars; and the defendant has not warranted and defended the premises against the rightful claims of all persons, but one W. S. has a right of dower therein, and has compelled the plaintiff to assign the same to her.] 3. Vendor against Vendee of an Estate, sold either by Auction or Private Contract, for not completing the Purchase. (e) For that the plaintiff caused to be put up to sale by public auction a certain messuage [&c.], subject to the following conditions of sale [set out the material conditions constituting the contract, which may be somewhat as follows: “that the purchaser should complete the purchase on or before the day of A. D. ; and that the seller should deduce and make a good title to the said premises, commencing with [&c.], on or before the A. D. day of ; and that the highest bidder should become the purchaser, and should pay a deposit of £, in part payment of the purchase-money, imme and premises, if necessary. It has been usual to adopt the indebitatus count where every thing necessary to be done on the part of the vendor has been done. In Hallen v. Runder, 1 Cr., M. & R. 266, the counsel said, "It has been the practice, where the possession of land sold has been given, to insert a count for land bargained and sold." Parke, B.: "There you must show an actual conveyance of the land to the defendant, and the mere act of giving possession would not be sufficient to maintain the indebitatus count. In point of practice such a count seldom occurs, and it generally could not be sustained, because the deed of conveyance, which must be shown to pass the interest in the land, generally contains a release of the purchasemoney. ,3 (e) See forms, Philips v. Fielding, 2 H. Bl. 123; Hawkins v. Kemp, 3 East, 410; Martin v. Smith, 6 East, 555; Ferry r. Williams, 8 Taunt. 62; Horne v. Wingfield, 3 M. & G. 33. |