Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

page 125

page 49

the ship was driven by necessity into due. Sutton v. Toomer, M. 8 G.4. a barbour dry every tide, where she was moored along tbe quay, in the 3. As to the distinction between inplace usual for ships of her burthen, terest and an increase of the amount and in as safe a situation as could of purchase money, see Beete v. be found; and being sbarp built, Bidgood.

143 she was lashed to the pier by a rope from her mast bead, which the mate

INTRUSION. insisted to be sufficient; though it was objected to by the pilot who

See TRESPASS, 4. bad brought the ship in. When the tide ebbed, the rope broke, and

IRREGULARITY. the ship fell over and bilged, and

See PRACTICE, VII.
the goods in consequence were da-
maged. If the

rope
had not broken,

JEOFAILS. the accident would not have happened:-Held, that the ship was 1. What defects are aided after ver. stranded. Bishop v. Pentland, M. dict, see

285 8 G. 4. V. Total loss.

JOINDER OF COUNTS.

See PLRADING, I. 5. A ship deserted at sea by ber crew,

under a bona fide belief that the ship is sinking, is totally lost. Holds- JOINT STOCK COMPANY.

worth v. Wise, H. 8 & 9 G. 4. 673 6. The right of the assured to recover

I. Liubility of members to third persons. as for a total loss, is not affected by

See PARTNER, 1. her being afterwards restored at an 1. A., B., and C., directors of a proexpense equal to her value. ibid.

jected joint stock company, con

tract in their own names with D., VI. Abandonment.

a sbareholder, for the purcbase of a 7. An abandonment is justified by the mine, and after the formation of

total loss for a time of the use or of the company, enter into further the possession of the thing insured. agreements with D. respecting the

681 purchase, with a clause, exempting INTENT.

them from personal liability upon See BANKRUPT, 1, 2, 3.

certain parts of the contract :

Held, that A., B., and C., may be INTEREST.

sued by D. upon those parts of the

contract to which the exemption Sce EVIDENCE, 4.- INSURANCE, I.

does not apply. Attwood v. Small, WITNESS, 1. M. 8 G. 4.

246 I. Of money.

2. As to the liability of the Patriotic

Assurance Company of Ireland, see See MANDAMUS, 2. 1. The taking of any interest

prohibited by 13 Eliz. c. 8. s. 5. (un

II. Liability of members inter se. repealed,) under forfeiture of the

See ATTORNEY, 2. simple interest reserved.

207 (a) 3. As to contribution, see Milburn v. 2. The payment of interest is evidence

158 (a)

Codd, M. 8 G. 4.

240 to shew that a principal sum corresponding with such payment is

And see suprà, 1. 3 в

VOL. I.

page 409

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

: ibid.

JOINT TENANTS.

been taken by the officer, is not a See Estate, V.

labourer, within the jurisdiction of

justices of tbe peace, under 20 G. 2, JUDGMENT.

c. 16. Bramwell v. Penneck, M.

8 G. 4. 1. To what period it relates.

4. No presumption in favour of juris1. Relation of judgment to first day diction of magistrates. Rex vi

, All vr of term in cases of bankruptcy.

Saints, H. 8 & 9.G.4. , , 668 Greenway v. Fisher, M. 8 G.4.330 5. Whether jurisdiction is sufficiently

sbewn if it be alleged on the face of II. Proceedings upon.

the instrument, or whether it must Sce DEBT, 1.-SCIRE FACIAS, I. be proved aliunde, quære

6. Where there is an entire want of III. Admissibility of, in evidence.

jurisdiction, an action may be mainSee EVIDENCE, 14, 15.

tained against justices. 109 2. Party restrained from setting up a -, former judgment upon second trial.

LABOURER. 689

1. Who, within 20 Geo. 2. c. 19.

Bramwell v. Penneck, M. 8 G. 4. JURISDICTION.

409 See County COURT, 1.-COURT OF 2. The describing a party by the adREQUEST, 1.-JUSTICES, II.

dition of “ labourer" in a warrant

not tantamount to an allegation of JUSTICES. bis being a labourer.

ibid. See ALDERMAN, 2.–CERTIORARI, 1.

LACHES,
COMMITMENT, 1.-HiguwAYS, 1.
MANDAMUS, 3.-Mayor, 1.

1. Water of

See Bills and Notes, II. 1. I. Responsibility of

See infrd, 6.---TRESPASS, 2. LANDLORD AND TENANT. 1. No action lies against justices for a Sce AGREEMENT, 2.--LEASĘ, 1, distress under a conviction for not

1. Tenant at liberty to dispute title doing statute labour on the bigh

of party to whom he bas attorned, ways, where, by reason of plaintiff's

but from whom he did not receive occupying land within the parish,

possession. Cornish v. Scarell, 703 the justices have jurisdiction Faw20. Cett v. Foulis, M. 86.4. 102

LEASE. 1, II. Jurisdiction of.

I. What shall amount to a Lease. See SETTLEMENT, 1.

See ESTATE, 1. 2. In such a case a prescriptive exemption in respect of the particular

II. Construction of estate or hamlet should be pleaded 1. Demise for years, at the rent of or given in evidence before the jus- 791. 125. 6d., with a stipulation that tices, or made the subject of an ap- lessee shall not build without a

peal to the quarter-sessions. ibid. written licence. Covenant by lessor 3. A

person whose name is added to to pay all taxes, then charged for to that of the regular officer in a war- be charged, upon or in respect of rant under a fi. fa., by the plain- the land. Lessor having given such tiff's attorney, and who is employed licence, of even date with the lease, to watch the goods after they have buildings are erected, whereby the

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

value of the estate is inproved, and

LIBEL. the amount of taxes increased :Held, that lessor is liable for the

Sce PLEADING, 3. ' amount of taxes, calculated upon

the rent of 791. 12s.6d. only. Watson v. Home, M. 8 G.4. page 191

LIBERUM TENEMENTUM. 2. Upon a demise “ until Michaelmas 1. See replication to a plea of libe

next, and no longer," with the pri- rum tenementum, when pleaded by vilege of using part of the premises way of assertion of title, and not as for specific purposes till Lady-day the common bar.

page 22] (c) following, ejectment may be brought for those parts to which the privi

sil lege does not extend, in the interval

LICENCE. between Michaelmas and Lady-day. Doe v. Houghton, M. 8 G. 4. 203

I. Operation of. 3. Such an agreement containing an 1. A licence from the vendee of a chat

express provision for giving up the tel to the vendor to resume the posfarm at Michaelmas, the lessor, with session if the price be not duly the assent of the lessee, adds the paid, is an answer to an action of words,house and buildings :" trover brought bythe vendee against Semble, that this alteration does not the vendor for resuming the possesrequire a new stamp.

ibid.

sion upon non-payment of the price 4. By a local act of parliament, and at the stipulated period. Howes v. a lease made in pursuance thereof, Ball, M. 8 G. 4.

288 A. grants to B. lands, with liberty 2. But it is no defence in an action to lay waggon ways for the carriage brought by the alienee, where the of coals, for the term of sixty years, possession is resumed after the alienand such further term as B., his ation.

ibid. executors, &c., shall work certain 3. Nor is it available against the percoal mines ; proviso, (both in the sonal representative of the vendee, act and the lease,) that if B. cease where the resumption is after his to work the mines, or fail in any death.

ibid. one year to carry a certain quantity of coals to a depository called C., A.

LIEN. may re-enter. By a subsequent act the quantity to be carried is in

1. General. creased; proviso, that if B. do not

1. A wharfinger has a general lien yearly carry such increased quantity

in respect of wharfage. Holderness to C., or to some other place near

v. Collinson, M. 8 G. 4.

55 thereto, to be used as a depository

depository 2. A wharfinger has not a general lien for coals instead thereof," A. may re-enter.

in respect of labourage and wareBy the last proviso,

house-room, except by agreement, the first is virtually repealed ; and

ibid.

express or implied. B. carrying the increased quantity 3. General, continued, and undisto a depository near to C., is excused from carrying coals to C. Doe

puted usage, may be evidence of such agreement.

ibid. v. Brandling, H. 8 & 9 G. 4. 600

4. But where the right is disputed in 5. Wbat shall be cousidered as net

the place where the wharfinger rent.

644

[ocr errors]

1

lives, he cannot set it up against a III. Covenants in.

customer, unless he has previously 6. As to what shall be considered an given him notice that he will deal usual covenant, see AGREEMENT, 2,3. only on those terms.

ibid. 3 B 2

1

[blocks in formation]

Sce CORPORATION, 3.

I. In what cases granted. 1. This Court will grant a mandamus

to a canal company, to enter upon their books the probate of the will of a deceased shareholder ; leaving any question as to the validity and effect of the probate to be raised by a return to the writ. Rer v. Worcester Canul Co. H. 8 & 9 G. 4.

529 2. The Court will grant a mandamus

to commissioners entrusted by, act of parliament with the regulation

the expenditure of a parish, to compel them to levy a rate for the purpose of paying off a sum borrowed on the rates by former commissioners without pledging their personal responsibility, wbere the liabilities created under the former act are reserved by the new act, although the latter directs that the commissioners shall be sued in the name of their clerk, and no interest has been paid within twenty years. Rer v. St. Paul, Shadwell, H. 8 & 9 G. 4.

591 3. Mandamus to justices to enter con

tipuances and hear appeal. Rex v. Justices of West Riding of Yorkshire, H. 8 & 9 G. 4.

547

MAINTENANCE.

See SETTLEMENT, 3.

MANOR.

II. Particular. See VENDOR and PurchASER. 5. A. purchased and paid for East

India silks, the warrants for which he sent to B., his broker, with bills to nearly their value, drawn upon B., which B. accepted. B. did not pay

bis acceptances when due, but received from A. the acceptances of A. to nearly the same amount, for the purpose of taking up his own acceptances, but which he applied to his own use, and afterwards pledged the warrants with C. In trover for the warrants by A. against C.:--Held, that by s. 8, of 6 G. 4, c. 94, B. not having paid his own acceptances, bad no lien upon the warrants which he could transfer to C.; and that therefore C. had no right to detain them as against A. Fletcher v. Heath, M.

8 G. 4. 6. As to the lien of the vendor of a

chattel for the price, see Howes v. Ball, M. 8 G. 4.

288 7. As to the lien of the vendor of a chattel for repairs,

291 (a) 8. No lien where possession obtained by wrong

292 (a)

page 335

LIVERY OF SEISIN.

See EJECTMENT, 1.

LONDON COURT OF RE

QUESTS ACT. 322 (a), 567.

LUCRUM EX PRÆROGATA

SOLUTIONE EXACTUM. See

151 (6)

LUNATIC.
See COMMITMENT, 1.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.

See Evidence, 6, 7.
I. Remedies of party prosecuted.

I. Relative rights of loril and tenant. 1. In respect of timber, &c. Fleming v. Simpson, M. 8 G. 4.

269

MARRIAGE.
See SETTLEMENT, 4, 5.

I. When valid.
See EvidENCE, 2, 3.

II. Recognizance. 1. Recognizance by prosecutor of in

dictment for misdemeanour under 5 W. & N. c. ll, s.2.

page 526

MARSHAL.
See EscAPE, I.

MISNOMER,
See ExecutiON, 1.- SHERIFF, 1, 2, 3.

MISTAKES. MASTER AND SERVANT.

1. In an attorney's bill, see 245 (6) 1. The inaster de facto of a married | 2. In an insolvent's schedule, see ibid. 1. woman may maintain actions found

ed upon that relation against a wrongdoer, though the contract

MUTINY ACT. may not be binding as against the

1. Examination of soldier as to sethusband. Harper v. Luffkin, M.

tlement under 22 Geo, 3, c. 4. 667 8 G. 4.

2. Under 5 Geo. 4, c. 13, ibid.

3. Power of magistrates under Mutiny MAYOR.

Act is magisterial and not ministe1. Not necessarily a justice. 369 rial.

666

page 166

MEMORANDA.

1, 515

NEGLIGENCE.
See ATTORNEY, 1, 11.— INSURANCE,

2, 6.–TURNPIKE Roads, 5.

MESNE PROFITS.
See Costs, 1.--ENTRY, 3.

NEW TRIAL.

1. When grantable. MIDDLESEX COUNTY COURT.

See PRACTICE, 2, 7. See 562, 562 (6), 566

1. A new trial will not be granted, in

an action for a malicious prosecuMIDDLESEX COURT OF RE

tion, on the ground of excessive QUESTS.

damages. Caddy v. Barlow, M. 8 G. 4.

275 See

322 (a) 2. Nor to enable a party to produce

evidence with which he might have MINES.

been provided at first trial. Doe v. Price, H. 8 & 9 G, 4.

683 See Joint Stock COMPANY, 1.PARTNERS, 1.

II. Affidavits. 3. Where a rule nisi for a new trial

is obtained without affidavit, no afMISDEMEANOUR.

fidavit can be read in answer.

393 (a) 1. Costs. 1. Where allowed to prosecutors of misdemeanours. Rex v. Cooke, H.

NEXT PRESENTATION. § & 9 G.4.

526

Sce DEEDS, 2.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »