Page images


Page 13

such time of absence, or to make

AWARD, satisfaction for it; and in default of

See PLEADING, 2. such satisfaction, to commit the ap:) Where the parties named two prentice : for the remedy given to the master by the latter stat, is cu

bitrators, who were to choose a

third, and the award was to be mulative to the punishment inflicted

made by the three or any two of on the apprentice by the former stat.

them; and each of the arbitrators for his offence. Gray v. Cookson and

proposed to the other a third, who Clayton, T. 52 G. 3.

was admitted to be a fit person, 2. The stat. 5 Eliz. C. 4., avoiding all indentures of apprenticeship

but not being able to agree which other than for 7 years, is to be con

of the two proposed should be se

lected, they agreed to decide the strued as rendering indentures made

choice by lot: held that this was for a less time voidable only, and not void.


within their authority, and that an 3. But such indenture cannot be

award made by such third arbi. avoided by the mere act of an ap

trator in conjunction with the one prentice absenting himself from his

by whom he had been originally master's service, which is an offence

proposed, could not be impeached

on that account. Neale v. Ledger, under the statute 20 G. 2. c. 19. ib.

T. 52 G, 3. 4. And generally it seems that no act

Page 51 can be relied on as such avoidance,

BAIL. in an action of trespass against the 1. A return of non est inventus proconvicting magistrates, except it ap cured by the plaintiff against the pears on the face of the conviction.

principal, in order to found pro

ceedings against the bail, is irre5. So a refusal of the apprentice to gular, if the principal were at the

return into the service of his mas same time in custody of the same ter, when urged to it by the ma sheriff who made the return, though gistrates themselves in the course of at the suit of another person ; the inquiry, upon the complaint of and the subsequent proceedings the master, on a prior absenting against the bail will be set aside. himself by the apprentice from the Burks V. Maine and Another, T. service; is not available in support 52 G. 3.

2 of such action against the conviction. 2. Bail having rendered their principal

ib. in time, according to the practice 6. But where the master had agreed of the Court, are entitled to stay

by indorsement (unstamped) on the the proceedings in an action on their indenture to cancel it,“ provided recognizance, without costs, though the apprentice made no engagement the plaintiff commenced his action or entered into any person's service before he was served with notice of in the town of N.;" it was held the render. Smith v. Lewis, T. that the apprentice setting up a 52 G. 3.

168 trade for himself in N. was a breach 3. The Court will allow time to the of the condition, which entitled bail to surrender their principal, the master to recal him back into where, the principal being in cushis service.

ib. tody under process of another

Court, it appears on the return ATTORNMENT.

made to a habeas corpus issued by See USE AND OCCUPATION.

the bail in order to render him, AWARD,



Page 389

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

that he cannot be removed out proved their joint debt, and afterof such custody without danger to wards sued all the partners for the his life, and that such impossibility same debt, and arrested one of still continues. Winstanley v. Gaits

the other two under whose comkell, M. 53 G. 3.

mission they had not proved : Held

that he was not entitled to be disBANKRUPT.

charged out of custody. Young v.

Hunter, M. 53 G. 3. Page 252 1. Third persons holding the accep- 4. In an action by the assignees of a

tance of a trader who was known bankrupt, underwriter, against deto be in bad circumstances, agreed fendants, insurance brokers, for the with the defendants, as a mode of balance of an adjusted account becovering the amount of the bill, tween the bankrupt and defendants, that it should be indorsed to them, and also for premiums of insurance and that they should purchase goods on policies underwritten by the of the trader, which were to be bankrupt with them as brokers, paid for by a bill at three months' before the bankruptcy, the brokers date, or made equal to cash in three are not entitled to deduct for returns months, (before which time the of premium due on policies, the trader's acceptance would be due,) premiums of which policies formed but without communicating to the a part of the adjusted account, but trader that they were the holders where the events entitling them to of his acceptance: held that the such returns were not known till trader having become bankrupt, after such adjustment: nor can they and his assignees having brought deduct for returns of premium on assumpsit to recover the value of some of the policies, for the prethe goods sold and delivered to the miums of which the action is defendants, the latter could not set brought, the events entitling them off the bankrupt's acceptance, to which returns happened before which they did not hold in their the bankruptcy, but the returns own right, but in effect for such were not adjusted; nor can they other persons. Fair v. M'Iver, T. deduct for returns on other policies 52 G. 3.

130 for the premiums of which the ac2. In an action against a bankrupt tion is brought, the events entitling

who has obtained his certificate them to which returns happened
under. a second cominission, the since the bankruptcy but before
certificate is no bar unless it appears the commencement of the action ;
affirmatively that his estate has the brokers not having a commission
produced i5s. in the pound; evi del credere, nor being personally
dence that it probably will produce interested in any of the insurances,
so much is not sufficient. Coverley Parker v. Smith, M. 53 G. 3.
v. Morley, M. 53 G. 3.

382 3. Where

separate commissions of bankruptcy were issued, against BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND three of four partners, to which PROMISSORY NOTES. they conformed and passed their examination, and order 1. Where one draws a bill of exchange made for allowing the joint creditors with a bona fide reasonable expecto prove

their debts under the com tation of having assets in the hands mission of one of the three, under of the drawee; as by having shipped which commission the plaintiffs, goods on his own account which

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]



[ocr errors][ocr errors]




Page 110

were on their way to the drawee, but sued on the joint-promise by the without the bill of lading or in name of Thomas Kay; it being voice; the drawer is entitled to proved that the real person had notice of the dishonour, though in been served with the

process, fact the goods had not come to though under a mistaken Christian the hands of the drawee at the time name; and the variance between when the bill was presented for Key and Kay, which were sounded acceptance, (for he had rejected alike, not being material. There them) and he returned it marked had also been a part-payment on

no effects." Rucker v. Hiller, T. the notes duly presented. Dicken52 G. 3.

Page 43

son v. Bowes and Others, T. 52 G. 3. 2. The holders of a bill of exchange

having presented it for payment to 4. Though where a promissory note the acceptor without effect, gave is made payable at a particular regular notice of the dishonour to place, a demand of payment must the drawers, who lived at a dis be made there, in order to give the tance, but informed them at the holder a cause of action ; yet if the same time, that having reason to makers (who had become insolbelieve that a friend of the accep vent) shut up and abandon their tor's would take it up in a few days, shop, that is evidence of a declathey would, in order to save ex ration to all the world of their repense, hold the bill till the latter

fusal to pay their notes there. end of the week, unless they heard Howe v. Bowes, T. 52 G. 3. from the drawers to the contrary:

112 Held that such notice gave the 5. It is no objection to an action on holders a remedy upon the bill a promissory note, that it was given against the drawers, though no as part of the consideration of an further notice of non-payment was indenture of apprenticeship for less given to them at the end of the than 7 years, by being antedated : wcek : but if the construction of such indenture being only voidable. the letter bound the plaintiffs to Nor does the consideration of the give such further notice at the end note fail because the apprentice of the week, they were only an was discharged by a magistrate after swerable for the neglect in their two years on account of the masimplied character

of agents for ter having enticed him to commit the drawers, which they had taken felony, particularly when the apupon themselves, without disturbing prentice-fee was to be paid in the their remedy upon the bill itself. first instance, though in case of the Forster v. Jurdison, T. 52 G. 3. defendant a note was taken for

105 part of it, payable at a distant day. 3. Payment of a promissory note, Grant v. Welchman, M. 53 G. 3. made payable at a certain place

207 named in it must be demanded 6. Where the plaintiff in Yorkshire there before the makers can be sued on the 26th of December received a on it.

But upon such demand bill of exchange, payable in London, proved in an action by the holder which became due on the 28th, against the makers, it is no objec and kept it in his own hands until tion to the plaintiff's recovery thatt the 29th, when he sent it by post one of the makers, whose real to his bankers at Lincoln, who

was John Key, (who had duly forwarded it to London for suffered judgment by default,) was presentment, and the bill was dis



[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

honoured : Held that the plaintiff

by keeping it in his hands until

the 29th was guilty of laches.
Anderton v. Beck, M. 53 G. 3.


Page 248
7. A warrant of the Lord Chancel-

lor for the commitment of a per-
son, appointed a receiver by the

Court of Chancery, for the non- The 14 G. 3. c. 78. s. 96. (building
payment of a balance certified

act) does not enable the district against him, is only in the nature

surveyor, who lodges a complaint of a civil execution ; ' therefore

before two justices on account of a where D., being appointed receiver

projection made in front of a house, in a suit in Chancery, was in cus

contrary to the provisions of that tody of the officer under such war

act, to appeal to the quarter sesrant, and the defendant, in order

sions against the dismissal of such to procure his discharge, joined with him as surety in two promissory

complaint by the two justices.

Rex v. The Justices of Middleser, M. notes to the plaintiff, who was a 53 G. 3.

Page 310
party to the suit in Chancery, and
his solicitor, who sued out the

warrant, for the amount of the
debt and costs, and was thereupon

A public notice given by carriers that discharged by the direction of the

they will not be answerable for cersolicitor: lield that the discharge

tain specified articles or any other was a legal consideration for the

goods of what nature or kind sonotes, and that an action might be

ever above the value of 5l., if lost, maintained on them; and although

stolen, or damaged, unless a special there were other parties to the suit

agreement is made, and a premium in Chancery, who did not concur

paid, such value to be entered at the in the discharge, and therefore D.

time of delivery, seems not to exremained liable to be taken again,

tend to goods which do not fall yet the consideration had not

within any of the specified articles, failed; and that it was no objection

and which from their bulk and quato the validity of the notes,

lity, communicated to the carrier at that the given to

the time of delivery, must be known costs exceeded the costs due, no

to them to exceed the value of 51,: fraud being intended. Brett v. Close,

and therefore it seems they will be M. 53 G. 3.


liable for any damage to the goods 8. The acceptors of a foreign bill of

arising from the carriage, although exchange, who, after presentment

no special agreement be made, nor to the drawees for acceptance, and

any premium paid ; but at all events refusal by them to accept, and pro

they will be liable for damage aristest for non-acceptance, accept the

ing from gross negligence notwithsame for the honour of the first

standing such notice. Beck y. Evans, indorsers, are not liable on such

M. 53 G. 3.

244 acceptance, unless there has been a

CHARTER-PARTY. presentment of the bill to the drawees for payment, and a protest for non- Where the master of a ship covenanted payment. Floare v. Cazenove, M. in a charter-party to go to a certain 53 G. 3. 391


[ocr errors]



[ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

ten paper,

port of America and receive a load

CONTEMPT, ing from the freighter, alongside See Bills of Exchange, 7. the ship, and bring home the same; with an exception of the restraints

CONTRACT, of rulers, &c. : but the freighter covenanted absolutely to provide the

See SALE, 1. loading without any such excep- The defendant, on occasion of there tion; it seems that an embargo in being a great run upon a bankingthe American port, which prevented house, went to the bank, and told the freighter from loading the ship the holders of notes issued by the did not discharge him from his co bank, who were waiting for payvenant : but the plea alleging that ment, that he had come to a resothe defendant did provide a cargo, lution to support the bank with and was ready and willing, and of 30,0001., at which the holders then fered to send it alongside the ship, present were satisfied, and said they but that the plaintiff refused to re

would take no more money than ceive it there, and discharged the was necessary, and would keep the defendant from sending it alongside, rest of their notes till they got again on which issue was taken by the re

into currency;

and afterwards the plication, was held not to be sus defendant signed the following writtained by evidence of the master's

I do hereby authorize written acknowledgment of the de G. B. to assure the inhabitants of fendant having offered to load the Pembroke and its vicinity, that I do cargo on board, on his (the mas hereby undertake to be accountable ter's) being ready to take it, for the for the payment of the notes issued purpose of raising the question of by the Milford Bank, as far as the law on the embargo. Sjoerds v. Lus sum of 30,0001. will extend to pay:” combe, M. 53 G. 3. Page 201

Held that the bank having after

wards stopped payment, the defendCHURCHWARDENS AND ant was not liable upon this underOVERSEERS.

taking to an action by an individual

holder, who had taken the notes See SETTLEMENT BY APPRENTICE

after notice of such undertaking, but before the stoppage. Phillipps

v. Bateman, M. 53 G. 3. Page 356 The 50 G. 3. c. 49., which requires the churchwardens and overseers to

CONVICTION, submit their accounts to two justices at special sessions to be holden with

See MAGISTRATES, 1, 2. in the 14 days appointed by the 17 G. 2. c. 38. for delivering in the

COPYHOLD. said account to the succeeding over 1. A surrender of and admittance to a seers, is not a substitution in lieu of

copyhold may be proved by the orithat provision in the 17 G. 2., but ginal entries on the court-rolls, is cumulative, and if the overseer without shewing a copy stamped as refuse to deliver in such account to required by stat. 48 Geo. 3. c. 149. the succeeding overseers within the Doe d. Bennington v. Hall, M. 53 14 days, he may be committed by G. 3.

203 two justices for such refusal. Lester's | 2. An admittance of the surrenderee case, M. 53 G. 3. 374 before trial will maintain ejectment



« PreviousContinue »