the soil on which such pier or quay is erected, and the rights and remedies. of the reversioner to recover from the lessee the rent reserved by the demise, are not thereby affected, it being in the power of the lessee to obtain compensation for the loss of the part of the demised premises so occupied by the pier or quay, by duly traversing the presentment for damages.-Per PERRIN and O'BRIEN, JJ. Sed, per CRAMPTON, J.-The ownership of the soil is, by virtue of the 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 116, s. 68, transferred to the Crown from the reversioner, who consequently cannot thereafter maintain ejectment for non-payment of the reserved rent, which thereupon becomes apportionable, and may be recovered by action in the nature of debt or covenant. In 1798, premises on the banks of the Lee, a tidal and navigable river, were demised for a term of 900 years, at a yearly rent of £46 (Irish), by a lease, which was duly registered, and which, prior to 1826, vested in C., whose interest the defendant in the present action represented. In 1824, the lessor mortgaged the reversion expectant on said lease for a term of 999 years, and, in 1825, conveyed the equity of redemption to trustees, upon trust, for H. for life, with remainders over. In 1826, a quay was duly erected by presentment on part of the demised premises, and the presentment having been traversed, £295. 11s. Od., was awarded and paid to H. and his trustees, for the part of said premises upon which the quay was so erected. The presentment was not traversed by C., nor was any compensation awarded or paid to him; but H. agreed by parol with C. to abate the reserved rent to £30 (Irish) per annum, in consideration of the loss to C. of the part of said premises so taken as a quay; and from 1826 to 1855, H. received such abated rent in full discharge of the rent reserved by said lease. The mortgage was duly registered; but the mortgagees did not enter into possession of said lands, or into the receipt of the rent, nor had they any notice of the presentment, nor was any part of the compensation paid to them; and in 1855, a suit having been instituted by them, to foreclose the mortgage, said lands were sold and conveyed to the plaintiff in the present action, without any admission of the right of the defendant in the present action to hold the demised premises subject only to such abated rent. Held, per PERRIN & O'BRIEN, JJ., that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the present action of ejectment for non-payment of the reserved rent of £46 (Irish). [CRAMPTON, J,. dissentiente.] Q. B. Merrick v. Cummins 249 2. Under the Common Law Procedure Act 1853, in an action of ejectment for non-payment of rent reserved by indenture of demise, under seal— Held, per LEFROY, C. J. and CRAMPTON, J., that arrears of rent, not exceeding twenty years' arrears, are recoverable by the plaintiff. Sed, per PERRIN and O'BRIEN, JJ., that, in such an action, six years' arrears only are recoverable, although, in a personal action on the indenture, twenty years' arrears might be recovered. In 1837, L., by indenture, in consideration of the loan by D., of £1000, demised lands to D., at a rent of £536 (being a profit-rent of £111 above the head-rent payable by L. for said lands), with a proviso that, for fourteen years from the date of the demise, D. should be credited, as against the profit-rent, with interest at £5 per cent. on the £1000; and that, at the end of the fourteen years (which ended in 1851), the £1000, and interest, should be repaid by the retention by D. of the entire profitrent; and that, after payment of the £1000 and interest, the entire profitrent should be again paid to L., his heirs and assigns. In 1858, the plaintiff, in whom L.'s reversion was then vested, having brought an action of ejectment, for non-payment of the rent reserved by said indenture of demise, against the defendant, in whom the £1000 and interest, and also D.'s interest in the lease, were then respectively vested, in which action twenty years' arrears of rent were claimed by indorsement on the plaint; the defendant pleaded payment as to the last six years, and the Statute of Limitations as to all the previous arrears of rent. To the plea of the Statute of Limitations, the plaintiff replied that the lease of 1837 was under seal, and contained a covenant by the lessee for the payment of the rent reserved; and the defendant having demurred to the replication, upon the ground that all the rent which accrued sixteen years before the action had been duly paid, and that the action was not maintainable, in respect of arrears of rent accrued prior to such six years— Held, per LEFROY, C. J. and CRAMPTON, J., that the demurrer ought to be overruled. Sed, per PERRIN and O'BRIEN, JJ., that the demurrer ought to be allowed. Q. B. Percival v. Dunne 422 ELECTION EXPENSES. ESTOPPEL. See EJECTMENT, 2. EVIDENCE. See EJECTMENT, 2. EXCEPTION ON LEASE. See REGISTRY ACT, 1. EXPRESS AND IMPLIED COVE- See LEASE, 3. FIERI FACIAS. See SHERIFF. FISHERY ACTS, CONSTRUCTION OF. See SEVERAL FISHERY. FRAUD. See POLICY OF ASSURANCE, 1. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCE. See BANKRUPTCY, 1. FREIGHT. A caused pigs to be shipped upon a steamer belonging to B, which plied between Cork and Milford Haven. He paid to the agent of B a throughfreight for the conveyance of the pigs to London, per the South Wales and Great Western Railways. It appeared in evidence that, over the door of the office in Cork, where the freight had been paid, a sign-board was fixed, with the words "South Wales Railway Company's Office" painted on it, and a similar one over the entrance to the cattle-yard adjoining. The freight receipt-note was also headed with the words "South Wales Steam Navigation Company." It was proved, by persons who had sent cattle to London, that they had been forwarded for freights paid at this office, and that claims made upon the South Wales Company had been discharged at the office in Cork by the shipping agent. B proved that the steamer was his property; that the shipping agents were paid by him, and that the words painted on the boards, &c., referred to him, and were not sanctioned by the Railway Company; but he admitted having made an agreement with the latter, for running his boat in conjunction with their line, and dividing the throughfreights.-Held, that, upon the above evidence, the Judge was bound to have directed the jury to find that the Company were joint contractors with B, in respect of the entire journey, and were accordingly liable for breaches of contract, alleged to have been committed in the conveyance of the pigs by the steamer from Cork to Milford. Held also, that, independently of the written agreement, there was evidence to go to the jury of such joint liability. A sum of money having been realised by the sale of the carcasses of the pigs destroyed on the voyageHeld, for the above reason, that the defendants were liable for same, in an action for money had and received. C. P. Hayes v. South Wales Railway Company 474 GENERAL ORDER (68th). GRAND JURY ACT. See EJECTMENT FOR NON-PAYment of Rent, 1. HORSE-RACE. A and B deposited with C the sum of £50 each, to abide the event of a certain horse-race. After the race had been run, A claimed to be the winner, and, as such, demanded the entire amount of the stakes from C, and upon his refusal sued for the same, as such winner, and also for money had and received. A verdict was found against the plaintiff upon the special count, on the ground of the race being illegal, within the 8 & 9 Vic., c. 109, s. 18, but the plaintiff sought to recover back his deposit, under the money count.-Held, that inasmuch as he had not, previous to the action, demanded back this specific sum, and thereby disconnected himself from the illegal transaction, but on the contrary had sought to receive the entire amount deposited on both sides, the plaintiff could not recover the amount of his own stake, in the present action. Hastletow v. Jackson (8 B. & C. 221) distinguished. C. P. MElwaine v. Mercer 13 ILLEGALITY. See CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVEN- INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT. A, seised in fee-simple of the townland of M., demises twenty acres of it to B, for three lives. Afterwards the creditors of A present a petition in the Incumbered Estates Court in Ireland, for the sale of M. Pursuant to a notice served on B, by the Commissioners for the sale of Incumbered Estates, he brings his lease into Court, and has it proved in the cause, and the particulars of it entered in the "printed rental." The lands are advertised to be sold subject to the lease. C becomes the purchaser. The lands are conveyed to him, without mentioning the lease in the schedule attached to the conveyance.-Held (affirming the decision of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland), that C took the lands discharged of the lease. H. of Lds. Rorke v. Errington 357 INDEMNITY. See BANK-NOTES LOST. INTERPLEADER. See SHERIFF. INTERROGATORIES. ISSUE. See LEASE, 1. JOINT LIABILITY. JOINT-STOCK COMPANY. Where a public Joint-stock Company has been ordered to be wound up under the Winding-up Acts, and an official manager has been appointed, all suits, in respect of claims against the Company, must thenceforth be prosecuted against such official manager. C. P. Riddick v. Deposit and General Life Assurance Co. 84 BL JUDGMENT. See PLEADING, 2. JUDGMENT ON WARRANT OF See BANKRUPTCY, 1. JURISDICTION. See INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT. LANDS. See WRIT OF Revivor, 2. LEASE. See INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT. 1. In an action by A against B, for In an action, during the continuance of the term demised, for damages, occasioned by the non-repair of premises, pursuant to a covenant in the lease "to keep the premises in good and sufficient repair, and, at the expiration or other sooner determination of the said term, so to yield and give up the same:"-Held, that the Judge was right in refusing to direct the jury to find only nominal damages for the plaintiff. Doe v. Rowlands (9 C. & P. 734) and Marriott v. Cotton (2 C. & K. 553) disapproved of. The case of Marriott v. Cotton, as reported in 2 Car. & Kir. 553, is not law, the verdict therein for nominal damages having been subsequently set aside by the Court of Queen's Bench, and a verdict for substantial damages entered. Q. B. Bell v. Hayden 301 3. An agreement for a lease, dated in 1830, contained a clause in these words, "to be especially subject to a clause against subletting, and the laws in force concerning the same;" and "subject to re-entry against the lessee, his heirs and assigns."-Held, that those expressions did not amount to a "clause expressly authorising assignment," within the terms of the Subletting Act, 7 G. 4, c. 29. E. Collins v. Healy LIABILITY OF MASTER. 514 LIBERTY TO KILL GAME. LICENSE. See DUBLIN CARRIAGE ACT 1853. LIMESTONE QUARRIES. POLICY OF Assurance, 2. LODGMENT IN COURT. MAYOR OF BOROUGH ACTING MASTER AND SERVANT. In general a master is not responsible for injuries occurring to his servant in the course of his employment, although resulting from that employment, the servant being supposed to undertake the service subject to all the risks which may occur during its continuance. Where a servant is employed in a work which, equally within the knowledge of the master and the servant, is of a dangerous nature, the master is not liable for the consequences of an accident occurring to the servant, in the course of that employment, unless there be the existence of negligence on the part of the master, and the absence of rashness on the part of the servant. A servant is bound to exercise his own skill and judgment, so as to protect himself in the course of his employment, there being no obligation on the part of his employer to warrant generally his safety. Although a plaintiff is not bound to negative in his pleading every matter which would constitute a defence, yet he must show upon his pleading everything necessary to constitute a liability on the part of the defendant. Where a party complains of a violation of duty, it is not sufficient to charge generally a violation of duty; the facts from which the duty flows must be averred. Patterson v. Wallace (1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 748) observed upon. Q. B. 290 Potts v. Plunkett MEDICAL CHARITIES ACT. MEDICAL RELIEF. See BURGESS. MINES AND MINERALS. MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED. HORSE-RACE. MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED, MORTGAGE. S. having made a lease of certain lands to P., for a term of years, the latter, for the purpose of obtaining a loan, mortgaged the lands to a Building Society (under the provisions of the Building Society Acts), and having subsequently applied to S. for a further loan (for the purpose of paying off the money advanced by the Society), and S. having agreed to lend, upon the security of the mortgaged premises, a memorandum of agreement was indorsed upon the deed of mortgage, whereby P. purported to transfer to S. the mortgaged premises, in consideration of a loan of £100, S. thereby agreeing to accept the mortgage. This memorandum was signed by the parties, but was not under seal. |