grooves, could be successfully employed, and he therefore by a disclaimer limited his claim to this single application of the machine. What invention was there in all this? The plaintiff does not claim to have invented any new combination of machinery, although by part of the title of his patent, which he afterwards disclaimed, he appears originally to have considered that he was an inventor in this sense: nor has he introduced to the world any new process: but the utmost that he can lay claim to, is, that he has discovered that by giving a differential motion to different parts of an old machine, a power existing in it might be developed and brought into action. It appears to me that such a discovery is not the subject of a patent, and that therefore the defendant is entitled to a verdict upon the sixth plea also.
The result will be, that the decision of the court below upon the fourth issue is reversed, and a verdict entered thereon for the plaintiff; and that the decision of the court below on the fifth and sixth issues is affirmed. Judgment accordingly.
(The additional cases in this volume are indexed in [ ].)
ADJOINING OWNER,-See METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT.
Form of,-See HUSBAND AND Wife, 2.
AGREEMENT,-See CONTRact.
ALIMONY,-See HUSBAND and Wife, 5.
Under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, s. 122.
The court has power, under the 222d section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852,
to amend the record, where leave to move to enter a verdict is reserved, notwithstanding
the judge at the trial expressly refuses to allow an amendment or to reserve leave to amend.
Cater v. Wood, 286.
APPEAL,-See COUNTY COURT.
ARBITRAMENT.
Conduct of Reference.
1. A lease contained a proviso, that in case any disputes and differences should arise
between the parties, they should be referred to two arbitrators, one to be chosen by each
party, and that, if either of them should neglect to name an arbitrator on his part within
seven days after notice of the appointment of an arbitrator by the other, the arbitrator so
appointed should act for both: and it was further agreed that "the submission of the said
parties to the award of the said arbitrators or arbitrator might at the instance of either
party be made a rule of court." Disputes having arisen, the lessor appointed an arbitrator
in writing, and gave notice in writing to the lessee that he had done so: the latter did
not appoint an arbitrator on his part; whereupon, after due notice, the arbitrator appointed
by the lessor proceeded ex parte, and made an award :-Held, upon the construction of the
17th section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, that, upon filing the appointment,
with an affidavit by the lessor verifying his signature thereto, the submission might be
made a rule of court. In re Newton and Hetherington, 342.
2. Held also, that, by the combined effect of the 17th and 26th sections, an affidavit by
the attesting-witness to the lease was not necessary. Ib.
ARTIFICIAL CUT,-See PRESCRIPTION ACT.
ASSURANCE,-See INSURANCE.
ATTESTING-WITNESS,-See ARBITRAMENT, 2.
ATTORNEY.
Lien for costs.
It is competent to a plaintiff to discharge the defendant from custody under a ca. sa.,
notwithstanding the claim of his attorney for the costs of the action are unsatisfied, and, by
reason of the plaintiff's being an infant, are likely to remain so. Langley v. Headland, 42.
BANKING COMPANY.
Construction of deed of settlement.
Negligence of officer.]—The declaration in an action against the manager of a banking
company, after alleging the retainer and employment of the defendant and the nature of
his duties as manager, stated, amongst other things, that he "did not nor would take due
and proper care not to advance the money of the company to persons of doubtful, insuffi-
cient, or bad means or credit, or on doubtful, insufficient, or bad securities, or to discount
bad or forged bills and notes; and negligently and improperly advanced the money of
the company to persons of doubtful, insufficient, and bad means and credit, and on doubt-
ful, insufficient, and bad securities, and discounted and renewed bad and forged bills and
notes, and wholly neglected to take due and proper care or to use or employ due and proper
skill and diligence in and about the management of the affairs of the bank and the discharge
of the duties of manager as aforesaid."
Plea to so much of the breach as above set out, that the deed of settlement of the com-
pany contained a clause, which provided, amongst other things, that "none of the directors,
trustees or other officers should be answerable or accountable for the insufficiency or defi-
ciency of any security or fund in or upon which the moneys of the company might be placed
out or invested or for any loss, damage, or misfortune which might happen to the moneys,
funds, effects, or property of the company, unless the same should happen in consequence
of the wilful neglect or default respectively of such director, trustee, or other officer of the
company;" that the defendant was the manager and an officer of the said company within
the meaning of the said deed of settlement, and was employed as such upon the terms of
the said last-mentioned clause; and that the said alleged breaches to which the plea was
pleaded did not happen by reason or in consequence of the wilful neglect or default of the
defendant as such manager as aforesaid :-
Held, that the plea was a good answer as to so much of the breach to which it was
pleaded. Ward v. Greenland, 527.
Deed of arrangement, under the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 192.
1. By a deed of arrangement under s. 192 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, purporting to be
made between the debtor of the first part, and the several executing creditors, on behalf of
themselves and all and every other the creditors who might assent to or become bound by
the deed, of the second part, the debtor covenanted to pay all his creditors the amount of
their respective debts by nine monthly instalments, and the parties of the second part
agreed to accept such instalments, and covenanted, that, "while the said instalments
were duly and regularly paid by the debtor, they would not sue him or enforce any judg-
ment or other proceedings against him or his estate: "-Held, that this amounted only to
a covenant not to sue for a limited time, and was not pleadable in bar as a release. Ray
Jones, 416.
Deed of inspectorship under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 192.
2. Execution under s. 198.]—After action brought, the defendant executed a deed of
inspectorship under s. 192 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, which was duly filed, &c., before
judgment signed. Execution was afterwards issued, and the defendant's goods taken:-
Held, that the execution so issued could not be made available without the leave of the
court under s. 198, notwithstanding the defendant might have pleaded the deed. Hartley
v. Mare, 85.
Composition-deed under 24 & 25 Vict. e. 134, 8. 192.
3. Verification of debts.]—A stipulation in a composition deed under the 192d section of
the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, that it shall be lawful for the trustees to require any person or
persons claiming to be a creditor or creditors of the debtor to verify the nature and amount
of such debt or claim, with full particulars showing the consideration thereof, by statutory
declaration before the commissioners of bankruptcy, or otherwise, as the said trustee or trus-
tees may think fit,-is unreasonable, and renders the deed inoperative as against a non-
assenting creditor. The Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Waterworks Com-
4. By a composition deed under the 192d section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, the debtor
and the defendants as his sureties jointly and severally covenanted with the plaintiff as
trustee for the creditors, to pay to him so much as would suffice to pay a composition
Composition-deed under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, 8. 192 (continued).
of 78. 6d. in the pound to all the creditors, by three instalments of 28. 6d. each, at four, eight,
and twelve months: and the deed contained a proviso, that, "in case default should be made
in payment of any or either of the said instalments, or in case before the said composition
should be fully paid to the trustee, the debtor should be adjudicated bankrupt, or make or
attempt to make any assignment of his estate for the benefit of his creditors, or any
arrangement with his creditors different to that arrangement, then and in every such
cases those presents, and the release, and every other clause and provision therein con-
tained, should be thenceforth at an end and void." In an action against the sureties to
recover the second instalment,-the principal debtor having been adjudicated bankrupt
on his own petition :-Held, that the bankruptcy did not render the deed void as against
the sureties, but that the proviso made it voidable, at the election of the creditors. Hughes
v. Palmer, 393.
5. By whom the election in such a case was to be exercised,-quære? Ib.
6. A composition deed under the 192d section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, professing
to be made between the debtor, a surety, and all the creditors (whether assenting or bound
under the statute), recited, amongst other things, that the debtor had agreed to pay his
creditors 58. in the pound upon their debts by two instalments of 2s. 6d. in the pound each,
the first in cash, the second by the joint and several promissory notes of the debtor and the
surety, at four months' date; and that the statutory majority of creditors had consented to
accept such composition. It then witnessed, that, in consideration of the premises, the
several creditors released the debtor (in the largest possible terms) from all debts, claims,
and demands, "save and except their rights, claims, and demands under and by virtue of
this deed, and of the said promissory notes for the second instalment of the said composi-
tion;" with a proviso saving their remedies against third persons: and the surety covenanted
not to accept any security, preference, or benefit, until the full amount of the composition
should have been paid :-Held, that the deed amounted to an absolute release, and might
be pleaded in bar as such. Lay v. Mottram, 479.
Surrender of lease, under 12 & 13 Viet. c. 106, s. 145.
7. A plea, under the 145th section of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, to an
action for breaches of covenants in a lease,-that the defendant (the lessee) became bank-
rupt, that the assignees declined to take the lease, and that, within fourteen days after
notice thereof, the defendant executed a surrender (under seal) of the demised premises to
the lessors, and tendered to them such surrender, and offered to deliver up the possession
of the premises to them,-is bad, for not showing the impossibility of a literal compliance
with the conditions of the section; as, that the lease was lost or destroyed, or the like.
Colles v. Evanson, 372.
Rights and liabilities of assignees.
8. An official assignee of a district court of bankruptcy having given his assent to the
bringing of an action in his name jointly with that of the trade-assignee for the recovery
of part of the bankrupt's estate, and, the action proving unsuccessful, the trade-assignee
having paid the costs :-Held,-affirming the judgment of the court below,-that the latter
was entitled to sue the official assignee for contribution. Bevan v. Whitmore, 763.
BETTING-HOUSE,-See GAMING.
Held, that an instrument in the following form,-"Four months after date pay to my order
the sum of three hundred pounds, for value received," addressed to and formally accepted
by the defendant, but having no date and no drawer's name,-was neither a bill of exchange
nor a promissory note. McCall v. Taylor, 301.
Who a broker within the 57 G. 3, c. 60.
Dealing in shares.]-The dealing in or buying and selling for reward of shares in English
or foreign joint stock banks or companies, or the debt, stock, or securities of foreign gov-
ernments, is an acting and assuming to act as a broker, within the 57 G. 3, c. 60. Scott
v. Jackson, 134.
BUILDING ACT,-See METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT.
CARRIER,-See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. RAILWAY COMPANY.
Discharge of defendant, See ATTORNEY.
C. B. N. S., VOL. XIX.-33
|