ABANDONMENT.
See INSURANCE, 2.
ABATEMENT.
See ARREST, 2.
ACCOUNT STATED.
See ASSUMPSIT, 2.
AC ETIAM,
See VARIANCE, 5.
See CONSTABLE.
LIMITATIONS, Statute of.
ACT OF BANKRUPTCY.
See BANKRUPT, 1, 2. 4.
ACT OF PARLIAMENT.
See STATUTES.
ADMINISTRATOR.
See EXECUTORS.
AFFIDAVIT TO HOLD TO
BAIL.
See ARREST, 2.
VARIANCE, 3.
1. An affidavit to hold to bail by
the plaintiff, stating that the de-
fendant was indebted to him in
a certain sum, as indorsee of bills
of exchange, drawn by E. F.
upon and accepted by the de-
fendant, payable to the order of
the said E. F. at a day then
past, and indorsed to the
plaintiff, is sufficient, without
further shewing the relation be-
tween the plaintiff and defend-
ant. So, an affidavit stating that
the defendant was indebted to
the plaintiff in a certain sum, as
indorsee of a bill drawn by E. F.
upon and accepted by the de-
fendant, payable to the order of
E. F. at a day then past,-
is equally sufficient and certain.
Lamb v. Newcombe, M. 1 G. 4.
Same v. Edwards, ib. Page 14
2. So, an affidavit of debt made by
I. S., that the defendant was in-
debted to the plaintiff in a certain
sum as acceptor of a bill of ex-
change, bearing date on a certain
day, drawn by the plaintiff on,
and accepted by the defendant,
payable two months after date
thereof, and due at a day now
past, is sufficient, without fur-
ther shewing the relation be-
tween the plaintiff and defend-
ant, or adding that the bill re-
mained unpaid. Warmsley v.
Macey, M. 1 G. 4.
1. A., an auctioneer, being em-
ployed to sell an estate belonging
to B., entered into and signed an
agreement with C., for the pur-
chase, in his own name, as agent
of B., and B. shortly afterwards
signed it, and added, "I hereby
sanction this agreement, and ap-
prove of A.'s having signed the
same on my behalf:"-Held; that
A. was not personally respon-
sible. Spittle v. Lavender, H.
1 & 2 G. 4.
270
2. The mere circumstance of a prin-
cipal's drawing bills on his factor
to whom goods were consigned,
to be provided for out of the
proceeds of such goods,-does
not authorise the factor to pledge
them, for the purpose of raising
money to meet the bills:-Where,
therefore, the factor had become
bankrupt, and the pawnee had
afterwards sold the goods :-
Held, that the principal might
recover as against him, the whole
of the proceeds of such sale, in
an action for money had and re-
ceived, although the factor had
appropriated part of the money
advanced by the pawnee to the
payment of one of the bills
drawn by his principal. Gill v.
Kymer, E. 2 G. 4. Page 503
3. Where a foreign merchant con-
signed goods to his correspon-
dent in London, who pledged
them with a factor as and for his
own property, and received the
amount in advance, and after-
wards became bankrupt:-Held,
that the factor was liable to the
foreign merchant in trover for
the goods. Duclos v. Ryland,
E. 2 G. 4.
518, R.
ANNUITY.
See ASSUMPSIT, 2.
DEVISE, 2.
EXECUTORS, 1.
LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF.
1. An annuity deed contained a covenant by the grantor, that he would not at any time during the continuance of the annuity, go upon the seas, or parts beyond them, without first giving the grantee seven days notice in writing of such his intention, in order to enable him to pay such additional premiums of insur
as might be incurred on account thereof, which premiums the grantor covenanted to pay to the grantee:-Held, that it was not necessary to state such covenant in the memorial under the statute 53 Geo. 3. c. 141. Wood v. Perrott, M. 1 G. 4. Page 63
2. A fair and bona fide sale of an interest in land, where the consideration, in part or in whole, is an annuity to be paid to the vendor, the consideration for granting such annuity, is not a pecuniary consideration or money's worth, within the meaning of the statute 53 Geo. 3. c. 141. Where, therefore, the plaintiff had assigned an interest in coal mines to the defendants, in consideration of an annuity for her life, and for the payment of which, a bond was conditioned: Held, that such bond did not require enrolment, under that statute. James v. James, E. 2 G. 4.
3. An annuity-bond, given in consideration of the natural love which a son bore towards his mother, and for making some provision for her support and maintainance,-need not be re
gistered under the 17 Geo. 3. c. 26, although it appeared, that the grantee sold her trade, and the money arising therefrom, together with whatever money she possessed, to her son, for the purpose of establishing him in business. Keats v. Hick, E. 2 G. 4. Page 629
ANNUITY-BROKER.
See LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF.
APPEARANCE. See ARREST, 3.
ARBITRATION.
See AWARD.
ARREST. 1. Where an attorney was made bankrupt, and described in the Gazette as a " dealer and chapman," and obtained his certificate, and the plaintiff afterwards arrested him as acceptor of a bill of exchange, payable before the commission issued,-the Court discharged him on common bail, although the plaintiff swore that he did not know that the defendant was the person mentioned in the Gazette, and that he intended to dispute the validity of the commission on the ground of fraud. He should have stated the nature of such fraud, and when he discovered its existence. Kemp v. Neville, M. 1 G. 4. 2. To an action of assumpsit against the defendant as acceptor of a bill of exchange for 451. he pleaded, after setting out the statute 51 Geo. 3. c. 124, that the plaintiff sued out a writ of capias ad re
spondendum against him by the
name of Joseph, for 45l. on an
affidavit of debt made by the
plaintiff's clerk, under which the
defendant was arrested, and af-
terwards allowed to go at large
by the sheriff—that the writ was
afterwards altered, by inserting
the name of Robert, (the real
name of the defendant) instead
of Joseph, under which he was
again arrested, without any fresh
affidavit of debt, as required by
that statute :-Held bad, on spe-
cial demurrer, as it did not go to
the merits of the action, and as
the defendant might either have
pleaded in abatement, or moved
to set aside the proceedings for
irregularity. Warmsley v. Macey,
H. 1 & 2 G. 4.
Page 168
3. If a defendant be arrested by
the name of Josiah, instead of
Josias, the Court will discharge
him out of the custody of the
sheriff on his entering a common
appearance, and undertaking to
bring no action against the plain-
tiff or sheriff. Johnson v. Cooper,
E. 2 G. 4.
472
ARREST OF JUDGMENT.
See USURY.
ASSIGNEE.
See BANKRUPT, 1.
WITNESS, 1.
ASSUMPSIT.
See ARREST, 2.
BANKRUPT, 3.
LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF.
VARIANCE, 1. 5.
1. A sale of goods effected by frand
does not change the property in
them: Therefore, where the de-
fendant had fraudulently colluded
with I. S. who was in insolvent
circumstances, to obtain wines
from the plaintiff, the proceeds
of which eventually came to the
defendant's hands, in satisfaction
of a debt before due to him from
I. S.:-Held, that the plaintiff
was entitled to recover in an
action for money had and re-
ceived. Abbotts v. Barry, M.
1 G. 4.
Page 98
2. Where the plaintiff in a declara-
tion of assumpsit stated, that in
consideration that he would em-
ploy the defendant (an annuity
broker,) to invest and lay out the
plaintiff's money in the purchase
of an annuity, the defendant un-
dertook to invest it on good and
valid security; and assigned for
breach, that he laid it out on
a bad, invalid, and fraudulent
security and the defendant
pleaded non assumpsit infra sex
annos, and actio non accrevit in-
fra sex annos, on which issue was
joined, and it was proved that
the consideration money was
paid over to the grantor, and the
annuity paid by the hands of the
defendant to the plaintiff for six
years afterwards, when the gran-
tor became bankrupt, and the
security failed; subsequently to
which, the defendant's managing
clerk promised that the plaintiff
should be paid, which promise
the defendant afterwards recog-
nized: Held, that the plaintiff
|