counts. He must, however, allow

the plaintiff to inspect the books.
[Christian v. Taylor]

401

Where there are two rival works, the
Court will restrain the proprietor

Y Y

1. J. R. Bridges, having five free-
hold houses, but no other property,
in Cable-street, Liverpool, agreed
to sell them to J. Bleakley for
248.; and, thereupon, drew up
the following memorandum in his
own handwriting: "July 26th,
1839.-John Bleakley agrees with
J. R. Bridges, to take the property
in Cable-street, for the net sum of
248 l. 10 s." Held that the agree-
ment was sufficiently signed by
the vendor. [Bleakley v. Smith]
150
2. By an agreement between an
author and a bookseller, after re-
citing that the author had pre-
pared a new edition of one of his
works, and that the bookseller was
desirous of purchasing it; it was

agreed that Messrs. H. (printers)
should print 2,500 copies of the
work, in type and page correspond-
ing with another of the author's
works, at the sole cost of the
bookseller, and that the latter
should pay, to the former, for the
said edition, a certain sum by
instalments, the first to be paid
as soon as the edition was ready
for publication, &c.; the work to
be divided into three volumes, and
to be sold, to the public, at 37.
Held that the bookseller was not,
merely, a purchaser of 2,500 copies
of the work, but was, in equity, an
assign of the copyright of it, to
the extent that he was to be the
sole publisher of it, until the whole
edition, consisting of 2,500 copies,
should be sold; and, consequently,
that a bill by him to restrain a pi-
racy of the work, was not demur-
rable. Held also that, notwith-
standing some of the passages
alleged to have been pirated, were
contained in the prior editions as
as well as in the new edition of
the work, the plaintiff was enti-
tled to rely upon them, in aid of
his title to the relief prayed.
The injunction having been granted
on the plaintiff undertaking to try
his right at law, and the author
declining to allow the plaintiff to
bring the action in his name, the
defendant was ordered to admit, at
the trial, that the plaintiff was
the legal proprietor of the pirated
work. [Sweet v. Cater]

See POWER OF SALE, 2.

ANNUITY.

572

The Court refused to order an estate

charged, by a will, with an annu-
ity, to be either mortgaged or sold
for payment of the annuity, not-

A defendant who was required to set forth, in his answer, to interrogatories, certain entries in the books of a firm of which he was a member, stated, in his answer, that he and his co-partners had given express directions, to their agent, in whose custody the books were, not to produce them to any one, or allow any stranger to inspect them, without the express authority of the defendant and his co-partners: that the books were not in the power of the defendant alone, but of the defendant and his co-partners, and that the defendant had no right or lawful power to produce them, or to set forth their contents, without the consent of his co-partners. Held that the answer was insufficient, as the de fendant did not state that his copartners had refused to consent to his setting forth the entries. [Stuart v. Lord Bute] - 442

See DEFENDANT, 2, 3.-DISCOVERY, 3.-OFFICE COPIES.

ANTICIPATION.

See RESTRAINT ON ALIENATION.

1.

APPOINTMENT.

Under a marriage settlement a sum of consols was held in trust for the husband for life, remainder as to a certain portion of it for the wife for life, remainder for such one or more of the children as the husband and wife should appoint, remainder for the children at 21; and, as to the rest of the consols, in trust, after the husband's death, for the children, absolutely, at 21. There were five children who attained 21. Their parents, conceiving that they had power to appoint the whole of the consols, made appointments, at different times, to two of them, which more than exhausted that portion of the consols which was appointable. Each deed of appointment declared that the appointee should not be entitled to any further or other share in the trust-fund under the settlement, until he should have put in hotchpot the thereby appointed share; unless a contrary intention should be expressed in the instrument by which any further appointment should be made. Held that, though the appointable part of the consols was not sufficient to answer, fully, the second appointment, yet there was to be no apportionment, and that the second appointee as well as the first, was prevented by the hotchpot clause, from taking any part of his one-fifth of the unappointable consols, unless he would give up the whole of what he would get under the appointment; and that the unappointable consols belonged, wholly, to the three other children. [Warde v. Firmin] - 235 2. T. settled his estates (subject to a general power of appointment in