Page

A note written by a creditor at foot of an account, requesting debtor to pay the amount to a third person, is not a bill of exchange, or order for payment of money; Norris v. Solomon, 2 Moo. & Rob. 266.

122.-As to stamping an attornment, Doe d. Linsey v. Edwards, 5 Ad. & E. 95; Doe d. Wright v. Smith, 8 Ad. & E. 259. Whether instrument amounts to a disclaimer or a surrender, Doe d. Wyatt v. Stagg, 5 Bing. N. C. 566. 123, note (1).—Add reference to Blount v. Pearman, 1 Scott, 55; "1 Bing. N. C. 408, S. P."

127, note (k).—Add" and see Fry v. Chapman, 5 Dowl. P. C. 265."

Where one of plaintiff's witnesses, a farrier, was called to prove a breach of warranty, stated that when he was called in by plaintiff, the latter produced a paper and called it the warranty he had received, it was held that unless the plaintiff produced such paper at the trial, be must be nonsuited; Taylor v. Mingay, Norwich Assizes, August 3, 1840.

132, note (o).-Read " 4 Scott, 293."

132, note (g).-Refer to Garbutt v. Watson, 5 B. & Ald. 613. 143, 144.-What are necessaries, see Peters v. Fleming, 6 M.

& W. 42, cited in note (z), page 144. Horses when necessaries; Harrison v. Fane, 1 Scott's N. R. 287. It is incumbent on a plaintiff to prove affirmatively that the articles were necessary, on an issue raising that question; and if he gave no evidence, the verdict should be for defendant. The question is a mixed one of law and fact, and if the jury find contrary to the opinion of the judge, the court will grant a new trial, without costs. Id. 146, second paragraph.-Father not impliedly liable for debts of his children; Mortimer v. Wright, 6 M. & W. 482. The defendant's son, an infant of twenty years of age, had lodged for some time with the plaintiff, during a part of which he had earned wages and paid for his board, &c. He afterwards fell ill, and was unable to pay for the necessaries with which the plaintiff continued to supply him, the plaintiff applied to his father for money, who wrote in answer that he could not advance any at that time, but his son would come into possession of money

Page

in the following month, when he would be twenty-one, and would then be able to pay what he owed the plaintiff himself: it was held, that this letter was no admission of a liability in the father.

152, 857, 858.-Confirmation of infant's promise by letter good, though not directed to plaintiff, or amount of debt named;

it lies on defendant to show that the ratification in writing was made before he attained his majority; Hartley v. Wharton, 3 P. & Dav. 529.

153, note (d).-If an infant, on coming of age, mortgages property to lessee by deed, reciting the lease granted during his non-age, this confirms the lease; Story v. Johnson, 2 Y. & Col. 586.

159, after end of first division.-Add "As is also the wife's discharge before coverture, and in action against husband and wife he may join in the plea; Storr v. Lee, 1 P. & Dav. 635."

159, note (p).-For "Mitchinson v. Hewson" read "Mitchinson v. Howson." This case was recognized by Lord Denman, C. J. in Eastwood v. Kenyon, 3 P. & Dav. 285.

160, line 2. But unless a husband reduces a note made payable to his wife during coverture into possession in his lifetime, at his death the interest in it survives to the wife; Gaters v. Madeley, 6 M. & W. 423, and ante, 158, note (ƒ).

166, note (r).-For "Hutton" read "Sutton."

169, last paragraph.-Proof of cohabitation is primâ facie sufficient in action against husband and wife for debt of latter dum sola; Tracy v. M'Arlton, 7 Dowl. 532.

66

170, note (r).—For "Waite v. Jones, 1 Bing. N. C. 65," read 656;" and see this case in error, Jones v. Waite, reported in 7 Scott, 317.

171, line 2.-But a husband even under such circumstances is liable for articles of the peace against himself, if occasioned

by his violent conduct; Turner v. Rookes, 2 P. & Dav. 294.

173, note (s).-For "Hutton" read "Sutton."

175, note (c).-Add reference to Turner v. Rookes, 2 P. & Dav. 294, supra, addenda to 171.

Page

179, note (g).-For "Button" read "Rutton."

181, note (b).-Add "And see Meyer v. Haworth, 3 N. & P. 462; 8 Ad. & E. 467."

Aliens. As to lease or agreement for lease to aliens, Lapierre v. M'Intosh, 1 P. & Dav. 629.

186.-As to debts payable on a contingency, see Abbotts v. ¦ Hicks, 5 Bing. N. C. 588, post.

193, 195, note (a).-The 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 127, does not apply where the second commission was obtained before the passing of that act; and quare, whether, where the act does apply, a third commission is void; Benjamin v. Belcher, 3 P. & Dav. 317.

200, note (t). Where there are several debts owing by insolvent to a particular creditor, and only one of such debts is named in the schedule, the discharge does not extend to the other debts. See Tyers v. Stunt, 7 Scott, 349. See page 203; Bishop v. Polhill, 1 M. & Rob. 363. 202, note (c).—And where an insolvent debtor was remanded for six months at the suit of G., and during his imprisonment A., the attorney of G., agreed with him that he should be discharged on giving A. a bill of exchange for part of G.'s debt, and an I. O. U. for A.'s bill of costs in the action; which he gave, and was liberated accordingly it was held that the insolvent could not be sued either on the bill or on the I. O. U.; Ashley v. Killick, 5 M. & W. 509.

210, note (b), 211, first paragraph.-—A stock-broker has implied authority to follow rules of the stock exchange; Sutton v. Tatham, 2 P. & Dav. 308.

213, end of first paragraph.—Add “But the bringing an action on the contract of the agent is not a sufficient satisfaction thereof; it must be before action; Doe d. Rhodes v. Robinson, 4 Scott, 396; 3 Bing. N. C. 677."

As to a ratification by executor of the testator's authority to distrain, where testator died after authority given and before distress, Whitehead v. Taylor, 2 P. & Dav. 368.

215, note (d), line 6.-Add " Nor does an authority to receive rents empower an agent to give notice to quit; Doe v. Robinson, 4 Scott, 396; 3 Bing. N. C. 677."

Page

As to what constitutes an agent to demand possession of tenants so as to charge them for double value, Poole v Warren, 3 Nev. & P. 693.

An agent for the sale of an estate has no authority to receive payment; Mynn v. Joliffe, 1 M. & Rob. 326. 220, line 5.-After the word "then," insert "the agreement will bind the master."

225, note (a).-A notice to quit given by agent of landlord not sufficient, unless recognized by landlord; Doe d. Rhodes v. Robinson, 4 Scott, 396; 3 Bing. N. C. 677.

232, note (o).—Where an agreement is entered into for a partnership, to commence on a certain day, the fact that the partnership deed is not executed till a subsequent day, will not affect the liability of the members of the firm in contract entered into with third persons; Battley v. Bailey, 1 Scott, N. R. 143; 1 Man. & Gr. 155.

234, 235.-Add reference to Pitchford v. Davis, 5 M. & W. 2, deciding that a subscriber to an intended company is not liable for proceedings of directors before full capital subscribed, unless he assent thereto. And see Tredwen v. Bourne, 6 M. & W. 461. There a mining company was formed, the capital to be 30,000l. in 3000 shares of 107. and 2000 shares only were actually subscribed for, of which the defendant took 100; it was held that letters subsequently written by the defendant to the directors, requiring them to call a meeting for the purpose of changing a director, were evidence to go to the jury, to show that he authorized the directors to proceed in the management of the concern with the smaller amount of capital, so as to render him liable for the price of articles supplied for the use of the mines on the order of the directors; it was also decided that the members of a mining company have authority by law (in the absence of any proof of a more limited authority) to bind each other by dealings on credit, for the purpose of working the mines, if that appear to be necessary or usual in the management of mines.

238.-Erase note (b), and the passage to which it belongs.

Where balance struck between partners, action lies with

Page

out an express promise to pay such balance; Wray v. Milestone, 5 M. & W. 21.

240, line 13.-Refer to Carden v. General Cemetery Company, 7 Scott, 97; 5 Bing. N. C. 253.

When liability of a partner in a firm commences, Howell v. Brodie, 6 Bing. N. C. 44; 8 Scott, 372; there the defendant advanced money to one W., with the avowed intention of becoming interested jointly with him in a market which W. was in the course of erecting; the defendant was consulted by W. upon every occasion during the progress of the work, but no definite share in the concern was allotted, nor was there any express contract between him and W. as to a partnership until the 15th October, 1833, when an agreement was entered into by them to the effect that the market should be valued by a surveyor, and that the defendant should be interested in a seventh share. Profits had been made of the market prior to the date of the agreement, but had not been accounted for to the defendant, nor had he received any interest upon the sums advanced by him; it was held that the defendant was not a partner until the 15th October, 1833, and, consequently, was not responsible to the builder for work done before that day; and see Battley v. Bailey, 1 Scott's New R. 143; Whitehead v. Barron, 2 M. & Rob. 250.

242, note (t).--For " Ashley," read "Ashby."

244, notes (g), (h), (i), and 245.—Refer to Pitchford v. Davis, 5 M. & W. 2, ante, 885, addenda to page 234.

252, note (k).—Add "See the cases of Hume v. Bolland, observed upon in Coles v. Bank of England, 2 P. & Dav. 528."

259, line 2.-Add " And the liability on a guarantee given to a firm is determined by the retirement of one of the partners; Dry v. Davy, 2 P. & Dav. 249."

267. When assignees liable in use and occupation, see post, 371. Where a tenant under a lease has agreed, in consideration of certain improvements, to pay an additional rent, the assignees cannot be sued for such rent under that count; they hold only under the lease, and the lessee