AN INDEX то THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. ABANDONMENT. On loss by pirates, 180. Insurance, II. ACCEPTANCE. I. Of payment post diem, 83. Accord, II. Of bill of exchange, 683. Bills, IV. III. Of office full of on usurper, 249. ACCORD. I. Accord and satisfaction under agree- Declaration stated that by deed Plea: that, after breach of the should not assist one B. in a certain Held: that the deed of submission It appeared that the last payment was made on 19th April, not on that the vessel was leaky and unseaworthy, by which plaintiff became unwell and sustained damage. Held, on demurrer, that the count was bad, there being no allegation of knowledge or deceit, nor of any express warranty that the vessel was seaworthy; and the law not implying any such warranty from the relation of shipowner and seaman. 2nd count. That defendant neglected to supply and keep on board the vessel a proper supply of medicines, whereby plaintiff's health suf fered. Held, on demurrer, that stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112. s. 18. makes it the duty of the shipowner to have on board such medicines; and that, though the Act imposes a penalty, recoverable by a common informer, as the specific punishment for the breach of that duty as to the public, sailors sustaining a private injury from the breach of that statutable duty are entitled to maintain an action to recover damages. And that the count was good. Couch v. Steel, 402. 2. By tenant against landlord for continuing a nuisance in existence before the contract of demise, 128. Drainage. 3. Scienter when essential, 402. Ante, 1. 4. Malice and want of probable cause when essential, 929. Arrest, I. 1. 5. For arrest for whole sum recovered after part satisfaction, 929. Arrest, I. 1. 6. For private injury from breach of public duty, 402. Ante, 1. 7. Notwithstanding imposition of penalty by the statute creating the duty, 402. Ante, 1. II. Effect of bankruptcy and insolvency. 1. Cause of action accruing before insolvency. Count by a printer for not restoring a printing machine according to contract, whereby the trade of plaintiff had been ruined, and he had become insolvent. Plea; that, after the accruing of the causes of action, plaintiff took the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and the causes of action vested in the provisional assignee. Demurrer; and further replication, that the assignee had not intervened; on which was a rejoinder, and a demurrer to the rejoinder. Held that stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 76. s. 142. does not apply to actions commenced after the insolvency of the plaintiff; and that the non-interference of the assignees is immaterial where the cause of action accrues before the insolvency: and therefore the replication was not an answer to the plea. Held, also, that the cause of action disclosed in this count, and the special damage there alleged, were wholly in jury to the estate of the plaintiff, and By part payment, 136. Limitation. not personal damage; and, consequently, that the whole cause of action passed to the assignee, and the plea was good. Stanton v. Collier, 274. 2. Cause of action injury to estate and not personal damage, 274. Ante, 1. III. Notice of action. 1. Against justice of the peace, must shew under which section of stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44. the complaint arises. Plaintiff declared against defendant for maliciously and without reasonable ADJACENT TENEMENT. Rights in respect of nuisances, 128. or probable cause issuing a warrant To negative jurisdiction of justices, 607. under his hand and seal, and procuring plaintiff to be arrested. Plea: Not Guilty, by stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44. s. 10. The notice of action stated, as cause of action, that defendant, with force and arms, caused plaintiff to be assaulted and beaten, apprehended and imprisoned, without reasonable or probable cause (not alleging malice). The evidence was that defendant, being a justice, in a matter within his jurisdiction, issued a warrant under which plaintiff was apprehended; and it was sought to shew that this was done maliciously. Held; not a good notice under sect. 9 of stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44., as the cause of action insisted on was under I. Conviction, I. AGENT. Liability of agent in transactions with third parties. Under what circumstances he is to be considered as having purchased on his own account and resold to his principal. Defendants, merchants resident in Ireland, wrote to S. A., a merchant resident in London, authorizing him "to take for us two cargoes" of Ibraila corn 1000 to 1500 quarters at 24s. to 24s. 3d., "payment by our acceptance at 2 or 3 months," and in postscript added, "You may go to 24s. 6d., if you find you cannot do the work at 24s. or 3d." S. A. mude a bargain with R., a merchant resident in London, for a cargo by the C., and sent him a note commencing "Sold by order and for account of R. to our principals the cargo" of Bulgarian corn per C. at 24s. 6d. per quarter, cost, freight and insurance, "Sellers to pay a commission of two per cent. Payment in cash" in one week after receipt of documents. On the same day R. in his books debited S. A. with the price of the cargo, and sent S. A. the shipping documents with the bill of lading indorsed, and an invoice headed "S. A. bought of R." On the same day, S. A. wrote to defendants "to advise having purchased for your account the cargo of Bulgarian corn per C., at 248. 9d. per qur. C. F. & I., which is 3d. per quarter over your limit for Ibraila, but proportionately cheaper." In this letter were inclosed the shipping documents of the C. (including the indorsed bill of lading), and an invoice headed "Invoice of a cargo, &c. bought by order and for account and risk" of defendants; and a draft for the price at 24s. 9d., drawn by S. A. on defendants. Defendants returned the draft accepted, stating in the letter, "We note purchase of corn per C. at 248. 9d. We would much rather have had Ibralia at 24s. or 248. 3d." After this, whilst the bill was still current, and before the arrival of the C., S. A. failed. R. stopped the cargo of the C., treating S. A. as the purchaser, and claiming to be an unpaid vendor to him. Defendants, on receiving an indemnity from R. against the bill, paid him the price less discount, at the rate of 24s. 6d., being less than the sum for which the bill was accepted, which was at the rate of 248. 9d. The assignees of S. A., who had become bankrupt, sued defendants on Court had power to draw inferences of fact. Held that on the above documents it must be taken that, notwithstanding the form of the contract note and of the defendants' order to S. A., the transaction was a sale from R. to S. A. and a sale from S. 4. to defendants, and not a sale from R. to defendants through S. A. And this, without reference to the fact that defendants resided in Ireland. Held also that, the indorsed bill of lading being assigned to defendants for value, R. had no right to stop in transitu; that consequently the payment of R. by defendants was in their own wrong; and that the consideration for the bill of exchange had not failed, and the plaintiff's were entitled to judgment. Pennell v. Alexander, 283. II. Particular instances, 1. 1. Agency of the directors of a nonregistered Joint Stock Company, 1. Bank, II. 1. 2. Purchases from or through a com- 3. Of captain of ship, 559. III. Powers. Contract, the bill. R. defended the action for See Municipal Corporation, III. A them, on the ground that the consideration for the bill had failed. case was stated for this Court, in which the correspondence, containing as a above stated, was set out, and the ALLOTMENT. Letter of, substitution of nominee, 307. Contract, I. 1. |