Taylor v. Bullen, 5 Ex. 779; 20 L. J. Ex. 21 v. Caldwell, 3 B. & S. 826; 32 L. J. Q. B. 164; 8 L. T. 356; 11 v. Chambers, Cro. Jac. 68 v. Kymer, 3 B. & Ad. 320 PAGE 87 59, 60, 128 v. McKeand, 5 C. P. D. 358; 49 L. J. C. P. 563; 42 L. T. 833; 28 v. Smith, [1893] 2 Q. B. 65; 61 L. J. Q. B. 331; 67 L. T. 39; 40 . Thacker v. Hardy, 4 Q. B. D. 685; 48 L. J. Q. B. 289; 39 L. T. 595; 26 Thornett v. Haines, 15 M. & W. 367; 15 L. J. Ex. 230 Thurnell v. Balbirnie, 2 C. B. 786; 2 M. & W. 786; M. & H. 235; 1 Jur. 847 Tigress, The, B. & L. 38; 32 L. J. Adm. 97; 9 Jur. N. S. 361; 8 L. Tilley v. Pope, 115 U. S. 213 150 63 138 Tisdale v. Essex, Hob. 34 Townley v. Crump, 5 N. & M. 606; 4 A. & E. 58; 1 H. & W. 564. Trent and Humber Co., In re, L. R. 4 Ch. 112; 38 L. J. Ch. 38; 19 465; 17 W. R. 181 Turley v. Bates, 2 H. & C. 200; 33 L. J. Ex. 43; 10 Jur. N. S. 368; 10 Turner v. Goulden, L. R. 9 C. P. 57; 43 L. J. C. P. 60. v. Liverpool Docks (Trustees), 6 Ex. 543; 20 L. J. Ex. 393 141, 227, 239 v. Mucklow, 8 Jur. N. S. 870; 6 L. T. N. S. 690; 10 W. R. 668 .89, Turney v. Dodwell, 3 E. & B. 136; 2 C. L. R. 666; 23 L. J. Q. B. 137 ; Tyers v. Rosedale Iron Co., L. R. 10 Ex. 195; 44 L. J. Ex. 130; 33 L. T. 56; 23 W. R. 871 ULLOCK V. Reddelein, Dans. & L. 6 48, 282, 283 98, 135, 200 · 301 114 Union Bank v. Munster, 37 Ch. D. 51; 57 L. J. Ch. 124; 57 L. T. 877; 36 W. R. 72 Upton v. Sturbridge Mills, 111 Mass. 446 Man. Co. v. Huiske, 69 Iowa, 557 . 110 PAGE VALENTINI v. Canali, 24 Q. B. D. 166; 59 L. J. Q. B. 74; 61 L. T. 731; 38 W. R. 331 Valpy v. Gibson, 4 C. B. 837 10 236, 243, 247 v. Oakeley, 16 Q. B. 941; 20 L. J. Q. B. 380; 16 Jur. 38 .218, Vilmont v. Bentley, 18 Q. B. D. 322; 56 L. J. Q. B. 128; 56 L. T. 318; 35 W. R. 238; 51 J. P. 436, C. A.; 12 App. Cas. 471; 57 L. J. Q. B. 18; H. L. (E.) . 157, 158, 159, 305 Vyse v. Wakefield, 6 M. & W. 442; 8 D. P. C. 377; 9 L. J. Ex. 274 . 175 45, 49 56 210, 260, 261 63 Wagstaff v. Anderson, 5 C. P. D. 171; 49 L. J. C. P. 485; 42 L. T. 720; Walker v. Langdale's Chemical Manure Co., 11 C. of Sess. Cas. (3rd series) 906 v. Matthews, 8 Q. B. D. 109; 51 L. J. Q. B. 243; 46 L. T. 915; 30 W. R. 338 v. Nussey, 16 M. & W. 302; 16 L. J. Ex. 120; 11 Jur. 23 Wallace v. Breeds, 13 East, 522; 1 Rose, 109. v. Robinson & Co., 22 Sc. L. R. 830 98, 202 158 41, 42 . 113 206 Walter v. Everard, [1891] 2 Q. B. 369; 60 L. J. Q. B. 738; 65 L. T. 443; 39 W. R. 676 Walton, Ex parte, 17 Ch. D. 746; 50 L. J. Ch. 657; 45 L. T. 1; 30 W. R. 17 . Warlow v. Harrison, 28 L. J. Q. B. 18; 1 E. & E. 295 Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. & S. 205 Watkins v. Rymill, 10 Q. B. D. 178; 52 L. J. Q. B. 121; 48 L. T. 426; 31 W. R. 337; 47 J. P. 357 11 91, 148 300, 303 Watson, Ex parte, 5 Ch. D. 35; 46 L. J. Bk. 97; 36 L. T. 75; 25 W. R. 240, 241, 242, 253 In re, 25 Q. B. D. 27 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 394 ; 63 L. T. 209; 38 W. R. Weaver, In re, 21 Ch. D. 615; 48 L. T. 93; 31 W. R. 224 Wentworth v. Outhwaite, 10 M. & W. 436; 12 L. J. Ex. 172 12 67, 183 290 104, 288 172 217, 224, 264, 265 Whistler v. Foster, 14 C. B. N. S. 248; 32 L. J. C. P. 161. PAGE 262, 263 135 € 149 2, 21, 126, 129 White v. Beeton, 7 H. & N. 42; 30 L. J. Ex. 373; 7 Jur. N. S. 735; 4 L. T. 474; 9 W. R. 751. v. Garden, 10 C. B. 919; 20 L. J. C. P. 166; 15 Jur. 630 v. Wilks, 5 Taunt. 176; 1 Marsh. 2 Whitehead v. Anderson, 9 M. & W. 518; 11 L. J. Ex. 157. 74 154, 156 . 50 .113 242, 244, 245, 247, 248, 253, 254 Wigglesworth v. Dallison, 1 Dougl. 201; 1 Sm. L. C. (9th ed.) 569 Wilkins v. Bromhead, 6 M. & G. 963; 7 Scott, N. R. 921; 13 L. J. C. P. 74; 8 Jur. 83 .134 10 279 . 217 v. Moor, 11 M. & W. 256; 2 D. N. S. 993; 12 L. J. Ex. 253; 7 Jur. 817 v. Reynolds, 11 Jur. N. S. 973; 12 L. T. 728; 6 B. & S. 495 Willoughby, Ex parte, 16 Ch. D. 604; 44 L. T. 111; 29 W. R. 935 Wilmshurst v. Bowker, 7 M. & G. 882; 8 Scott N. R. 571; 12 L. J. C. P. 475 Wilson v. Dunville, L. R. Ir. 4 Ex. 249; 6 L. R. Ir. 210 Wingfield, Ex parte, 10 Ch. D. 591; 40 L. T. 15; 27 W. R. 346 Wiseman v. Vandeput, 2 Vern. 202 Withers v. Reynolds, 2 B. & A. 882 Wood v. Baxter, 49 L. T. N. S. 45 6 E. & B. 355; 25 L. J. Q. B. v. Manley, 3 P. & D. 5; 11 A. & E. 34; 3 Jur. 1028 185, 186 Woodland v. Fuller, 3 P. & D. 570; 4 Jur. 743; 11 Ad. & E. 859 8 L. T. 249; 11 W. R. 599 Woods v. Russell, 1 D. & R. 58; 5 B. & A. 942. Woolfe v. Horne, 2 Q. B. D. 355 Wotton v. Hele, 2 Wms. Saund. 526 Wyman v. Knight, 39 Ch. D. 165; 57 L. J. Ch. 886; 59 L. T. 164; 37 W. R. 76. Wyper v. Harveys, 23 Court Sess. Cas. (2nd Ser.), 606; 33 Jur. 298 285 ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. Page 11.-Dele the comma after "à fortiori," in line 8 from foot. 52, 300.-The rule as to the authority of an auctioneer's clerk to sign for the buyer confirmed in Sims v. Laudray (1894), 63 L. J. Ch. 535. So also the authority of the auctioneer (at p. 536). 67, note (k)." Gathorne v. Adams" should be "Gattorno v. Adams." 95, 96.-The entire paragraph, commencing with In a sale, should be in inverted commas. ,, 132, line 23.-" Appropriated by the other" should be "to the other." 99 159. The view here stated, that Moyce v. Newington is good law, confirmed at the County of London Sessions in R. v. Konig (L. T. Jour., Aug. 25th, p. 373). Held also, apparently, that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant a restitution order against an innocent purchaser for value. 170 (Ill. 2). The words "by word of mouth" should apply to A.'s sale to B., and not B.'s to D. ,, 210, 211.-The entire paragraph, commencing with The payment, should be in inverted commas. ,, 217, line 27.-For "vendor's default," read "vendee's." ,, 237, line 7 from foot.-For "receives," read ": ,, 280, in Illustration.-For "Hinch v. Liddell," read "Hinde v. Liddell.” ,, 283, line 5 from foot.-For "defendant," read "plaintiff.” The references throughout are to the last editions of Mr. Benjamin's Benjamin on Sale (1888), 4th edition, by A. B. Pearson-Gee and H. F. Boyd. EFFECT OF THE ACT ON THE PREVIOUS LAW. A. Certain Changes in the Law. 1. Sect. 18, Rules 2 and 3, pp. 119, 124.-The provision as to notice by buyer of acts done by seller to pass the property. 2. Sect. 24 (2), p. 156.-Overrules Bentley v. Vilmont, and semble restores the law of Moyce v. Newington; and in consequence repeals the Larceny and Summary Jurisdiction Acts, so far as they are inconsistent. 3. Sect. 25 (1) (2), pp. 160, 166.—Reproduces sects. 8, 9 of the Factors Act, 1889, with the omissions mentioned. 4. Sect. 26 (1), p. 171.-Addition of the word "hour" before "day, month, and year," in the 29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 16. 5. Sect. 29 (4), p. 186.-"A reasonable hour" is made a question of fact; and the rules in Startup v. Macdonald (1844), 6 M. & G. 593, are abrogated. See also sect. 56. 6. Sect. 51 (3), p. 284.-English rule as regards profits as damages applicable to Scotland, and Dunlop v. Higgins (1848), 1 H. L. 381, is overruled. 7. Sect. 52, p. 284.-The words "or ascertained" added after " 'specific." "Price in money" is also omitted, but no change appears to have been made thereby. B. Submitted Changes in the Law. 1. Sect. 4, p. 21.-The words "things attached to, &c. the land agreed to be severed," as part of the definition of "goods," has probably abrogated Rodwell v. Phillips (1842), 9 M. & W. 502, and similar cases, and Lavery v. Pursell (1888), 39 Ch. D. 508; and has extended Marshall v. Green (1875), 1 C. P. D. 42. The law laid down in Lee v. Gaskell (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 700, would also appear to be changed in cases where fixtures are sold to a person not an incoming tenant. 2. Sect. 4, p. 46.-The rule in Egerton v. Matthews (1805), 6 East, 307 (if really existing at the date of the Act), with regard to the statement in the memorandum of the fact of agreement, would appear now to be assimilated to that in Wain v. Warlters (1804), 2 S. L. C. (9th ed.) 266, by virtue of the substitution of the word "contract" for " bargain. 3. Sect. 24 (1), pp. 156, 157.-The necessity of the offender being prosecuted "by or on behalf of the owner," as under previous Acts, is apparently done away with. 4. Sect. 41 (2), p. 222.—The seller's lien, after his attornment to the buyer, is not now confined to cases of the buyer's insolvency, as it seems to have been previously. |