Page images
PDF
EPUB

Cook v. Cook, 155.
Coon v. Moffett, 203.
Corry v. Campbell, 398.
Coulson v. Holmes, 446,
Cowles v. Marble, 419,
Cramer v. City of Burlington, 416.
Croft v. Pilgrim, l.
Orogan v. N. Y & H. R. R., 136.
Orowhurst v.Amersham Burial Board

465.
Crum v. Boss, 427.
Cummins v. Crawford, 258.
Cunningham v, Brown, 138.
Curry v. Porter, 477,
Curtis v. Strong, 203.

Fitzgerald v. Staples, 399.
Flanders v. Town of Merrima
Fleming v. McLean, 262.
Flickenger v. Wagner. 212.
Foote y. Despain, 281.

. v. Marion Co, 321.
Forebrace v. Forebrace, 16.
Foreman v. Bigelow, 430.
Foster v. Clifford, 278.

v. Metts, 361. “ v. Scripps, 485. Fourth Nat Bk. v. Franklin Co., 321. Fox v. Hudson, 76. Frank, ex parte, 16.

" V. Frank, 456. Fraser, in re, 227. Fredenburg v. Lyon Lake M. E.

Church, 419.
Fredenburg v. Turner, 419.
Freeman v. Ellison, 419.
Fridley v. Bowen, 97.
Frost v. Vought, 419.
Fryo v. Landers, 439.

[ocr errors][merged small]

vetroit. Noye, 347 138.

Daggett v. Daggett, 137.
Danville Bank Co. v. Parks 195.
Davie v. Blakely, 192.
Davies v. L. & P. M. Ins. Co., 193.
Davis y Brown, 77.

v. Davis, 298.
v. Harper, 38.
v. Justice, 42.

v. Neligh, 379.
Day v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 482.
Dawson v. Jackson, 279.
Deford v. Hewlett, 149.
Delano's Ca:e, 441.
Delaplaine v. Turnley, 138.
Denis v. Leclere, 344.
Denton v. Noyes, 343.
Detroit L. & M. R. R. Co. v. Starnes,
Detroit Savings Bk. v. Truesdail, 78.
Devault v. Uptegrove, 317.
Devereux v. Buckley, 74.
Devine y. Edwards, 57.
Dickson v. United States, 245.
Dietrick v. Madison Relief Assn., 357.
Dodd v. Adams, 376.
Dodson v. City of Cincinnati, 398.
Donnelly v. Com.. 314.
Dorris v. Carter, 217.
Doughty v. Paige, 76.
Dowling v. Allen, 418.
Dudman v. Earl, 38.
Dugan v. Nichols, 460.
Dulwell v. Bohner, 81, 143, 163, 198.
Duncan v. Baker, 488.
Dunn v. Dunn, 238,
Duttenhofer v. state, 316,

Gall v. Flesher, 74.
Gale v. Morris, 314.
Gardner v. Bean, 18.

" v. Conn, 378.
Garner v. Garner, 397.
Garvin v. Jennerson, 117.
Gates v. Hughes, 153.
Gauch v. St. Louis Life Ins. Co., 14
Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. M. & C. R.

R., 15.
Gibbons v. Shepard, 398.
Gibson v. Broughton, 241,
Gilbert v. laugar, 41.

1 v. Williams, 342.
Gilman v. St. Joe R. R., 177.
Gilson v. Stevens Machine Co., 235.
Golden v. Bingham, 358.
Goodall v. Criton, 398.
Goodheart y. Johnson, 234.
Goodin, ex parte 327.
Goss v. Cham. of Com. Assn., 262.
Gough v. Goldsmith, 153.
Gould v. Mckenna, 313.
Graham v. Ringo, 78.
Grand Rapids & Ind, R. R. v. Hunt-

ley, 387. Grand Tower Trans. Co. v. Ullman,

58. Graves v. Braden, 477. Gray v. Coan, 178.

" v. Lake, 98. Greer v. Higgins, 218. Gridley v. City of Bloomington, 426. Gross v. Funk, 299. Grove v. Wise, 197. Guen therv, Jacobs, 194.

Jackson v. Kniffen, 138.
Jager v. Doherty, 438.
Jeffries v. Rowe, 457.
Jenne v. Marble, 232.
Jerauld v. Trippet, 457.
Jetten v. Brownsville Bk.. 99.
Johnson v. Battelle, 397.

v. Boston & Maine R. R., 336.
v. Continental Ins. Co., 438.
v. Johnson, 334.
v. Kimball, 430.
v. Pen. & Per. R. R., 81.

v. Smallwood, 215. Jones v. Carnahan, 439.

v. Clifton, 89.

v. Shaw, 277. " Whitehead, 99. Judah v. Hogan, 156. Justice v. Nesquehoning R. R., 182.

60

Eaton v. Supervisors of Monitowoc

Co., 258. Edmonson v. Corn, 457. Edwards v. Brown, 198. Eggleston y. Boardman, 419. Eisenmeyer v, Yaeger, 262. Ellett v. richardson, 146. Elliott v. St. L. I. M. R. R., 119, 305. Einmett v. Yandes, 198. Empire Trans. Co. v. Richards, 137. Endell v. Liebroch, 378. England v. Walker, 41. Englis v, State, 334. Erdinann v. Mulual Ins. Co., 216. Evans v. Pack, 409.

[ocr errors]

Haag v. Comm’rs of Vanderberg Co.,

236.
Hagan's Petition, 311.
Hale v. Duncan, 146.
Hall v. City of lonia, 78.
Hallett v. Wylie, 139.
Hallock v. Dominey, 321.
Ham v. State, 421.
Hamer v. Medsker, 79, 182.
Hamilton v. State, 316.
Hampshire v. Wickens, 2.
Hanson v. Donkersle
Hardin v. Mackey, 317.
Harlow v. Putnam, 259.
Harrington v. Victoria Graving Dock

Co., 193, 401.
Harris Y. Harris, 345.

1 y. Thayer, 397.

“ v. Woodrufr, 157. Hart v. Giles, 47. Harvey v. C. & P. R., 178.

v. Harvey, 18,
" T. H. & 1.'R. R., 418.
Hassell v. Basket, 308.
Hawk v. Marion Co., 204.
Hayes v. Berwick, 314.
Haywood v. Currie, 126.
Hegarty v. Shine, 291.
Helms v. Chadbourn, 357.
Helphenstine v. Vincennes Nat. Bk.,

27, 80.
Hempy v. Ranson, 479.
Hennies v. Vogel, 18.
Herriman v. Moore, 464.
Heryford v. Turner, 59.
Higgins v. McCabe, 442.
Hiles v. Mosher, 857.

[ocr errors]

Lake Shore & M. S. R. R. v. Knittal,

416. Langston v. Aderhold, 461. Lapham v. Martin, 38. Laveille, in re, 241. Lawrence v. Com., 213. Lehigh Valley Ccal Co. v. Jones, 15. Lehman v. Berdin, 269. Leidersdorf v. Flint, 405, 495. Leonard v. Phillips, 179. Leper v. Lyon, 479. Leverick v. Frank, 379. Levi v. National Bk. of Mo., 249. Lewis v. City of Clarendon, 287.

v. Mahon, 99,

Osborn v. Farwell, 18. Owen v. Davis, 317.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][subsumed]
[ocr errors]

Mackintosh v. Eliot. Nat. Bk. 137.
Madden v. Barnes, 437.
Magraw v. Irwin, 192.
Maitland v. Martin, 231.
Malchey v. Trustees, 376.
Malone v. Davidson, 99.
Mansur v. Miller, 422.

* v. State, 59.
Mareau v. Vanatta, 235,
Martin v. Funk, 462.

" y. People, 97.
Marvin v. Newman, 234.
Matheas v. Sellers, 62.
Maud v. Maud, 315.
Maupin v. Franklin Co., 217.
Mayes v. Joseph, 74.
Maynard v. Bond, 201.
Meister v. Meister, 17.
Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Jayne, 67.
Merchants Bk. of Canada v. Living-

ston, 136.
Metzler v. Wood, 16.
Meurer, in re, 154.
Miller v. Nugent, 454.

" v. Trustees of Schools, 195.
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 299.
Mobile & Mont. R. R. v. Smith, 212.
Mobley v Nave, 157,
Mohry v. Hoffman, 231.
Moore y. Cline, 279.
Moran v. Hollings, 460.
Morehead v. Slate, 435.
Morgan v. Dod, 238.

v, I.' & St. L. Bridge Co. 311. Mosher v. Arnold. 106. Mott v. Consumers Ice Co., 222. Murphy v. Swadner, 75. Musser v. Brink, 499. Myer v. Whittaker, 141.

Page v. Clopton, 296.

v. Wallace, 98. Paine y, Boston, 235. Palmer v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co.,

153.
Pannell v. Com. 152.
Pape v. Capitol Bank, 218.
Parsons v. Winslow, 204.

" Sav. Bk. v. Sargent, 259.
Pearson v. Scott, 194, 271.
Pennoyer v. Neff, 255.
Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Kittle,

298. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Fries, 95.

v. Miller, 435. People v. Babcock, 344.

v. Big Muddy Irio Co., 337.
V. Collins, 261.
v. Finley, 158.
v, Garrison, 18.
V. Gifford, 17.
v. Justices, 296.
v. Ruggles, 344.
v. Trustees, 418.
v. Van Deleer, 314.

V. Walser, 261.
“ v. Wayne, 179.

" v. Western Seaman's Fund Soc., 319. Peoppers v. M. K. & T. R. R,, 59, 252. Perkins v. Guy, 382. Perry v. Porter, 99. Pettu v. Peppard, 298. Phelps v. Goddard, 203.

" v. Whitiker, 419. Philometh College v. Hartlegg, 379. Phænix Life Ins. Co. v. Saettél, 398. Pierce, in re, 237.

• v, Fuller, 344. Pitts., Cin. & St. L. R. R. v. Dewin,

282." Pitts., Oin. & St. L. R. R. v. Moore,

500, Pitts., Ft. Wayne & Ch. R. R. v. Lew.

is, 336.
Planters Ins. Co. v. Myers, 369.
Platt v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 321.
Poland v, Vesper, 59.
Polk v. Frash, 335.
Pool v. Higginson, 102.
Poor v. Humboldt' Ins. Co., 417.
Poteele v. State, 178.
Pond v. Roan, 437.
Price v. Bannister, 96.

v. Kirk, 221.
Pringle v. Town of Napanee, 96.
Pudney v. Burkhart, 476.

Sely y. Belden. 98.
Shafer v. Williams, 105.
Shaw v. Bauman, 74.
Sheafr v. People 356.
Sheedy v. Roach, 259,
Shepherd v, Sawyer, 344.
Sherman v. Palmer, 419.
Shidyer v. Nickell, 217.
Shipman v. State, 258.
Siewers v. Com., 121.
Simonson v. C. Ř. I. & P. R. R., 178.
simonton v. Long, 381.
Sinclair v. Berndt, 56.
Sinker v. Fletcher, 258.
Smith y. Lewis, 139.
“ v. Lowpsdale, 379.

v. Martin, 275.
v. People, 57.

State, 152
Smithey v. Finnell, 49.
Snell v. Allantic F. & M. Ins. Co., 498.
Somerville v. Richards, 419.
Spenser, in re, 84.
Spier v. Corll, 358.
spring v. O'Kain, 355.
siate v. Adams, 118.

v. Baetz, 377.

v. Beckwith, 479
“ v. Bergman, 379.
“ v. Baniley, 21.

v. Brown, 440,
v. Buffington, 196.
v. Burton, 437.
v. Canada, 76.
v. De Graffepried, 7.
v. Errickson, 437.
v. Felch, 21.
V. Garroutie, 29.
v. Gilmore, 219.
v. Hardy, 379.
v. Hays, 198.
v. Jones, 479.
v. Julian, 76.
v, Lewis, 77.
v. M. L. & N. R. R, 279.
v. Maley, 259.
v. Myers, 499.
v. Norton, 219.
v. O'Malley, 98.
v. Petty, 439.
v. Powell, 167.
v. Reisner, 234,
v. Reitz, 477.
v. Republican River Bridge

Co., 69.
v. Riddle, 439.
v. Snyder, 9.

V. Stubbs, 456.
" v. Swepson, 214.

v. Taylor, 275.
“ v. Tomlinson, 415, 449.

" v. Walker, 390.
Steele v. Bryant, 39.
Stephens v. People, 234.
Stevenson v. Robinson, 278.

v. School Directors, 297.
Stillson v. H. & St. Jo R. R., 107,
Stookey v. Stookey, 58.
Stowe y. Buttrick, 397.
Stroh v. Hinchman, 419.
Struthers v. D. W. & P. R. R., 213.
Stuple v, Downing, 79.
Sturges v. Denison University, 193.
Sumner v. Sleeth, 67.
Swan v. Crafts, 235.
Symmes v. Frazier, 203.
Tabler v. Callanan, 456.

6 v. State, 835. Taylor v. Comm'rs of Highways, 26 7

Queen v. Willings 16.

[ocr errors]

Randige v. Lyman, 178.
Ranney v. Bader, 189.
Ray v. Sweeney, 61.

“ v. Tubbs, 231. Read v. Power, 231. Reynolds, ex parte, 95.

v. Bullock, 96. Rich v. State Nat. Bk. 379. Richardson v. Rardin, 155.

* v. Rice, 99, 225. Richmond, in re , 435.

& Pet. R. R. v. Kasey, 142. Rickenbacker v. Zimmerman, 274. Riggs v. Uptegrove, 317. Ripley v. McBarron, 417. Robbins v. Phillips, 480. Roberge v. Burnham, 179. Robertson v. Cease, 476. Robinson v. Yates City Lodge, 97. Rodocanachi v. Buttrick, 476. Rogers v. Mayfield, 321. Rolles v. Harris, 74. Roorke v. Goldstein, 319. Ropes v. Upton, 459. Rosenthal v. Mayhew, 315. Rossiter v. Miller, 256. Rudolf v. Winters, 379. Ruffner v. C. H. & D. R. R., 316. Rugh v. Ottenheimer, 361.

[ocr errors]

Walfani, ve, 234. 278. a. 297.

Seeley Balker, 300, 416, 449

National Pemberton Bk. v. Porter,

325. National Mahaiwe Bk. v. Barry, 460.

Security Bk. v. Hupne.

well, 178. State 'Bk. of Camden, v.

Pierce, 21. Nelson v. White, 236. Newby v. Sharpe, 194. Nichols v. Ruggles, 138. Nimmons v. Westfall, 378. Northwestern Fertilizing Co. v.

Hyde Park, 470. Nussbaumery. Becker, 117.

v. Hipple, 458. Nye v. Otis, 343.

Sample v. Broadwell, 116. Sanderson v. Penn. Coal Co., 189. Sarback y. Jones, 235.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Taylor y. Rockefeller, 231, 349.
Thayer v. Jarvis, 166.

v. New Bedford B. R. Thomas v. Croswell, 343.

“ v. Wiesman, 216. Thompson v. Boyle, 302.

“ v. Sage, 57. Thurber v. Anderson, 233. Tibbals v. Libby, 185. Tillson v. Robbins, 361. Titus v. Lewis, 478. Toledo, W. & W. Ry. v. Grable, 233. Towanda Coal Co. v. Heeman, 161. Traynor v. People, 97. Trinidad Nat. Bk. v. Denver Nat. Bk.,

171. Truesdell v. Combs, 336. Truitt v. People, 116. Trustees of Ind. Spiritual Assn. v. Reynolds, 279.

• of Schools v. Raukenberg, 196. Tullis v. Bk. of Attica, 117. Turner v. Clark Co., 317. Twycross v. Grant, 481.

Walden v. Karr, 257.
Walker v. Moors 318.

“ v. Shreve, 38.
Walls v. Palmer, 358.
Walpole v, State, 222.
Walsh v. Truesdall, 8.
Ward y. Thompson, 77.
Washburn y. Goodheart, 248.
Waters v. Stevenson, 301.
Watriss v. First Nat. Bk., 206.
Waukon & Miss. R. R. v. Dwyer, 39.
Webster's Appeal, 152.
Wedgwood v. C. N. W. R. R., 138,
Weichslebaum v. Curlett, 414.
Weir v. Barnett, 194.
Wells v. Am. Ex. Co., 154.

" v. Stumpt, 215. West v. Krebaum, 338. Westermann v. Cape Girardeau Co.,

353. Westlake v. St. Louis, 418. Weston y. Weston, 357. Wharton v. Wilson, 117, Wheeler v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co., 199. Whipp y. State, 316.

White v. Penn. Ins. Co., 418.

v. Savery, 416. “ v. State, 461. Whiting v. Gearty, 307. Whitney v. First Nat. Bk., 342.

v. Karner, 278. Wichita Bk. . A., T. & S. F. R. R. 197. Wilcox v. Mussche, 197. Wiley v. Paney, 376. Wilhite v. Barr, 119. Wilkins v. Irvine, 315.

v. Moore, 196.
Williams v. McLanahan, 176.
Williamson v. Nicklin, 335.
Willson v. Nicholson, 335.
Wilson v. Carpenter, 367.

v. State, 398.
Winters v. Franklin Bk., 377.
Wisner v. McBride, 457.
Withers v. Stinson, 224.
Wolsey v. L. S. & M. Ry., 359.
Woods v. Finnell, 48.
Wooster y. Paige, 95.
Worthen v. G. T.R. R., 478.
Wright v. Clark, 301.

v. First Nat. Bk., 122.
v. McCormick, 169.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

The Central Law Journal.

If, in the transfer of negotiable paper, an indorsement is omitted through accident, mis

take or fraud, a good title will pass in equity SAINT LOUIS, JULY 5, 1878.

by mere delivery. This is held in Hughes v.

Nelson, 1 N. J. L. J. 175, a case in the New CURRENT TOPICS.

Jersey Court of Chancery, and decided last month. At law it is clear a written endorse

ment is absolutely indispensible to the transfer In Bamberg v. Stein, decided last month,

of title to negotiable paper, but a much more VAN HOESEN, J. of the New York Court of

liberal rule prevails in equity. In equity a

chose in action, even when it consists of a Common Pleas, sitting in General Term, held

bond and mortgage, may be assigned by mere that a composition in bankruptcy, under the

delivery and without any writing whatever. act of June 22, 1874, operates as a satisfaction

Galway v. Fullerton, 2 C. E. Green, 394; 2 of debts fraudulently contracted. The Special

Story's Eq. Juris., § 1047; and negotiable Term ruled to the contrary, on the ground that

paper transferred in the same mode will, in sec. 5117 of the United States Revised Statutes

equity, confer upon the transferee all the rights declares that “no debt created by fraud shall

which at law he would acquire by a written be discharged by proceedings in bankruptcy."

endorsement. Judge Story says that if, by misAs to this, the court of review said: “A com

take, accident or fraud, a note has been position was not one of the proceedings in

omitted to be endorsed upon a transfer, bankruptcy referred to in that section, for the

when it was intended it should be, the party law providing for composition was not enacted

may be compelled by a court of equity to until 1874, and section 5117 was passed in / make the endorsement. Story's Promissory 1873. The learned justice, at Special Term, / Notes, $120; 1 Story's Eq. Juris., & 99; and in said that the laws were in pari materia, and Chitty on Bills, 203, it is said that it has been that therefore section 5117 must be held to adjudged that if a trader delivered a bill for apply to and qualify the act of 1874. In that a valuable consideration to another previously he was in error. The act of 1874 is entitled to an act of bankruptcy, and forgot to endorse 'An act to amend and supplement' the Bank- | it, he might endorse it after his bankruptcy. ruptcy Act of 1874. We refer to the title of Smith v. Pickering, Peake's Cases, 50; Anon. the act of 1874 merely for the purpose of giv- | 1 Camp. 492; Rolleston v. Herbert, 3 Dun. ing point to the observation that the composi | 411; and if he and his assignees refused, they tion procreding is a method supplementary to might be compelled to do so by bill in equity. that originally provided for the release of a Ex parte Greening, 13 Ves. 206 ; ex parte bankrupt from his debts. A composition is an Mowbray, 1 Jac. and Walk. 428; ex parte entirely different thing from a discharge. It Rhodes, 3 Mont. and Ayt. 217; Watkins v. is a new way of freeing the bankrupt. The Maule, 2 Jac. and Walk. 243. In the case differences between discharge and composition last cited, the note had been made by the have been repeatedly pointed out. Lowell, drawer for the accommodatlon of the payee J., in ex parte Morris, 12 N. B. R., 170, says

who negotiated it, but omitted to endorse it. that a creditor might vote on a composition

The Master of the Rolls, in speaking to the though he bought his claim with intend to pre

point under discussion, said: “When a note vent the adoption of a pending resolution for

is handed over for a valuable consideration, a composition. In ordinary proceedings in

the endorsement is mere form; the transfer

for consideration is the substance; it creates bankruptcy he could not even prove his claim unless he should swear that be had not bought

an equitable right and entitles the party to call it with a view of influencing the proceedings,

for the form. The other party is bound to do And in re Haskell, 11 N. B. R. 164, the same

that formal act in order to substantiate the learned judge said that a debtor might com

right of the party to whom he has transferred pound with his creditor, though he could not obtain his discharge, because he had given preference after becoming insolvent." See In Croft v. Pilgrim, recently decided by the also Wells v. Lamprey, 16 N. B. R. 205 ; 5 | Appellate Court of Illinois, the plaintiff owned Cent. L. J. 259 ; re Schaffer, 17 N. B. R. 116. land in Bureau County, and defendant had

Vol.7 -No. 1.

led to assignees mbert, Dron

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ges before a justice of the Webb, 1 Taunt. 379.

erected a dam on his own land in Stark Coun Thompson v. Crocker, 9 Pick. 59; Warren v. ty, which overflowed the land of plaintiff. He Webb, 1 Taunt. 379; contra, Worster v. Winnisued for damages before a justice of the piseogee Lake Co., 25 N. H. 525. peace in Stark County, who dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. On appeal this ruling was reversed, the court holding that where The question, What is a “ usual covenant” one performs an act in one county which dam in a lease, came before the English High Court ages lands in another the plaintiff may sue in of Justice lately in the case of Hampshire v. either county. The reports, it appears, con- | Wickens, 38 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 408. The tain but few cases upon this point, though defendant had entered into an agreement to writers on law concur in the rule as followed i take a lease for a dwelling-house, to contain in this case. i Chitty's Pl. 269; 3 Black, 294; "all usual covenants and provisos.” The 4 Com. Dig. 167, 250, 251; Gould's Pl. 108; lease tendered to the defendant contained a Angell on Watercourses, $ 420. This doctrine covenant that the lessee would not, without the originated in Bulwer's case, 7 Coke, 63, al- lessor's consent, “ assign, underlet or part although reference is there made to the ruling with the premises; but such consent not to in the year books in the Abbot of Stratford's | be withheld to a respectable and responsible case, where a similar question arose. The tenant.” The court held that a covenant not to principle, however, in the former case is stated assign was not a “usual” covenant. Jessel, M. in broad and general terms, that “in all cases

R., said: “This was decided by Lord Thurlow where the action is founded upon two things

in.Henderson v. Hay, 3 Bro. C. C. 632; by Lord done in several counties, and both are material

Eldon in Church v. Brown, 15 Ves. 258, and or traversable, and the one without the other

more recently by the Court of Appeal in Hodgdoth not maintain the action, then the plaintiff

kinson v. Crowe, L. R., 10 Ch. 622, 33 L. T. may choose to bring his action in which of the

Rep. (N. S.) 388, and by Bacon, V. C., in counties he will.” This view of the law was

the same case, L. R., 19 Eq. 593, 33 L. T. sanctioned in Mayor of London v. Cole, 7

Rep. (N. S.) 122, so that it can not now be Term. R, 583, where Lawrence, J., says that

fairly disputed. It is true that a contrary de“the rule in Bulwer's case gives a decisive

cision of Romilly was cited—Haines v. Buranswer to the application ; it shows that, where

nett, —but that case appears to me to be several material facts arise in different coun

opposed both to principle and authority, and ties, the plaintiff may bring his action in

it must now be treated as distinctly overruled either.” In Oliphant v. Smith, 3 Penn. 180,

by Hodgkinson v. Crowe. In Haines v. Burit is said “ that every action founded upon a

nett, Lord Romilly, without any special prolocal cause shall be brought in the county

vision having been made in the contract to where the cause of action arises. The only

that effect, held that a covenant should be inexception to this rule is the erection of a nui

serted making the lease determinable on the sance in one county to the injury of lands in

bankruptcy of the lessee or on his making any another. There the action may be brought in

arrangement for the benefit of his creditors. either,” and reference is made to Bac. Ab.,

That was, in fact, nothing less than a variation 56, 57, and 58; Com. Dig. 250, 251. So in

of the contract. I can not see any reason for Barden v. Crocker, 10 Pick. 383, the rule in

holding such a covenant to be usual, and it is Bulwer's case is endorsed in the following

rather difficult, in looking at the case, to emphatic language by the court: “ The plain

understand how it was decided. Lord Romilly tiff may unquestionably maintain his action in

seems to have thought that, in considering either county-in Bristol, where the obstruc

general covenants and all such other covenants tion was raised, as well as in Plymouth, where

as are usually inserted in leases of property of the injury was sustained. The law to be col

a similar description, some regard might be lected from the Bulwer case is decisive upon

had to the peculiar nature and tenure of the this point. When one matter in one county is

property ; but I can not find any evidence on depending upon the matter in another county,

that point mentioned in that report, and it the plaintiff may choose in which county he

would seem that the judge, from his view of shall bring his action.” See also Mersey &

the nature of the property, inserted the clause. Irwell Nav. Co. v. Douglas, 2 East. 502;

But when we look at the reasoning of Bacon,

« PreviousContinue »