ADDENDA.

P. 16, (at note (i)).

But a licence under which marriage has been solemnized, and in which one of the parties is described by a name wholly different from his own, is not void by the mis-description (a). P. 84, after Skyring v. Greenwood, recognized in Bate v. Laurence, 8 Scott's N. R. 122.

P. 106, (y). See Deere v. Ivey, 4 Q. B. 379.

P. 121, after words, "fresh action," a plea of coverture is an issuable plea. Burch v. Leake, 8 Scott's N. R. 66.

P. 124, (h), Leaf v. Tuton, was recognized in Turnley v. Macgregor, 6 Scott's N. R. 923.

P. 125, after Cumber v. Wane, Str. 426, add, see Pritchard v. Hitchcock, 6 Scott's N. R. 866.

P. 126, n. 59 (end of). The case of Cumber v. Wane, was recognized in the case of Pritchard v. Hitchcock, 6 Scott's N. R. 866, 7.

P. 139. When to a declaration on a guarantee by defendant for goods to be supplied to S., with an averment that plaintiff supplied S. with goods amounting to the sum of 787., that S. did not pay, nor did defendant after notice; it was pleaded, that S. did pay the sum in the declaration mentioned, in full satisfaction and discharge, &c., and that plaintiff received the same. Plaintiff replied, that S. did not pay, nor did plaintiff receive the said sum in the declaration mentioned in full satisfaction and discharge: it was holden, that the pleadings did not confine the plaintiff in his proof to the 781.; but that after proof by defendant, that S. had paid 781., plaintiff might, without having new assigned, give evidence of a balance unpaid beyond the 781. Moses v. Levy, 4 Q. B. 213.

P. 141, (second line). Debt for rent on a demise for years, with an indebitatus count for fixtures sold; the plaintiff claimed by his particulars 57. 58. for rent, and 127. for fixtures. The defendant paid 117. 58. into court, on the whole declaration, and pleaded nunquam indeb. ultra. It was holden to be no admission of the defendant's liability in respect of fixtures, to a greater amount than had been paid into court. Goff v. Harris, 5 M. & Gr. 573.

P. 148, (q), (end of). See Clark v. Alexander, 8 Scott's N. R. 165. (8), (end of), and Clark v. Alexander, ubi sup.

(a) In this case, Patteson, J., expressed an opinion, that it would be void if the name of one person had been inserted with a fraudulent intention that the licence should be used by another. Lane v. Goodwin, 4 Q. B. 361.

P. 168, n. See Sayer v. Wagstaff, coram Lyndhurst, C., Dec. 4, 1844. P. 249. In this case of Bevan v. Nunn, 9 Bing. 112, Tindal, C. J., expressed an opinion, that the payment of a debt to a creditor, by way of preference, was not an act of bankruptcy. This question came before the Court of Review, in the case of ex parte Simpson, in re Hunt, Nov. 13. The Chief Judge, Knight Bruce, V. C., (after communicating with Chief Justice Tindal, who retained his former opinion,) decided, that a payment of money by a trader to a creditor, by way of fraudulent preference, might of itself be a "gift, delivery, or transfer of any of his goods or chattels," within the meaning of the 6 Geo. IV. c. 16.

P. 250. As to the meaning of the words "notice of any prior act of bankruptcy," in stat. 2 & 3 Vict. c. 29, see Bird v. Bass, 6 M. & Gr.

143.

P. 254, after, in re Washbourn, Goldschmidt v. Hamlet, 6 Scott's N. R. 962.

P. 270, (at a future day). So where defendant assigned to plaintiff a policy of insurance on defendant's life, and covenanted to pay the annual premiums, and if he did not, and plaintiff paid them, to repay plaintiff: the defendant afterwards became bankrupt, and obtained his certificate; a premium accruing due after the bankruptcy, and being unpaid by defendant, and plaintiff having paid it, and not been repaid; it was holden, that defendant was not discharged from liability for these breaches of covenant, by sec. 56 & 121 of stat. 6 Geo. IV. c. 16. Toppin v. Field, 4 Q. B. 386; in which the case of Atwood v. Partridge, 4 Bing. 209, was recognized.

P. 665, (a lien, (e)). The Court of Exchequer have recently decided (denying the authority of the case of Lane v. Tewson,) that the defendant cannot, under the pleas of non detinet and not possessed, show that he had a common interest with the plaintiff in the property sought to be recovered; but that such a defence ought to be specially pleaded: and Alderson, B., in delivering the judgment of the court, said, "The plea of not possessed, puts only the property of the plaintiff in issue; and if thereupon the plaintiff has such a property as will enable him to maintain detinue, it is enough. A plaintiff entitled to a share of a chattel, may maintain this action. That was decided in Broadbent v. Ledward, 11 A. & E. 209; 3 P. & D. 45. And if the defendant has any right to detain, arising out of a joint interest, or out of a lien or a pledge, he must plead such right specially on the record." Mason v. Farnell, 12 M. & W. 684.

P. 730. See Doe d. Blayney v. Savage, 4 Q. B. 416.

P. 786, (t). Thorpe v. Stallwood, add 5 M. & Gr. 760.

P. 869, (p). "All that the court decided in Cooch v. Goodman was, that the action might lie, though the deed was not executed by the covenantees; it was not held, that an interest passed by the deed, or that it amounted to a lease." Per Patteson, J., in Doe d. Marlow v. Wiggins, 4 Q. B. 376.

P. 1044, (m), after Pim v. Read, add Pim v. Reid, 6 M. & Gr. 1, S. C.

AN ABRIDGMENT

OF

THE LAW OF NISI PRIUS.

CHAPTER I.

OF THE ACTION OF ACCOUNT.

I. In what Cases the Action of Account may be maintained. p.1. II. Of the Pleadings and Evidence. p. 4.

III. Of the Judgment. p. 4.

1. To Account. p. 4.

2. Final. p. 6.-Execution. p. 6.

I. In what Cases an Action of Account may be maintained. A PREFERENCE having, for many years, been given to the mode of proceeding by bill in a court of equity (where a discovery by the defendant's answer upon oath may be obtained), and having the account taken before a master in the Court of Chancery, the action of account has in a great measure fallen into disuse. It will not, therefore, be necessary to enter fully into the nature of this action, but briefly to apprise the reader in what cases it may be maintained, what pleas may be pleaded to it, and in what form judgment may be entered. To maintain an action of account (a), there must be either a privity in deed, by the consent of the party (for an action of account does not lie against a disseisor or other wrong-doer), or a privity in law, as in the case of a guardian, &c. By the common law, an action of account for the rents and profits may be maintained by the heir, after he has attained

(a) 1 Inst. 172, a.

VOL. I.

B