Crofts v. Beale (1851), 20 L. J. C. P. 186, commented on Currie v. Misa (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. at 164, distinguished Crears 2. Hunter (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 341, at 346, C. A.

Crouch v. Crédit Foncier (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 374, explained and qualified Goodwin v. Robarts (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. at 355, and 1 App. Cas. at 494, discussed London and County Bank v. River Plate Bank (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 232, at 240. Cruchley v. Clarance (1813), 2 M. & S. 90, observed upon M'Call v. Taylor (1865), 19 C. B. N. S. 302, at 305.

Currie v. Misa (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 153, Ex. Ch., affirmed Misa v. Currie (1876), 1 App. Cas. 554, commented on M‘Lean v. Clydesdale Bank (1883), 9 App. Cas. 95, at 110.

Davis v. Gyde (1835), 2 Ad. & E. 623, discussed Belshaw v. Bush (1851), 11 C. B. 191, at 206, and Palmer v. Bradley (1895), 2 Q. B. at 407, C. A.

De Berdt v. Atkinson (1794), 2 H. Bl. 336, overruled Maltass '. Siddle (1859), 28 L. J. C. P. 258.

De la Chaumette v. Bank of England (1829), 9 B. & C. 208, explained Currie v. Misa (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. at 164, and M'Lean v. Clydesdale Bank (1883), 9 App. Cas. 95, at 114. Down v. Halling (1825), 4 B. & C. 330, dissented from Bank of Bengal v. Macleod (1849), 5 Moore I. A. 1, distinguished London and County Bank . Groome (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 288. Drake v. Mitchell (1803), 3 East, 251, discussed Re Davison (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 50, at 54, distinguished Cambefort 2. Chapman (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 229, approved Wegg-Prosser v. Evans (1895), 1 Q. B. 108, C. A.

Duncan v. N. and S. Wales Bank (1879), 11 Ch. D. 88, C. A., reversed Ibid. 6 App. Cas. 1, H. L.

Easton v. London Joint Stock Bank (1886), 34 Ch. D. 95, reversed on appeal Sheffield v. London Joint Stock Bank (1888), 13 App. Cas. 333, H. L.

England v. Marsden (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 529, commented on Ex parte Bishop (1880), 15 Ch. D. 400.

Evans v. Cramlington (1687), 1 Show, 4, explained Sigourney v. Lloyd (1828), 8 B. & C. at 631.

Flight . Maclean (1846), 16 M. & W. 51, explained Hooper v. Williams (1848), 2 Exch. at 19.

Foakes v. Beer (1884), 9 App. Cas. 605, distinguished Bidder. Bridges (1887), 37 Ch. D. 406.

C.

Frith v. Forbes (1863), 4 De G. F. & J. 409; 32 L. J. Ch. 10, explained Ex parte Arbuthnot (1876), 3 Ch. D. at 480, C. A., and semble overruled Brown v. Kough (1884), 29 Ch. D. 848, C. A.

Gatty v. Fry (1877), 2 Ex. Div. 265, followed Hitchcock v. Edwards (1889), 60 L. T. N. S. 636, and Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham (1894), 2 Q. B. 715, C. A.

Gibbon v. Scott (1817), 2 Stark. 286, explained Maillard v. Page (1870), L. R. 5 Ex. 312, at 318.

Gill. Cubitt (1824), 3 B. & C. 466, dissented from Bank of Bengal v. Macleod (1849), 5 Moore I. A. 1, held overruled London and County Bank v. Groome (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 288. Glyn v. Baker (1811), 13 East, 509, discussed Goodwin v. Robarts (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 337, at 354, Ex. Ch.

Goddard v. O'Brien (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 37, distinguished Foakes v. Beer (1884), 9 App. Cas. 605, at 613.

Goodall v. Ray (1835), 4 Dowl. 76, explained Whitehead v. Walker (1842), 10 M. & W. at 698.

Goodwin v. Robarts (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 337, and 1 App. Cas. 476, distinguished London and County Bank v. River Plate Bank (1887), 20 Q. B. D. at 241, criticised Easton v. London Joint Stock Bank (1886), 34 Ch. D. 95, discussed Sheffield v. London Joint Stock Bank (1888), 13 App. Cas. at 342.

Gothenburg Commercial Co., Re (1881), 29 W. R. 358, followed Ex parte Neck (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 740.

Goupy v. Harden (1816), 7 Taunt. 159, explained Castrique v. Buttigieg (1855), 10 Moore, P. C. at 115.

Graham, Ex parte (1856), 5 De G. M. & G. 356, overruled Oriental Corp. v. Overend (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. at 152.

Gray v. Milner (1819), 8 Taunt. 739, explained Peto v. Reynolds (1854), 9 Exch. at 415.

Hall v. Featherstone (1858), 27 L. J. Ex. 308, followed Tatam v. Haslar (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 345, at 348.

Hall v. Smith (1823), 1 B. & C. 407, overruled Ex parte Buckley (1845), 14 M. & W. 469.

Hansard v. Robinson (1827), 7 B. & C. 90, not followed Wright v. Lord Maidstone (1855), 1 K. & J. 701.

Harvey v. Cane (1876), 34 L. T. N. S. 64, doubted Hogarth v. Latham (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 651, C. A.

Heath v. Sansom (1831), questioned Smith v. Braine (1851), 16 Q. B. 244.

Hindhaugh v. Blakey (1878), 3 C. P. D. 136, overruled by Steele v. M'Kinlay (1880), 5 App. Cas. at 782, 785, and see sect. 17 (2) of the Act.

Ingham v. Primrose (1859), 7 C. B. N. S. 82; 28 L. J. C. P. 294; dissented from Baxendale v. Bennett (1878), 3 Q. B D.

at 532.

Inman v. Clare (1858), Johns. 769, explained Ex parte Stephens (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. at 755.

Jackson v. Hudson (1810), 2 Camp. 447, discussed Steele v. M'Kinlay (1880), 5 App. Cas. 754, at 770.

Johnson v. Kennion (1765), 2 Wils. 262, discussed Cook v. Lister (1863), 32 L. J. C. P. at 127.

Jones v. Broadhurst (1850), 9 C. B. 173, qualified Cook v. Lister (1863), 32 L. J. Č. P. at 126; discussed Thornton v. Maynard (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. at 698, questioned Soloman v. Davis (1883), 1 Cab. & Ell. 83.

Jones v. Gordon (1877), 2 App. Cas. 616, dictum at 628 discussed Tatam v. Haslar (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 345, at 349.

Jones v. Lane (1839), 3 Y. & C. 281, overruled Deuters v. Townsend (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. at 304.

Keane v. Beard (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. 372, qualified Hopkinson v. Forster (1874), L. R. 19 Eq. 76.

Keates v. Whieldon (1828), 8 B. & C. 7, overruled Cheetham v. Butler (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 837.

Kirk v. Blurton (1841), 9 M. & W. 284 (where head-note is incorrect), doubted Forbes v. Marshall (1855), 11 Exch. at 180 distinguished Odell v. Cormack (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 223.

Lambert, Ex parte (1794), 13 Ves. 179, overruled Ex parte Swan (1868), L. R. 6 Eq. at 358.

Lebel v. Tucker (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 77, distinguished Alcock v. Smith (1892), 1 Ch. at 269, C. A.

Le Fevre v. Lloyd (1814), 5 Taunt. 749, explained Castrique v Buttigieg (1855), 10 Moore P. C. at 115.

Lewis v. Reilly (1841), 1 Q. B. 349, discussed "Lindley on Partnership," 3rd ed. p. 423.

Lloyd v. Chune (1860), 2 Giff. 441, criticised Re Whitaker (1889), 42 Ch. D. 119, at 125, C. A.

London and County Bank v. River Plate Bank (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 232, affirmed (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 535, C. A.

McNair v. Fleming (1812), Mont. on Partnership, 37, doubted Yorkshire Bank v. Beatson (1880), 5 C. P. D. at 114, C. A. M'Neilage v. Holloway (1818), 1 B. & Ald. 218, qualified Hart 2. Stephens (1845), 6 Q. B. at 943.

Macredie, Ex parte, Re Charles (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. App. 535, dictum questioned Re London, Bombay, and Mediterranean Bank (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. App. 687, at 689.

Marsh v. Newell (1808), 1 Taunt. 109, explained Deuters .
Townsend (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. at 304.

Matthews v. Bloxsome (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 209, explained
Steele v. M.Kinlay (1880), 5 App. Cas. at 773, H. L.
Mertens v. Winnington (1794), 1 Esp. 113, doubted Ex parte
Wyld (1860), 2 De G. F. & J. at 650; 30 L. J. Bank. at 13.
Mortgage Insurance Corporation v. Inland Revenue (1887), 20
Q. B. D. 645, affirmed by C. A. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 352.
Musgrave v. Drake (1843), 5 Q. B. 185, dissented from Hogg v.
Skeen (1865), 18 C. B. N. S. at 426; 34 L. J. C. P. at 154.

Napier v. Schneider (1810), 12 East, 420, dissented from Re Gen. South Amer. Co. (1877), 7 Ch. D. at 644.

Natal Company, Re (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. App. 355, explained Re Romford Canal Company (1883), 24 Ch. D. 85, at 91.

Oulds. Harrison (1854), 10 Exch. 572, explained Re AngloGreek Steam Nav. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Ch. at 177.

Owen v. Van Uster (1850), 10 C. B. 318, distinguished Re Barnard (1886), 32 Ch. D. 447, at 452, C. A.

Parry v. Nicholson (1845), 13 M. & W. 778, doubted Hirschmann v. Budd (1873), L. R. 8 Ex. at 172.

Partridge v. Bank of England (1846), 9 Q. B. 396, criticised Goodwin v. Robarts (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. at 354.

Paterson v. Hardacre (1811), 4 Taunt. 114, overruled Bailey v. Bidwell (1844), 13 M. & W. 73.

Pearl v. Deacon (1857), 24 Beav. 186, explained Duncan v. N. & S. Wales Bank (1880), 6 App. Cas. 1, at 11.

Penny . Innes (1834), 1 C. M. & R. 439, commented on Steele v. M'Kinlay (1880), 5 App. Cas. 754, at 773.

Philips . Astling (1809), 2 Taunt. 206, explained Hitchcock v. Humfrey (1843), 5 M. & Gr. at 564.

Pike . Street (1824), M. & M. 226, explained Foster v. Jolly (1835), 1 C. M. & R. at 708.

Powles v. Hargreaves (1853), 3 De G. M. & G. 453, discussed Royal Bank of Scotland v. Commercial Bank (1882), 7 App. Cas. 366.

Randall v. Moon (1852), 21 L. J. C. P. 226, explained Cook v. Lister (1863), 32 L. J. C. P. at 124, 127.

Reg. v. Hawkes (1840), 2 Moore, C. C. 295, overruled Peto v. Reynolds (1854), 9 Exch. at 415.

Reid v. Furnival (1833), 1 Cr. & M. 538, discussed Cook v. Lister (1863), 32 L. J. C. P. at 127.

Reynolds v. Wheeler (1860), 30 L. J. C. P. 350, approved Macdonald v. Whitfield (1888), 8 App. Cas. 733, P. C.

Richards, Re, Shenstone v. Brock (1887), 36 Ch. D. 541, criticised Re Whitaker (1889), 42 Ch. D. 119, at 125, C. A. Richdale, Er parte (1882), 19 Ch. D. 409, approved Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham (1894), 2 Q. B. at 718, C. A. Ridout. Bristow (1830), 1 Cr. & J. 231, discussed Nelson . Serle (1838), 4 M. & W. at 799.

Robarts, Ex parte, Re Gillespie (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 286, discussed Re Commercia Bank of South Australia (1887), 36 Ch. D. 522, at 527.

Robarts v. Tucker (1851), 16 Q. B. 560, discussed Woods v. Thiedemann (1862), 1 H. & C. at 495; Bank of England v. Vagliano (1891), A. C. 107, at 131.

Robertson v. Kensington (1811), 4 Taunt. 30, overridden by sect. 33 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882.

Rothschild v. Corney (1829), 9 B. & C. 388, distinguished London and County Bank v. Groome (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 288. Rothschild v. Currie (1841), 1 Q. B. 43, doubted Allen v. Kemble (1848), 6 Moore, P. C. at 323, explained and qualified Horne v. Rouquette (1878), 3 Q. B. D. at 521, 523.

Rowe v. Young (1820), 2 Bligh, H. L. 391; 2 B. & B. 165, overridden by 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 78, and now sect. 19 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882.

Sainsbury v. Parkinson (1860), 18 L. T. N. S. 198, explained Ancona v. Marks (1862), 7 H. & N. at 686; 31 L. J. Ex. at 166.

Scholey. Walsby (1797), Peake, N. P. C. 34, doubted Phillips v. Warren (1845), 14 M. & W. 380.

Serrell v. Derbyshire Railway Company (1850), 9 C. B. 811, considered London and County Bank v. Groome (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 288.